/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220621.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 21, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 117
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Schappert Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Lian Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
ADVANCED HOME: Bronson Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
AGA SERVICE: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Sought
AMARACHI INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Summary Judgment in Moskowitz TCPA Suit Affirmed
APPLE INC: Settles Web, App Developers' Antitrust Class Action
ARC ONE: Court OK's FLSA Settlement in Raposo Suit
ARGYLE FIRE: Amended Prelim Scheduling Order Entered in Ring
ASSURANT INC: Faces Steen Suit for Discrimination, Retaliation
B HOSPITALITY: Buerger Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Termination
BEACH BOYS: Seeks More Time to Respond to Conrey Class Cert Bid
BEACH CHALET: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BIG EASY: Ramos, et al., Seek to Certify Class
BLUE DIAMOND: Has Until June 24 to Oppose Class Certification
BOSKOVICH FARMS: Ventura Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Illegal, Dangerous Road Blockades
BROOKFIELD PROPERTY: Jefferson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BROOKLYN ROBOT: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CABLECOM LLC: Slick Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
CISION US: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime for $325K
CJ LOGISTICS: Ledbetter Files Suit in C.D. California
CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Bruno Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Deadline
COLORS WORLDWIDE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bencosme Alleges
COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Suit in California Court
DOHERTY ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Johnson Claims
ELEMENTS THERAPEUTIC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EMONEYUSA HOLDINGS: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Crews Suit
FASHION NOVA: Filing Deadline for Class Certification Bid Sought
FIRST WESTERN: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
FOX REHABILITATION: Conner Files Bid to Extend Reply Brief Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: $118-MM Settlement in Pay Equity Class Action Reached
GREENSKY INC: Cross-Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Belyea Suit
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Settles Class Action Over Improper Fees
HALAL GUYS: Has Until June 23 to Oppose Conditional Cert Bid
HALAL GUYS: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayis Seek Extension to File Class Cert Bid
HELLO PRODUCTS: Class Settlement in Patellos Initially Approved
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Seeks Initial Cert of Collective Action
INMAR INC: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response
J.M. SMUCKER: Peanut Butter Contains Salmonella, Bopp Alleges
JANNAH INC: Omeda Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
JD WILSHIRE: Nava Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
JOANNA VARGAS LTD: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOE S. UNION: Baayon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JOHNSON HEALTH: Prince Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
KELLER WILLIAMS: Must File Class Cert Sur-Reply by June 29
LIBERTY HOMECARE: Re-Filed Bid for Class Cert. Granted in Part
LIVING WELL: Howard FLSA Suit Moved From D. Ariz. to D.S.C.
MEADOW LARK: Quinn Sues Over Deceptive Driving Opportunity Program
MEDICAL SECURITY CARD: SASB Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MILITARY ADVANTAGE: Ramirez Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Class Suits, Settlement Agreements Ongoing
MORGAN PROPERTIES: Kohn Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MR. COOPER: Scheduling Order Entered in Le Class Action
NASHVILE BOOTING: Ladd, Brindle File Class Certification Bid
NEWREZ LLC: Court Denies Safeguard's Bid to Quash Yates' Subpoena
OLIN CORPORATION: Davis Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Loan Interest Rates
PABST BREWING: Peacock Bid to Certify Class Junked
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Reconsideration of Court's Order Sought
PACIFIC STEEL: Parties Seek Extension to File Class Cert Bid
PEPSICO INC: Madriz FLSA Suit Moved From to C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
PEPSICO INC: Vidaud Suit Moved From to C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
PREMIER SENIOR: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 22
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Bost Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
QUAKER OATS: Winger FLSA Suit Moved From to N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
RED ROBIN: Dismissal of Mina TCPA Suit with Prejudice Recommended
REDCON1 LLC: Slowinski Sues Over Mislabeled Nutritional Powders
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Amended Case Schedule Entered in Elder Suit
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks to Decertify Transfer Subclass in McCurley Suit
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Adames Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
RUTTER'S INC: Seeks More Time to file Class Cert. Response
SETTON PISTACHIO: Reply in Support of Class Status Bid Due July 1
