/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220615.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 113
Headlines
101PHONES INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Campbell Product Liability Suit Removed to E.D. Wis.
3M COMPANY: Gregory Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McGuire Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Stockwell Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
4 SQUARE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jean Claims
54 BELOW: Faces Orea Class Action Labor Suit Over Time-Shaving
9W HALO: California Court Grants KRR's Bid to Dismiss Smith Suit
9W HALO: Filing of Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 17
A360 LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADVANCE STORES: Jonas et al. Sue Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Tosses Smith and Chang Bid to Remand
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ADVANCED HOME: Bronson Seeks to Withdraw Pending Class Cert Bid
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Class Cert. Completion Deadline Extended to Sept. 1
AIRGAS USA: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Schroeder Suit Alleges
ALL HOURS: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by June 21
ALL HOURS: Seeks Second Extension of Time to Oppose Class Cert
ALL STAR: Underpays Driving Instructors, Hamrick Suit Claims
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Howard Seeks to Certify Prisoner Class
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Allowed Leave to File Short Sur-Reply
ALUMINUM COATING: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Ryciak Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN TEXTILE: Bruno Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Gamble Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Can Compel Kravets to Individual Arbitration
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order
ART TO FRAMES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bemanaste Suit Claims
ART+1 INC: Sanchez Must File Prelim Class Cert Bid by July 1
AT&T SERVICES: Bare Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ATLANTA BAR: Wrongfully Denies FLSA Collective's Wages, Suit Says
AYVAZ PIZZA: Timms Files Suit Over Unfair Wages
BATH & BODY WORKS: Blanco Suit Remanded to Cook County Cir. Court
BESPOKE BEAUTY: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
BIG SPOON: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ortega Class Suit
BLUE DIAMOND: Seeks June 24 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
BLUEGRASS TRUCK: Calmes Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
BOARDRIDERS INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen Loses Renewed Bid for Class Status
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen Partial Class Cert Bid Junked
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Seeks to File Opposition Response Under Seal
BURRTEC WASTE: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Nov. 18
CABE BROTHERS: Violates PAGA Labor Code, Romero Class Suit Alleges
CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Heitzman Seeks Class Status of Collective
CENTENE CORP: Second Amended Calendar Order Entered in Duff
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Suits Over Merger Deal
CLOUDFLARE INC: Settles Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Coe Sues over Misleading Coke Reward Programs
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Palmer Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal
COLORADO: Knellinger Sues Over Illegal Private Property Possession
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Scheduling Order Amended in Brittingham
CORECIVIC INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Owino Suit
CORIZON INC: Kensu's Bid for Relief From Summary Judgment Denied
COSTCO WHOLESALE: $588K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Corker
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Enters Final Order, Judgment in Corker Suit
CREDIT COLLECTION: Thaller Sues Over Misleading Collection Letters
DAN LIU: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Cheng Class Suit
DAVE & BUSTER'S: York & Pearson Compelled to Individual Arbitration
DEERE & CO: Deloach Sues Over Equipment Repair Service Monopoly
DIGITAL TURBINE: Robison Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
DISCOVER CONSTRUCTION: Pena Seeks Court-Supervised Notification
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Actions Over Mislabeled Smoked Almonds
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suits Over Coffee Mislabeling
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suits Over Rodent Problem
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Widner Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Subsidiary Faces Putative Class Suit
ELDERLY INSTRUMENTS: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Abreu Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for June 23
EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY: Discovery in Antitrust Suit to Proceed
EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY: Objections to RFPs in Antitrust Suit Nixed
EYM PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Automobile Expenses, Turner Claims
FAMILY FIRST: Faces Suit Over Non-Compete, Non-Disclosure Clauses
FCA US: Reply in Support of Class Status Bid Extended to July 28
FORD MOTOR: Sells Car with Spontaneous Fire Defect, Suit Alleges
FRANK BAHAR: Salazar Sues Over Superintendents' Unpaid Wages
FREIGHT ONE: Peterson Sues Over Unfair Payment of Equipment Leases
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
G. SKILL: Hurd Files Bid for Class Certification
G.I. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avalos Suit Alleges
GEICO CASUALTY: Parties Stipulate Class Cert Deadlines
GENWORTH LIFE: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Sept. 27
GREAT LAKES: Bardsley's Appeal From Denial of Cert. Bid Dismissed
GREEN DRAGON: Snodgrass Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HAIER US: S.D. Illinois Dismisses Slafter Class Suit With Prejudice
HCA HEALTHCARE: Brevard City Sues Over Health Care Monopoly
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Cotiviti Loses Bid to Dismiss Walker's Amended Suit
HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Bid for Protective Order in Tom Suit Allowed
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 16, 2023
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Settlement Class Gets Initial Certification
ILLINOIS: Retailers Seek to Certify Class Action
INOVIO PHARMA: Order Scheduling Class Cert Hearing Vacated
INTRUSION INC: Prawitt Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price
ISM VUZEM: Court Dismisses Novoselac Suit With Leave to Amend
JEFFREY METZ: Castaneda Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Horse Walkers
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Terminates Hall Bid to Certify Class
KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT: Class Cert Bid Referred to Judge Wicks
LANCASTER HOSPITAL: Fails to Properly Pay Nurses, Torres Suit Says
LAWN ENFORCEMENT: Teran Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LEAF GROUP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Weekes Class Suit
LOANDEPOT.COM: Garcia-Cortez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAGELLAN HRSC: Rios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARICOPA COUNTY HEALTH: Robinson Sues Over Unpaid Wages After Hack
MASTRONARDI PRODUCE-USA: Lopez Sues Over Unsafe Workplace
MDL 2599: Dunn, et al., Seek Permit to File Confidential Exhibits
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: D.C. Court Denies Bid to Stay Harris Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Modification of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brennan Alleges
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lee Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
MLD MORTGAGE: Court Withdraws Dye Class Cert Bid as Moot
MONROE CAPITAL: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONS LENDING: Second Amended Sched Order Entered in Fitzhenry
NED LAMONT: Initial Review Order Entered in Miler Class Suit
NEORA LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Class Cert Brief Sched Referred to Judge Scanlon
NEW YORK: Faces Espinoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NEWEGG INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEWREZ LLC: Aguinaga Sues Over Collection of Insurance Premiums
NEWREZ LLC: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered in Durham
OHIO: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Jones' Entire Claims v. ODRC
OMM LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ON DEMAND SERVICES: Misclassifies Repair Technicians, Rucker Says
ONSITE FACILITY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Pickard
OPENSIDED MRI: Brust "TCPA" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PANINI AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Wheeler's Class Complaint
PAPARAZZI LLC: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Labeling
PARKASH 1630: Bid to Certify FLSA Collective Denied w/o Prejudice
PELICAN STATE: Illegally Charges Overdraft Fees, Foster Suit Says
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Class Certification Discovery Due Oct. 27
PL PHASE ONE: Parties Must Submit Proposed Schedule by June 22
PORTOLA PHARMA: Parties Seek to Vacate Hearing on Class Cert Bid
POWER HOME: Court Certifies Class in Landy Telemarketing Case
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY: Soleil Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
PROVIDENT BANK: Collins Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
QUICK BOX: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Tan Suit
RAMTEX INC: Da Silva Suit Seeks Ecommerce Specialists' Unpaid Wages
REAL CONCRETE: Snider Seeks Submission of Discovery Schedule
RELIANT ACCOUNT: RAM Suit Seeks Indemnification for Legal Damages
RELIANT REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay OT, Minimum Wages, Suit Says
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Says
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks to Decertify Remaining Class in McCurley Suit
RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Johnson Suit Says
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought
S.C. JOHNSON: Lott Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic, Beauty Products
SAFECO INSURANCE: Garth Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Seeks Leave to file Sur-Reply Brief
SCHOLL'S WELLNESS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOULFLOWER INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Jan. 25 Scheduling Order Amended
SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
SPROOSE HOLDINGS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STATE FARM: Parties Seek Short Extensions of Class Cert Deadlines
STATE FARM: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Velazquez Suit
STEAK N SHAKE: Wilmoth's Managers Class Conditionally Certified
STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: $4MM Class Deal in Mendez Suit Wins Final OK
SUPERCELL INC: T.T. Sues Over Illegal Marketing of In-Game Items
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Entered
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Co-Lead Roles Appointed in Modrak Securities Suit
TEAM WASHINGTON: Moody Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TIVITY HEALTH: Sheet Metal Workers Win Class Certification
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint
UNION OF ORTHODOX: Court Won't Seal Settlement Amounts in A.S. Suit
UNITED STATES: Murphy, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
UNITED STATES: Perez, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due July 11
UNITED WHOLESALE: Case Management, Sched Order Entered in Thackston
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Phase I Specialized Scheduling Order Entered
VALLEY CENTER: Underpays Medical Assistants, Machuca Suit Alleges
VERMONT BREAD: Intervenor Sullivan Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply
VIACOMCBS INC: DeRosa Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
VICTORIA'S SECRET: 8th Cir. Affirms Remand of Lizama to State Court
VIRGINIA: District Court Dismisses Ross v. VDOC Without Prejudice
VIRGINIA: Watson's Request for Default Judgment v. Haynes Denied
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOYAGER 888: King, et al., Seek to Stay FLSA Class Complaint
W.B. MASON: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sannutti Suit
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Getchel Seeks Extension to File Response
WALMART INC: Class Certification Deadlines Continued in Haro Suit
WESTERN RANGE: Alvarado Sues Over Illegal Wage-Fixing Agreement
WOLVERINE WORLD: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
101PHONES INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 101Phones, Inc. The
case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. 101Phones, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04601 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
101phones -- http://www.101phones.com/-- is located in New York
City and is part of the Electronics and Appliance Stores
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
3M COMPANY: Campbell Product Liability Suit Removed to E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOAN CAMPBELL and RICHARD CAMPBELL, for themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and KATY BREZINSKI;
MIKE DESOTELL; CARRIE PLOTZ; BAILIE PLOTZ; DANIELLE NIEMOJUSKI;
DAVE ROLAND; DONNA KIES; DUSTIN DREIFUERST; GERALD LOWIS; JAMES
LEMAY; MARY LEMAY; KEN HAZEL; MARK MARINEAU; STEVEN REEK; CHRISTINA
REEK; MIKE DESOTELL, as administrator of the estate of THERESA
DESOTELL; THOMAS SHULTZ, individually and as administrator of the
estate of WENDY SHULTZ; PAUL WOOD; and STEVE DIXON v. THE 3M
COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Case No.
2022CV000090, was removed from the Circuit Court of Marinette
County, Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on June 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00667 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, trespass,
abnormally dangerous activity and absolute and strict liability,
private nuisance, and failure to warn by designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) products
containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), thereby
causing injury to consumers, including the Plaintiffs.
The 3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods, headquartered in Saint Paul,
Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan E. Lovern, Esq.
Derek J. Waterstreet, Esq.
VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C.
411 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 287-1519
Facsimile: (414) 238-6434
E-mail: susan.lovern@vonbriesen.com
derek.waterstreet@vonbriesen.com
- and –
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Gregory Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GREGORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01775-RMG (D.S.C., June 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via
an orchiectomy, the suit added.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: McGuire Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCGUIRE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-01795-RMG (D.S.C., June 7,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The McGuire suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cadem, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01778-RMG (D.S.C., June 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via partial
nephrectomy, the suit added.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Stockwell Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STOCKWELL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-01797-RMG (D.S.C., June 7,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Stockwell suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cadem, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
4 SQUARE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jean Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. JEAN, Plaintiff v. 4 SQUARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, 5 SQUARE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, EAST HARLEM 119 CORP., JUNCTION ELMHURST NY CORP,
PARK NORTH 1 LLC, PARK NORTH 9 LLC, PARK SOHO LLC, PP MANAGEMENT 1
CORP., PPS 37TH AVENUE LLC, PPS 77 LLC, PPS 100 LLC, PPS 9201 LLC,
PPS COOK LLC, PPS DEKALB LLC, PPS GOLD LLC, PPS LAFAYETTE CORP, PPS
MANAGEMENT LLC, PPS STANWIX LLC, PPS TROUTMAN LLC, PPS UNION LLC,
PPS UTICA LLC, VERNON BLVD PARK LLC, WEST 15 PARK LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03237 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act seeking
to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
spread-of-hours compensation, statutory damages arising out of
Defendants' failure to provide accurate wage statements, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Mr. Jean began working for the Defendant from April 2020 until
April, 2021 as a non-exempt employee assigned to work at various
parking lots.
The Defendants operate multiple parking lots in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
54 BELOW: Faces Orea Class Action Labor Suit Over Time-Shaving
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO CHAVES OREA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. 54 BELOW LLC d/b/a FEINSTEIN'S/54
BELOW, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:22-cv-04765 (S.D.N.Y., June 7,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, unpaid
wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff additionally alleges that he was deprived of his
statutory rights as a result of Defendants' unlawful discrimination
practices, in violation of New York State Human Rights Law, New
York Executive Law section 296 and New York City Human Rights Law,
Administrative Code of the City of New York section 8-107 and
brings this action against the Defendants to recover economic
damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all current and former non-exempt employees, including but not
limited to cooks, servers, food runners, bussers, porters, hosts,
dishwashers and delivery persons employed by the Defendants on or
after the date that is three years before the filing of the
Complaint ("FLSA Collective Plaintiffs").
The Defendants have owned and operated a restaurant under the trade
name "54 Below", and after 2015 under the trade name
"Feinstein's/54 Below", located in the cellar of 254 West 54th
Street, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CK Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
9W HALO: California Court Grants KRR's Bid to Dismiss Smith Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH C. SMITH, Plaintiff v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO
L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the motion to dismiss filed
by KKR & Co. Inc.
The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant
Angelica Corp. on Feb. 18, 2020, in the Alameda County Superior
Court, alleging several employment causes of action. On April 17,
2020, he filed his first amended complaint, adding a claim under
the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
On April 6, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to file
a second amended complaint to name KKR as a defendant because the
Plaintiff argued that he learned from Angelica that "KKR" acquired
Angelica, sold off most of Angelica's assets, and was financially
responsible for Angelica's alleged violations.
On the same day, the Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint,
raising essentially the same claims as his previous complaint but
adding KKR as a Defendant on all claims including the PAGA claim.
In the SAC, the Plaintiff also alleged KKR and Angelica are joint
employers.
At the hearing, both parties agreed that KKR was not the entity
that acquired Angelica. Indeed, a Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") 10-K form, along with filings from Angelica's
bankruptcy proceedings, confirm that KKR did not acquire Angelica.
Although there is some support that an entity named KKR Credit
Advisors (US) LLC was involved in Angelica's bankruptcy
proceedings, the Plaintiff does not state a plausible claim that
KKR acquired Angelica or was otherwise involved in Angelica's
bankruptcy, much less that it was a joint employer of the Plaintiff
along with Angelica.
Accordingly, Judge Hamilton grants the motion to dismiss KKR. The
dismissal is without leave to amend with respect to KKR. The
dismissal is, however, without prejudice to the Plaintiff seeking
to amend the complaint should discovery reveal another entity that
could plausibly be alleged to have been his joint employer along
with Angelica. The request for judicial notice is also granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8dpt3m from Leagle.com.
9W HALO: Filing of Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO
L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation, KKR &
CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order granting the joint stipulation
of the Parties to continue the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion shall be November 17, 2022
filed no later than:
2. Any Opposition shall be filed January 19, 2023
no later than:
3. Any Reply shall be filed no February 2, 2023
later than:
9w Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business
includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household
users.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mu1QKc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
- and -
Kenneth Smith, Esq.
Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
A360 LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A360, LLC. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. A360, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04633-PAE-OTW
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
a360media -- https://a360media.com/ -- owns and operates the
leading celebrity and health & fitness media brands in the
country..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ADVANCE STORES: Jonas et al. Sue Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORRY JONAS and KEVIN BADILLO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03340 (E.D.N.Y., June 6,
2022) brings this class action complaint alleging the Defendant of
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff Jonas has started working for the Defendant as a Retail
Parts Pro in March 2018, and then he became an assistant manager in
November 2021. Plaintiff Badillo has started working for the
Defendant on or about June 3, 2016 as a driver, then as a
Commercial Manager around August 2017, and as a Closing Manager
around September 2021.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant underpaid them and other
similarly situated employees due to unlawful employment practices
and policies of failing to pay wages on a timely basis as required
by NYLL. The Plaintiffs also assert that they have all been injured
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct. Thus, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs seek to
recover the amount of the underpayments caused by their untimely
wage payments as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, pre and post-judgment interest and other relief as the Court
shall deem just and proper.
The Corporate Defendant operates approximately 4,727 auto parts
store locations in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
Tel: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Tosses Smith and Chang Bid to Remand
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY SMITH, et al., v.
ADVANCED CLINICAL EMPLOYMENT STAFFING, LLC, Case No.
5:21-cv-07325-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs Ashley Smith and Donna
Chang's motion to remand.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs do not explain why Defendant’s
25% figure is unreasonable or cite any authority to support their
position. The above calculations support a finding that the
underlying damages amount to which the benchmark would be applied
is sufficiently certain. Additionally, in 2020, the Plaintiffs'
counsel received a 30% award in a wage and hour class action
alleging “violations of the California Labor Code."
Accordingly, because Plaintiffs' counsel has received a similar
(and higher) rate in a similar case, the Court finds that
Defendant's notice of removal properly included attorneys' fees of
25% the aggregate damages. At minimum, this puts an additional
$1,005,603.84 in controversy (25% of the $4,022,415.36).
The Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating an amount in
controversy greater than $5,000,000. Defendant based its
calculations on reasonable assumptions founded in the Complaint.
Thus, Defendant's calculation of an amount in controversy of at
least $5,028,019.2 is reasonable and satisfies CAFA's
jurisdictional threshold.
On November 3, 2021, Defendant Advanced Clinical Employment
Staffing, LLC filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to remand,
to which Plaintiffs filed a reply.
On August 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unverified complaint in the
Santa Clara County Superior Court against Defendant, alleging: (1)
failure to pay for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay minimum
wage; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to authorize and/or
permit meal breaks; (5) failure to authorize and/or permit rest
breaks; (6) failure to reimburse business-related expenses; (7)
failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (8) waiting time
penalties; and (9) unfair business practices. See Compl. Defendant,
an Alabama limited liability company, is a temporary staffing
agency for healthcare facilities throughout California.
Specifically, the Defendant contracts with healthcare facility
clients to provide travel and/or strike nurses, and separately
enters contracts with individual nurses to satisfy its facility
contracts.
The Plaintiffs were both hired to work as travel nurses in
California.
Advanced Clinical is a healthcare travel company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zoNi6p at no extra charge.[CC]
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Dermatology,
P.C. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Dermatology, P.C.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03292-LDH-CLP (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Advanced dermatology -- https://www.advanceddermatologypc.com/ --
offers a variety of services that includes Fraxel, Botox, Ulthera,
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ADVANCED HOME: Bronson Seeks to Withdraw Pending Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA BRONSON AND PAUL
HINZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ADVANCED HOME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. D/B/A AHT WISCONSIN WINDOWS,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00247-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff Angela
Bronson asks the Court to enter an order permitting her to withdraw
her pending motion for class certification.
The parties anticipate filing a Stipulation of Dismissal within the
next 30 days.
Advanced Home specializes in electrical engineering, automation and
technology solutions for the consumer/commercial and industrial
markets.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3toXesv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite #201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Class Cert. Completion Deadline Extended to Sept. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garrett v. Advantage Plus
Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-02082 (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order that the class
certification completion deadline is extended by 30 days to
September 1, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Advantage Plus specializes in Court Reporting Service.[CC]
AIRGAS USA: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Schroeder Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AIRGAS USA, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01315 (M.D.
Fla., June 7, 2022) is a class action complaint alleging Airgas USA
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985, by failing to provide him and the putative class members with
a COBRA notice that complies with the law.
According to the complaint, despite having access to the Department
of Labor's Model COBRA form, Airgas chose not to use the model form
-- presumably to save Airgas money by pushing terminated employees
away from electing COBRA.
The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute, the Plaintiff contends.
As a result of receiving the COBRA enrollment notice, and the
subsequent paperwork, Plaintiff failed to understand the notice
and, thus, the Plaintiff could not make an informed decision about
his health insurance and lost health coverage. The Plaintiff
suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss,
specifically the loss of insurance coverage and incurred medical
bills, due to Airgas deficient COBRA forms. In addition to a
paycheck, health insurance is one of the most valuable things
employees get in exchange for working for an employer like Airgas,
says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, P.A.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
ALL HOURS: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by June 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ILL ADLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALL HOURS
PLUMBING CLEANING 24-7-365 LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP (D.
Utah), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead entered an order
that the Defendant shall file any response to the pending motion to
certify a class on or before June 21, 2022.
All Hours primarily operates in the plumbing contractors business.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MB7O6I at no extra charge.[CC]
ALL HOURS: Seeks Second Extension of Time to Oppose Class Cert
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JILL ADLER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALL HOURS PLUMBING
DRAIN CLEANING 24-7-365 LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP (D. Utah),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its
requests a second extension of time to respond to plaintiff's
motion to certify a class.
The deadline has been extended one time by agreement of the
parties, for two weeks, and is now due June 14, 2022. The
additional requested extension would add one week, making the
deadline June 21, 2022.
The additional extension is needed because the attorney tasked with
drafting the response has suffered a death in the family and needs
additional time to attend to family obligations. That attorney has
the most knowledge of the facts and arguments needed for the
opposition and it would impose undue burdens on All Hours to
require another attorney to get up to speed on the subjects.
All Hours' counsel has conferred with plaintiffs' counsel Manny
Hiraldo who indicates he objects to the extension, though he has
not indicated the basis for the objection. Regardless, counsel's
personal hardship justifies an additional, brief extension.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xnzYfF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert H. Scott, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
170 South Main Street, Suite 725
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1648
Telephone: (801) 907-6900
Facsimile: (801) 355-0294
E-mail: robert.scott@akerman.com
ALL STAR: Underpays Driving Instructors, Hamrick Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN HAMRICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL STAR DRIVER EDUCATION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00967 (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2022) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful practice that willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant for eight years as a
driving instructor from approximately 2014 through May 2022.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated driving instructors for the
time they spent driving the company's car to the student's location
back to its designated parking spot after final instruction
appointment is completed. As a result, despite regularly working
more than 40 hours per workweek for the Defendant, the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated driving instructors were not
adequately paid for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the
Defendant also failed to pay all wages due to the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated driving instructors under Ohio's Prompt
Pay Act, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of their
unpaid wages, as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigations costs and attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
All Star Driver Education, LLC provides driver education to
students throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
24870 Fairmont Boulevard
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216) 505-7500
E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com
- and –
James J. Hux, Esq.
3 Severance Circle
Cleveland Heights, OH 44118
Tel: (937) 315-1106
Fax: (216) 359-7760
E-mail: jhux@huxlawfirm.com
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Howard Seeks to Certify Prisoner Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAQUILLE HOWARD, BROOKE
GOODE, JASON PORTER, KEISHA COHEN and ALBERT CASTAPHANY, on own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAURA
WILLIAMS, Chief Deputy Warden of Healthcare Services; ORLANDO
HARPER, Warden of Allegheny County Jail; MICHAEL BARFIELD, Mental
Health Director; ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01389-LPL (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
their proposed class defined as follows:
"All individuals currently or in the future incarcerated at
Allegheny County Jail ("ACJ") and who have, or will in the
future have, a serious mental health diagnosis, disorder or
disability as recognized in the DSM-V, including but not
limited to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress
disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or borderline
personality disorder."
On September 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the action
asserting that the Defendants failed to provide constitutionally
adequate mental health care to the incarcerated population at ACJ,
and instead, punished incarcerated individuals for asking for
treatment or for manifestations of their conditions.
The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts Fourteenth Amendment claims
against all Defendants for failure to provide adequate mental
health care (Count I), unconstitutional use of solitary confinement
(Count II), excessive use of force (Count III), failing to provide
procedural due process (Count VI), failing to provide substantive
due process (Count VII), and failure to train (Count VIII), and
claims against Defendant Allegheny County under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, (Count IV) and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
§794 (Count V).
The parties have conducted discovery since that time, and although
fact discovery is not yet complete, sufficient facts have been
developed to present the within motion.
ACJ is a high-rise direct supervision jail located in downtown
Pittsburgh.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qdp8ld at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith E. Whitson, Esq.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
2700 Fifth Avenue Place
120 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 577-5220
Facsimile: (412) 577-5190
E-mail: kwhitson@schnader.com
- and -
Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
247 Fort Pitt Blvd., 4 th Floor
Pittsburgh, Pa 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-6175
E-mail: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org
- and -
Bret Grote, Esq.
Jaclyn Kurin, Esq.
Swain Uber, Esq.
Quinn Cozzens, Esq.
ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 8654
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Telephone: (412) 654-9070
E-mail: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org
jkurin@alcenter.org
swain.uber@gmail.com
qcozzens@alcenter.org
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Allowed Leave to File Short Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE BARNES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (AES), LLC ,Case No. 1:21-cv-21121-BB
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom granting AES's motion for
leave to file a short sur-reply to plaintiff's Reply in Support of
Motion for Class Certification.
In this case, the Court determines that a sur-reply is unnecessary.
While Defendant argues that Plaintiff misstated "the discovery
record regarding (1) Ms. Ratermann's testimony concerning AES's
messages and (2) AES's January 12, 2022 Second Supplemental
Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories," both the testimony and the second supplemental
responses and objections are before the Court.
Therefore, the Court can determine whether Plaintiff has misstated
the discovery record without a sur-reply. Further, to the extent
that Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Reply raises new arguments
not addressed in her Motion for Class Certification, the Court
notes that "[i]f the movant raises arguments for the first time in
his reply to the non-movant's opposition, the court will either
ignore those arguments in resolving the motion or provide the
non-movant an opportunity to respond to those arguments by granting
leave to file a sur-reply." In this case, the Court will disregard
any new arguments that failed to raise in her Motion for Class
Certification.
AES makes this request to address two erroneous factual claims
raised for the first time in plaintiff's Reply, which are
contradicted by the discovery record before the Court. Because
plaintiff's erroneous claims were made for the first time in
plaintiff's Reply, AES had no opportunity to address them in its
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff's complaint, filed in March 2021, alleged a proposed
class period "within four years prior to the filing of this
action." The parties engaged in extensive discovery based on that
proposed class period. This discovery included depositions of AES
employees and AES's January 12, 2022 Second Supplemental Responses
and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set
of Interrogatories.
When plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on March
14, 2022, she for the first time alleged an entirely new proposed
class period of "December 2020 to July 2021. Given plaintiff's new
proposed class period, AES immediately searched for and, on April
6, 2022, supplemented its document production with 17 additional
messages for the newly defined class period.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3msRudJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
R. Allan Pixton, Esq.
Kelsey Bleiweiss, Esq.
Nadia Abramson, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60654-3406
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
E-mail: richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
allan.pixton@kirkland.com
kelsey.bleiweiss@kirkland.com
nadia.abramson@kirkland.com
- and -
Buffey E. Klein, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 999-6100
Facsimile: (214) 999-6170
E-mail: buffey.klein@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
Facsimile: (312) 655-1501
E-mail: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com
ALUMINUM COATING: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aluminum Coating
Technologies Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joe Hart, on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees v. Aluminum Coating
Technologies Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00320564-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 23, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Aluminum Coating Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1991. The
company's line of business includes manufacturing plating and
polishing products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: bberzin@shimodalaw.com
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Ryciak Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SAMUEL RYCIAK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY; DR
PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC.; KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC.; and DOES 1-50, Case
No. CVRI2201797, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 55:22-cv-00945 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay rest period
premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay meal period
premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure
to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages
upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair
competition.
The American Bottling Company is a beverage company headquartered
in Plano, Texas.
Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. was a soft-drink manufacturing company,
headquartered in Plano, Texas.
Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. is a beverage company headquartered in
Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
AMERICAN TEXTILE: Bruno Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Textile
Company, Incorporated. The case is styled as James Bruno,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Textile Company, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-02937
(N.D. Ill., June 4, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
American Textile Company -- https://www.americantextile.com/ -- is
one of the largest bedding manufacturers in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Gamble Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameripride Services
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jamal Gamble, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Ameripride Services Inc., Ameripride Services LLC, Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2022-00320558-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
May 23, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
AmeriPride Services -- https://www.ameripride.com/ -- is a uniform
rental and linen supply company in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LOADHOLT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04694 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.mygnp.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION provides pharmaceutical services. The
Company offers brand generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
healthcare products, home healthcare supplies and equipment, and
related services to healthcare providers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, N.J. 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC: Can Compel Kravets to Individual Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ESTA KRAVETS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHROPOLOGIE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-60443-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants
the Defendant's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay
Litigation.
I. Background
The Plaintiff initiated the class action against the Defendant on
Feb. 1, 2022, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(2) ("Count I")
and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(B) ("Count II"). On Feb. 28, 2022, the
Defendant removed the case to the Court.
In the instant Motion, the Defendant requests that the Court
compels the parties to arbitration and stay the case. It argues
that the Plaintiff agreed to the Anthropologie Messaging Terms &
Conditions ("Text Terms") for the text messaging program, which
includes an arbitration provision directing the parties to resolve
all disputes related to the Text Terms through arbitration. In
support of the Motion, the Defendant submitted the Declaration of
Emily Kaplan.
The Plaintiff responds that she did not have actual or constructive
notice of the Arbitration Provision because (1) the Defendant did
not provide the Plaintiff with reasonably conspicuous notice of the
Text Terms; (2) the Plaintiff did not unambiguously manifest assent
to the Defendant's terms; and (3) the Plaintiff did not ratify any
agreement through her participation in the Text Program. In the
alternative, the Plaintiff argues that the Court should defer
ruling on the Motion and grant leave to conduct limited
arbitration-specific discovery.
II. Discussion
As noted, the Defendant requests that the Court compel the
Plaintiff to submit her claims to arbitration and stay the case.
The parties do not dispute that an arbitrable issue exists and that
the right to arbitrate was not waived. As such, the only material
issue before the Court is whether there was a valid agreement to
arbitrate.
A. Notice of Text Terms
The Defendant argues that the Defendant clearly and conspicuously
set forth the Arbitration Provision in the Text Terms. The
Plaintiff responds that she did not have notice of the Arbitration
Provision because the Text Terms would not put a reasonably prudent
person on notice of the Arbitration Provision.
Judge Bloom holds that the Plaintiff's arguments on the matter are
unpersuasive. The Text Terms were clearly and conspicuously set
forth as to give the Plaintiff inquiry notice of the Arbitration
Provision. While the Defendant did not use blue letters or capital
letters to indicate that the hyperlinks were clickable, the
hyperlinks are bolded and underlined to be "sufficiently set apart
from the surrounding text." It is evident that the Plaintiff was
not required to "hover her mouse over otherwise plain-looking text
or aimlessly click on words on a page in an effort to ferret out
hyperlinks." As such, the hyperlinks were presented in a manner
that gave the Plaintiff adequate notice that they were clickable
links.
B. Unambiguous Manifest Assent to Text Terms
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff assented to the Arbitration
Provision. The Plaintiff responds that she did not unambiguously
assent to the Arbitration Provision. According to her, her act of
clicking on the button did not signify her assent to the
Arbitration Provision because the Arbitration Provision was not
fully described and she was not aware of the legal significance of
clicking on the button. The Defendant replies that the button
stated "GET FREE SHIPPING NOW when you sign up for email and
texts," and therefore made clear that by clicking on the button,
the Plaintiff would be agreeing to get free shipping and assenting
to the Text Terms by enrolling in the Text Program. Defendant
further maintains that the Text Terms were presented before the
button in question.
Judge Bloom agrees with the Defendant. As the Defendant correctly
points out, the button itself contains the statement that the
Plaintiff can get free shipping if and when the Plaintiff chooses
to "sign up for email and texts," indicating that by clicking on
the button, the Plaintiff would be agreeing to get free shipping
and to receive emails and texts. In sum, the undisputed facts
establish that the Plaintiff manifestly assented to the Arbitration
Provision. Given her determination, Judge Bloom need not consider
whether the Plaintiff also ratified the Arbitration Provision
through her participation in the Text Program and her failure to
timely opt out.
C. Arbitration-Specific Discovery
In the alternative, the Plaintiff requests that the Court defers
ruling on the Motion and grants her leave to conduct limited
arbitration-specific discovery so that the Court can issue a ruling
on the Motion based on a more developed factual record. The
Defendant replies that there is no gap in the record that would
warrant arbitration-specific discovery, and that the Plaintiff has
not presented any evidence that creates a material factual
dispute.
Judge Bloom agrees with the Defendant. As the Defendant correctly
notes, courts have granted limited arbitration-specific discovery
only where the party opposing a motion to compel arbitration has
presented evidence that creates a material factual dispute. The
material facts are not in dispute, particularly with respect to the
notice the Defendant provided and the Plaintiff's actions in
clicking on the "GET FREE SHIPPING NOW" button and sending an
affirmative text opting into the Text Program. The record is
complete with regard to the Arbitration Provision and no further
discovery is necessary. The Plaintiff's request for leave to
conduct limited arbitration-specific discovery is denied.
D. Stay
As a final matter, the Defendant requests that the Court stays the
Plaintiff's claims pending arbitration, which the Plaintiff fails
to address in her Response. Judge Bloom determines that the
Plaintiff's claims in the case are subject to arbitration.
Therefore, a stay is appropriate.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion is granted.
The parties will proceed to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration
Provision.
The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant are stayed pending
arbitration. The parties may file a motion to lift the stay, if
necessary, once the arbitration proceedings have concluded.
The Clerk of Court will administratively close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3c7vx5s2 from Leagle.com.
ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf
of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, EDWARD C. MILLER, GETZ FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ESTATE OF HENRY A. GETZ, and ESTATE OF
VIRGINIA MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to
reconsider its Order and Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff contends that reconsideration is appropriate because
the Order misunderstands the Motion as seeking certification only
under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) (Order at 5) when its lead argument seeks
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). The Order therefore errs in
not considering Rule 23(b)(1)(B) and, further, its denial of
certification errs on the law or facts to the extent its
23(b)(1)(A) analysis may be deemed to have applied to the
23(b)(1)(B) grounds for certification.
Therefore, the Court should certify the class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(1)(B). In the alternative, the Court should reconsider its
denial of certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) due to errors of law
or fact described in the memorandum of law filed in support of this
motion, the Plaintiff adds.
Argent Trust operates as an investment management firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O39bw4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
318 W. Adams St., Suite 1606
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 500.8680
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
ART TO FRAMES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bemanaste Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIKA BEMANASTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. ART TO FRAMES INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-008154 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 3, 2022) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
ART TO FRAMES INC. is a custom framing business located in
Brooklyn, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
Email: PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
ART+1 INC: Sanchez Must File Prelim Class Cert Bid by July 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR SANCHEZ, et al.,
v. ART+1, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05623-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order directing the Plaintiffs
to file their motion for preliminary class certification by no
later than July 1, 2022.
The Court said, "The parties have notified the Court that a
settlement has been reached. The Plaintiffs' memorandum of law
should provide a justification for the service awards sought for
the named plaintiffs, including information about each named
plaintiff's contributions to the litigation. Plaintiffs shall serve
Defendants with the motion by no later than June 24, 2022."
Art+1 is in the Hotel/motel and Multi-family Home Renovation and
Remodeling business.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O4PCU5 at no extra charge.[CC]
AT&T SERVICES: Bare Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Services Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as William Jeff Bare, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Regus Management Group, LLC, Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00321000-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 3, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
Phone: 626-698-0048
Fax: 626-698-0049
Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net
ATLANTA BAR: Wrongfully Denies FLSA Collective's Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SCHECHTER, GARRISON FINZER, and AMANDA MAYLOR, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ATLANTA BAR &
GRILLE, LLC, ERIN WILLIAMSON, and JASON WOODWARD, Case No.
1:22-cv-02259-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 7, 2022) seeks all improperly
denied compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, wages owed for services they
performed.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as a collective
action, pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals who have been wrongfully
denied compensation in violation of that statute (the "FLSA
Collective"). Plaintiffs. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the
Plaintiffs state claims against Defendants under Georgia state law
for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.
Jonathan Schechter is a resident and citizen of the State of
Georgia. He is a former employee of Defendants who served as the
Restaurant's General Manager throughout the relevant time period.
ABG is a Georgia limited liability company that, at all relevant
times, operated a restaurant in Brookhaven, Georgia, called
"Atlanta Bar & Grille." The Defendants Williamson and Woodward
owned, operated and/or controlled ABG.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. White, Esq.
David S. Fried, Esq.
FRIED BONDER WHITE, LLC
730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 600
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 995-8808
Facsimile: (404) 995-8899
E-mail: jwhite@friedbonder.com
dfried@friedbonder.com
AYVAZ PIZZA: Timms Files Suit Over Unfair Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Neiman Timms, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-01779 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2022) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking to recover the full
unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Timms worked for Ayvaz as a salaried employee from
September of 2021 until April of 2022. During the time he worked
for the Defendant, Timms regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, and sometimes worked more than 80 hours per week. However,
during the few weeks that Timms worked less than 40 hours, Ayvaz
paid Timms on an hourly basis for the hours he worked, based on his
40-hour-per-week hourly rate instead of paying him his full weekly
salary, says the suit.
Ayvaz Pizza, LLC is a pizza restaurant company headquartered in
Sugar Land, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
BATH & BODY WORKS: Blanco Suit Remanded to Cook County Cir. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marvin E. Aspen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, remands the case, NANCY
BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22 CV 01207 (N.D. Ill.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Blanco filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that Defendant
Bath & Body Works violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA") by providing her with a receipt that did
not properly truncate her debit card number. Bath & Body Works then
removed the case to the Court, asserting that it has federal
question jurisdiction over the matter under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331.
Ms. Blanco now seeks to remand the case back to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She also seeks an award of the
attorney's fees she incurred in challenging the removal.
II. Background
On June 24, 2021, Blanco used her personal debit card to make a
purchase at a Bath & Body Works store in Norridge, Illinois. Bath &
Body Works provided her with a "receipt that disclosed the first
six and last four digits" of her debit card account number.
According to Blanco, this violated FACTA, which prohibits people
who "accept credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of
business" from "printing more than the last 5 digits of the card
number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the
cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction."
As a result of the improper truncation, Blanco asserts that she:
"Suffered a number of harms, including, but not limited to,
violation of her FACTA rights, breach of her confidence in the safe
handling of her account information, invasion of her privacy as a
result of the disclosure of her account information to those of
Bath & Body Works' staff or agents who handled the receipts,
exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft, the burden of
having to keep or destroy the receipt to prevent further disclosure
of her account information, and monetary harm from paying for what
was supposed to be a secure and legally compliant transaction. She
seeks statutory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs of the suit.
III. Analysis
A. Blanco's Request for Remand
Ms. Blanco argues that the case should be remanded to state court
because we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.
According to her, jurisdiction is lacking because she has not
adequately alleged that she has standing to pursue her claim in
federal court. Specifically, Blanco argues that she has not
sufficiently pled that she suffered an injury in fact.
Bath & Body Works responds that our jurisdiction is "obvious" from
the face of the Complaint because Blanco alleges that Bath & Body
Works caused her to suffer several concrete harms that are
sufficient to establish standing at this stage: "invasion of her
privacy," "exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft," and
"monetary harm from paying for what was supposed to be a secure and
legally compliant transaction."
Judge Aspen because Bath & Body Works has not shown that Blanco has
standing to pursue her FACTA claim in federal court, he will remand
the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, for further
proceedings. First, Judge Aspen finds that it is unclear how the
alleged monetary harm traces back to Bath & Body Works' challenged
conduct because the purported harm (payment of money for a
purchase) preceded the challenged conduct (the printing of an
improperly truncated receipt). Second, he rejects Bath & Body
Works' argument that Blanco has standing based on the monetary harm
that she purportedly suffered. Bath & Body Works has not shown that
Blanco's allegation of monetary harm is likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision.
Third, Bath & Body Works has not convinced the Court that Blanco
has standing to sue based on her increased risk of identity theft
either. Fourth, Blanco's allegation amounts to nothing more than
the theoretical risk of a future harm that is too speculative to
amount to an injury in fact. Finally, without additional
allegations supporting the invasion of privacy, Judge Aspen cannot
conclude that Bath & Body Works' contention that Blanco has
standing based on her invasion of privacy allegation was plausibly
pled. Nor is he convinced that Blanco was concretely harmed because
others might have seen her account number.
B. Blanco's Request for Attorney's Fees
Ms. Blanco also urges the Court to award her the attorney's fees
she incurred in connection with the removal. According to Blanco,
Bath & Body Works should have known that removal was futile given
precedent showing that removal is not appropriate in FACTA cases
like this one. Bath & Body Works disagrees, arguing that it had
reason to believe that Blanco had standing to sue in federal court.
In its view, no clearly established law foreclosed removal in the
case.
Although he is remanding the case, Judge Aspen finds that it was
not unreasonable for Bath & Body Works to assert that removal was
proper. The law concerning whether plaintiffs have Article III
standing to pursue FACTA claims in federal court is evolving. And
this is not a case in which the Complaint is devoid of any
allegations of harm that could reasonably satisfy the Article III
inquiry. Allegations of monetary harm, such as that found in
Blanco's Complaint, may support Article III standing if properly
pled. If there had been more facts in the Complaint to support the
alleged harms or to tie them to the statutory violation at issue,
Blanco may have had standing to pursue her claim in federal court.
Therefore, Judge ASpen will deny Blanco's request for attorney's
fees and costs.
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Aspen grants Blanco's Motion to Remand in
part and denies it in part. The case is remanded forthwith to the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, for further proceedings.
Judge Aspen denies Blanco's request for attorney's fees. The civil
case is terminated. It is so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dhu7a8b from
Leagle.com.
BESPOKE BEAUTY: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BESPOKE BEAUTY BRANDS LLC, TONI KO, and DOES
1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18393 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code, California's
Public Policy, and California's Business and Professions Code
including retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to compensate
for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to provide personnel records, failure to
provide pay records, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants from approximately
2015 or 2016 until the end of her employment in December 2021. Her
last job title was Product Development Merchandise Specialist.
Bespoke Beauty Brands LLC is a beauty products manufacturer in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
BIG SPOON: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ortega Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ORTEGA, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Big Spoon
Roasters LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00926-MKV-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered an civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
-- The Parties' Summary of Their Claims, Defenses, and
Relevant Issues
Plaintiff(s):
The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses a screen-reader.
The Defendant's website is not properly designed and
operated to be read by screen-reading software. Because of
this, the Plaintiff encountered multiple barriers that
denied Plaintiff access to the website equal to the access
sighted individuals enjoy.
Defendant(s):
The Defendant denies that its website is a place of public
accommodation under the disability discrimination laws.
Additionally, the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue and
Plaintiff's claims are moot by The Parties' Asserted Basis
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
-- Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
will be exchanged no late than June 23, 2022.
-- Amended Pleadings
No additional parties may be joined after July 8, 2022.
No amended pleadings may be filed after July 8, 2022.
-- Fact Discovery
All fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 7, 2022.
-- Expert Discovery
Expert discovery shall be completed by Nov. 21, 2022
Big Spoon makes handcrafted nut butters and snack bars.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QblZT1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
300 Cadman Plaza West
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (917) 299-6612
Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
E-mail: @Jmizrahilaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter T. Shapiro, Esq.
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 232-1300
E-mail: Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com
BLUE DIAMOND: Seeks June 24 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colpitts v. Blue Diamond
Growers, Case No. 1:20-cv-02487-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order extending its current deadline to
oppose the plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification from June 15,
2022 to June 24, 2022.
BDG also respectfully requests an additional five pages for its
opposition, for a total of 30 pages. BDG makes these requests so
that it may fully develop and articulate its arguments in
opposition to the Motion. The plaintiff consents to each of these
requests. BDG has not previously requested an extension of this
deadline, and the requested extension will not affect any other
scheduled dates or deadlines.
Blue Diamond Growers is a agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almonds. Founded in
1910 as the California Almond Grower's Exchange, the organization
claims to be the world's largest tree nut processing and marketing
company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xMrGQh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Colleen M. Carey Gulliver, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
www.dlapiper.com
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 335-4737
Facsimile: (917) 778-8037
E-mail: colleen.gulliver@dlapiper.com
BLUEGRASS TRUCK: Calmes Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegrass Truck and
Trailer Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nicole Calmes,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bluegrass
Truck and Trailer Services LLC, Chad A. Disterdick, Case No.
5:22-cv-00140-DCR (E.D. Ky., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Bluegrass Truck and Trailer Services -- https://bgttservices.com/
-- is a truck repair shop in Lexington, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Finney, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Phone: (513) 943-6660
Fax: (513) 943-6669
Email: chris@finneylawfirm.com
BOARDRIDERS INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boardriders, Inc. The
case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Boardriders, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boardriders -- https://www.boardriders.com/ -- is a leading action
sports and lifestyle company that designs, produces and distributes
branded apparel, footwear and accessories for Boardriders around
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen Loses Renewed Bid for Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., v.
BOISE DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-RCT (D.
Idaho), the Hon. Judge Richard C. Tallman entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court said, "The Defendants oppose class certification, arguing
that Plaintiffs are unable to establish commonality, typicality, or
adequacy of representation. Having considered the parties' briefing
and oral argument, the Court denies Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification with prejudice."
The Plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983,
seeking declaratory relief, monetary relief, and class
certification to litigate on behalf of the proposed class of
patrons of public school districts and charter schools in the State
of Idaho who have paid school fees allegedly assessed by the
Defendants.
Relying on the Idaho Supreme Court's decision in Paulson v.
Minidoka County School District No. 331, the Plaintiffs contend
that certain categories of the fees assessed by Defendants have
been charged in violation of the State of Idaho's constitutional
mandate that the State provide "free common schools," Idaho Const.,
art. IX, sec. 1, and therefore such fees constitute a violation of
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs first moved for class certification on November 13,
2019. The case was subsequently stayed pending the results of
related actions filed in Boise's Ada County District Court, and on
April 4, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for entry of an order certifying
the class, or, alternatively, requested a hearing date on their
motion.
The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xlH70l at no extra charge.[CC]
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Zeyen Partial Class Cert Bid Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., v.
BOISE DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-RCT (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Richard C. Tallman entered an order denying
the motion for partial class certification and summary judgment.
The Court said, "While Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification was pending before the Court, the Plaintiffs filed an
additional motion seeking partial class certification and summary
judgment on a subset of the claims made against Defendants. In
light of the Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial class
certification and summary judgment is denied as moot. Additionally,
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file state court documents
relating to Plaintiffs' motion for partial class certification and
summary judgment, and Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs'
motion for partial class certification and summary judgment, are
denied as moot."
The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NzxAtj at no extra charge.[CC]
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Seeks to File Opposition Response Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendants seek to file under seal their Response
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
On June 7, 2022, the Court ordered the Defendants to re-file an
unredacted version of the Defendants' Response in accordance with
Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). The Defendants accordingly submit this
administrative motion to seal, in conformance with Civil Local Rule
79-5, by submitting an unredacted version of Defendants' Response.
The Defendants seek to redact only portions of Defendants' Response
which contain confidential, proprietary, and non-public
information, or confidential deposition testimony relating to the
same highly sensitive business information.
Brookdale Senior Living Solutions owns and operates retirement
homes across the United States. The company, established in 1978
and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's order Defendants' motion dated June 8, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MEWG91 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Michael D. Jacobsen, Esq.
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
jriley@seyfarth.com
mjacobsen@seyfarth.com
jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and -
Erica Rutner, Esq.
MOORE & LEE, LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1980
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (703) 940-3763
Facsimile: (703) 506-2051
E-mail: e.rutner@mooreandlee.com
BURRTEC WASTE: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Nov. 18
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Francisco Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC, a
California limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. e 5:21-cv-01490-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W.
Holcomb entered an order setting the following revised briefing
scheduled for the class certification motion:
-- Deadline to file Class Certification Nov. 18, 2022
Motion:
-- Deadline to file Opposition to Class Dec. 16, 2022
Certification Motion:
-- Deadline to file reply re Class Jan. 13, 2023
Certification Motion:
-- Hearing on Class Certification Jan. 27, 2023
Motion:
Burrtec was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xlugLA at no extra charge.[CC]
CABE BROTHERS: Violates PAGA Labor Code, Romero Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA G. GONZALEZ ROMERO, an individual, on behalf of herself, and
on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, v. CABE BROTHERS
RENTALS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; CABE
BROTHERS, a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Case No. 22STCV18688 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 7, 2022) seeks to recover Labor Code Private Attorney General
Action of 2004 (PAGA) civil penalties for all current and former
aggrieved employees that worked for the Defendant.
The alleged violations include:
-- Commission-Based and Piece-Rate Violations
From time-to-time during the PAGA period, the plaintiff and
the aggrieved employees were allegedly paid in part on a
commission and/or piece-rate basis. In those instances where
they were paid in part on a commission and/or piece-rate
basis.
-- Meal and Rest Period Violations
As a result of their rigorous work schedules, they were from
time to time unable to take 30 minute off duty meal breaks
and
were not fully relieved of duty for their meal periods. They
were required from time to time to perform work as ordered by
the defendant for more than five hours during some shifts
without receiving a meal break.
-- Wage Statement Violations
From time to time, the Defendant also allegedly failed to
provide them with complete and accurate wage statements which
failed to show, among other things, the correct gross and net
wages earned.
Cabe Brothers operates as a car dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
Eduardo Garcia, Esq.
Sydney Castillo-Johnson, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
E-mail: ilapuyade@icl-lawfirm.com
egarcia@icl-lawfirm.com
scastillo@icl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
Jackland K. Hom, Esq.
Julieann Alvarado, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619)255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com
jackland@zakaylaw. com
iulieann@zakaylaw.com
CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Heitzman Seeks Class Status of Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY HEITZMAN, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CALVERT'S EXPRESS AUTO
SERVICE & TIRE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02001-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
1. Conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
class defined as; and
2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail,
text-message and posting) to:
"All Current and Former Employees Who Were Paid a Day Rate
While Working For Calvert's Express Auto Service & Tire
Anywhere In The United States, At Any Time From October
21, 2018, Through The Date The Court Grants Conditional
Certification;"
3. Approving a Reminder Notice to be sent to Putative Class
Members halfway through the 90-day notice period; and
4. Requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
order, identify all Putative Class Members by providing a
list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
addresses, e-mail addresses, and cell phone numbers of all
Putative Class Members who worked for Defendant at any
time from October 21, 2018 through the date of the Order
granting conditional certification.
Calvert's Express is A full-service shop for brakes, tires, oil
changes, and auto repair needs.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HcHM8C
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
PAUL LLP ANDERSON
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
Laura@PaulLLP.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
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
CENTENE CORP: Second Amended Calendar Order Entered in Duff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY DUFF, et al., v.
CENTENE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00750-DRC (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered a second amended
calendar order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) July 25, 2022
and designation(s):
-- The Plaintiffs’ class August 8, 2022
certification motion:
-- The Defendants' expert report(s) September 22, 2022
and designation(s):
-- The Defendants' response to class October 6, 2022
certification motion:
-- Rebuttal expert report(s) and October 21, 2022
designation(s):
-- Plaintiffs' reply regarding October 28, 2022
class certification motion:
-- Expert discovery deadline: November 14, 2022
Centene Corporation is a publicly traded managed care company based
in St. Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for
government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xCSD8F at no extra charge.[CC]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Suits Over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Change Healthcare Inc. disclosed in its current Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2022, that nine lawsuits
challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger as of January 5, 2021
by and among Change Healthcare Inc., UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated and UnitedHealth Group's wholly owned subsidiary
Cambridge Merger Sub Inc. due to the failure to satisfy the
conditions to the completion of the UHG Transaction, including that
a governmental entity may prohibit, delay or refuse to grant
approval for the consummation of said transaction.
The first lawsuit, a putative class action alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty, was filed in Tennessee Chancery Court was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on March 17, 2021. The
remaining eight lawsuits were filed in federal court between March
18, 2021 and April 7, 2021. The operative complaints in those
actions named us and our Board of Directors as defendants and
alleged, among other things, that the proxy statement filed in
conjunction with the transaction was materially incomplete and
misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9. All of the Section
14(a) Actions were dismissed without prejudice by April 23, 2021.
Change Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare technology company providing
data and analytics-driven solutions to improve clinical, financial,
administrative, and patient engagement outcomes in the U.S.
healthcare system.
CLOUDFLARE INC: Settles Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Cloudflare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report as of May 18,
2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25,
2022, that on April 6, 2022, it settled a putative class action
complaint that was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Cindy
Xu, a stockholder, against Cloudflare, Inc. and its current
directors.
The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the
defendants based on alleged disclosure deficiencies in the
preliminary proxy statement (filed by the company on March 29,
2022) in connection with its 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
held in June 2, 2022, an alleged concern that the definition of the
participants in the majority-of-the-disinterested stockholders vote
at the 2022 Stockholder Meeting to approve the issuance of stock
options to purchase the company's Class A common stock granted to
the company's co-founders Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn
included certain stockholders that plaintiff alleged were
interested in such vote and certain allegedly coercive aspects of
the stockholder vote on it.
The complaint sought various remedies, including a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the vote to approve the issuance at
the 2022 Stockholder Meeting.
After the complaint was filed, the company determined to take
certain corrective actions to moot the allegations in the complaint
and, specifically, to supplement the disclosures in its definitive
proxy statement filed in April 21, 2022 and undertake certain
amendments to the issuance and other awards issued to non-founder
executives to revise the definition of the participants in the
majority-of-the-disinterested stockholders vote applicable to the
Performance Awards to exclude certain allegedly interested
stockholders and to remove the allegedly coercive aspects of the
vote. Also in April 21, 2022, plaintiff withdrew the motion for a
preliminary injunction and voluntarily dismissed the Action,
reserving the right for plaintiff’s counsel to apply for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.
On April 25, 2022, the Court of Chancery entered a stipulated order
pursuant to which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Action with
prejudice as to herself only, but without prejudice as to any other
putative class member. The Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction
solely for the purpose of deciding the anticipated application of
plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in connection with the corrective
actions.
The company subsequently agreed to pay $1,600,000 to plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action. In May
18, 2022, the Court of Chancery entered an order formally closing
the Action and providing for the payment of the attorneys' fees and
expenses amount. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to
review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys'
fees and expenses or their reasonableness.
Cloudflare, Inc. is a prepackaged software company based San
Francisco CA.
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Coe Sues over Misleading Coke Reward Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN COE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00430 (W.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's representations and omissions with respect to the
Rewards Program which are unlawful, false and misleading.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sells Coke products with
reward codes, even though the only benefit is to donate their
accumulated value to one of its selected non-profit groups. The
Coke Rewards program began by offering customers the ability to
redeem bottle caps and other proofs of purchase for things of
value, such as movie tickets or gift cards.
The Defendant's Rewards are marketed contrary to state law, because
they do not have "legibly printed upon their face a cash value
determined by the company in cents or any fraction thereof," which
meant Plaintiff and other holders were not able to "redeem the
stamps in cash when duly presented to the company for redemption in
a number having an aggregate cash value of not less than one
dollar," says the suit.
Had the Plaintiff known the truth, he would not have participated
in the Program or would have done so on different terms. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Rewards
Program causes consumers to spend more money buying Coke products
to obtain rewards, despite the absence of any rewards and the
absence of any redeemable cash value, over other similar products
which are supported by rewards programs that provide tangible
rewards and cash value, the suit added.
The Coca-Cola Company manufactures, markets, and distributes soft
drink concentrates and syrups. The Company also distributes and
markets juice and juice-drink products. Coca-Cola distributes its
products to retailers and wholesalers in the United States and
internationally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Spencer Sheehan
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Palmer Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY PALMER, VARTAN
PIROUMIAN, ANN COX, and JEAN-CLAUDE FRANCHITTI, v. COGNIZANT
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-06848-DMG-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs apply for leave to file the following
documents under seal: an unredacted version of Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, supporting that motion, and a document
attached to a declaration.
The Plaintiffs are obligated to seek leave to file these materials
under seal because the documents quote or discuss materials
Cognizant designated as "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential"under the Protective Order, and Cognizant has not
since agreed that the materials can be made publicly available,
including after this Court's May 17, 2022 order instructing the
parties to file publicly any documents that do not meet the
"compelling reasons" standard for sealing.
In light of Cognizant's confidentiality designations and positions,
the Plaintiffs are obligated to file this Application to bring the
issue before the Court. However, for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying Grunert declaration, Plaintiffs do not believe that
the vast majority of the materials Cognizant wishes to remain
sealed meet the "compelling reasons" standard needed to overcome
the presumption of public access to Court filings.
Cognizant is an American multinational information technology
services and consulting company. It is headquartered in Teaneck,
New Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xyJf5U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Low, Esq.
Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
Lindsey Grunert, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com
dkotchen@kotchen.com
lgrunert@kotchen.com
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY PALMER, VARTAN
PIROUMIAN, EDWARD COX and JEAN-CLAUDE FRANCHITTI, v. COGNIZANT
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
U.S. CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-06848-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file
under seal Cognizant's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and supporting materials.
This Application is made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5.2.2,
which provides that "no case or documents shall be filed under seal
without prior approval by the Court." In conformance with Local
Civil Rule 79-5.2.2, Cognizant has attached unredacted versions of
Cognizant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Cognizant's supporting documents to the
accompanying Declaration of Michele L. Maryott, filed under seal,
and have highlighted those portions that Cognizant maintains should
be withheld from the public record.
Cognizant is an American multinational information technology
services and consulting company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qfy0a0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
ksmith@gibsondunn.com
lblas@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Dooley, Esq.
Matthew T. Sessions, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
edooley@gibsondunn.com
msessions@gibsondunn.com
COLORADO: Knellinger Sues Over Illegal Private Property Possession
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KNELLINGER and ROBERT STOREY, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID YOUNG, in his
individual and official capacities as COLORADO STATE TREASURER,
COLORADO OFFICE OF TREASURY, and BIANCA GARDELLI, in her individual
and official capacities as DIRECTOR of COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY DIVISION, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01379-MEH (D. Colo., June 1, 2022) is a class action
brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and accounting and other relief based on
Defendants' unconstitutional and unlawful conduct acting ultra
vires in their individual and official capacities under color of
state law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have misused a set of
laws designed to reunite people with their property (Colorado
Revised Statutes Title 38, Article 13), known as the Revised
Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, to instead take private property
from people and businesses without meeting the basic threshold
requirements for escheatment because they have not "abandoned" or
"unclaimed" their property and because the owners are not
"unknown."
The complaint further alleges that Defendants' actions in taking
possession of Plaintiffs' private property without adequate notice
to Plaintiffs and putative class members, and then selling property
without notice to the property owners, or without their consent,
violates the express provisions of the RUUPA, the Colorado
Constitution, Article II, Section 25, and the United States
Constitution, including the Contract Clause of Article I, Section
10, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the latter of
which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law."
Defendant Dave Young was appointed in January 2019 as Director of
Colorado Office of Treasury and currently holds that position. He
is sued in his individual and official capacities. Before January
2019, since 2011, defendant Young served in the Colorado
legislature from House District 50.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Greiner, Esq.
Christopher Ross, Esq.
GREINER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
401 Austin Highway, Suite 200
San Antonio, TX 78209
Telephone: (210) 824-6529
Facsimile: (210) 829-5528
E-mail: service@greinerattorneys.com
- and -
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Sean R. Cooper, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
Sean@PaulLLP.com
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Scheduling Order Amended in Brittingham
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY N. BRITTINGHAM v.
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00096-MU (S.D.
Ala.), the Hon. Judge P. Bradley Murray entered an order granting
the parties' consent motion to amend scheduling order as follows:
-- The Defendant's response in July 6, 2022
opposition to class certification
is to be filed not later than:
with Plaintiff’s reply due on or July 14, 2022
before:
-- The Plaintiff's response in July 6, 2022
opposition to the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment is
due not later than:
with the Defendant's reply to July 14, 2022
be filed on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xvNpM2 at no extra charge.[CC]
CORECIVIC INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Owino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYLVESTER OWINO; JONATHAN GOMEZ, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 21-55221 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's certification of all
three classes: the California Labor Law Class, the California
Forced Labor Class, and the National Forced Labor Class.
I. Introduction
The appeal arises from a class action filed by individuals who were
incarcerated in private immigration detention facilities owned and
operated by a for-profit corporation, CoreCivic. These individuals
-- detained solely due to their immigration status and neither
charged with, nor convicted of, any crime -- allege that the
overseers of their private detention facilities forced them to
perform labor against their will and without adequate compensation.
The Ninth Circuit's inquiry on appeal concerns only whether the
district court properly certified three classes of detainees.
II. Background
In 2017, Owino and Gomez (collectively "Owino") brought a class
action suit against CoreCivic. Both men were previously held in a
civil immigration detention facility operated by CoreCivic -- Owino
from 2005 to 2015, and Gomez from 2012 to 2013. They filed suit "on
behalf of all civil immigration detainees who were incarcerated and
forced to work by CoreCivic," seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief and damages, among other remedies, for "forcing/coercing
detainees to clean, maintain, and operate CoreCivic's detention
facilities in violation of both federal and state human trafficking
and labor laws." Specifically, Owino alleged violations of the
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 18
U.S.C. Section 1589 et seq. ("TVPA"), California Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.5 ("CTVPA"),
various provisions of the California Labor Code, and other state
laws.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(g), U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") contracts with CoreCivic to incarcerate
detained immigrants in 24 facilities across 11 states. According to
Owino, those incarcerated in these facilities "are detained based
solely on their immigration status and have not been charged with a
crime." Because of this, ICE states these detainees "shall not be
required to work, except to do personal housekeeping." These
housekeeping duties are delineated in ICE's Performance-Based
National Detention Standards ("Standards"): "1. making their bunk
beds daily; 2. stacking loose papers; 3. keeping the floor free of
debris and dividers free of clutter; and 4. refraining from
hanging/draping clothing, pictures, keepsakes, or other objects
from beds, overhead lighting fixtures or other furniture." The
Standards also require facilities to provide detainees with the
"opportunity to participate in a voluntary work program" for which
they must be compensated at least $1 per day.
Despite these guidelines, Owino contends that, "as a matter of
policy," CoreCivic compelled him and detainees across its
facilities to work "as a virtually free labor force to complete
'essential' work duties at their facilities," including such
"foundational tasks" as kitchen and laundry services. CoreCivic's
written policies require "all" detainees to "maintain the common
living area [i.e., not the bunk bed area] in a clean and sanitary
manner." The policies further require "detainee/inmate workers" to
carry out a "daily cleaning routine," to remove trash, sweep, mop,
clean toilets, clean sinks, clean showers, and clean furniture, and
to undertake "any other tasks assigned by staff in order to
maintain good sanitary conditions." Yet, according to Owino,
CoreCivic generally paid ICE detainees either $1 per day or nothing
at all. Owino further contends that CoreCivic paid ICE detainees
between $.75 and $1.50 per day for work that it "misclassified" as
"volunteer," thus failing to pay wages that approximated the
minimum hourly wage required by California law.
On April 15, 2019, Owino filed a motion for class certification,
seeking to certify five classes:
1. California Labor Law Class: All ICE detainees who (i) were
detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California between May
31, 2013, and the present, and (ii) worked through CoreCivic's
Voluntary Work Program during their period of detention in
California.
2. California Forced Labor Class: All ICE detainees who (i)
were detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California between
Jan. 1, 2006, and the present, (ii) cleaned areas of the facilities
above and beyond the personal housekeeping tasks enumerated in the
Standards, and (iii) performed such work under threat of discipline
irrespective of whether the work was paid or unpaid.
3. National Forced Labor Class: All ICE detainees who (i)
were detained at a CoreCivic facility between Dec. 23, 2008, and
the present, (ii) cleaned areas of the facilities above and beyond
the personal housekeeping tasks enumerated in the Standards, and
(iii) performed such work under threat of discipline irrespective
of whether the work was paid or unpaid.
4. California Basic Necessities Class: All ICE detainees who
(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility located in California
between Jan. 1, 2006, and the present, (ii) worked through
CoreCivic's Work Program, and (iii) purchased basic living
necessities through CoreCivic's commissary during their period of
detention in California.