SHIELDS HEALTH: Faces Bisca Suit Over Alleged Medical Data Breach
SHOPIFY INC: Briskin Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SOUTH BAY ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
STATE FARM: Has Until June 30 to File Class Cert Response
STEPHANIE MUSICK: Faces Ammons Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SWEET EARTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 3, 2023
TELADOC HEALTH: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline
TRANS UNION: Christian FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
TRINITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Atkinson Alleges
UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
UNITED PROPANE: Joint Bid to Extend Briefing Deadline Filed
UNIVERSAL CITY: Mellon Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
VTECH HEALTHCARE: Seeks Filing Extension of Class Cert Response
WALMART INC: Deadlines Related to Class Cert Bid Extended
WEST BEND: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Set for July 15
WEXFORD HEALTH: Milligan Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
ZINUS INC: Bid to Strike Chandler's Class Claims Granted in Part
*********
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Schappert Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCHAPPERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01823-RMG
(D.S.C., June 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Lian Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE LIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01824-RMG
(D.S.C., June 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. v.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP. f/k/a DFB HEALTHCARE ACQUISITIONS CORP., et al.,
Civil Action No. 21-3382 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Delaware County Employees Retirement System and Bucks
County Employees' Retirement System bring the putative class action
against Defendant AdaptHealth and its individual corporate
defendants pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77a, et seq. and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Section 78a, et seq.
The action was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired AdaptHealth securities between the proposed class period
of Nov. 8, 2019, and July 16, 2021.
Before the Court is the motion of the Defendants to dismiss the
amended complaint pursuant to Rules 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4.
II. Background
AdaptHealth is a home medical equipment business. The Plaintiffs
acquired AdaptHealth shares during the proposed class period of
Nov. 8, 2019 through July 16, 2021. They claim they acquired these
shares at artificially inflated prices, including in a secondary
offering in January 2021, due to the violations by defendants of
federal securities laws.
Defendant Luke McGee was the CEO and later co-CEO of AdapthHealth
until he was removed from office in June 2021. Defendant Stephen
Griggs served as co-CEO from February 2021 through June 2021 and
now serves as the sole CEO subsequent to McGee's removal. Defendant
Jason Clemens has been CFO since August 2020. Defendant Frank
Mullen was the Chief Accounting Officer in December 2020. Defendant
Richard Barasch was Chairman and member of the Board of Directors
in December 2020 while defendant Joshua Parnes was President and a
member of the Board of Directors in December 2020. Defendants Alan
Quasha, Terence Connors, Dr. Susan Weaver, Dale Wolf, Bradley
Coppens, and David S. Williams III were also Directors in 2020.
On July 8, 2019, DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. announced that
it had entered into an agreement to merge with AdaptHealth.
Following its merger with DFB, AdaptHealth began publicly trading
on Nov. 8, 2019.
Prior to its merger, AdaptHealth had acquired at least 59
businesses between 2012 and 2019 under the direction of Defendant
Luke McGee, its CEO. In the three years prior to its merger with
DFB, AdaptHealth had increased its revenue 200%, although projected
revenue from organic growth was 6% to 8% each year. Organic growth
relates to revenue growth from the company's existing businesses
rather than revenue gained from acquiring new businesses.
In a press release announcing the merger, DFB highlighted
AdaptHealth's impressive organic growth revenue as the key driver
for the merger along with AdaptHealth's "seasoned team of industry
and financial professionals, including McGee" as well as the
president and CFO. The press release went on to state that
AdaptHealth "believes it can add approximately $100 million of
acquired revenue each year" and specifically credited McGee with
building "one of the industry's leading home medical equipment
providers" through capital deployment, customer engagement, and an
effective operating model. It also explained that following the
merger, AdaptHealth would "continue to focus on increasing net
revenue and profitability, both organically and via accretive
acquisitions."
In addition, on its Forms 10-Q filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission throughout 2020, AdaptHealth stated that its "ability to
successfully operate our business is largely dependent upon the
efforts of certain key personnel of AdaptHealth, including the key
personnel of AdaptHealth who have stayed with us following the
Business Combination. The loss of such key personnel would
negatively impact our operations and financial results."