5. National Basic Necessities Class: All ICE detainees who
(i) were detained at a CoreCivic facility between Dec. 23, 2008,
and the present, (ii) worked through CoreCivic's Work Program, and
(iii) purchased basic living necessities through CoreCivic's
commissary during their period of detention.
A year later -- following numerous filings, oral argument, and
supplemental briefing -- the district court certified three of the
proposed five classes: (1) the California Labor Law Class, (2) the
California Forced Labor Class, and (3) the National Forced Labor
Class.
In an extensive and thoughtful order, the district court found the
following:
1. California Labor Law Class: Owino and Gomez adequately
have established that they were never paid a minimum wage through
the Work Program, that they never received wage statements, and
that CoreCivic failed to pay compensation upon termination and
imposed unlawful terms and conditions of employment. There were
sufficient common, predominating questions to certify the class.
2. California Forced Labor Class: Owino and Gomez
sufficiently have demonstrated that CoreCivic facilities in
California implemented common sanitation and disciplinary policies
that together may have coerced detainees to clean areas of
CoreCivic's California facilities beyond the personal housekeeping
tasks enumerated in the ICE Standards.
3. National Forced Labor Class: Owino and Gomez sufficiently
have demonstrated the same regarding CoreCivic facilities
nationwide.
Due to the vulnerability of the class members and the "risks, small
recovery, and relatively high costs of litigation," the district
court concluded that "class-wide litigation is superior" because
"no viable alternative method of adjudication exists."
III. Analysis
The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's class certification
for "abuse of discretion." CoreCivic brings three challenges to
each of the three certified classes.
A. California Forced Labor Class
The Ninth Circuit first considers CoreCivic's assertion that Owino
failed to present "significant proof" of a class-wide policy of
forced labor, thus defeating commonality. To support the California
Forced Labor class, Owino provided the declarations of four
detainees, all from one facility, but this was not the extent or
the focus of Owino's "significant proof," nor was it the focus of
the district court's decision. Rather, Owino centered his argument,
and the district court centered its holding, on the text of
CoreCivic's corporate policies.
Commonality is necessarily established where there is a class-wide
policy to which all class members are subjected. And while "the
mere existence of a facially defective written policy -- without
any evidence that it was implemented in an unlawful manner -- does
not constitute 'significant proof' that a class of employees were
subject to an unlawful practice," Owino relied on the written
policies as well as the testimony of former ICE detainees and
CoreCivic's own manager. Although the company "may wish to distance
itself from its employee's statements," the "admissions were
material and are properly before the Court."
In view of the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard and
the full scope of evidence in the record, the Ninth Circuit rejects
CoreCivic's claim that Owino failed to provide "significant proof"
of the class-wide policy necessary to satisfy the commonality
requirement.
The Ninth Circuit next considers CoreCivic's claim that Owino
failed to establish that common questions predominate over
individual ones, thus defeating predominance. The predominance
inquiry tests "whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive
to warrant adjudication by representation." The Ninth Circuit
opines that the question -- whether CoreCivic utilized threats of
discipline to compel detainees to clean its California facilities
in violation of state and federal human trafficking statutes -- is
appropriate for class-wide resolution because either CoreCivic's
company-wide policies and practices violated the law and the rights
of the class members, or they didn't.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit considers CoreCivic's argument that the
district court should have narrowed the proposed California Forced
Labor class based on the statute of limitations. While Owino seeks
to include all ICE detainees held at a CoreCivic facility in
California between Jan. 1, 2006, and the present, CoreCivic argues
that because the California TVPA has a seven-year statute of
limitations, no detainee who was released before May 31, 2010, can
bring a claim. The district court ruled that such a finding was
premature at the class certification stage: "If discovery indicates
that the class period should be limited, the Court will entertain a
motion to that effect; however, at this stage in the litigation and
on the record before it, the Court is not inclined to narrow the
class period."
The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that narrowing the
class based on statute of limitations is not required at the
certification stage. CoreCivic cites no case law to the contrary.
The Ninth Circuit therefore holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to narrow the California Forced
Labor class.
B. National Forced Labor Class
The Ninth Circuit can dispense with CoreCivic's first two
challenges to the National Forced Labor class easily, as these
challenges are virtually identical to those directed at the
California Forced Labor class. For the same reasons it discussed,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Owino presented significant proof of a class-wide policy of forced
labor. Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that common questions predominate over individual ones.
CoreCivic's argument that the TVPA necessitates a subjective,
individualized inquiry fails due to contrary language in the
statute, as well as the broader predominance test prescribed by
precedent.
However, CoreCivic's appeal with respect to personal jurisdiction
is not resolved by what the Ninth Circuit wrote, with respect to
the National Forced Labor class. It says Owino's challenge to the
merit of CoreCivic's personal jurisdiction defense is an issue for
the district court to resolve. It declines to vacate the
certification of the National Forced Labor class, but it holds that
CoreCivic retains its personal jurisdiction defense and remand the
personal jurisdiction question to the district court for
consideration at the appropriate time.
C. California Labor Law Class
The Ninth Circuit first considers CoreCivic's arguments that the
members of the California Labor Law class have not presented "a
fully formed damages model" and thus cannot be certified. Owino
claims that CoreCivic misclassified the detainees participating in
the Work Program as "volunteers" rather than "employees" and thus
failed to pay them the minimum wage required in California for
"employees," in violation of California wage and hour law. The
district court certified the class, holding that Owino had met the
"evidentiary" burden of "present[ing] proof that damages are
capable of being measured on a class-wide basis."
The Ninth Circuit agree with the district court that the Plaintiffs
must be able to show that their damages stemmed from the
Defendant's actions that created the legal liability." It opines
that Owino presented sufficient evidence to show that damages are
capable of measurement on a class-wide basis. This evidence
includes documentation of "typical" shift lengths, the days worked
by ICE detainees, the wages paid, and the job assignments.
Additional testimony and CoreCivic records can establish details
about which detainees participated in the Work Program, and as the
Supreme Court emphasized in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577
U.S. 442, 453 (2016), sufficiently reliable representative or
statistical evidence can be used to establish the hours that a
class of employees had worked.
Next, CoreCivic argues that Owino is barred from representing the
class at all, because his last day in the Work Program was May 22,
2013, which is more than four years before he filed the May 31,
2017, complaint. It further argues that Gomez is time-barred from
pursuing non-UCL claims, because his last day in the Work Program
was Sept. 7, 2013.
The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that Owino and
Gomez are typical of the class they are seeking to represent and
their allegations, if true, fit within the statutes they invoke.
Although they may run into statute of limitations issues -- some
disputed and unproven -- narrowing the class based on statute of
limitations is not required at the certification stage.
Finally, CoreCivic argues that because Owino and Gomez "did not
reference their failure-to-pay/waiting-time claim ([Cal. Labor
Code] Sections 201-203)" in their motion for class certification,
the district court should not have certified that claim as one
common to the California Labor Law class.
Because the claims are affirmatively interwoven in Owino's
pleadings, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in certifying this claim. CoreCivic has cited
no precedent to suggest that Owino must specifically list the
citation of each of the dozen provisions of the California Labor
Code in the motion for class certification. Such an approach would
exalt form over substance and ignore the fair notice Owino provided
to CoreCivic throughout the certification proceeding. Rather,
because Owino outlined these provisions substantively in the
complaint, stated that "all" of the alleged violations of the Labor
Code turn on a common question, and discussed the common question
at length, Owino sufficiently referenced this matter before the
district court.
IV. Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's certification of all
three classes. It holds that CoreCivic retains its personal
jurisdiction defense and remand the personal jurisdiction question
to the district court for consideration at the appropriate
juncture.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9y9wbn from Leagle.com.
Nicholas D. Acedo (argued) -- nacedo@strucklove.com -- Daniel P.
Struck -- dstruck@strucklove.com -- Rachel Love --
rlove@strucklove.com -- Ashlee B. Hesman, and Jacob B. Lee --
jlee@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC, in
Chandler, Arizona, for the Defendant-Appellant.
Eileen R. Ridley (argued) -- eridley@foley.com -- and Alan R.
Ouellette -- aouellette@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, in San
Francisco, California; Robert L. Teel -- lawoffice@rlteel.com --
Law Office of Robert L. Teel, in Seattle, Washington, for the
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
CORIZON INC: Kensu's Bid for Relief From Summary Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TEMUJIN KENSU, Plaintiff v. CORIZON, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-10944 (E.D. Mo.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion for relief from
the Court's opinion granting Defendants Corizon, Inc. and Quality
Correctional Care of Michigan, P.C.'s renewed motion for summary
judgment.
I. Background
Mr. Kensu initially filed this 42 Section U.S.C. 1983 case as a
putative class action. The Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to dismiss the class
claims. As a result, only Kensu's individual Eighth Amendment claim
remained. Because the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was
framed in the context of the class claims, on July 14, 2021, the
Court entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment without prejudice and directing them to file a new motion
for summary judgment focusing only on Kensu's individual claim. The
Court instructed that the response and reply deadlines set forth in
Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) would apply.
On July 30, 2021, the Defendants filed a renewed motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Kensu could not show that the Defendants
maintained a policy, practice, or custom that resulted in the
denial of Kensu's medical treatment in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), Kensu's
deadline to file a response was Aug. 20, 2021. That date came and
went, without any response or other filing from Kensu. Two months
later, the Court entered an opinion granting the Defendants'
renewed motion for summary judgment.
Three days later, Kensu filed the instant Rule 60(b)(1) motion,
seeking relief from the Court's Oct. 18, 2021 opinion. Kensu
contends that his failure to file a response was not the result of
his own culpable conduct but, rather, excusable neglect --
specifically, the health issues of his lawyer, Keith Altman.
According to Altman's declaration, he experienced a sudden loss in
his right eye's vision on July 2, 2021. Since then, he has seen
multiple vision specialists, both locally and in Iowa City, Iowa.
On Aug. 1, 2021, Altman was hospitalized due to "complications from
his vision loss and associated treatment." It appears that he was
released from the hospital within a matter of days, but then
"needed to attend numerous medical appointments both locally and
distantly, which was most acute during August." While Altman was
hospitalized, his staff "filed numerous motions for emergency
continuance with pending deadlines" in other actions, but did not
do so in the case.
According to Altman, on Aug. 16, 2021, he realized that he had not
filed for a continuance in the matter, but "because the brief in
opposition to the renewed motion for summary judgment did not
require any substantive changes to the response he filed to the
Defendants' previous motion for summary judgment, he decided that
it was more judicially efficient to revise and file the previously
filed brief." He directed his staff to "make the required
alterations," and "he intended to review the brief and then file
the brief when it was due on Aug. 20, 2021." Altman traveled to
Iowa City to see his neuro-ophthalmologist on August 18 and 19,
which focused his attention on his medical condition, resulting in
his "failure to review and file the opposition to the renewed
motion for summary judgment in the case." Altman forgot about the
un-filed response until the Court issued its Oct. 18, 2021
opinion.
Mr. Kensu has submitted, along with his Rule 60(b)(1) motion, the
response brief that Altman intended but failed to file by Aug. 20,
2021. In that response, Kensu reiterates that he alleged "four
distinct unconstitutional policies," but he points to evidence
showing the existence of only one of the policies: That the
"Defendants instituted a policy, practice, or custom of 'deferring'
90% to 99% of all physician-recommended referrals for surgery or
consultations with specialists." Specifically, Kensu points to (i)
the deposition testimony of a physician assistant, Marian
McKissick, stating that "Orthopedic consults for prisoners were
denied by Corizon '90 percent, 99 percent of the time'"; and (ii)
Kensu's deposition testimony memorializing his "firsthand
experience of this policy."
III. Analysis
Mr. Kensu bears the burden of establishing the existence of
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Rule
60(b)(1). As noted above, he relies on excusable neglect. "In
determining whether relief is appropriate under Rule 60(b)(1),
courts consider three factors: (1) culpability -- that is, whether
the neglect was excusable; (2) any prejudice to the opposing party;
and (3) whether the party holds a meritorious underlying claim or
defense, citing Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 628 (6th Cir.
2012)." "A party seeking relief must first demonstrate a lack of
culpability before the court examines the remaining two factors."
The ultimate decision to grant Rule 60(b)(1) relief lies within the
district court's sound discretion.
A. Culpability
The question of culpability revolves around whether Altman's
deteriorating vision justifies his failure to file a response to
the renewed motion for summary judgment.
Judge Goldsmith holds that Altman's deteriorating eyesight is,
certainly, tragic. But it is insufficient to establish excusable
neglect. Kensu's failure to show excusable neglect is, alone,
sufficient to deny his motion. However, Kensu also fails to show
that he has a meritorious underlying claim.
B. Meritorious Underlying Claim
Even if Kensu had met the first two Yeschick factors, Judge
Goldsmith holds that he cannot satisfy the third -- i.e., he cannot
show that he has a meritorious underlying claim. At the summary
judgment stage, the question is whether Kensu could establish a
dispute of material fact such that his Section 1983 could survive
summary judgment. Because the Defendants met their burden of
establishing an absence of evidence to support Kensu's case, Kensu
must present significant probative evidence to defeat the
Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment. Kensu has not done
so.
In addition, the fact that the Defendants defer 90-99% of referrals
is immaterial if Kensu's referrals were rejected not as a matter of
policy but, rather, for some other reason. By Kensu's own
admission, 1-10% of referrals are not deferred as a matter of
policy. Because Kensu's response brief does not point to any
evidence of causation, his Section 1983 claim could not survive
summary judgment.
Mr. Kensu has not shown that he has a meritorious underlying claim,
and, accordingly, he is not entitled to Rule 60(b)(1) relief.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Kensu's Rule 60(b)(1) motion is denied.
The case remains closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3z9fmz from Leagle.com.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: $588K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Corker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service
Awards.
The Plaintiffs have presented three class action settlements for
the Court's approval. The settlements include monetary relief
totaling $2.15 million, and injunctive provisions that institute
labeling changes for the products supplied and sold by the Settling
Defendants.
The Class Counsel have requested attorneys' fees in the amount of
$537,500, or 25% of the settlement fund.
Judge Lasnik finds that he requested fees are fair and reasonable
under the circumstances. He reaches this conclusion upon
consideration of the results achieved, the complexity of the case
and risks involved in prosecuting it, especially on a contingent
basis, the benefits to the class beyond the immediate generation of
a cash fund, fees awarded in similar cases, and a lodestar
cross-check. He also grants Class Counsel's request of a fee of
$537,500 to be paid from the Settlement Funds generated by the
settlements presented to the Court to date.
The Class Counsel has also requested reimbursement of litigation
expenses in the amount of $450,000.
Judge Lasnik has reviewed the Class Counsel's costs and finds that
they were reasonably incurred. He accordingly grants reimbursement
of $450,000 from the Settlement Funds.
The Class Counsel requests service awards of $2,500 for each farm
whose owners have served as class representatives in the
litigation: Rancho Aloha, Kanalani Ohana Farm, and Smithfarms.
Judge Lasnik holds that the requested awards are fair and
reasonable. Each class representative invested substantial amounts
of time in this case and have made significant contributions to the
case on behalf of the members of the Settlement Class. Judge Lasnik
accordingly awards each farm the requested service awards of
$2,500.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ynbjk7ft from Leagle.com.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Enters Final Order, Judgment in Corker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, enters Final Judgment and Order in
the case, BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court upon the unopposed "Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Settlement" filed by the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiff commenced the action by filing their Complaint on
Feb. 27, 2019, and ultimately filed a Third Amended Complaint on
April 30, 2020. They alleged that the Defendants violated the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125, by misleadingly labeling and
selling coffee not from the Kona region as "Kona" coffee. On Nov.
12, 2019, the Court denied motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
original complaint, and discovery began.
The Plaintiffs have negotiated class action settlements with three
defendants: The Kroger Co., one with Safeway Inc. and Albertsons
Companies Inc., and one with Hawaiian Isles Coffee Co. Ltd.
("HIKC") ("Settling Defendants") (collectively, "Settling
Defendants"). The Settlement Agreements were attached as Exhibits
1-3 to the declaration of counsel accompanying the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements, filed on Feb. 11,
2022.
Through the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Defendants will
fully and completely satisfy the claims of the Class Members
relating to the claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in the Third
Amended Complaint by paying the Class Members a total payment of
$2.15 million ($1.35 million from Kroger and $800,000 from HIKC),
and provide injunctive relief relating to the labeling of the Kona
coffee products at issue. Attorneys' fees and costs of Class
Counsel and administrative costs will be paid from the Settlement
Fund. By entering into the Settlement Agreements, the Settling
Defendants made no admissions relating to the claims raised in the
lawsuit, nor did Plaintiffs make admissions relating to the
Settling Defendants' Defenses.
The Settlement Class, as defined in each of the Settlement
Agreements, includes the following: All persons and entities who,
between Feb. 27, 2015, and the date of Court's order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement, farmed Kona coffee in the
Kona District and then sold their Kona coffee.
The Court entered an Order dated Feb. 14, 2022, directing that
notice of the proposed Settlements be effectuated as to the
Settlement Class ("Preliminary Approval Order"). The Preliminary
Approval Order set a hearing for June 3, 2022 to determine whether
the proposed Settlements should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate.
In accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the
Settlement Administrator caused to be mailed and emailed to
potential members of the Settlement Class for whom addresses could
be located, the Settlement Notice in the form approved by the Court
in the Preliminary Approval Orders. Also in accordance with the
Court's Preliminary Approval Orders, the Settlement Administrator
also caused the publication notice to be placed in the West Hawaii
Today. The Court did not receive any objections to the Settlement
from class members.
On June 3, 2022, Judge Lasnik held a hearing on the proposed
Settlements, at which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, he has read and considered
all submissions in connection with the Settlements. He finds the
Settlements to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Settlement Agreements, including all of the terms defined
therein including but not limited to the definitions of "Settled
Claims," are incorporated in the Final Judgment. Any terms used in
the Final Judgment are governed by their definitions in the
Settlement Agreements. Therefore, the Settlements are approved in
all respects, and will be binding upon, and inure to the benefit
of, all members of the Settlement Class.
All Settled Claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The Final Judgment may not be used as an admission by or against
the Settling Defendants of any fact, claim, assertion, matter,
contention, fault, culpability, obligation, wrongdoing or liability
whatsoever.
The Court has, by separate order, granted the Class Counsel's
"Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses." The amount of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses
awarded to the Class Counsel will be distributed to the Class
Counsel by the Settlement Administrator from the Settlement Funds.
The Court reserves jurisdiction over the matter, the Settling
Parties, and all the counsel, without affecting the finality of the
Final Judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Lasnik finds that there is no reason for delay in the entry
of the Final Order and Judgment as a final order and final
judgment, and he further expressly directs the Clerk of the Court
to file the Final Order and Judgment as a final order and final
judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5jy6xb3h from Leagle.com.
CREDIT COLLECTION: Thaller Sues Over Misleading Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------
YAAKOV THALLER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff v. CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-008216 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., June
6, 2022) brings this complaint as a class action against the
Defendant for its alleged illegal practices that violated the
Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act (FCCPA), and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a collection
letter on or about June 6, 2021 seeking to collect a balance
allegedly incurred for personal purposes. On its letter, the
Defendant suggested that adverse credit information is scheduled to
be reported to one or more of the three major credit bureaus. The
Defendant's language on its letter is deceptive and false because
the Defendant knows exactly to how many credit bureaus it will
report the debt when it is not so reported. In addition, the
Plaintiff asserts that he does not owe the debt.
Because the Plaintiff has suffered actual as a result of the
Defendant's misleading debt collection communications, the
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorney fees and costs
incurred, and any other relief that the Court deems appropriate and
just under circumstances, says the suit.
Credit Collection Services, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar M. Salazar II, Esq.
LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: (954) 727-8570
Fax: (954) 241-6857
E-mail: omar@lawlp.com
Secondary: claudia@lawlp.com
Secondary: maritza@lawlp.com
DAN LIU: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Cheng Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xunhui Cheng and Kelin
Cai, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Dan
Liu, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01726-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph Dawson, III entered an amended scheduling order regarding
FRCP 23 issues as follows:
-- Bifurcation of Class Discovery
Discovery prior to the Court's decision on class
certification must be sufficient to permit the Court to
determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 are satisfied, including a sufficient inquiry
to ensure appropriate management of the case as a Class
Action.
-- Class Certification Expert Disclosures
A. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve a document
identifying by full name, address and telephone number
each person whom Plaintiffs expect to call as an expert
regarding class certification and certifying that a
written report prepared and signed by the expert
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or, where
allowed, a report prepared by counsel has been disclosed
to the other parties by June 28, 2022.
B. The Defendants shall file and serve a document
identifying by full name, address, and telephone number
each person whom Defendants expect to call as an expert
regarding class certification and certifying that a
written report prepared and signed by the expert
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or, where
allowed, a report prepared by counsel has been disclosed
to the other parties by August 30, 2022.
-- Depositions of Class Certification Expert Witnesses
A. The Plaintiffs shall make Plaintiffs' experts available
for deposition on or after July 29, 2022.
B. The Defendants shall make Defendants' experts available
for deposition on or after September 30, 2022.
-- Depositions of Class Representatives
A. Cheng: No later than July 15, 2022. Cheng to appear in
Myrtle Beach.
B. Cai: Deposition to occur the week of June 13-17, 2022.
-- Class Discovery: Class discovery shall close on October 14,
2022 (any discovery requests must be made such that the
response is due on or before this date).
-- 6. Class Certification
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Memorandum in Support shall be filed by October 25,
2022.
The Defendants' responses shall be filed by November 28,
2022.
The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by
December 12, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NIgzxd at no extra charge.[CC]
DAVE & BUSTER'S: York & Pearson Compelled to Individual Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Natasha York, et al., Plaintiffs v. Dave & Buster's
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-01130-PHX-JJT (D.
Ariz.), Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona grants Defendants Dave & Buster's, Inc. and
Dave & Buster's Management Corp.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration,
Strike Class and Collective Claims, and Stay Proceedings Pending
Plaintiffs' Individual Arbitrations.
I. Background
Plaintiff York began working for the Defendants' entertainment and
dining venue in Glendale, Arizona on July 30, 2019. As part of her
employment intake process, she electronically signed the
Defendants' 2018 version of an Arbitration Agreement, by which she
agreed with the Defendants to arbitrate any claims arising out of
her employment under the rules of the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) on an individual basis, waiving any right for a
claim to be heard as a collective action. York's employment
terminated on Feb. 2, 2020.
Plaintiff Gery Pearson began working for the Defendants' El Paso,
Texas venue in March 2016. As part of her employment intake
process, she electronically signed the Defendants' 2016 version of
an Arbitration Agreement, which like the 2018 version provides that
she agreed with the Defendants to arbitrate any claims arising out
of her employment under the rules of the AAA on an individual
basis, waiving any right for a claim to be heard as a collective
action. Pearson's employment terminated on Nov. 8, 2020.
The Plaintiffs filed a Collective Action and Class Action Complaint
on June 29, 2021, raising claims against the Defendants for failure
to pay the minimum wage under (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 206, and (2) the Arizona Minimum Wage Act
(AMWA), A.R.S. Section 23-363.
The Defendants now move to compel arbitration under the Arbitration
Agreements, strike the collective and class action claims as
brought in contravention of the Arbitration Agreements, and stay
these proceedings pending the results of the individual Plaintiffs'
arbitrations.
II. Analysis
In the Response to the Defendants' Motion, the Plaintiffs do not
dispute that York entered into a valid, enforceable Arbitration
Agreement with a class and collective action waiver. Accordingly,
Judge Tuchi grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration
with regard to York.
As for Pearson, the Plaintiffs argue that the Arbitration Agreement
does not contain a signature on behalf of the Defendants and is
thus not a valid, enforceable agreement. As the Defendants point
out, there is no dispute Pearson electronically signed and agreed
to the Arbitration Agreement. With regard to the Defendants'
signature, the Defendants argue both that Texas law does not
require their signature as a condition precedent to the formation
of an arbitration agreement that an employer proposed to an
employee as a condition of employment, and that the form and text
of the Arbitration Agreement itself indicate that Defendants'
signature was not required.
As compelling as the Defendants' arguments are, Judge Tuchi need
not resolve this question, because the Arbitration Agreement (which
Pearson signed in agreement) provides that the arbitrator "shall
have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to
formation of this Agreement." Because Pearson agreed to delegate
the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, Judge Tuchi will
grant the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration with regard to
Pearson.
The Plaintiffs make the additional argument that because Defendants
did not move to compel arbitration for the 19 purported opt-in
Plaintiffs, the Court should deny the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration. Relatedly, they argue that the 2014 arbitration
agreement is unenforceable, even though neither named Plaintiff
signed that agreement so it is not before the Court.
These arguments are built on improper premises, Judge Tuchi holds.
To begin with, the named Plaintiffs -- York and Pearson -- brought
a collective and class action to the Court in direct contravention
of the Arbitration Agreements they signed, which contained express
collective and class action waivers. He will grant the Defendants'
request to strike the class and collective action claims in the
matter.
Even if the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs are somehow properly
before the Court based on the lawsuit of the Plaintiffs who agreed
not to bring a collective action, Judge Tuchi also finds no merit
to the Plaintiffs' argument that the opt-in plaintiffs are now not
compelled to arbitrate because the Defendants did not include them
in their Motion to Compel Arbitration directed at the named
Plaintiffs, York and Pearson. A failure to comply with a valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement may only be premised on a
meritorious defense to the validity or enforceability of the
agreement.
The Defendants ask the Court to stay the matter pending the outcome
of the individual arbitrations of York and Pearson. Under the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 3, the Court is directed
to enter a stay to litigation after compelling arbitration under a
valid arbitration agreement if a party requests such a stay. Judge
Tuchi will thus grant the Defendants' request, but not
indefinitely.
III. Conclusion
Judge Tuchi grants Defendants Dave & Buster's, Inc. and Dave &
Buster's Management Corp.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Strike
Class and Collective Claims, and Stay Proceedings Pending
Plaintiffs' Individual Arbitrations. He compels Plaintiffs York and
Pearson to individual arbitrations under the terms of the
Arbitration Agreements they signed. He strikes the class and
collective claims in the matter.
The matter is stayed for a limited period of time, to be determined
by the parties' progress in engaging in and completing the
arbitration process. The parties will file a joint status report by
Dec. 2, 2022, or within one week of a final arbitration decision,
whichever is sooner.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycf3e5tf from Leagle.com.
DEERE & CO: Deloach Sues Over Equipment Repair Service Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARY DELOACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE), Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02945 (N.D., Il., June 6, 2022) alleges violation
of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint the Defendan's
monopolization of the repair service market for John Deere
("Deere") brand agricultural equipment with onboard central
computers known as engine control units ("ECUs").
The Defendant deliberately monopolized the market for repair and
maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with ECUs
("DRS"). The Defendant made necessary tools and software needed to
perform repairs inaccessible to farmers and independent repair
shops. Furthermore, Defendant's network of highly-consolidated
independent dealerships (the "Dealerships") is not allowed, as
expressly laid out in their agreements with the Defendant, to
provide farmers or repair shops with access to the same software
and repair tools the Dealerships have, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's deliberate excluding of farmers and
independent repair shops from accessing the necessary resources for
repairs, Deere and the Dealerships have cornered the DRS Market in
the United States for agricultural equipment controlled by ECUs
that are Deere branded and have thus derived supra-competitive
profits from the sale of repair and maintenance services, the suit
added.
DEERE & COMPANY manufactures and distributes a range of
agricultural, construction, forestry, and commercial and consumer
equipment. The Company supplies replacement parts for its own
products and for those of other manufacturers. Deere also provides
product and parts financing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan J. O'Connor
WHITESIDE & GOLDBERG, LTD.
155 N. Michigan Ave. - Suite 540
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 334-6875
Facsimile: (800) 334-6034
- and -
William M. Audet, Esq.
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Email: waudet@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
kkessler@audetlaw.com
DIGITAL TURBINE: Robison Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAY ROBISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.; WILLIAM STONE; and
BARRETT GARRISON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00550 (W.D. Tex.,
June 6, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Digital Turbine securities
between August 9, 2021 and May 17, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), the Plaintiff seeking to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's recent
acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber, act as agents in certain of their
respective product lines; (2) that, as a result, revenues for those
product lines must be reported net of license fees and revenue
share, rather than on a gross basis; (3) that the Company's
internal control over financial reporting as to revenue recognition
was deficient; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's net revenues was overstated throughout fiscal 2022; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis, says the
Plaintiff.
On May 17, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release revealing
that it will "restate its financial statements for the interim
periods ended June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31,
2021, following a review of the presentation of revenue net of
license fees and revenue share for the Company's recently acquired
businesses."
On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.93, or 7.1%, to close at
$25.28 per share on May 18, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. delivers a mobile services platform that
works with mobile operators and third-party publishers to provide
portal management, user interface, content development and billing
technology that enables the responsible distribution of mobile
entertainment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
AHMAD ZAVITSANOS & MENSING P.C.
Jordan Warshauer, Esq.
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 665-1101
Facsimile: (713) 665-0062
Email: sford@azalaw.com
jwarshauer@azalaw.com
- and -
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- 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
DISCOVER CONSTRUCTION: Pena Seeks Court-Supervised Notification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL ARNOLDO PENA,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by DISCOVER CONSTRUCTION, LLC and/or any other
entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by DISCOVER
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and JOHNNY SALVADOR, Individually, v. DISCOVER
CONSTRUCTION, LLC and/or any other entities affiliated with,
controlling, or controlled by DISCOVER CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and
JOHNNY SALVADOR, Individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-18462-FLW-RLS
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting
a Court-supervised notification to members of the collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 78.1(b), the Plaintiff requests an oral
argument in the event that this motion is contested, the Plaintiff
adds.
Discovery provides construction service needs from remodels to
additions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aMeLon at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GILE, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; RANDOLPH
GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.), Dolgen applies for leave to file
certain documents in support of its Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification under seal.
Specifically, Dollar General applies for leave to file under seal
certain documents and information that relate(s) to Dollar
General's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and certain
security measures.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mxHxM0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Joel S. Allen, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
jallen@mcguirewoods.com
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Actions Over Mislabeled Smoked Almonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. disclosed in its current Form 10-Q Report as of
April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 26, 2022, that in August 2020 and July 2021, consumer class
actions were filed against the company in New York and Illinois,
respectively, alleging "Smoked Almonds" sold by the company are
mislabeled because the almonds do not go through a smoking process
but rather acquire their smoky taste through the use of smoked
flavoring. Both actions alleged violation of consumer protection
laws, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranties, fraud and
unjust enrichment.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates retail/variety stores and is based
Chesapeake VA.
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suits Over Coffee Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. disclosed in its current Form 10-Q Report as of
April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 26, 2022, that in January, April, and September 2021,
state-wide consumer class actions were filed against the company in
Georgia, Alabama and Florida, respectively, for breach of warranty
based on the allegation that the coffee it sold was mislabeled
because the canisters did not contain enough coffee to make the
number of cups of coffee stated on the label.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates retail/variety stores and is based
Chesapeake VA.
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suits Over Rodent Problem
--------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. disclosed in its current Form 10-Q Report as of
April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 26, 2022, that since February 22, 2022, the company has
received 13 class action complaints primarily related to issues
associated with its regarding rodent infestation at its West
Memphis, Arkansas distribution center.
The lawsuits are in federal court in Mississippi, Virginia,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, and Missouri and allege
violations of the Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee,
Alabama and Missouri consumer protection laws, breach of warranty,
and unjust enrichment related to the sale of products that may be
contaminated by virtue of rodent infestation and other unsanitary
conditions.
Plaintiffs seek damages, attorney fees and costs, punitive damages
and the replacement of, or refund of, money paid to purchase the
relevant products, and any other legal relief available for their
claims. A hearing in late May determined whether these cases should
proceed using the federal court's multidistrict litigation
process.
In March 1, 2022, a federal grand jury subpoena was issued to the
company by the Eastern District of Arkansas requesting the
production of information, documents and records pertaining to
pests, sanitation, compliance with law, and the issues described
above. In April 28, 2022, the State of Arkansas filed a complaint
in state court alleging violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, gross negligence and negligence, strict liability in
tort, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy related to the sale of
products that may have been contaminated by virtue of rodent
infestation and other unsanitary conditions. The State of Arkansas
is seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages,
civil penalties, punitive damages and suspension or revocation of
our authorization to do business in Arkansas.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates retail/variety stores and is based
Chesapeake VA.
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Widner Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS WIDNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE CORPORATION, Case No. 0:20-cv-01671-PJS-JFD (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and seek certification of the class defined below as
follows:
"All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have
attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior of any
store owned or operated by Defendant within Minnesota,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, or, in
the alternative, the operational region encompassing
Defendant's Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa,
and Wisconsin stores, and have experienced, or will
experience, access barrier(s) in interior accessible
routes;"
2. Appointing Travis Widner as class representative; and
3. Appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and
R. Bruce Carlson of Carlson Brown as Class Counsel.
Dunham's is an American sporting goods retail chain owned by
Dunham's Athleisure Corporation, with stores located in the
Midwestern to Southeastern United States. The chain specializes in
athletic equipment, clothing, firearms, and other sports-related
items.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aRnoh6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue Floor 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: elizabeth@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON BROWN
222 Broad St., PO Box 242
Sewickley, PA 15143
Telephone: (724) 730-1753
E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com
- and -
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Cornerstone Building
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Subsidiary Faces Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. disclosed in its current Form 10-Q Report as
of April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 26, 2022, that on August 10, 2021, one of the
company's subsidiaries was named in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging claims on behalf of its non-exempt employees in
California.
The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages, did not provide required meal and rest breaks, did
not timely pay wages during employment and at the time of
termination, provided noncompliant wage statements, failed to
reimburse necessary business expenses, failed to keep requisite
payroll records, and engaged in unfair business practices.
In September 14, 2021, the same plaintiff bringing the putative
class action filed a separate representative action under
California's Private Attorneys General Action (PAGA) seeking civil
penalties relating to the same claims described above. Both
lawsuits are in the very early stages.
Dycom Industries, Inc. is a leading provider of specialty
contracting services that includes program management, planning,
engineering and design, aerial, underground and wireless
construction, maintenance and fulfillment services for
telecommunications providers.
ELDERLY INSTRUMENTS: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Abreu Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIGI ABREU, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ELDERLY
INSTRUMENTS, INC., Case No. Case 1:22-cv-01299-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 15, 2022
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including Oct. 31, 2022
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall
be completed no later than:
-- The next pretrial conference is Sept. 23, 2022
scheduled for:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QdaDxR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Fl
New York, 10281
Telephone: (347) 284-0146
E-mail: mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter T. Shapiro, Esq.
New York, NY 10005
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
Telephone: (212) 232-1322
Facsimile: (212) 232-1399
E-mail: Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com
ENERGY TRANSFER: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for June 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, ET AL., Case No.
2:20-cv-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh
entered an order that oral argument on the Motion to Certify Class
is scheduled for Thursday June 23, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom
9-B of the United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA.
Allegheny County Retirement System is a public pension fund based
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Energy Transfer is a company engaged in natural gas and propane
pipeline transport.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NSu6SE at no extra charge.[CC]
EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY: Discovery in Antitrust Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE
WORKERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 4:21-CV-00196 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania issues a Memorandum Opinion instructing
the parties to proceed with discovery using a narrower definition
of "employee" consistent with the term "Healthcare Workers" as
defined in the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
Introduction
In this antitrust class action suit against Geisinger Health and
Evangelical Community Hospital -- concerning the Defendants'
alleged agreement not to recruit each other's skilled healthcare
workers in central Pennsylvania -- the parties have reached an
impasse over a discovery dispute. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek
documents and data regarding all Geisinger and Evangelical
employees from a specified period. The Defendants object to the
requests as overbroad, arguing that the Plaintiffs' definition of
"employee" impermissibly includes (1) non-healthcare workers who
are not part of the putative class, and (2) workers outside the
relevant market of central Pennsylvania.
II. Background
The Plaintiffs initiated the antitrust class action in February
2021, alleging that Geisinger and Evangelical entered a so-called
"no poach" agreement whereby the two competing health systems,
which dominate the healthcare market in central Pennsylvania,
agreed not to recruit each other's healthcare workers. On March 18,
2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, which includes the following description of the suit:
"This class action challenges an illegal agreement between two
competitors, Geisinger and Evangelical, not to recruit (or poach)
each other's physicians, nurses, psychologists, therapists, and
other healthcare professionals (Healthcare Workers)."
In detailing the contours of the putative class, the Amended
Complaint describes the defined "Healthcare Workers" as individuals
with "specialized training and knowledge, including specialized
schooling, advanced academic degrees, specialized occupational
skills and knowledge, licensing and certification requirements, and
specialized on-the-job training and experience." Further, the
Amended Complaint provides that "the No-Poach Agreement covered
Defendants' Healthcare Workers in a region in central Pennsylvania
that includes Union, Snyder, Northumberland, Montour, Lycoming, and
Columbia counties." Although the Plaintiffs allege that "the
No-Poach Agreement began at least as early as 2010, and may have
existed even earlier," they limited the "Class Period" to "January
2011 through such time as the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct
ceased."
The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in May 2021, which the Court denied in part on Nov. 16,
2021. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs served their Revised First
Set of Requests for Production ("RFPs"), consisting of 44 separate
requests. The parties have been negotiating the scope of production
since January 2022 and agreed on all aspects of the Plaintiffs'
RFPs, save one: the scope of employees on whom the Defendants must
produce relevant documents and data.
The Plaintiffs' RFPs include 24 requests that concern the
Defendants' "Employees," which the Plaintiffs define as follows:
"Any current or former executive, manager, salesperson, secretary,
staff member, messenger, agent, worker, independent contractor, or
other Person who is or was employed by, or did work in exchange for
Compensation, for the responding Defendant during the Relevant
Period."
The Defendants consider this definition impermissibly overbroad, as
it includes workers who are not part of the proposed class and who
are therefore unrelated to the suit.
The parties have worked to resolve this disagreement but without
success. Geisinger and Evangelical provided the Plaintiffs with
comprehensive lists of job titles for all their employees -- which
collectively totaled more than 8,500 positions -- so that the
Plaintiffs could identify which positions fall under the term
"Healthcare Workers" as defined in the Amended Complaint. The
Plaintiffs reviewed the lists and identified approximately 8,100
positions that they believe should be included as "Healthcare
Workers."
The Defendants objected, arguing that the Plaintiffs "included
personnel who are obviously not 'skilled' Healthcare Workers
delivering patient care, such as 'treasury analyst,' 'tax manager,'
'payroll clerk,' 'desktop support specialist,' 'supply chain
contract coordinator,' 'graphic designer,' and 'underwriter.'" They
then refused to make a counterproposal, leaving the parties at the
present impasse.
On May 13, 2022, the parties filed a joint letter requesting a
telephonic discovery conference on the instant discovery dispute.
The Court held the telephonic conference with counsel for the
parties on June 1, 2022, and is now prepared to address the issue.
III. Analysis
The Plaintiffs' requests for discovery concerning all Geisinger and
Evangelical employees substantially exceed the scope of the Amended
Complaint, which focuses exclusively on skilled workers involved in
delivering patient care. Although they acknowledge the dichotomy
between their discovery requests and Amended Complaint, the
Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that they are entitled to this
broader collection of employee information because "the materials
sought are plainly relevant to the Defendants' no-poach
agreement."
The Plaintiffs identify three reasons why they believe information
on all Geisinger and Evangelical employees is relevant to the case.
First, they assert "there is reason to believe that the illicit
agreement between the Defendants may have extended beyond hiring
and recruitment for healthcare workers. Second, they argue that
"even if the Defendants' no-poach agreement targeted healthcare
workers only, no-poach agreements between horizontal competitors
for labor are nonetheless well-understood to have widespread
effects both across groups of employees as well as firm-wide."
Third, the Plaintiffs contend that compensation data "for
unaffected employees, if there are any, can serve as a benchmark
(when appropriate) to measure harm to the affected employees."
Judge Brann agrees with the Defendants. First, he holds that the
Plaintiffs should again amend their Complaint and provide
allegations that support a broader class definition. They cannot,
however, submit discovery requests beyond the present claims of the
action in hopes that the material produced will allow them to
subsequently expand the scope of the litigation. Courts routinely
reject such "fishing expeditions" as beyond the scope of
permissible discovery.
Second, as with the Plaintiffs' first relevance rationale, the
Plaintiffs' second argument undermines their position by affirming
the invalidity of their overly broad discovery requests. Third, the
data the Defendants have agreed to produce (concerning the relevant
employees, but prior to the alleged agreement) will provide a more
applicable benchmark than data concerning unrelated employees. If
the Plaintiffs believe they mistakenly defined the class period too
narrowly, that is an issue that must be addressed at the pleadings
stage; they cannot now use discovery to broaden the scope of the
suit beyond the class definition and class period provided in the
Amended Complaint.
IV. Conclusion
For purposes of discovery, the Plaintiffs are limited by the
allegations in the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs construed the
case as concerning skilled healthcare workers involved in
delivering patient care. Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs
seek discovery on Geisinger and Evangelical employees, they are
limited to documents and data related to those skilled healthcare
workers.
An appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bd5er68y from Leagle.com.
EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY: Objections to RFPs in Antitrust Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE
WORKERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 4:21-CV-00196 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Matthew B. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania sustains the Defendants' objections to the
Plaintiffs' Revised First Set of Requests for Production (RFPs)
concerning the Plaintiffs' definition of the term Employees, in
accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion.
The parties will identify the job categories that fall within the
definition of Healthcare Workers as used in the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint -- that is, skilled workers involved in delivering
patient care.
The Defendants will produce nonprivileged documents and data
concerning the defined Healthcare Workers responsive to the
Plaintiffs' RFPs, subject to the parties' agreement on and
resolution of the Defendants' outstanding objections.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3mfu5d from Leagle.com.
EYM PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Automobile Expenses, Turner Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TANIKA TURNER, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. EYM PIZZA OF ILLINOIS, LLC and
EDUARDO DIAZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02948 (N.D. Ill., June
6, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
August 2017 to August 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Pizza Hut store located in Chicago, IL.
According to the complaint, the Defendant required its delivery
drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured
automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers have incurred
automobile expenses while delivering pizza for the benefits of the
Defendants. However, because the Defendant employed a flawed
reimbursement policy which reimburses its delivery drivers below
the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses, the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net
wages diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover compensatory damages, liquidated damages, litigation costs
and attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.
EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC operates numerous Pizza Hut franchise
stores owned and directed by Eduardo Diaz. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N Saint Paul St., 700
Dallas, TX 75201-6843
Tel: (214) 201-7493
Fax: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: mccmat2000@yahoo.com
FAMILY FIRST: Faces Suit Over Non-Compete, Non-Disclosure Clauses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG BIRCH and DAVID DOEHRING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC;
and SHAWN MEAIKE, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00815-MMA-NLS (S.D.
Cal., June 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendants' onerous
non-compete and non-disclosure clauses that eliminates an agent's
ability to transfer his book of business elsewhere.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs enrolled with the
Defendants as insurance agents. The Plaintiffs enrolled with the
Defendants and continued to do business with the company based on
its representation that it did not require a contract and that the
Plaintiffs were able to come and go to another "Insurance Marketing
Organization" ("IMO") without any restriction. These
representations were made by the Defendants on its website on
YouTube videos at the time the Plaintiffs enrolled with the company
and throughout their tenure with the Defendants, says the suit.
Relying on these representations, the Plaintiffs entered into
contracts with their preferred carriers and proceeded to build a
successful downline organization and book of business. At all times
the Plaintiffs were under the belief that if they chose to leave to
another IMO, the Defendants would sign a Release, thereby allowing
the Plaintiffs to transfer their preferred carriers to a different
IMO. However, the reality is that when an agent decides to move to
another IMO, the Defendants restrains the agent by refusing to sign
the Release and instead forces the departing agent to sign a
contract before any Release can be obtained (the "Restricting
Contract"). Worse, the Restricting Contract includes onerous
non-compete and non-disclosure clauses that eliminates an agent's
ability to transfer his book of business elsewhere, the suit
added.
The Defendants' alleged false representations that its agents are
free to leave for another IMO without restriction has caused
significant damage to departing agents.
FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC specialize in mortgage protection life
insurance, final expense life insurance, retirement planning
through universal life policies and retirement protection through
the use of fixed index annuities. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott W. Wellman, Esq.
Chris A. Wellman, Esq.
WELLMAN & WARREN LLP
24411 Ridge Route, Suite 200
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Telephone: (949) 580-3737
Facsimile: (949) 580-3738
Email: swellman@w-wlaw.com
cwellman@w-wlaw.com
FCA US: Reply in Support of Class Status Bid Extended to July 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nuwer, et al., v. FCA US
LLC, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-60432 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Raag Singhal entered an order granting motion for extension of time
to file reply in support of motion for class certification:
-- Reply is due by: July 28, 2022
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Sells Car with Spontaneous Fire Defect, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA STAHLMAN, JEREMY SESSLER, and RONALD SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
4:22-cv-11244-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 7, 2022) alleges that Ford
breached fundamental duties by selling Ford Expeditions and Lincoln
Navigators that were dangerously defective and prone to catching
fire, including while driving, while parked but on, and while
parked and off.
According to the complaint, Model year 2021 Ford Expedition and
Lincoln Navigator sport utility vehicles (the "Fire Defect
Vehicles") contain a defect in the engine compartment that can
cause spontaneous fire while driving, while parked but on, and
while parked and off (the "Spontaneous Fire Defect". The
Spontaneous Fire Defect exposes putative class members to an
unreasonable risk of accident, injury, death, or property damage if
their vehicle catches fire while in operation or, perhaps more
commonly, spontaneously ignites while the vehicle is parked at the
class member’s home, on a public street, or in a public parking
lot. The Spontaneous Fire Defect also exposes passengers, other
drivers on the road, neighbors, owners of other cars parked near
the Fire Defect Vehicles, and other bystanders to an unreasonable
risk of accident, injury, death, and property damage, says the
suit.
The catastrophic fire risk is the direct result of a defect that
was known or should have been known to Ford and is still unremedied
by Ford. Not only did Ford fail to disclose the Spontaneous Fire
Defect to consumers both before and after their purchases of the
premium-priced model year 2021 Ford Expeditions and Lincoln
Navigators, but it also misrepresented the vehicles' safety,
reliability, functionality, and quality by this omission. Ford also
omitted the consequences, including the serious safety hazards and
monetary harm caused by the Spontaneous Fire Defect -- e.g., damage
to a home and injury or death to persons inhabiting that home
should the Fire Defect Vehicle spontaneously ignite while the
vehicle is parked adjacent to the house or in an attached garage,
the suit added.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action to redress Ford's
misconduct. Plaintiffs seek damages and a repair under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, state consumer protection acts, state
implied warranty acts, and unjust enrichment at common law.
Plaintiff and proposed class representative Jessica Stahlman is a
resident and citizen of Mount Dora, Florida. The Plaintiff
purchased a 2021 Ford Expedition in March 2021 from Mullinax Ford
in Apopka, Florida. The Plaintiff's Ford Expedition is a Fire
Defect Vehicle equipped with the Spontaneous Fire Defect. The
Plaintiff and her husband purchased this vehicle through their
jointly owned and managed dry-cleaning company.
Ford is a motor vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of
new, previously untitled Ford and Lincoln brand motor vehicles.
Lincoln is Ford's luxury automobile brand. Ford engages in commerce
by distributing and selling new and used passenger cars and motor
vehicles under its Ford and Lincoln brands.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Rachel E. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
toml@hbsslaw.com
rachelf@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
FRANK BAHAR: Salazar Sues Over Superintendents' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANK BAHAR REAL ESTATE CORP and FRANK
BAHAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03232 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2022)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants
for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and for violations of the New York Labor Law including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Salazar was employed by Defendants at Frank Bahar Real
Estate Corp. from approximately February 2009 until December 20,
2021. He was employed as a superintendent at nine apartment
buildings in Forest Hills, Queens, New York that Defendants owned.
Frank Bahar Real Estate Corp. operates at least nine apartment
buildings as a joint or unified enterprise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
FREIGHT ONE: Peterson Sues Over Unfair Payment of Equipment Leases
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETERSON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. and RAYNER TRANS LLC,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FREIGHT
ONE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02962 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2022) is a
complaint against Freight One alleging claims under the Truth in
Leasing Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and the Illinois common law of fraud and contract.
The Plaintiffs bring their claims as a putative class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs allege that Freight One violated the TILA by paying
them significantly less than their equipment leases required for
each load that they transported. Freight One promised to pay them a
certain percentage of the price of each load, but it lied to them
about that price, so it could pay them less than their leases
required. Freight One also violated TILA by deducting certain
chargebacks from their and other owner-operators' pay without
disclosing those deductions in the owner-operators' equipment
lease, and by not paying interest on owner-operators' escrow
deductions, the Plaintiffs say.
Certain Freight One drivers, called "owner-operator" drivers, used
their own semi-tractors to perform their work. Freight One agreed
to pay owner-operator drivers a certain percentage of gross revenue
for each load.
From March 2021 until April 2022, Rayner Trans performed line haul
work for Freight One across several states. Rayner Trans worked for
Freight One as an owner-operator for purposes of the TILA
regulations.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of the following classes of others similarly situated
individuals or entities:
-- TILA Class
"All individuals or entities that signed equipment leases
with
Freight One between June 7, 2018 and June 7, 2022."
Breach of Contract Class
"All individuals or entities that signed equipment leases
with Freight One between June 7, 2012 and June 7, 2022."
-- Fraud Class
"All individuals or entities that signed equipment leases
with
Freight One between June 7, 2019 and June 7, 2022."
-- ICFA Class
"All individuals or entities that signed equipment leases
with
Freight One between June 7, 2017 and June 7, 2022."
Peterson Transportation Services, Inc. is a licensed and bonded
freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling
business from Ocala, Florida.
Freight One, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Burr Ridge ,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 580-0100
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FullBeauty Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. FullBeauty Brands, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04635-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FullBeauty Brands -- http://www.fbbrands.com/-- is an American
holding company based in New York City, featuring online and
catalog retail brands for plus size women’s apparel, big & tall
men’s apparel, and home goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
G. SKILL: Hurd Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTAN HURD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. G. SKILL
INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., AND G. SKILL USA, INC., Case
No. 2:22-cv-00685-SVW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying the case as a class action.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide breach of warranty
class and a California subclass for his consumer protection claims
(UCL, FAL, and CLRA) and his negligent misrepresentation claim.
G. Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company.
The company's target customers are overclocking computer users.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tpy519
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
- and -
Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998
Telephone: (512) 420-8407
E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
G.I. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avalos Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE AVALOS; ARMANDO SOTO; JESUS OROZCO; HECTOR GARCIA; GERARDO
ZENDEJAS; and JAIME GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. G.I. INDUSTRIES, dba WASTE
MANAGEMENT; WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.; WM RESOURCES, INC., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03842 (C.D. Cal.,
June 4, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.
G I INDUSTRIES INC. was founded in 1996. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of equipment and
supplies for personal service establishments. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kathleen A. Brewer, Esq.
BREWER LAW OFFICE
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805)719-2731
Facsimile: (805)980-5789
Email: kab@brewerlawoffice.com
- and -
Timothy B. Sottile, Esq.
Michael F. Baltaxe, Esq.
Nicole C. Burgos Romero, Esq.
Charles Casado, Esq.
SOTTILE BALTAXE
28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 889-0050
Facsimile: (818) 889-6050
Email: TSottile@SottileBaltaxe.com
MBaltaxe@SottileBaltaxe.com
nburgos@SottileBaltaxe.com
ccasado@SottileBaltaxe.com
GEICO CASUALTY: Parties Stipulate Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA DAY, v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-02103-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate and agree that the Court enter an order setting
the deadlines as follows:
-- The Defendants' deadline to August 10, 2022
file response:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline September 15, 2022
to file reply:
GEICO operates as an insurance company.
A copy of Parties' motion dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MGXN82 at no extra charge.
[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Morgan, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
E-mail: morgan@nka.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Damon N. Vocke, Esq.
Ronald M. Lepinskas, Esq.
Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036-4086
Telephone: (212) 692-1000
E-mail: dnvocke@duanemorris.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Sept. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McMillan v. Genworth Life
and Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00091 (D. Or.), the
Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to file class certification:
-- The Motion to be filed by Sept. 27, 2022.
-- Response is due by Dec. 5, 2022.
-- Reply is due by Feb. 6, 2023
The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance.
Genworth is a stock life insurance company.[CC]
GREAT LAKES: Bardsley's Appeal From Denial of Cert. Bid Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DINA BARDSLEY AND MICHAEL BARDSLEY, HER HUSBAND,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GREAT LAKES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
AND INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS RECYCLING, LLC, Defendants-Respondents,
(Appeal No. 1.), 295 CA 21-00115 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department,
unanimously dismissed without costs the Plaintiffs' appeal.
The appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County
(Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered Jan. 19, 2021. The order denied
the motion of the Plaintiffs for class certification.
The Plaintiffs commenced the action, individually and on behalf of
purported classes of similarly situated Plaintiffs seeking damages
from a multi-day warehouse fire caused by the Defendants' alleged
negligence. In appeal No. 1, the Plaintiffs appeal from an order
denying their motion for, among other things, class certification.
Following entry of that order, Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs
leave to reargue their motion and, upon reargument, adhered to its
earlier determination denying their motion for class certification
in its entirety. In appeal No. 2, the Plaintiffs appeal from that
subsequent order insofar as it "denied class certification relative
to the personal injury claims."
Initially, the Appellate Division concludes that appeal No. 1
should be dismissed inasmuch as the order in appeal No. 2
superceded the order in appeal No. 1.
In appeal No. 2, the Plaintiffs contend that the court erred in
denying their motion insofar as it sought class certification of a
personal injury subclass.
The Appellate Division rejects that contention. It finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to establish a "predominance of common questions
over individual questions." The Plaintiffs allege that members of
the personal injury subclass suffered a variety of medical ailments
as a result of the multi-day warehouse fire, including brain
cancer, asthma, and osteoarthritis. Thus, although there may be
common questions with respect to defendants' negligence, a
determination of whether such negligence caused the injuries
alleged with respect to each Plaintiff will require detailed
individualized assessments of each Plaintiff's medical history,
including preexisting conditions. The necessity of conducting such
individual inquiries would become the predominant focus of the
litigation, rendering the litigation extremely difficult if not
impossible to manage. In light of that conclusion, the Plaintiffs'
remaining contentions regarding the personal injury subclass are
academic.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs limited their appeal by the terms of the
notice of appeal to the court's denial of the motion with respect
to class certification of only the personal injury subclass, the
Appellate Division finds that the Plaintiffs have waived their
right to appeal the court's order insofar as it denied the motion
with respect to certification of the property damage subclass.
Further, by failing to address the alleged medical monitoring
subclass in their brief, the Plaintiffs have abandoned any
contention that the court erred in denying the motion with respect
to certification of that subclass.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/24r74kd9 from Leagle.com.
VINAL & VINAL, P.C., BUFFALO (JEANNE M. VINAL -- vinalsesq@aol.com
-- OF COUNSEL), FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
NIXON PEABODY LLP, ROCHESTER (ZACHARY C. OSINSKI --
zosinski@nixonpeabody.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
GREAT LAKES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (MEGHAN M. BROWN --
mbrown@goldbergsegalla.com -- OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS RECYCLING, LLC.
GREEN DRAGON: Snodgrass Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Dragon
Caregivers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Laura Snodgrass,
individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v.
Green Dragon Caregivers, Inc., Green Dragon Collective, Love Shack
by Green Dragon, Manuel Semerdjian, Case No. CGC22599996 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 3, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Green Dragon -- https://www.greendragoncoop.com/ -- is a cannabis
dispensary located in the North Hollywood, California area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Ottinger, Esq.
OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
535 Mission St 14th Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-508-7786
Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com
HAIER US: S.D. Illinois Dismisses Slafter Class Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN SLAFTER, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. HAIER US APPLIANCE
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
21-CV-01326-SPM (S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen M. McGlynn of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants Haier's
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Slafter filed a proposed class action Complaint alleging
that an air conditioning unit that Defendant Haier manufactured
through subsidiary General Electric Appliances was defective in its
design. Pending before the Court is Haier's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint. Slafter filed a response to the Motion and Haier
replied.
II. Background
Around May 1, 2020, Slafter purchased a GE Appliances window
unit-style air conditioner from a local Walmart store. Before the
purchase, Haier acquired GE Appliances from General Electric Co.
The box containing the air conditioner stated that it would
regulate temperature both through the control panel on the unit as
well as by the included remote control, turn on and off as needed,
provide 6,000 BTUs of cooling power, and function with several
different modes. Slafter "reasonably relied on Haier's
representations and warranties that its products would function as
warranted." A few months after Slafter's purchase, he observed that
the unit failed to regulate temperature, the unit would turn on and
off without any input, and he could not control the unit.
Mr. Slafter complained that "each of the Defendant's Defective Air
Conditioning models contains a common design defect that causes the
circuit board to malfunction." "On information and belief, one
reason the circuit boards are susceptible to malfunction is because
they lack a protective coating to guard against moisture and
temperature changes caused by the operation of the air
conditioners." Also "on information and belief," the units either
lack an industry-standard protective coating, which Slafter calls a
"conformal coating," or the coating is inadequately applied,
causing the malfunctions.
Haier knew or should have known that "units with circuit boards
that are susceptible to malfunction would result in a high
frequency of unit failure" and that the units had a "latent defect"
because of bad reviews on its website and other websites. It failed
to disclose the circuit board defect and, had it done so, Slafter
would not have purchased the unit or would not have paid so much
for it. The defect made the unit unfit for its ordinary purpose,
which deprived Slafter of the benefit of the bargain, and also
constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices. Haier provided a
limited one-year warranty to replace and repair any part of the
unit that failed due to a defect, but replacement with the same
defective component would leave Slafter in the same position he was
in before with a defective unit.
Mr. Slafter claimed that Haier engaged in unfair and deceptive
business practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"); breached the implied
warranty of merchantability; and was unjustly enriched.
Haier moved for dismissal on the ICFA claims because the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) pleading standard does not support
facts Slafter pleaded "on information and belief," an express
contract controls the parties' relationship, and Slafter failed to
allege the correct ICFA elements. Haier also asserted the breach of
implied warranty claim did not meet the actual knowledge and
privity requirements and should be dismissed. Haier additionally
posited that Slafter's unjust enrichment claim was tied to his ICFA
claim and should be dismissed.
III. Discussion
A. ICFA Claim (Count I)
Haier moved to dismiss Slafter's ICFA claim on the basis that it
failed to state a claim with particularity as required by Rule
9(b). Slafter refuted the assertion, stating that the complaint
meets the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), while also
claiming that it properly pleaded an unfair practices claim, which
is not subject to the heightened pleading standard. Haier also
asserted that the contractual breach exception defeated Slafter's
ICFA claim and Slafter failed to allege the elements of an ICFA
claim.
Mr. Slafter's ICFA claim centers on the allegation that Haier
failed to disclose that that several air conditioner models
contained a latent defect. Slafter pleaded specifics about the
alleged defect, which are integral to the deceptive practices
claim, "on information and belief."
Judge McGlynn finds that Slafter's ICFA claim does not satisfy the
particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). While the "on information
and belief" pleading rule is not hard and fast, an exception does
not apply here because the facts constituting the alleged defect at
the center of the deception are, with a bit of work, accessible to
Slafter and he did not provide any grounds to substantiate his
suspicion about the alleged defect. Slafter also failed in his
attempt to frame a deceptive practices act claim as an unfair
practices claim to avoid Rule 9(b). Unfairness language does not
change an ICFA claim that is completely grounded in fraud to an
unfairness claim. Moreover, Slafter did not allege more than
Haier's mere failure to fulfill its contractual obligation to him.
Finally, Slafter failed to allege any direct statements from Haier
that contained material omissions.
Accordingly, relief is foreclosed and Slafter's claim under ICFA is
dismissed with prejudice.
B. Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claim (Count II)
Haier moved to dismiss based on its lack of pre-suit notice from
Slafter of the alleged breach. Slafter claimed Haier had actual
knowledge of the defect. He highlighted bad reviews of different GE
Appliances units as a result of the alleged defect, but no
allegation suggests that Haier had knowledge of the alleged defect
with the unit Slafter purchased and generalized knowledge does not
suffice. Moreover, even if the Court were to find pre-suit notice
(or an exception to it) was established, Slafter has failed to
establish privity. Contractual privity does not exist between a
manufacturer and a person who buys from an independent dealer.
Consequently, relief is foreclosed and Slafter's claim under the
implied warranty of merchantability is dismissed with prejudice.
C. Unjust Enrichment (Count III)
Haier moved to dismiss on the ground that Slafter's equitable claim
of unjust enrichment because it is based on the same allegations as
his inadequate ICFA claim. Slafter argued that the claim is
correctly brought in the alternative. "If an unjust enrichment
claim rests on the same improper conduct alleged in another claim,
then the unjust enrichment claim will be tied to this related
claim--and, of course, unjust enrichment will stand or fall with
the related claim." Slafter admitted that his unjust enrichment
claim is brought based on the same underlying conduct as his ICFA
claim. His claims have been dismissed and he has not alleged an
independent basis for the Court to consider.
As a result, relief is foreclosed and Slafter's claim under unjust
enrichment is dismissed with prejudice.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge McGlynn grants Haier's Motion
to Dismiss and dismisses Slafter's Complaint with prejudice. He
directs the Clerk of Court to close the case on the Court's
docket.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2a4pzsa8 from Leagle.com.
HCA HEALTHCARE: Brevard City Sues Over Health Care Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF BREVARD, NORTH CAROLINA, individually and on behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCA
HEALTHCARE, INC.; HCA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; HCA, INC.; MH MASTER
HOLDINGS, LLLP; MH HOSPITAL MANAGER, LLC; MH MISSION HOSPITAL,
LLLP; ANC HEALTHCARE, INC. f/k/a MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; and
MISSION HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00114
(W.D.N.C., June 3, 2022) is class action against the Defendants for
unlawful restraint of trade and monopolization, seeking damages
under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have injured the
Plaintiff and members of the Class through an anticompetitive
scheme (the "Scheme") involving the illegal maintenance and
enhancement of monopoly power in two health care services markets
(the "Relevant Services Markets"): (1) the market for inpatient
general acute care ("GAC") in hospitals ("GAC Market"), consisting
of a broad group of medical and surgical diagnostic and treatment
services that include overnight hospital stays ("GAC Services");
and (2) the market for outpatient care ("Outpatient Market"),
encompassing all the medical services that are not GAC Services
("Outpatient Services").
The Defendants dominate the Relevant Services Markets in at least
two geographic areas (the "Relevant Geographic Markets"): (1) the
"Asheville Region," consisting of Buncombe and Madison Counties;
and (2) the "Outlying Region," consisting of Macon, McDowell,
Mitchell, Transylvania, and Yancey Counties, or in the alternative
with respect to Outlying Region, (3) each of the separate counties
in the Outlying Region. Together, the Relevant Services Markets and
the Relevant Geographic Markets are, collectively, the "Relevant
Markets," says the suit.
By preventing health plans that must offer access to HCA's GAC
Services in the Asheville Region from contracting with, or steering
patients to, HCA's actual or potential competitors in the Relevant
Markets, Defendants' Scheme substantially forecloses competition in
all of the Relevant Markets. The abilities to (a) assemble
different combinations of in-network providers, including a mix of
HCA and non-HCA providers, and/or (b) use incentives to steer
patients to less expensive or higher quality alternatives are
essential ways that health plans endeavor to promote competition
among health care providers and thus control health care costs and
ultimately prices to health plans. By substantially foreclosing
these avenues of promoting competition, HCA has maintained and
bolstered its monopoly power in the Relevant Markets, causing
anticompetitive effects including higher health care prices and
lower quality health care, the suit added.
HCA HEALTHCARE, INC. offers health care services. The Hospital
provides diagnosis, treatments, consultancy, nursing, surgeries,
and other services, as well as medical education, physician
resource center, and training programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Esq.