The Plaintiffs in their amended complaint allege two grounds for
violations of federal securities law by AdaptHealth and its
officers and Directors. One is based on the undisclosed fact that
McGee was the subject of criminal investigations and civil
lawsuits. The other relates to how AdaptHealth reported its revenue
and growth to investors.
III. Discussion
A. Count I
The Plaintiffs first bring a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j, against AdaptHealth and its
officers.
The Court of Appeals has explained that to state a claim for
securities fraud, "plaintiffs must allege (1) a material
misrepresentation or omission, (2) scienter, (3) a connection
between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale
of a security, (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission,
(5) economic loss, and (6) loss causation." These allegations must
be pleaded with particularity to satisfy the PSLRA.
1. McGee Investigations
The Plaintiffs first claim that the Defendant made a material
misstatement or omission by not disclosing to investors or the SEC
from the time the press release announced the merger between DFB
and AdaptHealth on Nov. 8, 2019 through the press release
announcing that McGee was being place on leave on April 13, 2021
that McGee was the subject of a criminal investigation by the
Danish authorities and was implicated in a civil suit in the
Southern District of New York relating to a multi-billion-dollar
tax fraud scheme.
The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have failed adequately to
plead loss causation and seek dismissal of the complaint
accordingly. They in addition argue that the action should be
dismissed because they are protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor
provision
Judge Bartle finds that the drop in stock price came on the same
day that the Defendants corrected their previous omission in not
disclosing McGee's involvement in the scheme. It is sufficient to
aver loss causation.
Judge Bartle also finds that the Plaintiffs bring this securities
fraud action based, in part, on AdaptHealth's omission that McGee
was being sued and criminally investigated for a major tax fraud
scheme all while touting McGee's experience and key role in the
company as a reason for the company's success. For example,
AdaptHealth's statements that its success is "largely dependent
upon the efforts of key personnel," that McGee built the company
into an industry-leader, and that his experience is a "meaningful
differentiator" from AdaptHealth's competitors are not
forward-looking statements. These statements, he says, therefore do
not qualify for safe harbor protection under the PSLRA.
2. Growth Revenue Reporting
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants made a material
misrepresentation when they changed the way it reported its growth
revenue without making that change clear to investors. Prior to the
fourth quarter of 2020, AdaptHealth reported its revenue from
acquisitions as distinct from its "organic revenue growth."
Investors, therefore, knew how much revenue was being driven by
organic growth and how much revenue was based on acquisitions the
company had made.
Judge Bartle holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded
with particularity facts showing that the Defendants either
intended to mislead investors by changing how it reported its
growth and only reporting it in small print in a footnote or that
the Defendants acted recklessly by doing so in the face of danger
of misleading investors. The Plaintiffs have therefore sufficiently
pleaded the elements to state a claim for securities fraud pursuant
to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b).
The motion of the Defendants to dismiss Count I of the amended
complaint will be denied.
B. Count II
The Plaintiffs bring Count II against the officer defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t.
Judge Bartle finds that as the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded
a claim for relief under Section 10(b) against AdaptHealth, and
Section 20(a) is a derivative claim of Section 10(b), they have
sufficiently pleaded a claim for joint and several liability under
Section 20(a) against the officer defendants who control the
corporation. Plaintiffs bring this claim against the officer
defendants who managed AdaptHealth and were responsible for
disseminating the company's financial information to investors but
in doing so left out critical information about the change in
growth formula and allegations of major tax fraud against McGee.
This is enough to plead culpable participation at this stage.
The motion of the Defendants to dismiss Count II will be denied.
C. Count III
The Plaintiffs next bring Count III against AdaptHealth and the
Director defendants for violation of Section 11 of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k. This statute permits a private cause of
action against "every person who signed the registration statement"
if "any part of the registration statement, when such part became
effective, contained an untrue statement of a material fact or
omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading."
The Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement filed with
the SEC in preparation for the secondary offering was misleading
because it omitted material facts about McGee's involvement with
both a criminal investigation and civil lawsuit regarding an
alleged major tax fraud scheme.