Fred Berry, Esq.
John F. Bloss, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 North Elm Street, Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
Email: rnhunter@greensborolaw.com
fberry@greesnborolaw.com
jbloss@greensborolaw.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Email: ecramer@bm.net
jpolakoff@bm.net
- and -
Robert E. Litan, Esq.
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
Email: rlitan@bm.net
dwalker@bm.net
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Cotiviti Loses Bid to Dismiss Walker's Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER, Plaintiff v. HIGHMARK BCBSD
HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-CV-01975-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denies
Defendant Cotiviti, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Christopher
James Walker's Second Amended Complaint.
I. Background
On Nov. 30, 2020, Mr. Walker filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Highmark in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Mr. Walker claims that, without his consent,
Defendant Highmark placed robocalls to his cell phone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Section 227, et
seq. (TCPA)). On Dec. 21, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331
and 1441, Highmark timely removed the case to federal court in the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
After removal, Mr. Walker amended the complaint twice; the
operative Second Amended Complaint added Defendant Cotiviti, which
is a Delaware Corporation with headquarters in Utah. Cotiviti now
moves to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
and 12(b)(3), claiming that the Court cannot exercise personal
jurisdiction over Cotiviti and that venue in the Western District
of Pennsylvania is improper.
II. Discussion
A. Cotiviti Assumed Eliza's Liabilities
Cotiviti attempts to avoid personal jurisdiction by asserting that
it did not contract with Highmark to conduct the automated
telemarketing, nor did it make the robotic phone calls to Mr.
Walker from March 28, 2020, through Dec. 4, 2020, as alleged;
therefore, Cotiviti contends, it cannot be held liable for the
alleged TCPA violation. Neither side disputes that Eliza Corp.,
which maintained a call center located in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, was engaged by Highmark to make the calls at issue.
But, Mr. Walker argues that Cotiviti, by its acquisition of Eliza,
assumed its business operations, and therefore, its liabilities.
Having reviewed the record, and, in particular, based on Cotiviti's
repeated characterizations of its acquisition of Eliza as a
"merger" and that it took on the contract under which the calls at
issue were made, Judge Wiegand concludes that Eliza's
jurisdictional contacts may be imputed to Cotiviti as Eliza's
successor. As Mr. Walker points out in his opposition to Cotiviti's
Motion, "while Defendant Cotiviti does not provide extensive
details regarding the nature of the transaction through which Eliza
became part of Cotiviti, it repeatedly refers to it as a merger."
Indeed, Cotiviti's evidence concedes that Cotiviti took on the
contract between Eliza and Highmark under which the allegedly
unlawful calls were made. Notably, Cotiviti does not address the
issue of successor jurisdiction in either its opening brief or its
reply.
B. Rule 12(b)(2) - The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over
Cotiviti
Judge Wiegand first addresses whether the Court has specific
persona jurisdiction over Cotiviti. Because she concludes that it
does, she need not reach the issue of general personal
jurisdiction.
Having determined that Cotiviti, as Eliza's successor-via-merger,
took on Eliza's jurisdictional contacts, Judge Wiegand concludes
that Cotiviti has sufficient case-specific contacts with
Pennsylvania for the Court to exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over it. That is, it is undisputed that at least some
of the calls at issue here originated from the Bethlehem, PA, call
center and that Eliza (now Cotiviti) purposefully availed itself of
Pennsylvania by making the contracted calls that are at issue in
this litigation. In addition to making the calls, Eliza (now
Cotiviti) contracted with Highmark, took direction from Highmark to
perform the automated calls, and presumably was compensated for its
work by Highmark.
Given Eliza's contacts with Pennsylvania -- which may be imputed to
Cotiviti as a result of the merger -- including its relationship
with the other defendant in the case, Highmark, Judge Wiegand
further concludes that exercising jurisdiction "comports with fair
play and substantial justice." That is, resolving Mr. Walker's
claims in Pennsylvania (1) will not impose an undue burden on
Cotiviti (nor does Cotiviti contend that it would); (2) is in
accordance with Pennsylvania's interest in cases involving
allegedly unlawful activity emanating from within the Commonwealth;
and (3) comports with Mr. Walker's interest in efficient resolution
of his claims, given his choice of forum.
As such, to the extent Cotiviti seeks dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction, its Motion will be denied.
C. Rule 12(b)(3) - Venue is Proper in the Western District of
Pennsylvania
Alternatively, Cotiviti seeks dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1406(a), asserting that the Western District of
Pennsylvania is an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391. Mr.
Walker, in opposition, contends that venue in a case removed from
state court is properly reviewed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a),
but, even if Section 1391 is the correct lens through which to
analyze venue in this case, venue is proper under Section
1391(b)(2) because "a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred" in this district.
Judge Wiegand finds that the case was removed from state court. As
such, venue is properly assessed under Section 1441(a), not 1391.
And, as noted , Section 1441(a) provides that venue in cases
removed from State court is properly laid in the "district and
division embracing the place where the state court action is
pending." Mr. Walker originally filed the case in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; therefore, venue is
proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Finally, while
Section 1441 does not cover the transfer of cases between districts
thus making it possible that a case removed to the correct district
under Section 1441 could be transferred to another district
pursuant to Section 1404, Cotiviti has sought only dismissal, not
transfer.
Because venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania
under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), Judge Wiegan will deny Cotiviti's Motion
to the extent it seeks dismissal under Section 1406.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Cotiviti's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Cotiviti will respond to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
by June 15, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2d8uu2av from
Leagle.com.
HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Bid for Protective Order in Tom Suit Allowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAI MAN TOM, Plaintiff v. HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC
doing business as Umstead Hotel and Spa; SAS INSTITUTE, INC.; NC
CULINARY VENTURES LLC, doing business as An Asian Cuisine,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-98-FL (E.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge
Robert B. Jones, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, issued an order:
a. denying the Plaintiff's motion to compel and for an award
of sanctions;
b. allowing the Defendants' motion for a protective order; and
c. allowing in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
and corrected emergency motion to extend time to complete
discovery.
I. Background
The case is a purported class action case regarding claims that the
Defendants failed to pay adequate wages and overtime compensation
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").
On Feb. 22, 2021, the Court filed an Amended Case Management Order
("AMCO"), governing Phase II discovery and setting other case
deadlines. According to the AMCO, "all discovery" was to be
completed by March 29, 2022, and "factual discovery, as opposed to
expert discovery" was to be completed by Nov. 30, 2021. The parties
subsequently filed a motion to extend time to complete fact
discovery, which the Court granted on Oct. 7, 2021, stating, "the
parties will have through and including Dec. 30, 2021, in which to
complete fact discovery in the matter."
On Dec. 17, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for extension of
time seeking a 21-day extension of the fact discovery period,
through and including, Jan. 20, 2022. The Plaintiff opposed the
motion. The Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion and
instructed the parties to file a proposed consent order
memorializing agreed upon deadlines, if any, by Jan. 18, 2022. In
response to the Court's order, the parties filed a joint motion
setting out points of agreement and disagreement. The Court issued
an order on Jan. 19, 2022, granting the Defendants' motion in
part.
In its order, the Court allowed the Defendants to take the
deposition of three individuals, no later than Feb. 2, 2022. There
were no other extensions of fact discovery; rather, the Court
addressed other case management deadlines -- disclosures and
reports from retained experts from the Plaintiff by March 15, 2022
and from the Defendants by April 15, 2022; disclosures and reports
from rebuttal experts by April 29, 2020; and all potentially
dispositive motions filed by June 3, 2022.
In its order, the Court stated that "all discovery will be
commenced or served in time to be completed by May 13, 2022," and
included a footnote stating that "although the parties did not
propose a new deadline for completion of all discovery, the Court
has imposed a new deadline based upon the parties' proposed
deadlines for expert rebuttal reports and dispositive motions." The
Court left in abeyance its ruling on the Plaintiff's need to
respond to outstanding written discovery served on absent Rule 23
class members, directing parties to brief the issue.
On March 4, 2022, the Plaintiff served notices of deposition for
four fact witnesses -- Debbie Dewar (in-house legal counsel for SAS
Institute, Inc. ("SAS")), Susanna K. Gibbons (counsel for the
Defendants), Donald Parker (Chief Financial Officer of SAS), and
Christopher Byron (head of SAS Tax Department). The Defendants have
objected to producing these witnesses for deposition on the basis
of privilege and untimeliness.
On March 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his motion to compel. On
April 1, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for protective order.
On April 4, 2022, Judge Jones held a telephonic status conference
with the counsel and instructed the parties to complete briefing on
the cross-motions, which the parties did on April 8, 2022.
On April 28, 2022, the Court entered a text order in response to
the Plaintiff's emergency motion to extend the rebuttal expert
deadline. It granted a one-week extension of the rebuttal expert
deadline, as the Defendants indicated they consented to the
extension of the rebuttal expert deadline on the condition that the
expert discovery deadline be extended two weeks. The Court thus
also allowed the expert discovery deadline to be extended one week,
to May 20, 2022. In its most recent order, the Court stayed the
June 3, 2022 dispositive motions deadline, and referred to Judge
Jones the Defendants' motion and corrected emergency motion to
extend time for discovery and the filing of dispositive motions.
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel & Defendants' Motion for Protective
Order
The Plaintiff seeks a motion to compel the Defendants to supplement
prior document productions with unredacted documents and make
available corporate officials and outside counsel for deposition.
The Plaintiff also seeks an award of sanctions against the
Defendants. The Defendants have responded in opposition, contending
that the depositions are untimely and improper, the Plaintiff's
motion is untimely, the attorney-client privilege precludes the
depositions, and the Defendants will not rely on the advice of
their attorneys to support their good faith defense.
The Defendants additionally filed a motion for protective order,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c) and 26(c), to prevent the
requested depositions. They argue that the Plaintiff has no
justification to require the Defendants to produce their attorneys
for deposition, and that fact discovery ended on Dec. 30, 2021,
months before the notices of deposition were served. The Plaintiff
contends the Defendants have failed to show the need for a
protective order, that attorneys may be required to testify as fact
witnesses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the
Plaintiff timely served all notices of deposition, consistent with
the Court's AMCO and subsequent orders.
Judge Jones finds that the Court's April 28 and May 13, 2022 orders
state that the "expert discovery" deadline is extended until May
20. Thus, he concludes that fact discovery closed on December 30,
and the Plaintiff's deposition notices and motion were, therefore,
untimely. Further, allowing the depositions and fact discovery will
likely prejudice Defendants and further delay proceedings in the
case. The Plaintiff's request to compel the Defendants to
supplement their prior document productions with unredacted
documents is likewise untimely. The Defendants responded to the
Plaintiff's First RFPs on Nov. 29, 2017, and responded to and
served responsive documents to the Plaintiff's Second RFPs on
November 5 and November 22 of 2021. There is no justification for
the Plaintiff's delay in moving to compel the production of
unredacted documents. Thus, the Plaintiff's motion is denied as
untimely.
B. Defendants' Emergency Motion to Extend Deadlines
The Defendants move to extend the deadlines to complete expert
discovery to June 3, 2022 and to file all potentially dispositive
motions to July 20, 2022. They contend there is a dispute over
whether the Defendants are entitled to take the deposition of the
Plaintiffs' expert witness that justifies extension of the May 20,
2022 expert discovery deadline, and the Absent Class Member
discovery deadline of June 20, 2022 falls after the motions
deadline of June 3, 3022, such that the motions deadline should be
extended to July 20, 2022. Additionally, the Defendants ask the
Court to refer the case for court-hosted settlement conference to
occur prior to the new motions deadline but no later June 30,
2022.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conclusory assertions
and lack of analysis as to the Defendants' efforts to complete
discovery within the established deadlines fail to demonstrate good
cause to extend case deadlines. The Plaintiff also takes issue with
the Defendants' assertion that there was a disagreement on whether
the Defendants were entitled to depose the Plaintiff's expert.
According to the Plaintiff, the parties cooperatively scheduled the
expert's deposition for May 6 and 10, 2022, but the Defendants
unilaterally cancelled the deposition twice, over the objection of
the Plaintiff, and made no effort to re-notice the deposition,
despite Plaintiff's counsel providing alternative dates.
The Plaintiff alternatively proposes that the court extend all case
deadlines to allow the parties to participate in a court-hosted
settlement conference and, should the case not settle, the
Defendants will produce the documents sought in the Plaintiff's
motion to compel, the Plaintiff will take the depositions of the
four fact witnesses sought in the motion to compel, the Defendants
will depose Plaintiff's expert, and the Plaintiff will respond to
the Absent Class Member discovery.
Judge Bloom holds that the Defendants offer little support for
their request to extend the expert discovery deadline. The
Defendants in their motion provide no reason why they could not
take the expert's deposition within the time allowed, and, thus,
have failed to demonstrate good cause to extend the deadline to
complete expert discovery. Accordingly, their request to extend the
expert discovery deadline is denied.
As for the Defendants' request to refer the matter for a
court-hosted settlement conference, Judge Jones finds the case is
well-postured for potential settlement and that the conference
should take place prior to the filing of dispositive motions to
conserve the parties' resources and to allow the parties to focus
on settlement efforts. Accordingly, the parties will participate in
a court-hosted settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Gates by
no later than June 30, 2022. Judge Gates will advise the parties
regarding his preferences for the scheduling and conduct of the
conference. In order to allow the parties to fully prepare for and
to engage in the court-hosted settlement conference, the deadline
to file potentially dispositive motions is extended to July 29,
2022.
Finally, Judge Jones has not adopted the Plaintiff's proposal to
allow all discovery sought in both the Plaintiff's motion to compel
and the Defendants' motion to extend time, because the parties
failed to show good cause to allow the additional discovery.
However, the Order does not prejudice the parties' ability to reach
an agreement on taking further discovery so long as it does not
interfere with the deadlines set forth therein.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jones denies the Plaintiff's
motion to compel, allows the Defendants' motion for protective
order, and allows in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to extend deadlines. The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge
Gates for court-hosted settlement conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n95wz7n from Leagle.com.
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 16, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Payne v. Howard
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03792 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney
L Friedrich entered an order that the following schedule will
govern future proceedings:
-- Fact discovery shall open immediately June 2, 2023
and close on:
-- The plaintiffs' motion for class Feb. 16, 2023
certification shall be filed on or
before:
-- The defendant shall file its opposition March 16, 2022
to class certification on or before:
-- The plaintiffs shall file their reply April 20, 2023
on or before:
-- Initial expert disclosures shall occur July 7, 2023
on or before:
-- Expert discovery shall close on: Sept. 8, 2023
-- The parties shall submit a Sept. 15, 2023
post-discovery joint status report
on or before:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Howard University is a private federally chartered historically
black research university in Washington, D.C.[CC]
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Settlement Class Gets Initial Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMOND MURPHY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE
HUNDREDS IS HUGE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00204-RAL (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Richard A. Lanzillo entered an order granting the
Plaintiff Anthony Hammond Murphy's unopposed Motion to Certify
Class for Settlement Purposes and for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e), to that
end:
3. The proposed Settlement Class is hereby preliminarily
certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for
purposes of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined
as:
"All Blind or Visually Impaired individuals who use screen
reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who
have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to
access, or be deterred from accessing The Hundreds Is Huge
Inc.'s Digital Properties including its Website at
https://www.thehundredsishuge.com and/or Mobile Appl from
the United States."
4. The Court approves and designates Plaintiff Anthony
Hammond Murphy as the representative of the Settlement
Class.
5. Upon oral motion by Attorney Kevin W. Tucker, Esq., the
Court hereby appoints Attorney Chandler Steiger and
Attorney Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group, LLC as
additional Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
6. Within ten days prior to the Fairness Hearing, scheduled
below, Defendant or Defendant's counsel shall file a
declaration evidencing compliance with the notice
provisions of this Order.
7. Within ten days prior to the Fairness Hearing, scheduled
below, Class Counsel shall file its motion for attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Hundreds Is Huge Inc is located in Vernon, California and is
part of the apparel, piece goods, and notions merchant
wholesalers.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O9ZxaS at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS: Retailers Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ILLINOIS FUEL & RETAIL
ASSOCIATION, SAUNDERS OIL CO., INC., and FREEDOM OIL COMPANY, on
their own behalf and on behalf of a Class of Retailers Similarly
Situated, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and DAVID HARRIS,
Director of the Department of Revenue, in his official capacity,
and DAN WRIGHT, in his Official Capacity and as Representative for
all Illinois State’s Attorneys, Case No. 3:22-cv-03089-SEM-KLM
(C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the case as a class action; appointing Donald M. Craven,
as class counsel; and appointing Illinois Fuel & Retail
Association, Saunders Oil Co., and Freedom Oil Company as class
representatives.
-- Plaintiff Class Definition
The Class includes all Retailers of Motor Fuel who are
required to display a specific notice at each motor fuel
retail dispensing device between July 1, 2022 and December
31, 2022 or face a petty office and a $500 per day per each
retail premises for failure to do so.
-- Defendant Class Definition
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a Defendant
Class, comprised of all 102 States’ Attorneys in Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xC9Ein at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald M. Craven, Esq.
DONALD M. CRAVEN, P.C.
1005 North Seventh Street
Springfield, IL 62702
Telephone: (217) 544-1777
Facsimile: (217) 544-0713
E-mail: don@cravenlawoffice.com
jcraven@cravenlawoffice.com
maralee@cravenlawoffice.com
INOVIO PHARMA: Order Scheduling Class Cert Hearing Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK MCDERMID,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01402-GJP
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an order that
the Court's Order scheduling a Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification is vacated.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals an American biotechnology company focused on
the discovery, development, and commercialization of synthetic DNA
products for treating cancers and infectious diseases.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OacpOb at no extra charge.[CC]
INTRUSION INC: Prawitt Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN PRAWITT, derivatively on behalf of INTRUSION, INC.,
Plaintiff v. JACK B. BLOUNT, MICHAEL L. PAXTON, B. FRANKLIN BYRD,
P. JOE HEAD, GARY DAVIS, JAMES F. GERO, ANTHONY SCOTT, ANTHONY J.
LEVECCHIO, KATRINKA B. MCCALLUM, JAMIE M. SCHNUR, and GREORY K.
WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00735-UNA (D. Del., June 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, breach of their fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets,
and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants issued or caused to be
issued, materially false and misleading statements concerning
Intrusion Inc.'s computer network product, the Intrusion Shield, in
order to trade Intrusion common stock at artificially inflated
prices between October 14, 2020 and August 26, 2021. Specifically,
the Defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning,
inter alia, the parameters and purported success of product
testing, and the number and identity of customers who purportedly
purchased Shield. In fact, Shield was not only non-functional, its
implementation adversely affected customers' networks, sometimes
shutting them down entirely. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, Intrusion incurred losses and also sustained
reputational harm, says the suit.
When the truth emerged, the price of Intrusion's common stock
dropped almost 50 percent, to close at $4.26 per share on July 20,
2021 on unusually heavy trading volume. On August 26, 2021, the
price of the company's stock dropped $0.41 per share, or
approximately 8.6 percent following the disclosure of an
investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), the suit alleges.
Intrusion, Inc. is a computer systems design services company based
in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
hwm@rl-legal.com
ISM VUZEM: Court Dismisses Novoselac Suit With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STJEPAN NOVOSELAC, et al., Plaintiffs v. ISM VUZEM
D.O.O., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08654-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants
Defendants Tesla, Inc. and Eisenmann Corp.'s motion to dismiss the
complaint.
I. Background
Moving Parties Tesla and Eisenmann seek dismissal of the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs'
counsel did not appear when the case was called for hearing at 9:30
a.m. on May 19, 2022. After waiting until 9:45 a.m., the Court
stated its ruling on the record. It did not hear substantive
argument.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiffs sue for wages and penalties allegedly owed to them
for construction work they performed at Tesla's facility in
Fremont, California between November 2014 and June 2016. As
relevant in the matter, they assert violations of California Labor
Code provisions governing minimum wages (Claim 3), overtime wages
(Claim 4), rest breaks (Claim 5), and waiting time penalties (Claim
7).
The Moving Parties argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim against them under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), because the claims
are time-barred, and the Moving Parties were not the Plaintiffs'
employers.
A. Status as Employers
The Plaintiffs allege that Tesla hired Eisenmann as the general
contractor for the work in question, that Eisenmann in turn hired
Defendant ISM Vuzem d.o.o. as a subcontractor, and that Plaintiffs
were direct employees of ISM Vuzem d.o.o. The Plaintiffs claim that
the Moving Parties Tesla and Eisenmann are deemed to be their
employers under California Labor Code Section 2750.5, because
neither Eisenmann nor ISM Vuzem d.o.o. held a contractor's
license.
The Moving Parties seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims on the
basis that a non-party entity called Vuzem USA Company held a
contractor's license during the relevant period. They ask the Court
to take judicial notice of Vuzem USA Company's license.
Judge Freeman says, it appears that the Moving Parties are asking
the Court to make a factual determination that the licensed entity,
Vuzem USA Company, was the Plaintiffs' employer despite the
Plaintiffs' allegation that an unlicensed entity, ISM Vuzem d.o.o.,
was their employer. She says she cannot make that factual
determination in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
B. Statutes of Limitations
Claims 3, 4, and 5 are subject to a three-year limitations period,
and Claim 7 is subject to a one-year limitations period. The
Plaintiffs allege that work at the Tesla site was completed in
"June of 2016." Construing that allegation in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs, the work was completed on the last day
of the month, June 30, 2016, and the applicable limitations periods
began running on that date. Absent tolling, the one-year
limitations period expired on June 30, 2017, and the three-year
limitations period expired on June 30, 2019. The Plaintiffs did not
file the suit until Aug. 3, 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege that their wage claims were tolled during the
pendency of a state court action titled Lesnik v. ISM Vuzem USA,
Inc., and a federal action titled Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE. They also
allege that their wage claims against the Moving Parties were
tolled by other defendants' acknowledgement of debts to the
Plaintiffs. In their opposition (but not in the complaint), the
Plaintiffs additionally assert that Eisenmann's absence from the
state of California constitutes a basis for tolling.
Judge Freeman finds that only the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding
the Lesnik cases merit discussion. She says, the Plaintiffs have
not cited authority suggesting that acknowledgement of a debt by
other defendants could toll the limitations periods with respect to
Moving Parties, and Judge Freeman cannot consider the Plaintiffs'
assertion regarding Eisenmann's absence, as it is not alleged in
the complaint.
Turning to the Plaintiffs' allegations of tolling based on the
Lesnik cases, Judge Freeman applies California's tolling rules to
the Plaintiffs' wage and hour claims brought under California law.
The Plaintiffs contend that tolling exists under two tolling
doctrines applied by California courts: (1) the federal tolling
rule articulated by American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414
U.S. 538 (1974) and its progeny, and (2) California's equitable
tolling rule.
Judge Freeman holds that it appears on the face of the complaint
and from judicially noticeable filings in the Lesnik actions that
the Plaintiffs' claims against the Moving Parties are time-barred,
even assuming that American Pipe tolling and equitable tolling
under California law apply in the case. She will grant the Moving
Parties' motion to dismiss on this basis. While the Moving Parties
urge the Court to grant the motion without leave to amend, she
finds that leave to amend is warranted under the standard set forth
in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) and Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). If they choose to
amend, the Plaintiffs must in essence draw a road map explaining
how tolling saves their otherwise time-barred claims against Moving
Parties.
III. Order
The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted with leave to amend
on the basis that all claims against the Moving Parties appear to
be time-barred and the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing
tolling of the applicable limitations periods.
Any amended complaint will be filed by June 24, 2022. Leave to
amend is limited to facts relating to statute of limitations and
tolling. The Plaintiffs may not add parties or claims without
express leave of the Court.
The Order terminates ECF 12.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4vczm9t6 from Leagle.com.
JEFFREY METZ: Castaneda Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Horse Walkers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAQUEL CASTANEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFREY METZ TRAINING STABLE, JEFFREY METZ,
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18418 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code,
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, California's Public
Policy, and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment
ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to give
rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, discrimination on the
basis of physical disability, failure to accommodate physical
disability, failure to engage in interactive process to determine
reasonable accommodation, retaliation, failure to prevent
discrimination and retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair
business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a horse walker from
June 2021 until September 2021.
Jeffrey Metz Training Stable is an operator of a race horse
training facility in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Terminates Hall Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALL v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette
Castner entered an order administratively terminating the motion to
certify class, the motion for leave to file to supplement the class
certification record, and the second motion for leave to file to
supplement the class certification record.
The Court will relist the motions following the disposition of the
bankruptcy appeal in San Diego County Employees Retirement v. LTL
Management LLC, Case No. 22-cv-02856-GC.
The telephone status conference set for June 13, 2022 is canceled,
says Judge Castner.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Johnson & Johnson is the largest and most broadly based healthcare
company.[CC]
KOTOBUKI RESTAURANT: Class Cert Bid Referred to Judge Wicks
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yu et al v. Kotobuki
Restaurant, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04202 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order referring motion to
certify class to Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks for Report and
Recommendation.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.
Kotobuki restaurant is owned by a Japanese chef. The restaurant
specializes sushi, sashimi, and kamameshi.[CC]
LANCASTER HOSPITAL: Fails to Properly Pay Nurses, Torres Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO TORRES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANCASTER HOSPITAL CORPORATION dba PALMDALE
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV18405 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every
pay period, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to provide personnel records, failure to pay wages
when employment ends, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked as a nurse at Palmdale Regional Medical Center
for two years until October 2021.
Lancaster Hospital Corporation, doing business as Palmdale Regional
Medical Center, is a healthcare services provider in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
LAWN ENFORCEMENT: Teran Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Teran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lawn Enforcement, Inc., Jamie Walker, and
Jason Braden, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02338 (W.D. Tenn., June
1, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Teran worked for the Defendants during two different time
periods as general laborer -- in September 2019 to December 2020,
and in August 2021 to November 2021.
Lawn Enforcement, Inc. is a full service landscaping company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (800) 403-7868
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
LEAF GROUP: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Weekes Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WEEKES,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
LEAF GROUP LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-01337-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Paul Oetken entered an civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be Oct. 6, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production July 8, 2022
of documents shall be served by:
-- Depositions shall be completed by: Oct. 6, 2022
-- All expert discovery, including Nov. 21, 2022
expert depositions, shall be
completed no later than
-- The Plaintiff's expert disclosures Oct. 27, 2022
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
shall be made on or before:
-- The Plaintiff's expert disclosures Oct. 27, 2022
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
shall be made on before:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4Frwu at no extra charge.[CC]
LOANDEPOT.COM: Garcia-Cortez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aminnette Garcia-Cortez, individually and on behalf of all, others
similarly situated v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No.
2022-008001-CA-01 was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Court, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 24,
2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-21603-BB.
The Plaintiff's cause of action is a federal question arising under
the laws of the United States, specifically, the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that loanDepot
violated the TCPA by causing to be sent, a prerecorded voice
message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number without having her
prior express written consent.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason Daniel Joffe, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3400
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 577-7000
Email:jason.joffe@squirepb.com
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxottica of America,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luxottica of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04626 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Luxottica Group -- https://www.luxottica.com/ -- is a leader in
premium, luxury and sports eyewear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
MAGELLAN HRSC: Rios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magellan HRSC Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Sofia Rios, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Magellan HRSC Inc., an Ohio
Corporation, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No.
34-2022-00320568-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., SacramentoCty., May
23, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Magellan HRSC Inc. doing business as Magellan Health --
https://www.magellanhealth.com/ -- manages the fastest growing,
most complex areas of healthcare, bringing solutions to health
plans, employers and state and Federal programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-300-1705
MARICOPA COUNTY HEALTH: Robinson Sues Over Unpaid Wages After Hack
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District
d/b/a Valleywise Health, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00943-DWL (D.
Ariz., June 1, 2022) seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other
damages owed by Defendant to Plaintiff and similarly situated
workers, along with the penalties, interest, and other remedies
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's timekeeping and payroll
systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many
other organizations across the United States. As a result,
Valleywise Health'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.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover these 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 Valleywise Health's decision to make its
own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the
hack, the suit added.
Ms. Robinson worked for Valleywise Health from October 2021 to
February 2022. She represents at least two groups of similarly
situated Valleywise Health workers performing work for Valleywise
Health in Arizona.
Maricopa County Special Health Care District, d/b/a Valleywise
Health, is a network of taxpayer-funded hospitals and medical
facilities in Maricopa County, Arizona.[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
MASTRONARDI PRODUCE-USA: Lopez Sues Over Unsafe Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN LOPEZ, OSCAR CARLOS LOPEZ RAMIREZ, and RAMONA REYES
SAUCEDO, Plaintiffs v. MASTRONARDI PRODUCE-USA, INC., and MAROA
FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00484 (W.D. Mich., June
1, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated migrant and seasonal farmworkers arising from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Worker Protection Standard,
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Improved Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act.
The complaint alleges that beginning in 2020, Defendants violated
multiple provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act and state common law by mishandling and failing to
protect Plaintiffs and putative class members from the pesticides
being used in Defendants' greenhouses in violation of the Worker
Protection Standard, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health
Agency standards, and for using a false and misleading bonus
structure that caused Plaintiffs and class members to work faster
and harder without being justly compensated. Plaintiff Ramona
Saucedo Reyes also asserts an individual cause of action for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act while
she was employed in non-agricultural work in Defendants' sanitation
department.
The Plaintiffs and their similarly situated class members seek
redress from Defendants jointly and severally for Defendants'
violations of law, in the form of statutory or actual damages under
the AWPA, actual damages for Defendants' contract violation, and
actual and liquidated damages plus reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs for Defendants' violations of the FLSA and IWOWA, says the
suit.
Mastronardi Produce-USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Canadian company, Mastronardi Produce Ltd., which markets and sells
Mastronardi Produce-USA's fruits and vegetables throughout the
United States and internationally under the "Sunset" brand.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna Hill Galendez, Esq.
Diana E. Marin, Esq.
MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
15 S Washington Street, Suite 201
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Telephone: (734) 239-6863
Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
E-mail: ahill@michiganimmigrant.org
dmarin@michiganimmigrant.org
- and -
Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
Teresa C. Pulaski, Esq.
FARMWORKER JUSTICE
1126 16th Street NW, Suite LL101
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 293-5420
Facsimile: (202) 293-5427
E-mail: ttaylor@farmworkerjustice.org
tpulaski@farmworkerjustice.org
MDL 2599: Dunn, et al., Seek Permit to File Confidential Exhibits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNN et al v. TAKATA
CORPORATION et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24009-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting the public
filing of certain documents that the bankrupt Takata entities
designated Confidential, Highly Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes
Only, pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this
MDL (Stipulated Protective Order), as well as the Bankruptcy
Protective Order Approved by this Court (Case No. 14-cv-24009)
(Bankruptcy Protective Order).
This motion relates to all Economic Loss Track Cases iN RE: TAKATA
AIRBAG PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2599).
Numerous exhibits to Plaintiffs' briefs on summary judgment and
class certification are documents produced by the former Takata
entities, either in the MDL, pursuant to the Stipulated Protective
Order, or through the process established by the Bankruptcy
Protective Order. These documents have been designated
Confidential, Highly Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only under the
Stipulated Protective Order or Bankruptcy Protective Order. Such
confidentiality designations generally restrict the ability of the
parties to file the documents on the public docket.
The Plaintiffs, therefore, sought permission to temporarily file
the documents under seal, in accordance with the Stipulated
Protective Order and the Bankruptcy Protective Order. At the same
time, the Plaintiffs served the exhibits on Defendants and provided
them to the Court for in camera review. The Court ultimately denied
Plaintiffs' motions to file the documents under seal. The
Plaintiffs, therefore, are seeking to file the documents on the
public docket.
The Plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for the bankrupt Takata
entities, who have indicated that they do not oppose changing the
designation of the documents from Highly Confidential to
Confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order and from
Attorneys' Eyes Only to Confidential pursuant to the Bankruptcy
Protective Order, but that pursuant to the protective orders the
Court must enter an Order authorizing the public filing of such
Confidential documents before they are so filed.
Takata Corporation was a Japanese automotive parts company. The
company had production facilities on four continents, with its
European headquarters located in Germany.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MSX57X at no extra
charge.[CC]
Chair Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, are:
Peter Prieto, Esq.
Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esq.
John Gravante, Esq.
Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq.
Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK , P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One S.E. Third Ave., Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
apodhurst@podhurst.com
srosenthal@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
adelriego@podhurst.com
The Plaintiffs' Personal Injury Track Lead Counsel, are:
Lewis S. "Mike" Eidson, Esq.
Curtis Bradley Miner, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, PH
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
E-mail: curt@colson.com
The Plaintiffs' Economic Damages Track Co-Lead Counsel, are:
David Boies, Esq.
Motty Shulman, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
mshulman@bsfllp.com
- and -
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
mheise@bsfllp.com
The Plaintiffs' Economic Damages Track Co-Lead Counsel, are:
Todd A. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LACIEN, LLP
70 W. Madison St., Ste. 5770
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 509-8900
E-mail: tsmith@smithlacien.com
The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, are:
Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
David Stellings, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
275 Battery St., Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: D.C. Court Denies Bid to Stay Harris Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAAC HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01371
(APM) (D.D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia denies the Defendant's renewed request for
a stay.
In November 2021, the Court denied the motion filed by Defendant
MTM for a stay of trial-court proceedings pending the outcome of
its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) petition. It invited MTM,
however, to renew is request "if the D.C. Circuit decided to grant
the Rule 23(f) motion."
In March 2022, the D.C. Circuit granted the Rule 23(f) petition,
and MTM has renewed its request for a stay pending the outcome of
that appeal. That motion is now before the Court.
A grant of appellate review of a district court's decision to
certify a class under Rule 23 "does not stay proceedings in the
district court unless the district court or the court of appeals so
orders." The D.C. Circuit has not so ordered. Whether to grant
MTM's requested stay is therefore a discretionary matter.
In MTM's view, the D.C. Circuit's decision to review the Court's
class certification decision on appeal means that reversal is a
"plausible" outcome; proceeding to summary judgment before the
Circuit announces its decision therefore unnecessarily risks the
"expenditure of judicial and party resources on class proceedings
that may ultimately be rendered moot" as well as "the issuance of
class notice that may need to be retracted, and the associated
confusion to non-party drivers and harm to MTM's reputation."
Judge Mehta disagrees. He concludes that any differences between
what the summary judgment briefs would be in an action on behalf of
only the named Plaintiffs and in an issue-class and collective
action are not significant enough to justify imposing an additional
delay in the disposition of the joint-employer and
general-contractor issues. The action has been pending for five
years. Judge Mehta understands that briefing is now set to conclude
in the Circuit at the conclusion of August. Staying these
proceedings until the Circuit renders its decisions would risk
weakening the factual record and delay even further any prospect of
relief for the Plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, MTM's motion is denied. The parties will
file a proposed summary judgment briefing schedule.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7yzdm4y from Leagle.com.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Modification of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Masten, et al., v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-11229-RA-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask Court to enter an
order modifying the briefing schedule related to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification:
-- Extend Defendants' deadline to file their opposition papers
to and including July 1, 2022; and
-- Extend Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply brief to
and including August 5, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March
3, 2022. Under the current schedule, the Defendants' opposition
brief is due June 17, 2022 and Plaintiffs' reply brief is due July
15, 2022. After Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the Court granted two extensions of time for the
parties to file their opposition and reply brief.
The Defendants deposed Plaintiffs' expert on May 19, 2022. On June
8, 2022, Plaintiffs served an amended expert report, and, on June
9, 2022, the Defendants submitted follow-up requests related to
Plaintiffs' amended expert report. Plaintiffs have committed to
responding to Defendants' follow-up requests no later than June 10,
2022.
MetLifeprovided insurance, annuities, and employee benefit
programs.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O4zHoP at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Russell L. Hirschhorn, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
www.proskauer.com
Telephone: (212) 969-3286
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
E-mail: rhirschhorn@proskauer.com
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brennan Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BRENNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY; LONG ISLAND
RAILROAD; METRO-NORTH RAILROAD; STATEN ISLAND RAILWAY; MTA
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT; MTA REGIONAL BUS OPERATIONS; MTA
BRIDGES AND TUNNELS; and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00746 (D. Conn., June 3, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Brennan was employed by the Defendants as machinist.
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY is a public benefit corporation
responsible for public transportation in the New York City
metropolitan area of the U.S. state of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN,
FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C.
405 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (203) 777-4425
Facsimile: (203) 776-3965
Email: sfitzgerald@garrisonlaw.com
jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
Email: mscimone@outtengolden.com
rpattiz@outtengolden.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Suite 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Facsimile: (713) 999-1187
Email: matt@parmet.law
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lee Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA LEE a/k/a KAYLA BALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10872-ADB (D. Mass., June 6, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent, willful, and intentional violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Plaintiff has a debt that was allegedly incurred to Capital One
Bank primarily for personal credit account.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has purchased the
Plaintiff's defaulted account. Consequently, on or about October
27, 2021, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff
in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. The Plaintiff has
asserted her “g-notice” rights, and requested validation in
writing via email sent to the Defendant on November 9, 2021 in
response to the Defendant's initial communication letter. However,
the Defendant continued sending multiple collection letters to the
Plaintiff despite her dispute, thereby making the Defendant's
collection letters suspicious, misleading, and out of character for
a legitimate debt collection, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, unfair,
unconscionable, and false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff
has been damaged, the suit added.
Midland Credit Management is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN LLC
101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (203) 246-2887
E-mail: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
MLD MORTGAGE: Court Withdraws Dye Class Cert Bid as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODGER DYE, et al., v. MLD
Mortgage, Inc. dba THE MONEY STORE, Case No. 1:19-cv-03304-ELH (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Ellen Hollander entered an order that:
1. The Parties joint motion for withdrawal as moot
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.
2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
withdrawn as moot without prejudice to any party moving
for reinstatement of the motion and associated briefing
should the Parties' Agreement fail to reach final
approval.
MLD provides financing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H5Agwu at no extra charge.[CC]
MONROE CAPITAL: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe Capital LLC.
The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Monroe Capital LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04663-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Monroe Capital LLC -- https://www.monroecap.com/ -- is a premier
boutique asset management firm specializing in private credit
markets across various strategies including direct lending,
asset-based lending, specialty finance, opportunistic and
structured credit, and equity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
NATIONS LENDING: Second Amended Sched Order Entered in Fitzhenry
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Fitzhenry v. Nations
Lending Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-04043-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Richard M. Gergel entered a second amended scheduling order
as follows:
-- Any motion to amend pleadings or July 1, 2022
join parties shall be filed by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file and serve August 2, 2022
a document identifying by full
name, address, and telephone number
each person whom Plaintiff expects
to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report
prepared and signed by the expert
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)
(2)(B) or, where allowed, a report
prepared by counsel has been
disclosed to the other parties by:
-- The Defendant shall file and serve August 30, 2022
a document identifying by full
name, address, and telephone number
each person whom Plaintiff expects
to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report
prepared and signed by the expert
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)
(2)(B) or, where allowed, a report
prepared by counsel has been
disclosed to the other parties by:
-- Discovery shall be completed August 19, 2022
no later than
-- Counsel shall file and serve July 25, 2022
affidavits of records custodian
witnesses proposed to be presented
by affidavit at trial no later than:
-- A Motion for Class Certification September 9, 2022
should be filed by:
-- Mediation shall be completed in September 19, 2022
this case on or before:
Nations Lending is a privately held, Ohio-based, national direct
mortgage lender and servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QaVltj at no extra charge.[CC]
NED LAMONT: Initial Review Order Entered in Miler Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN MILNER, v. NED
LAMONT et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01245-JAM (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered an initial review order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A, as follows:
(1) The Clerk shall verify the current work address for
defendants Marceau, Hill, Melissa Brown, Schweighoffer,
and Titus with the Department of Correction Office of
Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request
packet containing the Complaint and this Order to each
defendant at the address provided within twenty-one (21)
days of this Order, and report to the court on the status
of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth day after
mailing.
(2) The defendants shall file their response to the complaint,
either an answer or motion to dismiss, within 30 days from
the date the waiver forms are sent.
(3) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
through 37, shall be completed within five months (150
days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the court.
(4) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within six
months (180 days) from the date of this order.
(5) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must
respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21)
days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is
filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive
motion can be granted absent objection.
(6) If the plaintiff changes his address at any time during
the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)(2)
provides that he MUST notify the court. Failure to do so
can result in the dismissal of the case.
(7) The plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program
when filing documents with the court. The plaintiff is
advised that the Program may be used only to file
documents with the court. As local court rules provide
that discovery requests are not filed with the court,
requests must be served on defendants' counsel by regular
mail.
(8) The Clerk shall immediately enter the District of
Connecticut Standing Order Re: Initial Discovery
Disclosures concerning cases initiated by self-represented
inmates and shall send a copy to the plaintiff.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff Milner is currently incarcerated in
the Connecticut Department of Correction. He has filed a complaint
pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Milner
challenges various aspects of his treatment in two prison
facilities following his positive test result for COVID-19. The
procedural history of this case is unusual in that I have
previously ruled on numerous emergency and other motions for
relief, appointed counsel for Milner (which counsel Milner has
discharged), and convened status conferences with Milner, his
counsel, and the Attorney General's Office in hopes of a resolution
short of full-scale litigation of Milner's claims which he alleges
against some 42 defendants in his amended complaint. These efforts
not having proved successful, I now issue this initial review order
to allow the complaint to be served on some of the named defendants
in this action and for the litigation to proceed in the ordinary
course."
In his amended complaint, Milner names 42 defendants: Governor Ned
Lamont, former Commissioner Rollin Cook, Commissioner Angel Quiros,
Warden Martin, Nurse Yvonne Marceau, Nurse Hill, Lieutenant
Atkinson, Lieutenant Schweighoffer, Cell Extraction Team Officers
1-6, Melissa Brown, Matt Eggen, Gerald Ganye, Warden Bowles, Nurse
Heather Jane Mcough, Ashley Brown, Lieutenant Thomas Titus,
Lieutenant Milhaliak, Captain Anaya, Cell Extraction Team Officers
7-12, Nurse Kristen Carabine, Pamela Jurewitz, Tim Bombard, Vicki
Scruggs, Michael Clements, Carson Wright, Lisa Mosier-Fryer,
Captain Darren Chevalier, Captain Brane Blackstock, Dr. Scott
Muller, Edward Gonzalez, Nick Rodriguez, and Assistant Attorney
General Matthew B. Beizer. He contends that the defendants violated
his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments,
rights afforded him under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as
recommendations issued by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xEYCZJ at no extra charge.[CC]
NEORA LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEORA, LLC. The case
is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NEORA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04628 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Neora -- https://www.neora.com/ -- is a global leader in the
anti-aging skincare, wellness, hair care and weight management
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Class Cert Brief Sched Referred to Judge Scanlon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Capobianco, et al v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06125 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall entered an order that the
Plaintiff's request to set a briefing schedule for its anticipated
motion for class certification is referred to Magistrate Judge Vera
M. Scanlon.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]
NEW YORK: Faces Espinoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ESPINOZA, YOHAN RODRIGUEZ, WILIAM OCHOA, VICTOR LUGO ARIAS,
STALIN SOLORANZO, SORNE POLANCO, OSIRIS CERDA, LUZ ALZATE, JUAN
REYES, JOSE YUQUI, JOSE MONTERO, JESUS ALZAMORA, JESUS ALZAMORA,
JR., GIANCARLOS VARGAS, ERNESTO GARCIA ZORRILLA, EDWIN MENDEZ
RAMIREZ, SIMON SANTANA-LOPZ, JUAN SANCHEZ, and GERARDO MACIAS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. NEW YORK INSULATION, INC., NEW YORK INSULATION, LLC, ANTHONY
CARDINALE, ANTONIO MARCIAL, and CESAR BALSECA, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04715 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hour
compensation, failure to provide proper statements with each
payment of wages, and failure to provide annual wage rate
notifications.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as handlers,
supervisor, assistant supervisor, and/or truck driver at any time
between 2008 and 2021.
New York Insulation, Inc. is a construction company in New York,
New York.
New York Insulation, LLC is an environmental remediation company
with fully-licensed crews specializing in abatement, insulation and
construction based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Luke, Jr., Esq.
SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 419
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 420-9300
NEWEGG INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newegg, Inc. The case
is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Newegg, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04625
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Newegg, Inc. -- http://www.newegg.com/-- is an online retailer of
items including computer hardware and consumer electronics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
NEWREZ LLC: Aguinaga Sues Over Collection of Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA E. AGUINAGA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. Case No.1:22-cv-02947
(N.D., Il., June 6,2022) alleges violation of the Homeowners
Protection Act ("HPA") and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint the Defendant's unlawful
collection of private mortgage insurance ("PMI") premiums after the
termination date of PMI. As a result of the Defendant's conduct,
the Plaintiff was forced to pay PMI premiums after the contractual
and statutory termination date to prevent her mortgage loan from
falling into default status. The Defendant's conduct in charging
PMI after the PMI termination date is a widespread practice that
has injured hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers in Illinois,
says the Plaintiff.
NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC provides financial services. The Company
offers originating and selling mortgage loans and homes on buying,
lending, and rental basis. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone (630) 575-8180
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
NEWREZ LLC: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered in Durham
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Durham v. Newrez, LLC et
al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered an
case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation as
follows:
-- Deadline for providing mandatory August 1, 2022
initial disclosures:
-- Deadline for moving to join a August 15, 2022
party or amend the pleadings:
-- Deadline for moving for class August 16, 2022
certification:
-- Deadline for disclosing expert
reports
Plaintiff: December 15, 2022
Defendant: December 30, 2022
Rebuttal: January 13, 2023
-- Deadline for completing discovery January 17, 2023
and filing motions to compel:
-- Deadline for filing dispositive January 31, 2023
and Daubert motions
(responses due 21 days after
service)
-- Mediation
Deadline: November 30, 2023
Mediator: Julie O’Kane, Esq.
Address: P.O. Box 547664
Orlando, FL 32854
Telephone: (407) 421-6558
-- Deadline for filing all other May 30, 2023
motions including motions in
limine:
-- Deadline for filing the joint June 12, 2023
final pretrial statement:
Newrez is a national wholesale mortgage lender that offers agency
and non-agency lending solutions to brokers and community banks.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39bhJCt at no extra charge.[CC]
OHIO: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Jones' Entire Claims v. ODRC
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON L. JONES, SR., et al., Plaintiffs v. MIKE
DEWINE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-3301 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
recommends that the Court dismisses Plaintiff Jones' claims in
their entirety and closes the case.
I. Background
On May 6, 2020, 21 Plaintiffs, state inmates under the supervision
of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) at
the Belmont Correctional Institution, proceeding without the
assistance of counsel, filed the putative class action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against Governor Mike DeWine and the ODRC. The
Plaintiffs initiated the action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, but on June 29, 2020, the case was
transferred to the Court. On Aug. 26, 2020, the Court granted the
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed six Plaintiffs who decided
to pursue their claims in a related case, Joseph Shine-Johnson, et
al. v. Mike DeWine, et al., S.D. Ohio Case No. 20-cv-5919. Judge
Deavers also performed an initial screen of the operative Amended
Complaint, and recommended that the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety, but grants leave to Plaintiff Jones to
amend to develop his individual claim(s).
Specifically, she recommended that the Court dismisses the
Plaintiffs' claims regarding their conditions of confinement during
the COVID-19 pandemic and regarding certain defendants' alleged
medical deliberate indifference. She also recommended that the
Court grants Plaintiff Jones leave to amend to develop any
individual claims he may have, separate from the COVID-19 and
medical deliberate indifference claims asserted by all Plaintiffs.
Judge Deavers advised Plaintiff Jones that "should the Court allow
it, any forthcoming Amended Complaint will be limited to his, and
only his individual claims.
On Aug. 4, 2021, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation.
Because Plaintiff Jones had filed an Amended Complaint prior to the
Court's adoption of the Report and Recommendation, the Court
ordered that "Mr. Jones' Amended Complaint will be deemed filed as
of the date of this Opinion and Order."
Accordingly, the matter is now before the Court for an initial
screen of Plaintiff Jones' Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1915(e)(2), 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to
recommend dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, or any portion
of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
II. Discussion
Upon close review, Judge Deavers concludes that Plaintiff Jones'
Second Amended Complaint is substantially identical to the First
Amended Complaint. Indeed, the Second Amended Complaint merely
repeats verbatim a number of the allegations from the First Amended
Complaint, and it is clear to Judge Deavers that Plaintiff Jones'
individual claims substantially overlap with those previously
dismissed by the Court, pertaining to the Plaintiff's conditions of
confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond those conditions
of confinement allegations, Plaintiff Jones also realleges that he
"has bronchitis, and cannot receive breathing treatments," but he
does not appear to be making a claim for medical deliberate
indifference.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the Court's leave for the Plaintiff to
amend his claims, Judge Deavers is left in the same position as in
the initial Report and Recommendation. Despite the Plaintiff's
allegation that he cannot receive breathing treatments, she sees
nothing to suggest that the Plaintiff intends to assert claims
against any unnamed staff who may have refused to provide such
treatment. Rather, she believes that the Plaintiff has used his
right to amend merely to clarify, repeatedly, that he seeks
compassionate release.
Accordingly, even reading the Plaintiff's pro se pleading
liberally, Judge Deavers is left no choice but to construe the
Second Amended Complaint as a request for compassionate release.
This, however, is another claim already dismissed by the Court,
which held in its Aug. 23, 2021 Opinion and Order.
For the reasons already explained in the Court's Aug. 23, 2021
Opinion and Order, the Court remains powerless to grant Plaintiff
Jones the compassionate release he seeks. Accordingly, Judge
Deavers recommends that the Court dismisses Plaintiff Jones'
request for a compassionate release.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Deavers recommends that the Court
dismisses Plaintiff Jones' claims in their entirety and closes the
case.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of the Report and
Recommendation, it may, within 14 days, file and serve on all
parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically
designating the Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. Response to
objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with a
copy.
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to
appeal the judgment of the District Court. Even when timely
objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in
those objections is waived.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/4upmfs8d from
Leagle.com.
OMM LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OMM, LLC. The case is
styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. OMM, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04664
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OMM Hair System -- https://www.ommcollection.com/ -- is an alchemy
of 100% exotic natural-plant base oils & extracts including,
Marula, Prickly Pear, Moringa, Amla & Jojoba.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ON DEMAND SERVICES: Misclassifies Repair Technicians, Rucker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eglesper Rucker, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. On Demand Services, LLC, d/b/a United Smart
Tech, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01785 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime that is
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint arises from the Defendant's conduct of misclassifying
workers as independent contractors and paying them on a piece-rate
basis and not paying the employees overtime pay, no matter how many
hours per week the employees work. The Defendant's failure to pay
the overtime premium required by law allows it to gain an unfair
advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment
practices, says the suit.
Plaintiff Rucker worked for United as a cell phone repair tech from
February of 2020 until April of 2022.
On Demand Services, LLC is a connected device solutions and
communications technology provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
ONSITE FACILITY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Pickard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Albert Pickard v. OnSite
Facility Services, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00207-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an uniform pretrial
scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to join any person as September 16, 2022
a party to this action shall be
made on or before:
-- Any motion to amend any pleading September 16, 2022
in this action shall be made on
or before:
-- The parties are directed to file August 22, 2022
a status report on or before:
-- All discovery in this matter is March 3, 2023
to be completed on or before:
-- Class certification motion are September 29, 2022
to be filed on or before:
-- Mandatory Mediation shall be October 13, 2022
completed by:
Onsite Facility was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5geo6 at no extra charge.[CC]
OPENSIDED MRI: Brust "TCPA" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS PHILLIP BRUST,
D.C., P.C. and ALAN PRESSWOOD, D.C., P.C., individually and on
behalf all others similarly-situated, v. OPENSIDED MRI OF ST. LOUIS
L.L.C., and MATTHEW RUYLE, Case No. 4:21-cv-00089-SEP (E.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
following class:
-- Class A
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent Faxes,
on or about April 7, 2020, April 15, 2020, April 21, 2020,
May 18, 2020, and June 1, 2020, that state: "Greater
Missouri Imaging," "We are scheduling Monday-Friday for
emergent and non- emergent MRIs, CT's and Injections,"
and/or "At Greater Missouri Imaging we are always striving
to provide the best diagnostic imaging services in the St.
Louis are."
In the alternative, if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish
between faxes successfully sent to "stand-alone" fax machines
versus faxes that were successfully sent to an "online fax
service," the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
-- Class B
"All persons or entities who were sent successfully Faxes
to their stand-alone telephone facsimile machines, on or
about April 7, 2020, April 15, 2020, April 21, 2020, May
18, 2020, and June 1, 2020, that state: "Greater Missouri
Imaging," "We are scheduling Monday-Friday for emergent
and non-emergent MRIs, CT's and Injections," and/or "At
Greater Missouri Imaging we are always striving to provide
the best diagnostic imaging services in the St. Louis
area."
The Plaintiffs also seeks an Order from the Court appointing them
as class representatives and appointing the law firms of Margulis
Law Group and Anderson + Wanca as class counsel.
In violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(C), the Defendants allegedly
successfully sent 7,522 unsolicited fax advertisements to 1,583
unique fax numbers in six separate broadcasts conducted on April 7,
2020, April 15, 2020 (2 broadcasts), April 21, 2020, May 18, 2020,
and June 1, 2020 (the "Faxes"). The Faxes were addressed to no one,
contain non-compliant opt out notice (precluding as a matter of law
the affirmative defense of established business relationship), and
Opensided did not have prior express invitation or permission
("permission") to send fax advertisements.
OpenSided is a iagnostic testing facility in St Louis, Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ob9yVc
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ross M. Good, Esq.
Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com
wsolberg@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Max G. Margulis, Esq.
MARGULIS LAW GROUP
28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Telephone: (636) 536-7022
E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com
PANINI AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Wheeler's Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BELINDA WHEELER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PANINI AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00763-BAH (D.D.C.), the
Defendant files a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff Wheeler's
Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Additionally, Panini requests the Court stay discovery while the
motion is pending.
The Defendant contends that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
This case involves trading cards and nothing about Plaintiff's
claims are unique to the way Panini manufactures and sells trading
cards. The Plaintiff's claims are based upon her purchase of one or
more boxes of Panini's basketball trading cards. The Plaintiff does
not allege that anything was wrong with the cards themselves but
rather that she did not receive the card she was hoping to obtain.
But Courts have already adjudicated the legality of trading cards
and how they are sold in randomly distributed boxes. Plaintiff
lacks standing to sue because she has not alleged an injury in
fact, and her Complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
Therefore, Panini respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
Panini America is the only company in the world that manufactures
fully licensed trading cards and stickers for the NFL, NFL PLAYERS,
NHL, NHLPA, and NBA.
A copy of the Court's order Defendant's motion dated June 10, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HlEIr2 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Toyja E. Kelley, Sr., Esq.
Charles E. Phipps, Esq.
Seth M. Roberts, Esq.
A. Tucker Davison, Esq.
Chase T. Cobb, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
701 8th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 220-6939
Facsimile: (202) 315-3873
E-mail: toyja.kelley@lockelord.com
cphipps@lockelord.com
sroberts@lockelord.com
tucker.davison@lockelord.com
chase.cobb@lockelord.com
PAPARAZZI LLC: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelisha Rodriguez, Irene Burgess, and Deanna Jackson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAPARAZZI, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company, Case No. 2:22-cv-03500-JFW-AGR
(C.D. Cal., May 23, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's
deceptive and misleading labeling of their products as "lead-free
and nickel-free."
Despite earlier representations and express warranties stating that
the Defendant's products are "lead-free and nickel-free," the
Defendant designed, sourced, and sold jewelry that allegedly
contained detectable levels of lead and nickel, among other heavy
metals (the "Products") Between November 20, 2021, and January 9,
2022, the Defendant removed the "lead-free and nickel-free"
representations from its website.
Nickel allergy affects approximately 10% of the United States
population, often causing itchy, inflamed rashes, hives, and
sometimes headaches, vomiting, and fatigue. Lead used in jewelry
makes the product heavier, more stable, brightens the paint, or
softens the plastic. However, lead is a toxic metal that has been
demonstrated to lead to severe long-term health problems including,
inter alia, learning disabilities, anemia, and organ failure.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes, and
contrary to the representations on the Defendant's website, the
Products contain lead and nickel, which, if disclosed to the
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes prior to purchase,
would have resulted in Plaintiffs and members of the proposed
Classes not purchasing or using the Products. As a result, the
Products' labeling is deceptive and misleading, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased some of the Products for personal use and
experienced allergic reactions including skin rashes, redness,
itchiness, and discolored skin where they wore the Products.
The Defendant is a multi-level marketing business that sells
jewelry and other accessories wholesale in bulk to consultants, who
then sell the jewelry and other accessories to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway E, 2nd
Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: 856-772-7200
Facsimile: 856-210-9088
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
PARKASH 1630: Bid to Certify FLSA Collective Denied w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delfino Adan Diaz v.
Parkash 1630 LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08382-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective without prejudice; and
2. denying as moot the Defendant's request for an adjournment
of its response deadline.
A copy of the Court's Order dated June 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zknW9H at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin S. Johnson, Esq.
Michael Steven Samuel, Esq.
HAMRA LAW GROUP, PC.
WWW.HAMRALAWGROUP.COM
32 Broadway, Ste. 1818
NEW YORK, NY 10004
E-mail: KJOHNSONHAMRALAWGROUP.COM
Telephone: (646) 590-0571
Facsimile: (646) 590-0571
PELICAN STATE: Illegally Charges Overdraft Fees, Foster Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONTINE FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PELICAN STATE CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00368-JWD-RLB (M.D. La., June 6, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract, including
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as
well as violation of Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of
charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions when customers'
checking accounts have sufficient balance. Despite putting aside
sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time
those transactions are authorized, the Defendant later assesses
overdraft fees on those same transactions when they settle days
later into a negative balance. These types of transactions are
called "Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions" (APSN)
Transactions. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members suffered losses, says the suit.
Pelican State Credit Union is a credit union with its headquarters
and principal place of business located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. McMichael, Jr., Esq.
Mark Edward Carter, Esq.
MCMICHAEL & CARTER, L.L.C.
670 Albemarle Drive, Suite 302
Shreveport, LA 71106
Telephone: (318) 221-1004
Facsimile: (318) 221-0008
- and –
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN AND MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and –
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 320-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Class Certification Discovery Due Oct. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v.
PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order granting the
parties' "Joint Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in the Court's
February 24, 2022 Case Management Order" as follows:
-- Class Certification discovery October 27, 2022
shall be completed on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' expert and/or September 22, 2022
third-party data analyst reports
as to class certification shall be
filed on or before:
-- Depositions of Plaintiffs' experts October 27, 2022
and/or third-party data analysts
shall be completed on or before:
-- The Defendant's expert reports as October 10, 2022
to class certification shall be
filed on or before:
-- Depositions of Defendant's experts October 27, 2022
shall be completed on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule December 12, 2022
23 Class Certification, Memorandum
in Support, and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by:
-- The Defendants' Memorandum in January 25, 2023
Opposition to Rule 23 Class
Certification and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum February 9, 2023
in support of Rule 23 class
certification, if any, shall be
filed by:
Petrochem operates as a petrochemical services provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aKLJp6 at no extra charge.[CC]
PL PHASE ONE: Parties Must Submit Proposed Schedule by June 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson et al. v. PL Phase
One Operations L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-03285 (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Deborah K Chasanow entered an order approving the parties'
request to submit a joint proposed schedule by June 22, 2022, for
the completion of discovery, class certification briefing, and
dispositive motions practice.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Consumer Credit.[CC]
PORTOLA PHARMA: Parties Seek to Vacate Hearing on Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL HAYDEN, et al., v.
PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00367-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and agree in light of their
agreement to resolve all claims asserted in this action, and in the
interests of the efficient administration of justice, as follows:
1. The discovery hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 14,
2022, shall be vacated;
2. The hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification currently scheduled for Thursday, July 7,
2022, shall be vacated;
3. All further deadlines set forth in the Court's scheduling
order dated February 22, 2022, shall be suspended; and
4. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
reached between the parties shall be filed not later than
August 8, 2022.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hqm8y5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Alameda County Employees'
Retirement Association and Lead Counsel for the Class, are:
Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq.
Jeffrey V. Rocha, Esq.
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Jeffrey V. Rocha, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
dbarenbaum@bermantabacco.com
jrocha@bermantabacco.com
Attorneys for Underwriter Defendants, are:
Joshua Hill, Esq.
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
Joshua Hill, Esq.
Shane D. Avidan, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 432-5123
Facsimile: (628) 232-3090
E-mail: jhill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Mark R. Conrad, Esq.
CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP
info@conmetkane.com
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-7102
Facsimile: (415) 343-7101
E-mail: mconrad@conmetkane.com
Attorneys for Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are:
James J. Beha II, Esq.
Anna Erickson White, Esq.
David J. Wiener, Esq.
MORRISON FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-2040
Telephone: (858) 720-5100
Facsimile: (858) 720-5125
E-mail: jbeha@mofo.com
The Attorneys for Additional Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, are:
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
12750 High Bluff Dr., Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 987-4073
E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
POWER HOME: Court Certifies Class in Landy Telemarketing Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENNAN LANDY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company, Case No. 5:21-cv-00341-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Louise Wood Flanagan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and for leave to conduct discovery.
The Court certifies a class defined as follows:
"All persons in the United States from four years prior to
the filing of this action through the date notice is sent to
the Class who (1) received a telemarketing call made by Power
Home Technologies or any of Power Home's sub-dealers,
vendors, lead generators, or agents either promoting Power
Home's goods or services or that could have resulted in the
installation of a home security system by Power Home, (2) on
the person's telephone, (3) using an artificial or pre-
recorded voice, and (4) for whom Defendant claims prior
express written consent was obtained in the same manner as
Defendant claims prior express written consent was obtained
to call the Plaintiff."
The Plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of this Order to
conduct discovery necessary to:
(1) identify class members for purposes of class notice; and
(2) calculate class-wide damages.
Power Home provides home security systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q74vqK at no extra charge.[CC]
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY: Soleil Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raya Soleil, as guardian to Ross Soleil,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated guardian ad
litem v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, Case
No. 20cv2761 was removed from the First Judicial District Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on May 24,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00396-JHR-LF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford --
https://www.thehartford.com/business-insurance/ -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers auto, home, and business
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corbin Hildebrandt, Esq.
Kedar Bhasker, Esq.
CORBIN HILDEBRANDT, P.C.
1400 Central Ave. S.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: (505) 998-6626
Fax: (505) 998-6628
Email: corbin@hildebrandtlawnm.com
kedar@bhaskerlaw.com
- and -
Geoffrey R. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY R. ROMERO
4801 All Saints Road, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87120
Phone: (505) 247-3338
Fax: (505) 271-1539
Email: geoff@geoffromerolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Courtenay L. Keller, Esq.
RILEY / KELLER / ALDERETE / GONZALES
3880 Osuna Road NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Phone: (505) 883-5030
Fax: (505) 883-4362
Email: ckeller@rileynmlaw.com
PROVIDENT BANK: Collins Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Judy Collins, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Provident Bank, Case No.
HUD-L-29-00022 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson Vicinage, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on June 3, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03422 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Provident Bank -- http://www.provident.bank/-- emphasizes personal
service and customer convenience in attending to the financial
needs of businesses, individuals and families in New Jersey and
eastern Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony Sylvester, Esq.
SHERMAN ATLAS SYLVESTER & STAMELMAN LLP
210 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Phone: (973) 302-9700
Email: asylvester@shermanatlas.com
QUICK BOX: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Tan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC,
et al., Case No. 20-cv-1082-LL-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Court entered a
scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification
motion filing deadline:
1. The deadline to contact the Court's July 1, 2022
chambers regarding any unresolved
dispute relating to discovery
propounded before the Stay Order is:
2. A telephonic Status Conference to Sept. 16, 2022
discuss the status of the case and
discovery will be held on:
3. Fact and class discovery are not Sept. 16, 2022
bifurcated; however, all discovery for
the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification must be completed on
or before:
4. A motion for class certification Oct. 14, 2022.
must be filed no later than:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mIXUVS at no extra charge.[CC]
RAMTEX INC: Da Silva Suit Seeks Ecommerce Specialists' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC MENGUE DA SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAMTEX INC., TOP FABRIC INC., RAMIN KORORI,
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18399 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide personnel records, failure to provide
pay records, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an ecommerce
specialist from the latter part of 2021 until February 2022.
Ramtex Inc. is a fabric wholesaler in California.
Top Fabric Inc. is a fabric manufacturer in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
REAL CONCRETE: Snider Seeks Submission of Discovery Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS SNIDER, on behalf
of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, v. REAL CONCRETE AND CORING, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
D/B/A COLORADO CORING & CUTTING, COLORADO CORING & CUTTING, INC., A
COLORADO CORPORATION AND RICK GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
1:22-cv-01289-RMR-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order directing the Parties to submit an agreed upon
discovery schedule relative to the issue of "class" and
"collective" Notice to the putative class, entering and continuing
this Motion for Stage-One Conditional Certification of Collective
Action Pursuant To 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and Motion for Class
Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 until such time discovery
has advanced and Plaintiff can file his Memorandum(s) in Support,
and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.
On behalf of himself and all other past and present employees of
Defendants, the Plaintiff has filed his claim for unpaid wages and
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
supplemental state wage and hour claims under Colorado law.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the FLSA and Colorado Overtime
and Minimum Pay Standards Order for Defendants' failure to pay
overtime and other owed wages.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a collective action for his
FLSA claims and for the pendant state claims arising unpaid
overtime wages, certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, respectively.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8PfWl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80237
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Telephone: (720)-386-9006
RELIANT ACCOUNT: RAM Suit Seeks Indemnification for Legal Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAM PAYMENT LLC and RAM AMERICA, INC., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RELIANT ACCOUNT
MANAGEMENT, LLC (n/k/a ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, LLC), RELIANT
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, GS ASSOCIATED HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVE
CHAYA, GREG WINTERS, AUSTINCO, LLC, SCOTT AUSTIN, and WADE
TORKELSON, Defendants, Case No. N22C-06-040 PRW CCLD (Del. Super.
Ct., June 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA).
The class action seeks to require the Defendants to fulfill their
contractual obligations pursuant to APA and indemnify the
Plaintiffs of the amount that they incurred, approximately $63.2
million, resulting from a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) legal action and a litigation currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Defendants have
refused to indemnify the Plaintiffs for the remaining damages the
Plaintiffs have sustained or incurred resulting from or arising out
of or by virtue of from the CFPB and NJ Actions, and are in breach
of the APA, says the suit.
RAM Payment LLC is an independent account management and payment
processing company based in Knoxville, Tennessee.
RAM America, Inc. is the parent company of RAM Payment LLC based in
Tampa, Florida.
Reliant Account Management, LLC is a provider of third party
payment processing and account services based in Tennessee.
Reliant Account Management Systems, LLC is a software company based
in California.
GS Associated Holdings, LLC is a holding company based in Arizona.
AustinCo LLC is the majority shareholder of Reliant Account
Management, LLC, headquartered in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ethan H. Townsend, Esq.
Kevin M. Regan, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
The Nemours Building
1007 North Orange Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 485-3910
E-mail: ehtownsend@mwe.com
kregan@mwe.com
- and –
Michael R. Huttenlocher, Esq.
Jonathan Kim, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
RELIANT REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay OT, Minimum Wages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WANG, On Behalf of HIMSELF and All Others Similarly
Situated v. RELIANT REHABILITATION HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a RELIANT
REHABILITATION, RELIANT PRO REHAB, LLC d/b/a RELIANT
REHABILITATION, RELIANT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a RELIANT
REHABILITATION, and H.I.G. CAPITAL, L.L.C., Case No.
3:22-cv-00258-MMD-CLB (D. Nev., June 7, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. section
207; and failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the Nevada
Constitution and NRS 608.250.
Mr. Wang is a natural person who was employed by the Defendants
from on or about January 2018 through on or about the end of
October 2021 as a non-exempt hourly paid Occupational Therapy
Assistant in Reno, Nevada.
Reliant Rehabilitation employs therapists, including the Plaintiff
Wang, who provide skilled therapy services at skilled nursing
facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NE 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Jerry Martin, Esq.
Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs v. ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION CORP.; ROADTEX
WAREHOUSE SERVICES CORP; ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION; RDTX
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; ECHO GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-at-00553 (E.D. Cal., June 1, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor
Code's Private Attorney General Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants working in a warehouse
in Sacramento, California. He works in the warehouse with a team of
personnel who perform work related to warehouse maintenance and
truck loading.
Roadtex Transportation Corporation is a company that provides
logistics, transportation, and warehousing for products across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks to Decertify Remaining Class in McCurley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John McCurley,
Individually and and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D.
Cal.), Royal asks the Court to enter an order de-certifying the
only remaining Class because Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the elements
of Rule 23.
Given the Court's findings in its summary judgment order, the Ninth
Circuit’s recognition of class predominance issues in its opinion
partially reversing summary judgment, and the substantial evidence
of consent provided by Royal -- authenticated and confirmed by
Prospects directly through a deposition -- all of which was
highlighted and substantiated by the Ninth Circuit's opinion
finding the vast number of Prospects’ consent records matched
perfectly with Plaintiffs' Class, it is now unmistakably clear:
resolving the issue of consent will involve individualized
inquiries that are not appropriate for Class resolution.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q8HHa5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff John McCurley, are:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
kevin@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ml@kazlg.com
The Attorneys for Plaintiff Dan DeForest
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey A, Backman, Esq.
Richard W. Epstein, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 E. Broward Blvd, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 527-2427
Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
E-mail: Jeffrey.Backman@gmlaw.com
Richard.Epstein@gmlaw.com
- and -
Brian R. Cummings, Esq.
Germain D. Labat, Esq.
GM LAW
401 E. Jackson St., Suite 3650
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 769-7020
Facsimile: (813) 426-8582
E-mail: Brian.Cummings@gmlaw.com
Germain.Labat@gmlaw.com
RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Johnson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANN JOHNSON, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN v. RUSSELL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-21735 (W.D. Wash., June 7, 2022) alleges that Russell
Investment breaches its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, Russell obtained fiduciary control of
the Plan's investment menu in late 2015. Upon doing so, Russell
immediately selected a lineup consisting exclusively of its own
poorly performing proprietary funds, and replaced the Plan's
industry-leading target date funds managed by Vanguard with its own
proprietary target date funds.
This self-serving swap was disastrous for the Plan and cost
participants millions of dollars in lost investment earnings
through the middle of 2019, when Russell was removed as the Plan's
investment manager after less than four years in the role. The
Plaintiff brings this action to recover these losses and obtain
equitable relief and other appropriate relief as provided by ERISA,
says the suit.
The Plan holds the retirement savings of more than 7,000 non-union
employees of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. The Plan was previously
known as the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 401(k) Plan and held $92
million as of year-end 2014. There was no participant-focused
justification for Russell's swap. Russell was not a highly regarded
fund manager, having ranked dead last out of 48 companies in
Barron's annual fund manager rankings as of year-end 2014. Yet,
Russell chose itself over other fund managers for each of the
Plan's funds in 2015, and replaced Vanguard's industry-leading
target date funds with its own struggling target date funds.
Moreover, Russell did so despite the fact that the Vanguard funds
performed better than the Russell funds over both short-term and
long-term periods prior to the transfer while exhibiting similar or
lower levels of risk, the suit alleges.
While participants suffered, Russell reaped the rewards. By adding
over $300 11 million in new investment from the Plan, Russell was
able to prop up its struggling proprietary funds, which were losing
other investors amid Russell's performance and reputational
shortcomings. Russell's funds continued to underperform until
Russell was eventually removed as the Plan's outsourced investment
fiduciary in the middle of 2019, less than four years after
assuming the role. In the meantime, the Plan suffered millions in
lost investment returns as a result of Russell selecting an
all-proprietary lineup for Plan participants, the suit further
asserts.
Ann Johnson resides in Coral Gables, Florida. The Plaintiff Johnson
is a current participant in the Plan, and was invested in Russell
funds (including the Russell target date fund corresponding to her
age) during the proposed class period. The Plaintiff has suffered
investment losses as a result of Defendant's fiduciary breaches and
unlawful conduct.
The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning
of 29 U.S.C. section 19 1002(2)(A) and a "defined contribution" or
"individual account" plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section
1002(34). The Plan is also an "ERISA section 404(c) plan," which
means that participants may choose between investment options
(called "designated investment alternatives") made available by the
Plan's fiduciaries.
Russell Investment is a registered investment adviser firm based in
Seattle. Russell and its affiliates market a number of proprietary
investment products, including mutual funds, collective trusts, and
other investment funds. Russell also offers a "fiduciary
outsourcing" service to defined contribution retirement plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
J. Specht, Esq.
Ben Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
krichter@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
- and -
Brandon Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 579-2483
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Marc Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street
7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 318-5162
E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANI ADAMES, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated employees, v. RUTH'S
HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00036-CEF (N.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), conditionally
certifying the case as a collective action and implementing a
procedure, whereby prospective opt-in plaintiffs will be notified
of Plaintiff's FLSA claims and given an opportunity to join this
action as party plaintiffs.
Ruth's Hospitality Group is a restaurant company with a focus on
American steakhouse restaurants.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tQ5PVJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
S.C. JOHNSON: Lott Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic, Beauty Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annemarie Lott, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. and Oars + Alps,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-at-00555 (E.D. Cal., June 1, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' alleged deceptive and misleading
practices with respect to their marketing and sale of Oars +
Alps(R) brand cosmetic and beauty products in violation of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Oars + Alps was launched in 2015 by Laura Lisowski Cox and Mia
Duchnowski with the purpose of creating "a men's skincare line that
offers affordable, all natural products."
According to the complaint, the Defendants marketing efforts stress
the purported "natural" nature of their products. Despite the
representations made on the products' labels, marketing, and
advertising which lead reasonable consumers to believe that the
Products are "natural," the products are not natural because they
include multiple synthetic ingredients, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest thereon, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendants have enjoyed from its
unlawful and/or deceptive business practices, as alleged herein. In
addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendants'
unlawful conduct in the labeling and marketing of the products,
added the suit.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. and Oars + Alps LLC produce, market and
distribute the products in retail stores throughout the United
States including stores physically located in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: cta@ggallp.com
- and -
Amir Shenaq, Esq.
SHENAQ PC
3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (888) 909-9993
E-mail: amir@shenaqpc.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: Garth Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDALL C. GARTH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00602-JPC
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order
provisionally granting the Plaintiff leave to file under seal his
motion for class certification and related exhibits.
The Court orders the Plaintiff to file:
(1) his motion and related exhibits under seal, which
includes highlights identifying the information to be
redacted, and
(2) a separate public document, explaining why the requested
redactions comport with Shane Group and its progeny.
The Plaintiff shall submit these documents by no later than
Wednesday, June 15, 2022. Upon Plaintiff's compliance with
this Order, the Court will review the sealed documents and
issue a final ruling regarding the request for sealing in
accordance with Shane Group and its progeny.
On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff moved the Court, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, for leave to file his motion for
class certification and related exhibits under seal. In his motion,
Plaintiff asserts that redacting portions of its motion is
necessary to protect confidential information.
Safeco Insurance, a member of Liberty Mutual Group, is an American
insurance company.
A copy of the Court's orderdated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NM0CGo at no extra charge.[CC]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Seeks Leave to file Sur-Reply Brief
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ERNEST
ARCHULETA, ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER
NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
PARTNERS, INC., TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
MID-AMERICA HEALTH, INC., LOGAN HAAK, M.D., INC., SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00406-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant San Diego County
applies ex parte for an order granting leave to file a sur-reply
brief in response to the new evidence set forth in plaintiffs'
reply in support of their motions for preliminary injunction and
provisional class certification; in the alternative, this Court
should strike the new evidence submitted and consider only the
reply brief itself.
The Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to File Documents Under Seal,
which are medical records Plaintiffs are seeking to add to their
submission on Reply "to demonstrate the harm to which incarcerated
people have been wrongfully subjected at the Jail" (i.e.
information that could have been submitted with the Motion along
with the 8 prisoner declarations they file with their reply).
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ttNfCj at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan E. Coleman, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101-8474
Telephone: (619) 814-5800
Facsimile: (619) 814-6799
E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com
SCHOLL'S WELLNESS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scholl's Wellness
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Scholl's Wellness
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04647 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Scholl's Wellness Company -- https://www.drscholls.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of footwear and orthopedic foot care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SOULFLOWER INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoulFlower, Inc. The
case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SoulFlower, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04642-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Soul Flower, Co. -- https://soulflower.co/ -- is a local craft
company that specializes in leather crafting and bag making.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Jan. 25 Scheduling Order Amended
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adrian Bombin and Samantha
Rood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order amending the Court's
January 25, 2022 Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Amended Deadline
-- Deadline to Respond to Motion June 13, 2022
for Class Certification (and Any
Motion to Deny Class Certification)
and Defendant's Class Certification
Expert Rebuttal:
-- Deadline to File Reply Brief In To be determined
Support of Class Certification following a meet and
confer and any
potential discovery
dispute
Southwest Airlines, typically referred to as Southwest, is one of
the major airlines of the United States and the world's largest
low-cost carrier.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tsAmbU at no extra charge.[CC]
SOUTHWESTERN & PACIFIC: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arredondo v. Southwestern
& Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01737-DAD-SKO
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class
action settlement, an award of attorneys' fees and costs,
and an incentive service award for the class action
representative is granted;
2. The court approves the parties' settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
3. The court awards the following sums:
a. Class counsel shall receive $416,666.25 in attorneys'
fees and $11,101.30 in expenses;
b. The Plaintiff Arredondo shall receive $10,000.00 as an
incentive payment;
c. Phoenix, shall receive $10,500.00 in settlement
administration costs; and
d. The parties shall direct payment of 75 percent of the
settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or
$75,000.00, to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency as required by California law, and
the remainder of the PAGA payment, or $25,000.00, shall
be included in the net settlement amount;
4. The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the
settlement agreement and any deadlines or procedures for
distribution set forth therein;
5. This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with
the terms of the parties' amended settlement agreement,
with the court specifically retaining jurisdiction over
this action for the purpose of enforcing the parties'
settlement agreement; and
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc. was founded in 2005.
The Company's line of business includes performing functions
related to depository banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4Mw0a at no extra charge.[CC]
SPROOSE HOLDINGS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sproose Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Sproose Holdings, Inc. d/b/a
Alchemy 43, Case No. 1:22-cv-03293-LDH-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 3,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sproose Holdings, Inc. doing business as Alchemy 43 --
https://alchemy43.com/ -- is an aesthetics bar specializing in
cosmetic microtreatments with locations in Los Angeles and New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
STATE FARM: Parties Seek Short Extensions of Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ and
FERNANDO VELAZQUEZ, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case
No. 2:19-cv-03128-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court
granting their request short extensions of the deadlines as
follows:
Event Prior Revised
Deadline Deadline
-- State Farm's expert June 10, 2022 June 24, 2022
disclosures related
to class certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion Aug. 9, 2022 Sept. 14, 2022
for class certification
under Rule 23
-- State Farm's response to Aug. 23, 2022 Oct. 14, 2022
Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification:
-- Dispositive motions Sept. 8, 2022 Oct. 14, 2022
deadline:
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39eOfna at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Velazquez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ, et al.,
v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-03128-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quinones
Alejandro entered an order granting parties' joint motion to extend
deadlines for expert disclosures, class certification briefing, and
dispositive motions.
1. The Defendant's expert disclosures June 24, 2022
related to class certification
shall be provided by:
2. Any motion for class certification Sept. 14, 2022
under Rule 23 shall be filed by:
Any response shall be filed by: Oct. 14, 2022
3. Any dispositive motions shall be Oct. 14, 2022
filed by:
4. A final pretrial conference will Jan. 13, 2023
be held on or about:
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tt1yqS at no extra charge.[CC]
STEAK N SHAKE: Wilmoth's Managers Class Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALICIA WILMOTH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, BRANDON SCOTT, and ALBERT DIANA, Plaintiffs v.
STEAK N SHAKE, INC., an Indiana Corporation, and SARDAR BIGLARI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01507-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya
Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Alicia Wilmoth, Brandon Scott, and Albert Diana
initiated the action to recover overtime wages for themselves and
other individuals who were employed in salaried positions by
Defendants Steak N Shake, Inc., and Sardar Biglari (together,
"Steak N Shake") and were allegedly unpaid or underpaid by Steak N
Shake in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant
conditional certification of a proposed Collective Action and to
direct Steak N Shake to produce certain information regarding
potential opt-in plaintiffs.
II. Background
Defendant Steak N Shake, Inc., is an Indiana corporation that
operates certain Steak N Shake restaurants throughout the United
States. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Biglari Holdings, Inc.
Defendant Sadar Biglari is the President and CEO of Steak N Shake,
Inc. and the Chairman and CEO of Biglari Holdings, Inc. During the
relevant time, Steak N Shake owned and operated approximately 200
restaurants across 14 states.
Steak N Shake's restaurants were modeled to be staffed with several
managerial positions including "General Managers," "Restaurant
Managers," and other "Managers." Steak N Shake maintained a uniform
job description for all Managers, which designated Managers as
exempt from overtime pay. It also employed individuals in several
nonexempt positions to perform production and service manual-labor
duties.
The Plaintiffs each worked for Steak N Shake as Managers, but they
did not have authority to hire or fire employees, did not decide
employee pay rates, did not conduct employee performance reviews,
did not decide employee pay raises or promotions, and had little to
no authority to discipline employees. They spent most of their time
performing the same duties as Steak N Shake' nonexempt employees,
but they considered those duties to be the most important part of
their jobs as Managers because they believed the restaurants would
have failed if they failed to perform those duties. While employed
as Managers, the Plaintiffs were paid a set amount for their work
regardless of the weekly hours they worked. They were regularly
scheduled to, and did, work more than 40 hours per work week. They
were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per work
week.
On June 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated te cause of action on
behalf of themselves and other Steak N Shake employees, alleging
that Steak N Shake violated the FLSA by willfully failing to pay
their Managers for all overtime hours worked over 40 in a work
week. On Sept. 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification. The Motion requests conditional
certification of their FLSA claim; seeks approval to disseminate
notices and consent forms by U.S. Mail, email, website, and text
message, with one reminder; and seeks an order directing Steak N
Shake to produce the names, addresses, telephone numbers, personal
email addresses, and partial social security numbers of each
potential member of the collective action. Steak N Shake filed
their opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion on Oct. 29, 2021.
On Nov. 16, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation in which
the parties consented to the conditional certification of an
agreed-upon collective and the dissemination of an agreed notice
and consent form by U.S. Mail. The Court acknowledged the Joint
Stipulation on Nov. 17, 2021. The parties still dispute the
Plaintiffs' request to send notices by email, website, and text
messaging, and to send a reminder. The parties have filed
supplementary briefing on these remaining disputes.
III. Discussion
A. Conditional Certification
In their Motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally
certify a collective action for their FLSA claim, arguing that they
are similarly situated to other Managers who were denied overtime
wages by Steak N Shake. In response, Steak N Shake asserts that
Plaintiffs' proposed collective action would improperly include
Managers who had signed arbitration agreements or who had worked
exclusively at restaurant locations that are owned and operated by
franchisees or franchise partners, separately and independently
from Steak N Shake, Inc. ("Franchise Locations").
The parties have resolved those disputes for purposes of
conditional certification and stipulated to the conditional
certification of a collective action that excludes Managers who
signed arbitration agreements (with limited exceptions) and
Managers who worked exclusively at Franchise Locations.
Judge Pratt holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the modest
factual burden to show that they are similarly situated to the
potential opt-in plaintiffs identified in the Joint Stipulation.
Given that Steak N Shake have stipulated to the conditional
certification of the collective action as described in the Joint
Stipulation, the Court finds no reason to deny conditional
certification.
Accordingly, Judge Pratt approves the parties' Joint Stipulation
and grants conditional certification for the FLSA claim as a
collective action for the following collective: "All persons who
worked or will work as Managers for Steak N Shake at all corporate
owned Steak N Shake restaurants located in the United States at any
time within three years prior to the date of this Entry."
B. Proposed Notice and Method of Dissemination
The parties have stipulated to the contents of a Notification to
Potential Class Members and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff,
which the Court finds to be appropriate, accurate, and in
furtherance of the goals of the FLSA. The stipulated Notice
provides for a sixty-day response period, which the Court likewise
finds to be appropriate. Judge Pratt therefore approves the
parties' Joint Stipulation as to the contents of the Notice and
Consent Form, subject to certain modifications identified in the
Entry, as well as the 60-day response period.
The only remaining disputes concern the method of dissemination.
The Plaintiffs request permission to send the Notice and Consent
Form by U.S. Mail, email, website, and text message, with one
reminder postcard to be sent 21 days before the Collective's
response deadline. Steak N Shake only consent to dissemination by
U.S. Mail one time and oppose the Plaintiffs' other requests.
After reviewing the parties' briefing, Judge Pratt approves the
parties' stipulation to disseminate the Notice and Consent Form by
U.S. Mail and grants the Plaintiffs' request to disseminate the
Notice and Consent Form by email and website, with one reminder.
She denies their request to disseminate the Notice and Consent Form
by text message and their request for production of Collective
members' partial social security numbers.
Judge Pratt holds that the Plaintiffs offer no evidence that text
messaging is needed in light of the use of U.S. Mail, email, a
website, and a reminder, or that their need to use text messaging
would outweigh Collective members' privacy interests. She also sees
no reason to compel production of potential plaintiffs' social
security numbers at this stage, especially because the Plaintiffs
will also be able to reach Collective members through email and a
website. However, the Plaintiffs may later request this information
if the first attempts at notice via U.S. Mail, email, and website
fail and if needed to contact Collective members.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Pratt grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification.
Specifically, she orders that the Notice and Consent Form submitted
by the parties at Filing No. 61-1 may be issued to members of the
Collective with the following modifications:
1. In the second paragraph of Section 2 of the Notice (What
is this Lawsuit About?), replace Steak n Shake with Steak N Shake;
2. In the second paragraph of Section 5 of the Notice (How
Can I Participate & Effect of Joining the Lawsuit?), replace SNS
with Steak N Shake; and
3. In the last three lines of the Consent Form, insert
Plaintiffs' counsel's fax number and email address to be used for
returning Consent Forms.
Within 14 days of the Entry, Steak N Shake will provide to the
Plaintiffs a spreadsheet containing the names, last known home
addresses (including zip codes), last known personal email
addresses, and employment dates (in Microsoft Office Excel format)
of all members of the Collective (the "Collective Information").
Within seven days of Steak N Shake providing the Collective
Information, the Plaintiffs will send the Notice and Consent Form
to the Collective by U.S. Mail (first-class or overnight), along
with a self-addressed, postage pre-paid return envelope, and by
email.
On or before the date the Notice is first sent to the Collective,
the Plaintiffs' counsel will establish a public website -- separate
from and unaffiliated with the Plaintiffs' counsel's website(s) --
that contains only the stipulated Notice and Consent Form and that
permits the return of electronic consent forms.
Within 10 days of the Entry, the parties will confer and submit to
the Court proposed language for the reminder postcard to be issued
by U.S. Mail (first-class or overnight) and email. In drafting the
proposed language, the parties should "be scrupulous to respect
judicial neutrality" and "take care to avoid even the appearance of
judicial endorsement of the merits of the action."
Twenty-one days before the Collective's deadline to return the
Consent Form, Plaintiffs will send the Court-approved reminder
postcard by U.S. Mail (first-class or overnight delivery) and email
to any Collective member who has not responded to the Notice. The
Plaintiffs may send the reminder postcard only after obtaining
Court approval of its contents.
Members of the Collective will have 60 days after the deadline for
mailing the Notice to return a Consent Form to opt-in to the
litigation, unless the parties agree to permit late filings or good
cause can be shown as to why the form was not returned prior to the
deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Entry is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2z6ps8wu from Leagle.com.
STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: $4MM Class Deal in Mendez Suit Wins Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK "JOE" MENDEZ, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; DONALD MAX KIMBALL, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; and
SIA GOULD, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; and STEELSCAPE, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, Defendants, Case No. C19-5691 TSZ (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, grants:
(i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement; and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees,
Case Costs, and Enhancement Awards.
Plaintiffs Frank "Joe" Mendez, Donald Max Kimball, and Sia Gould,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf other similarly situated
persons, filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement. Defendants Steelscape Washington, LLC, and Steelscape,
LLC (collectively "Steelscape"), do not oppose this motion, and
there are no known opt-outs or objectors to the settlement.
Separately, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees, Case Costs, and Enhancement Awards. This motion
likewise received no opposition from either opposing the counsel or
the Settlement Class.
The class settlement provides a common fund with a total value of
$4 million. The proposed attorneys' fee award of $1 million
constitutes 25% of the settlement fund. The settlement treats the
members of the Settlement Class equally relative to each other. The
settlement payments to the Settlement Class will be based on each
member's calculated gross earnings for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018,
and distributed proportionally based on the calculated share of the
settlement fund. JND Legal Administration, an experienced claims
administrator, provided a detailed notice approved by the Court.
Having considered the parties' Settlement Agreement, the Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Declaration of Brian
L. Dolman and related exhibits, the Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees, Case Costs, and Enhancement Awards, the
Declaration of Donald W. Heyrich and supporting exhibit, and the
various declarations of Jonathan Shaffer as Settlement
Administrator, as well as the arguments of counsel, Judge Zilly
approves the settlement of the Action, as embodied in the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Settlement Agreement is incorporated by reference into the
Order, is adopted as an Order of the Court, and becomes part of the
final judgment in the Action. The definitions contained within the
Settlement Agreement are incorporated by reference into the Order.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Judge Zilly
certifies, for purposes of settlement, the Settlement Class, as
follows: "All current and former employees of Defendants who were
employed in production positions during Fiscal Year 2017 and/or
Fiscal Year 2018 at Defendants' facility in Kalama, Washington and
who received a fiscal-year-end bonus for: (a) Fiscal Year 2017
under the Steelscape LLC Kalama Production Employees Pay for
Performance FY17 bonus opportunity; and or (b) Fiscal Year 2018
under the Coated Products North America (CPNA) Bonus Pay for
Performance Steelscape Production & Production Support bonus
opportunity.
The Judge confirms the appointment of Frank "Joe" Mendez, Donald
Max Kimball, and Sia Gould as the Representative Plaintiffs of the
Settlement Class and finds that they meet the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). He also confirms the appointment of the
following attorneys as the Class Counsel, and finds that they meet
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4): Donald W. Heyrich
Erin S. Norgaard Brin L. Dolman HKM Employment Attorneys 600
Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 981019.
Each member of the Settlement Class will be bound by the Settlement
Agreement, including the releases therein.
The Settlement Class is officially certified for purposes of
effectuating the settlement.
The parties are ordered to promptly carry out their respective
obligations under the Settlement Agreement and JND is directed to
complete the administration of the settlement in a manner
consistent with the Settlement Agreement.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator will issue payment to the Class Counsel for
attorneys' fees in the amount of $1 million and costs in the amount
of $9,567.51. The Class Counsel is further directed to seek
reimbursement from JND for any settlement administration services
advanced on behalf of the Settlement Class.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator will issue payments of $5,000 each to Plaintiff Sia
Gould and Plaintiff Donald Max Kimball as an enhancement award for
their time, efforts, and dedication to the litigation and
resolution of the same.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator will pay itself for the actual costs of settlement
administration, not to exceed $19,700.
All Released Claims of each member of the Settlement Class (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement) are dismissed with prejudice.
Judgment is entered for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 58 and 79, and the time period for filing any notice of
appeal will commence on the date of entry of the Order and
Judgment. Without affecting the finality of this Order and
Judgment, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
over the interpretation, consummation, administration,
implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement and the distribution of payments required therein. It
further retains jurisdiction to enforce the Order entered.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order and Judgment to
all counsel of record and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2auuvazr from Leagle.com.
SUPERCELL INC: T.T. Sues Over Illegal Marketing of In-Game Items
----------------------------------------------------------------
T.T., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERCELL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-03196-LB (N.D. Cal., June 1, 2022) is a putative class
action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated who disaffirm their entire contracts with
Defendant and seek restitution in the amount already paid to
Defendant on their now-void contracts pursuant to the California
Business & Professional Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
have suffered injury due to deceptive and misleading trade
practices by Defendant in marketing and selling in-game items and
in-game currency for its popular video games, Clash of Clans, Clash
Royale and Brawl Stars. These items and in-game currency are
frequently purchased by minors who are unable to exercise their
unrestricted rights under state laws to rescind contracts into
which they entered with Defendant, says the suit.
The games are ostensibly "free" to play. However, the games realize
billions of dollars in revenue, largely from children. The games
are monetized through a system where players can obtain new
upgrades, characters, chests, weapons, costumes, and other
resources in exchange for virtual currency. The in-game currency
can be purchased from Defendant using real money, the suit added.
Supercell, Inc. is a mobile video game development company whose
video games include Brawl Stars, Clash of Clans, and Clash Royale.
Supercell transacts significant business within California and
throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD BOUISSEY et al.,
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-03203-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia Phillips
entered an order regarding second joint stipulation re class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- Opposition Filed: July 11, 2022
-- Reply Filed: August 15, 2022
-- Hearing: September 19, 2022
Swift provides transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aTs7PE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
Robert Mussig, Esq.
John D. Ellis, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Co-Lead Roles Appointed in Modrak Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MODRAK, et al., Plaintiffs v. TALIS BIOMEDICAL
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00105-SI, Related
Case No. 22-cv-01039-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants
the motions to consolidate and the revised proposal for appointment
of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.
I. Background
On June 3, 2022, the Court held the continued hearing on the
Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate and for appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
On Jan. 7, 2022, and Feb. 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed two
securities class actions against Talis, a number of corporate
officers, and several underwriters, alleging causes of action under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k and 77o -- Modrak et al. v. Talis Biomedical Corp. et
al., Case No. 22-cv-00105 SI and Mitcham et al. v. Talis Biomedical
Corp. et al., Case No. 22-cv-01039 SI. The class actions are
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Talis common stock pursuant to and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the company's February 2021 initial public offering.
According to the complaints, Talis "develops diagnostic tests to
enable accurate, reliable, low cost, and rapid molecular testing
for infectious diseases and other conditions at the point-of-care.
The Talis One tests are being developed for respiratory infections,
infections related to women's health, and sexually transmitted
infections." On March 8, 2021, Talis announced that it had
withdrawn its EUA application for the Talis One COVID-19 test, and
"on this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.80, or 12%, to
close at $12.85 per share." The Company's stock fell further in
August and November 2021 after announcements of delays in
development timelines and the departures of two CEOs.
The Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement and
prospectus were false and misleading and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about Talis' EUA application for the Talis
One COVID-19 test and that the Defendants' positive statements
about Talis' business, operations and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Now before the Court are unopposed motions to consolidate the
related cases and four motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
filed by Leon Yu and Yu's personal investment company, Max Wisdom
Technology Limited; Martin Dugan; Nikolas Touras; and Adriana
Belli. The competing motions for lead plaintiff also seek
appointment of lead counsel. Dugan, Touras and Belli filed
statements of non-opposition to the appointment of Yu and Max
Wisdom based on the fact that collectively Yu and Max Wisdom appear
to have the largest financial interest in the litigation.
On April 22, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the motions. It
questioned whether the fact that Yu is a Chinese national who
resides in China would create logistical difficulties impacting his
ability to serve as lead plaintiff, particularly in light of the
current COVID-19 travel restrictions imposed by the Chinese
government. The Court continued the motions to June 3, 2022, in
order to allow the parties and counsel to evaluate these issues.
On May 27, 2022, Yu and Dugan, who has the second largest financial
interest, filed a joint proposal seeking appointment as co-lead
plaintiffs and their counsel, Pomerantz LLP and Bleichmar Fonti &
Auld LLP ("BFA"), as co-lead counsel. The joint proposal states
that the other lead plaintiff movants (Touras and Belli), as well
as the two initial plaintiffs in the related actions (Modrak and
Mitcham), agree to this proposal, while the Defendants have
continued concerns about Yu's ability to participate in discovery
because he is a Chinese national and resident. Yu and Dugan also
filed declarations in support of the joint proposal.
II. Discussion
A. Consolidation
Judge Illson finds that the related actions allege the same causes
of action arising out of the February 2021 IPO. She finds that
consolidation is appropriate and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42, the related actions are consolidated for all purposes
into one action. These actions will be referred to herein as the
"Consolidated Action." The Order will apply to the Consolidated
Action and to each case that is subsequently filed in this Court
that relates to the same subject matter as in the Consolidated
Action.
Every pleading in the Consolidated Action, and any related action
that is consolidated with the Consolidated Action, will thereafter
bear the following caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE TALIS BIOMEDICAL Case No.
22-cv-00105-SI SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: [Title of Document]"
When the document being filed pertains to all actions, the phrase
"All Actions" will appear immediately after the phrase "This
Document Relates To:". When the document applies to some, but not
all, of the actions, the document will list, immediately after the
phrase "This Document Relates To:", the docket number for each
individual action to which the document applies, along with the
name of the first-listed plaintiff in said action.
The Court requests the assistance of the counsel in calling to the
attention of the Clerk of the Court the filing or transfer of any
case which might not properly be consolidated as part of the
Consolidated Action.
A Master Docket and Master File will be established for the
Consolidated Action. The Master File will be No. 3:22-cv-00105-SI.
All orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents shall, when
filed and docketed in the Master File, be deemed filed and docketed
in each individual case to the extent applicable. When an order,
pleading, motion, or document is filed with a caption indicating
that it is applicable to fewer than all individual actions in the
Consolidated Action, the clerk will file such pleadings in the
Master File and note such filing in the Master Docket and in the
docket of each action referenced.
B. Lead Plaintiff
Judge Illston has reviewed the revised proposal for appointment of
Yu and Dugan as co-lead plaintiffs and is satisfied that their
joint appointment will ensure that the class is adequately
represented. Timely and complete notice of the action was published
on Jan. 7, 2022, and Yu and Dugan have the largest and second
largest financial interests in the litigation. Yu and Dugan have
filed declarations stating that they are committed to serving
together in a co-lead capacity and to participating in discovery
and the prosecution of this litigation. Yu states that during a
period of any travel restrictions, he will participate in court
proceedings. As the Court stated at the hearing, if the Defendants
encounter any logistical difficulties with conducting discovery on
Mr. Yu, they will so notify the Court and the Court will reevaluate
Mr. Yu's ability to serve as co-lead plaintiff.
C. Lead Counsel
Judge Illston appoints Pomerantz LLP and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
as the co-lead counsel. Lead Counsel will carry out their
responsibilities and duties either personally or through counsel
who the Lead Counsel will designate.
No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceedings
will be initiated or filed by any plaintiffs without the approval
of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, so as to prevent duplicative
pleadings or discovery by the Plaintiffs. No settlement
negotiations will be conducted without the approval of the Lead
Plaintiffs and the Lead Counsel.
The counsel in any related action that is consolidated with the
Consolidated Action will be bound by the organization of the
Plaintiffs' counsel set forth. The Lead Counsel will be the contact
between the Plaintiffs' counsel, and will direct and coordinate the
activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel.
The Defendants will effect service of papers on the Plaintiffs by
serving a copy of same on the Lead Counsel by overnight mail
service, electronic or hand delivery, or ECF. The Plaintiffs will
effect service of papers on defendants by serving a copy of same on
the Defendants' counsel by overnight mail service, electronic or
hand delivery, or by ECF on counsel for registered parties.
During the pendency of the litigation, or until further order of
the Court, the parties will take reasonable steps to preserve all
documents within their possession, custody, or control, including
computer-generated and stored information, and materials such as
computerized data and electronic mail, containing information which
is relevant or which may lead to the discovery of information
relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons she set, Judge Illston grants the motions to
consolidate and the revised proposal for appointment of co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. The parties will file a stipulation
regarding the schedule for the filing of the complaint and motion
practice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8mv233 from Leagle.com.
TEAM WASHINGTON: Moody Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius Moody, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Team Washington, Inc.; Mary Lynne Carraway; John Doe
1-10; Doe Corporation 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01546
(D.D.C., June 1, 2022) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and
equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington D.C.
Minimum Wage Revision Act, the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection
Law, and for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver
at the Team Washington stores since December 2021 at their
Wisconsin Avenue and Michigan Avenue locations in Washington D.C.
The Defendants own and operate approximately 76 Domino's Pizza
franchise stores in and around Washington D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D.J. EISENBERG
700 12th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 558-6371
Facsimile: (202) 403-3430
E-mail: Michael@Eisenberg-Lawoffice.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
lfarmwald@billerkimble.com
TIVITY HEALTH: Sheet Metal Workers Win Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order granting
Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33's Motion for Class
Certification:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Tivity Health, Inc. between March 8, 2019, and
February 19, 2020, inclusive."
Excluded from the Class are Tivity Health, Inc., Donato
Tramuto, Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, members of their
immediate families, and any entity of which Defendant has a
controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs,
predecessors, successors, or assigns of any excluded party.
Additionally, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is
appointed as class counsel.
Tivity Health is a provider of health improvement, fitness and
social engagement solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MAdbTy at no extra charge.[CC]
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRK ROBERTS, FARAJI
ARTURO COUNCIL, TERRENCE COLVIN-WILLIAMS, REGINALD BRADLEY, DAVID
COLEMAN, and CARL McROBERTS JR., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., OLATHE NOBLE
EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC., and JACOBSON HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Gwynne E. Birzer
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for Leave to File
their Third Amended Complaint to add claims based on recently
discovered evidence, and their accompanying Memorandum in Support.
On February 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs originally brought their
claims against the Defendant TransAm Trucking for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act. The Plaintiffs also sought class or collective
action certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
On March 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
adding Olathe Noble Equipment Leasing, Inc., ("ONE Leasing") as
a Defendant, alleging the Defendants violated the Kansas Wage
Payment Act, ("KWPA") adding new claims under the FLSA and under
the Florida Constitution.
On January 7, 2022, a Second Amended Complaint was filed, which
added a third Defendant, Jacobson Holdings, Inc., with new factual
allegations, a modified definition of the proposed class under the
KCPA claims, and changed the name of the lead Plaintiff.
Prior to the Second Amended Complaint being filed, the Court
entered a Phase I Scheduling Order that controlled discovery,
focusing on liability and class and collective action certification
issues. 2 The original Phase I Scheduling Order included a March
31, 2022, discovery deadline. Before Phase I discovery closed, the
Plaintiffs sought to amend the scheduling order, which the Court
granted. 4 The new schedule included a June 30, 2022, deadline for
Phase I discovery. 5 After substantial discovery was conducted, the
parties again sought to amend the scheduling order.
The Court conferenced with the parties regarding Phase I discovery
issues and again granted an extension, setting a new
discovery deadline of September 30, 2022. 7 A motion for leave to
join parties or otherwise amend the pleadings is to be filed within
five months after the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs'
motion for class and/or collective action certification.
-- Plaintiffs' Position
The Plaintiffs contend their Motion should be granted
pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. because there is no undue
delay and no undue prejudice to Defendants.
-- Defendants' Position
The Defendants argue Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied
for two reasons: 1) Plaintiffs have unduly delayed bringing
their Motion; and 2) Defendants will suffer undue prejudice
if the amendments are allowed. Defendants subtly mention
futility, but recognize the proposed amendments are not
futile in the analysis for amending the complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tqOrXg at no extra charge.[CC]
UNION OF ORTHODOX: Court Won't Seal Settlement Amounts in A.S. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A.S., Plaintiff v. THE UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH
CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19
Civ. 11566 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the
parties' request to seal the settlement amounts in the Infant
Compromise Order.
On June 2, 2022, the Court entered the Infant Compromise Order,
approving the parties' settlement agreement and dismissing the
action. The parties subsequently filed a joint letter, requesting
that the Infant Compromise order "be modified to redact the amounts
within said Order." The parties contend that redaction of the
settlement amounts is warranted because the settlement agreement
contains a confidentiality provision. In support of their request,
the parties cite to Leonard as Tr. of Poplawski 2008 Ins. Tr. v.
John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., No. 18 Civ. 4994 (AKH), 2020 WL
1547486 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020), which, according to them, found
that the "interest in redactions of settlement amounts outweigh
public access."
Judge Cronan denies the parties' request to seal the settlement
amounts in the Infant Compromise Order, as they have not made a
showing that such relief is warranted. As an initial matter, the
case on which the parties rely does not support their contention as
that order concerned requests to redact certain information in the
plaintiff's first amended class action complaint. And in fact,
Judge Cronan notes that the parties in that case filed the final
settlement amounts publicly on the docket.
Moreover, the parties have not presented any basis to support the
position that the parties' privacy interests in maintaining the
settlement amounts contained in the Infant Compromise Order
confidential outweighs the right of public access to such
information, especially in light of the fact that the parties do
not seek redaction of the same information contained in the
proposed infant compromise order and the parties' settlement
agreement, both of which are filed publicly on the docket.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter
motion pending at Docket Number 85.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mmhtank from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Murphy, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAUREEN MURPHY,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals; JOHN HUDDLESTON, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, v. GINA RAIMONDO, in her
official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
a federal agency; ROBERT SANTOS, in his official capacity as
Director of the Bureau of the Census; BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, a
federal agency, Case No. 3:22-cv-05377-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP or
Rule) 23(c)(1).
According to the complaint, the Defendants ordered Plaintiffs
Maureen Murphy and John Huddleston to answer the American Community
Survey. The Plaintiffs, like many Americans, refused to answer it.
They will continue to refuse to answer the survey. Defendants, in
writing, have threatened Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
with fines for refusing to answer the American Community Survey.
Everyone, including Ms. Murphy and Mr. Huddleston, understands the
importance of the decennial Census. The Plaintiffs have in the past
and will continue in the future to answer the ten-year 13 Census.
But there is a world of difference between the Census and the ACS.
The Census Bureau 14 lacks the statutory and constitutional
authority to compel millions of Americans to share intimate details
of their lives under the threat of fines. The Court should certify
the plaintiff class under FRCP 23(b)(2), the lawsuit says.
The United States Department of Commerce is an executive department
of the U.S. federal government concerned with creating the
conditions for economic growth and opportunity.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 8,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QdexXu
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian T. Hodges, Esq.
Aditya Dynar, Esq.
Michael A. Poon, Esq.
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
255 South King Street, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (425) 576-0484
E-mail: BHodges@pacificlegal.org
ADynar@pacificlegal.org
MPoon@pacificlegal.org
UNITED STATES: Perez, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bianey GARCIA PEREZ, et
al., v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00806 (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying the following class and appointing them as
class representatives:
"All noncitizens in the United States who have been or will
be placed in removal proceedings; who filed or will file
with Defendants a complete I-589 (Application for Asylum and
Withholding of Removal); who would be eligible for
employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(c)(8) but
for the fact that the asylum employment authorization
document (EAD) clock was stopped or not started prior to 180
days; and whose asylum EAD clock determinations have been or
will be made without written notice or a meaningful
opportunity to contest such determinations."
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify the
following subclasses:
-- Remand Subclass
"Asylum and/or withholding of removal applicants whose
asylum EAD clocks were or will be stopped following a
decision by an immigration judge and whose asylum EAD
clocks are not or will not be started or restarted
following an appeal in which either the BIA or a federal
court of appeals remands their case resulting in further
adjudication of their asylum and/or withholding of
removal claims;"
-- Unaccompanied Children Subclass
"Asylum applicants in removal proceedings who are deemed
unaccompanied children pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 279(g) and
whose asylum EAD clocks are not started or will be
stopped while waiting for USCIS to initially adjudicate
the filed asylum application;" and
-- Change of Venue Subclass
"Asylum and/or withholding of removal applicants in
removal proceedings who have changed residence or will
change residence within the United States after having
filed asylum and/or withholding of removal applications
with the immigration court, whose proceedings have been
or will be transferred to a different immigration court
with jurisdiction over their new place of residence, and,
as a consequence, for whom EOIR has stopped or will stop
the asylum EAD clock based solely on the change of
venue."
All named Plaintiffs move to be appointed as
representatives of the class. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs Garcia Perez and Martinez Castro move to be
appointed as representatives of the Remand Subclass. The
Plaintiff J.M.Z. moves to be appointed as representative
of the Unaccompanied Children Subclass. The Plaintiff
Martinez Hernandez moves to be appointed as
representative of the Change of Venue Subclass.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and proposed class
members are eligible to obtain employment authorization based on
their long-pending asylum applications. However, the Defendants
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) and Executive
Office for Immigration Review's (EOIR) policies and practices
unlawfully prevent them from receiving this critical benefit.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), USCIS and EOIR
have 180 days to adjudicate asylum applications, but in the vast
majority of cases, Defendants fail to comply with that deadline.
Accordingly, the INA and federal regulations authorize asylum 9
applicants who have been forced to wait more than 180 days for
Defendants to adjudicate their asylum application to obtain an EAD.
However, the Defendants' policies and practices unlawfully prevent
Plaintiffs acquiring the requisite 180 days.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' failure to
provide notice of and a meaningful 13 to contest Defendants'
180-day determinations as well as three policies and practices for
calculating the time period—hereinafter called the "asylum EAD
clock." Without an EAD, the Plaintiffs are left in dire financial
straits, without any means of supporting themselves or their
families.
U.S. Citizenship is an agency of the United States Department of
Homeland Security that administers the country's naturalization and
immigration system.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QceFGK
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
aaron@nwirp.org
- and -
Mary Kenney, Esq.
Trina Realmuto, Esq.
Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE
10 Griggs Terrace
Brookline, MA 02446
Telephone: (617) 819-4447
E-mail: mary@immigrationlitigation.org
trina@ immigrationlitigation.org
kristin@ immigrationlitigation.org
UNITED STATES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due July 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. at., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered
an order granting the Parties' joint motion for an extension of
time:
-- The Defendants shall file the certified administrative
record; and
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel on or before July 11, 2022.
The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NVdTwp at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED WHOLESALE: Case Management, Sched Order Entered in Thackston
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEY THACKSTON, v.
UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-PDB (M.D.
Fla.), the Court entered a case management and scheduling order and
referral to mediation as follows:
Action or Event Deadline
-- Deadline for providing initial June 15, 2022
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)
-- Deadline for filing any motion June 15, 2022
to add parties under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 14 or amend the pleadings under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a):
-- Deadline for moving for class June 15, 2022
certification, if applicable:
-- Deadline for the plaintiff's expert July 15, 2022
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2):
-- Deadline for completing all discovery July 29, 2022
and filing any motion to compel
discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37:
-- Deadline to conduct mediation: Aug. 23, 2022
-- Deadline for filing any dispositive Oct. 5, 2022
and Daubert motions:
-- Deadline for disclosing the Jan. 18, 2023
defendant's expert disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2):
United Wholesale Mortgage is a national wholesale mortgage lending
company headquartered in Pontiac, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QeUisj at no extra charge.[CC]
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Phase I Specialized Scheduling Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMIESHA HILL, et al., v.
TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00097-SLP (W.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Park entered a Phase I Specialized
Scheduling Order and setting the following deadlines in this case:
-- Motions to join additional parties to be filed within 30
days of this Order.
-- Motions to amend pleadings to be filed within 30 days of
this Order.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
certification is December 2, 2022.
-- Any response(s) to that motion shall be filed on or before
January 16, 2023.
-- The filing of any reply in support of the class
certification motion shall be governed by the Local Civil
Rules of this Court.
Valley Brook is a town in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and is part of
the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5E6rt at no extra charge.[CC]
VALLEY CENTER: Underpays Medical Assistants, Machuca Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MACHUCA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.;
TINA BETH KOOPERSMITH; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV18362 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 6, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every
pay period, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a medical assistant
for over a decade until February 28, 2022.
Valley Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. is a medical group
practice located in Sherman Oaks, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
VERMONT BREAD: Intervenor Sullivan Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CHANEY, et al., v.
VERMONT BREAD COMPANY, et al., and LINDA JOY SULLIVAN, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendant-Crossclaimant, and KK BAKERY INVESTMENT
COMPANY LLC, et al., Crossclaim-Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00120-wks (D. Vt.), Linda Joy Sullivan asks the Court to
enter an order granting her leave to file the sur-reply in support
of her Objection to Plaintiffs Motion For (A) Class Certification,
(B) Appointment of Class Representatives, (C) Appointment of Class
Counsel, (D) Approval of the Form and Manner of Class Notice, and
(E) Such Other and Further Relief As this Court May Deem
Appropriate, and specifically in response to the Reply Brief in
Support of Motion for Class Certification.
The Sur-Reply should be allowed and considered because the
Plaintiffs for the first time reveal in their Reply their position
and authorities in support of why the Koffee Kup Entities
constitute a "single employer" under the WARN Act. The Dissolution
Receiver should be allowed to file and have considered her brief
Sur-Reply in response to these newly raised points and authorities,
Sullivan contends.
A copy of Ms. Sullivan's motion dated June 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HcyIRp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for Linda Joy Sullivan, Dissolution Receiver,
Intervenor and Defendant, are:
Peter D. Wolfson, Esq.
Arthur H. Ruegger, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 768-6700
E-mail: peter.wolfson@dentons.com
arthur.ruegger@dentons.com
- and -
David Dunn, Esq.
PHILLIPS, DUNN, SHRIVER &
CARROLL, P.C.
147 Western Avenue
Brattleboro, VT 05301
Telephone: (802) 257-7244
E-mail: ddunn@pdsclaw.com
VIACOMCBS INC: DeRosa Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA DEROSA, Individually,
and On Behalf of others similarly situated, v. ViacomCBS, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02965-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), he Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3, the proposed New
York Wage and Hour Class of all persons who were paid
through Sessions Payroll for work as a background or
stand-in actor on CBS television shows in New York, at any
time from March 30, 2014 through present;
2. certifying, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the proposed
Fraudulent Information Returns Class 2 all persons who
were paid through Sessions Payroll for work as a
background or stand-in actor on CBS television shows in
New York or California, at any time from March 30, 2014
through present;
3. certifying, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the proposed
Accounting Class of all persons who were paid through
Sessions Payroll for work as a background or stand-in
actor on CBS television shows in New York or California,
at any time from March 30, 2014 through present;
4. appointing Plaintiff Sara DeRosa to serve as the class
representative of each certified class;
5. appointing Boucher LLP to serve as class counsel; and
6. requiring the parties to confer on and submit a proposed
plan for class notice to be given at Defendants' expense.
ViacomCBS Inc. is an American diversified multinational mass media
and entertainment conglomerate.
The Defendants include VIACOMCBS INC.; CBS BROADCASTING, INC.; CBS
TELEVISION STUDIOS, A DIVISION OF CBS STUDIOS, INC.; SESSIONS
PAYROLL MANAGEMENT, INC.; FIRSTHAND PRODUCTIONS, INC.; EAST END
PRODUCTIONS, INC.; SNAPSHOT PRODUCTIONS, INC.; GAIL LEVINE; GREGG
LEVINE; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AFTRA RETIREMENT FUND; BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE SAG PRODUCERS PENSION PLAN; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE SAG-AFTRA HEALTH PLAN; and DOES 1-50.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q7HN1M at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
Mallory Whitelaw, Esq.
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
Telephone: (818) 340-5400
Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
E-mail: ray@boucher.la
bhujwala@boucher.la
weitz@boucher.la
whitelaw@boucher.la
VICTORIA'S SECRET: 8th Cir. Affirms Remand of Lizama to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Abraham Lizama, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victoria's Secret Stores,
LLC; Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
22-1702 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit affirms the district court's order remanding the putative
class action to state court.
The Defendants-Appellants appeal an order of the district court
remanding the putative class action to state court. Lizama filed a
putative class action in Missouri state court against Victoria's
Secret. The petition alleged that the company violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 407.010 et
seq., by assessing tax on a category of purchases at a rate greater
than required by the Missouri tax code. Lizama asserts that
products sold online and shipped to customers in Missouri from
out-of-state facilities are subject to Missouri use tax rates and
not the higher sales tax rates that Victoria's Secret charged.
On behalf of a putative class, Lizama seeks compensatory damages,
attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction preventing Victoria's
Secret from collecting excess tax in the future. The putative class
is defined as "all persons and entities who, during the five-year
period before the filing of the Petition, purchased a product from
Victoria's Secret for personal, family or household use through a
remote sales channel, including its internet website, that was
delivered from an out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery
address and were charged tax monies at a higher tax rate rather
than the lower use tax rate."
Victoria's Secret removed the action to the federal district court
under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).
Lizama moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that
Victoria's Secret failed to show that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million. Victoria's Secret opposed the motion and
submitted a declaration from a company official averring that over
the previous five years, the "sum of the difference between sales
tax collected and hypothetical use tax calculated for the online
sales is more than $2.5 million." The parties agreed that the
amount in controversy includes $2.5 million in actual damages and
about $800,000 in attorney's fees, bringing the amount to at least
$3.3 million.
Victoria's Secret argues that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million because the value of injunctive relief is more than $1.7
million, and that amount must be added to the $3.3 million that the
parties agree is in controversy. The company maintains that the
$2.5 million of allegedly excess tax collected over the last five
years provides a reasonable basis to project the disputed tax
differential in future years. Using the figure of $2.5 million for
the last five years, and applying a discount rate of 5%, Victoria's
Secret calculates the value of the injunction to be about $2.2
million over the next five years or $3.9 million over the next 10
years.
The district court agreed with the parties that compensatory
damages and attorney's fees would total about $3.3 million. But the
court concluded that Victoria's Secret's estimate of the value of
injunctive relief was "speculative," and that Victoria's Secret had
failed to show the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The
court thus remanded the case to state court, and Victoria's Secret
appeals.
The Eighth Circuit reviews the district court's legal conclusions
de novo, and reviews for clear error the court's findings of
jurisdictional facts regarding the amount in controversy. The
relevant jurisdictional fact is whether a factfinder might legally
conclude that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
amount.
The parties debate whether the amount in controversy should be
measured only from the Plaintiffs' perspective -- i.e., the
aggregate value of the claims to the class members -- or whether a
district court may determine the amount from either party's point
of view, and thus may consider the amount from the Defendant's
perspective -- i.e., the total potential cost to the Defendant if
the Plaintiffs prevail.
The Eighth Circuit holds that it need not resolve that issue,
because it concludes that Victoria's Secret did not meet its burden
to show an amount in controversy over $5 million from either
perspective. It finds that while Victoria's Secret projects that
the company would collect $2.5 million in allegedly excess tax over
the next five years, the company presented no evidence to support a
reasonable inference that putative class members would be the
future purchasers who pay that amount of disputed tax. The petition
does not define the putative class as future purchasers or allege
that all class members who are past purchasers intend to make
future purchases. The absence of such an allegation may mean that
the class could not properly be certified for purposes of
injunctive relief.
But even assuming that the amount in controversy properly includes
projected taxes that would be paid by some class members who make
future purchases, Victoria's Secret did not meet its burden. The
company presented no data or other evidence to support a reasonable
inference that the number of class members who would become repeat
purchasers is likely to be sufficient to generate at least $1.7
million in disputed tax. Without a non-speculative basis to infer
that the requested injunction would bring the amount in controversy
between these parties over $5 million, the district court properly
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
For these reasons, the order of the district court remanding the
action to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, is
affirmed. The Appellee's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8tp2et from Leagle.com.
VIRGINIA: District Court Dismisses Ross v. VDOC Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERAD M. ROSS, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00179 (W.D. Va.), Judge
Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, summarily dismisses the
complaint without prejudice.
I. Introduction
Mr. Ross, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed the civil
action against the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia
Department of Corrections ("VDOC"), and three VDOC officials,
seeking relief for alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"). The
case is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A.
II. Background
Mr. Ross is incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison in Pound,
Virginia. He has a prison job for which he is paid 45 cents per
hour. Ross alleges that "the state's minimum wage service law
requires all employers to pay their employees a minimum wage of $11
per working hour." He claims that the Defendants are "excluding him
as an employee from participating in the state's minimum wage
service law by reason of his disability -- an incarcerated prisoner
convicted of a felony -- in violation of the Federal Rehabilitation
Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act." Ross seeks a judgment
declaring that the VDOC "must pay its prisoner employees the
state's minimum wage." He styles the complaint as a "class
action."
III. Discussion
To state a claim under the ADA or the RA, a plaintiff must allege,
among other things, that he is disabled within the meaning of the
statute. Both statutes define a "disability" as "a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities."
Judge Urbanski finds that Ross' complaint does not plausibly allege
that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA or the RA.
Contrary to his assertions, "incarceration is not such a
'disability.'" Consequently, the complaint fails to state a claim
under either statute.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Urbanski concludes that Ross'
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Therefore, he dismisses the complaint without prejudice under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A(b)(1). An appropriate order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/39h6vk2y from Leagle.com.
VIRGINIA: Watson's Request for Default Judgment v. Haynes Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN A. WATSON, Plaintiff v. B.L. KANODE, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 7:21-cv-00119 (W.D. Va.), Judge Thomas
T. Cullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, Roanoke Division, denies Watson's motion for default
judgment and his request for entry of default.
Mr. Watson's motion for default judgment and request for entry of
default both relate only to Defendant Haynes and only to "Claim
One" of Watson's second amended complaint. Specifically, Watson
alleges that Haynes is in default because her timely Answer to the
second amended complaint only addresses Claim Two, and does not
provide an answer to Claim One of Watson's complaint, which is
titled "Class Action Claim." Haynes has filed a response in
opposition to the motion.
Judge Cullen holds that Haynes is not in default, as she correctly
notes. Default may be entered against a defendant where the party
"has failed to plead or otherwise defend." Haynes, however, has not
failed to plead or otherwise defend. She timely filed an answer to
the second amended complaint, and that answer specifically "denied
each and every allegation not specifically admitted" therein. The
answer included several defenses. Haynes also filed a timely motion
for summary judgment, as directed by the Court, in which she
addressed both claims. Moreover, she previously filed an Answer to
Watson's first amended complaint. In sum, Haynes has responded to
Watson's claims at every turn, and she is not in default.
Even if Haynes were in default, Judge Cullen holds that the Court
can enter a default judgment only if the allegations in the
complaint are sufficient to establish liability. The claim on which
Watson seeks default judgment is a "class action" claim. As the
Court noted in a prior order denying Watson's request for class
certification, a pro se plaintiff may not represent other
prisoners. Thus, even if Haynes were in default, Watson is not
entitled to a default judgment as to this claim.
For these reasons, Watson's motion for default judgment and his
request for entry of default are both denied.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of the Order to Watson and
to the counsel for the Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mnjnrkr from Leagle.com.
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visionworks of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Visionworks of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04651 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Visionworks -- https://www.visionworks.com/ -- is one of the
fastest growing optical retailers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
VOYAGER 888: King, et al., Seek to Stay FLSA Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORA KING, ET AL., On
Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals,
v. VOYAGER 888, LLC D/B/A ASSETS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, ET AL., Case No.
1:21-cv-00991-RMM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs Dora King, Sydney
Jacobs, Momo Johnson, Unique Butler, Jada Morales, and Keonda King
submit their motion to stay the litigation Pending the Court's
Rulings on Plaintiffs' Motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) /
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act (DCMWA) Collective
Certification and Plaintiffs' Motion for Federal Rule 23 Class
Certification.
On April 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Class and Collective
Action Complaint against the Defendants seeking recovery of unpaid
wages and damages under the FLSA and District of Columbia law.
On May 27, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional
Certification of the FLSA/DCMWA Collective Action and Notice to
Putative Class Members.
On July 29, 2021, the Defendants filed their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification to which
Plaintiffs filed their Reply on August 5, 2021.
On January 27, 2022, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting
a discovery deadline for all discovery on September 1, 2022.
On March 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Federal
Rule 23 Class Certification.
On April 14, 2022, the Defendants filed their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to which the Plaintiffs
filed their Reply on April 27, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order Plaintiffs' motion dated June 8, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mGg1vD at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.Com
W.B. MASON: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sannutti Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SANNUTTI, JOHN
HOLAHAN, and BRADLEY GALE, v. W.B. MASON CO., INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-02436-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney entered
an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. All class and fact discovery October 20, 2022
shall be completed by:
2. The Plaintiffs' expert October 18, 2022
report(s), if any, shall be
due by:
3. The Defendants' expert November 18, 2022
report(s), if any, shall
be due by:
4. Expert discovery, including December 2, 2022
expert depositions, shall
be completed by:
5. The Plaintiffs' motion for November 18, 2022
class certification shall be
filed on or before:
6. The Defendants' response to December 9, 2022
Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed
21 days thereafter, on or
before:
7. Any motions for summary judgment January 13, 2023
and Daubert motions shall be
filed on or before
8. Response(s) to any summary February 7, 2023
judgment or Daubert motions shall
be filed on or before:
W.B. Mason is an American business products company headquartered
in Brockton, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zu3WSc at no extra charge.[CC]
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Getchel Seeks Extension to File Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Getchel v. Wakefield and
Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02436-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her an
extension of time up to and including June 15, 2022 to file a
Response to the Defendants motion to stay class certification.
Wakefield and Associates, Inc. is a collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QdRBXX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
WALMART INC: Class Certification Deadlines Continued in Haro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMADO HARO and ROCHELLE
ORTEGA, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting joint
stipulation to continue deadline to file motion for class
certification as follows:
-- The motion for class certification August 1, 2022
shall be filed by no later than:
-- Any opposition to the motion for Sept. 16, 2022
class certification shall be filed
by no later than:
-- Any reply brief in support of the Oct. 7, 2022
motion for class certification
shall be filed by no later than:
-- The motion for class certification Nov. 16, 2022
shall be heard on:
-- The status conference to set Feb. 7, 2023
further scheduling dates,
currently set for Dec. 20,
2022, is continued to:
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ttpeeM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 South Lemon Avenue, #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
whogg@hftrialfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
Laura L. Vaughn, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
jpslowik@akingump.com
vaughnl@akingump.com
- and -
Nathan J. Oleson, Esq.
2001 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 60006
Telephone: (202) 887-4000
E-mail: noleson@akingump.com
WESTERN RANGE: Alvarado Sues Over Illegal Wage-Fixing Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRILO UCHARIMA ALVARADO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB (D. Nev., June 1, 2022)
is an action brought by the Plaintiff seeking class-wide damages,
as well as injunctive and declaratory relief related to the
Defendant's unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act.
Plaintiff Cirilo Ucharima Alvarado is a Peruvian sheepherder from
Centro Poblado de Chala in the Junin region of Peru. He came to the
United States on a temporary H-2A visa to work as a sheepherder on
the Little Ranch in Spring Creek, Nevada from July 4, 2020 until
December 2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendant and its members conspired
and agreed to fix the wages offered to sheepherders predominantly
at the minimum Department of Labor wage floor. This fixed rate is
artificially low, and the fixing of wages through the operation of
the WRA amounts to a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
says the suit.
In the alternative, Plaintiff alleges that the WRA's wage-fixing
agreement is anticompetitive and illegal under the Rule of Reason.
For purposes of the Rule of Reason, the relevant geographic market
for the claim alleged in this Count is the United States, and the
relevant markets consist of (a) the labor market for animal
husbandry workers in the United States; (b) the labor market for
sheepherders in the United States; (c) the labor market for
domestic sheepherders in the United States; and (d) the labor
market for immigrant, H-2A sheepherders in the United States, the
suit added.
The complaint further asserts that WRA's unreasonable restraint or
restraints of trade have damaged the Plaintiff and the members of
the Wage Suppression Class. As a result, Plaintiff and those
similarly situated suffered injuries and are entitled to treble
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs as set forth by law.
Western Range Association is a non-profit member association of
ranchers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua H. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
1825 7th St NW, #821
Washington, DC 20001
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
- and -
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Natasha Viteri, Esq.
Alexander Hood, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80207
E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org
natasha@towardsjustice.org
alex@towardsjustice.org
WOLVERINE WORLD: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolverine World Wide,
Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Wolverine World Wide,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04622-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. or Wolverine Worldwide --
https://www.wolverineworldwide.com/ -- is a publicly traded
American footwear manufacturer based in Rockford, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.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 ***