Judge Bartle finds that the Defendants omitted crucial details
about the CEO of the company being under criminal investigation for
a multi-billion-dollar tax fraud scheme and a civil lawsuit against
two companies he owns, one of which is the entity through which he
owns shares in AdaptHealth. This omission is sufficient for a jury
to find that AdaptHealth made materially misleading statements
touting the company's leadership and experience as crucial to its
success. The Plaintiffs did not just plead that the registration
was wrong. They provided ample facts as to what the registration
statement left out regarding McGee's alleged financial fraud. They
therefore have stated sufficient facts to support a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act.
The motion of the Defendants to dismiss Count III will be denied.
D. Count IV
The Plaintiffs also bring Count IV against AdaptHealth under
Section 12 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77l. This
statute permits a person purchasing a security to hold liable those
who offer or sell a security "by means of a prospectus or oral
communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material
fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make
the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading." This section is similar to Section 11
except that it is concerned with misstatements or omissions in the
prospectus rather than registration statement. As with actions
under Section 11, the Plaintiff need not prove causation.
The Defendants filed a prospectus along with a registration
statement in preparation for its secondary offering in January
2021. This prospectus promoted the experience of its leadership,
while McGee was CEO, but failed to state that McGee was being
investigated and sued for tax fraud. Judge Bartle holds that the
Plaintiffs provide ample facts in their amended complaint as to
these investigations and McGee's involvement to show not just that
the Defendants omitted facts but what facts in particular they
omitted. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded facts to support
a finding that this omission in the prospectus was material and
misleading under Section 12.
The motion of the Defendants to dismiss Count IV will therefore be
dismissed.
E. Count V
Finally, the Plaintiffs bring Count V against the Director
defendants under Section 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 77o. Similar to Section 20 of the Exchange Act, Section 15
provides for joint and several liability for "every person who, by
or through stock ownership, agency, or otherwise controls any
person liable under sections 77k or 77l of this title unless the
controlling person had no knowledge of or reasonable ground to
believe in the existence of the facts."
As Judge Bartle finds that that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged violations by the Defendants of 15 U.S.C. Section 77k and
15 U.S.C. Section 77l, the Plaintiffs' claim against the Director
defendants who controlled the corporation may proceed.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss will therefore be denied as to
Count V as well.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bartle grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9nnvrp7 from Leagle.com.
ADVANCED HOME: Bronson Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angela Bronson, et al., v.
Advanced Home Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00247 (W.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D Peterson entered an order granting
the Plaintiff Angela Bronson request to withdraw her pending motion
for class certification and says that the parties will soon
stipulate to dismissal.
The motion for class certification, is withdrawn. The parties may
have until July 5, 2022, to file a stipulation of dismissal. The
court will dismiss the case if no stipulation is received by that
date,says Judge Peterson.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Advanced Home specialize in electrical engineering, automation and
technology solutions for the consumer/commercial and industrial
markets.[CC]
AGA SERVICE: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM ELGINDY and JULIANNE
CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL
ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, and BCS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. (), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order
extending the deadlines for class certification briefing as
follows:
Event Current Proposed
Date Date
Class certification motion Aug. 5, 2022 Sept. 23, 2022
due:
Class certification Oct. 14, 2022 Dec. 9, 2022
opposition due:
Class certification reply Dec. 9, 2022 Feb. 10, 2023
due:
The parties participated in a mediation on June 14, 2022. The
parties are discussing dates for another mediation session prior to
the deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
have identified further issues to develop in connection with their
negotiations.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y3dySs at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Stephen M. Raab, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109
E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq.
Elizabeth J. Ireland, Esq.
Janelle A. Li-A-Ping, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: gjenkins@winston.com
eireland@winston.com
jliaping@winston.com
AMARACHI INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATANDRA LEWIS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. AMARACHI INC.,
and JOSEPH ADEWUMI (a/k/a Bob Adewumi), Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03396 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) seeks to recover damages
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a prep chef and
cook at the Defendants' restaurant known as "Amarachi" from on or
around February 2021 through and including May 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants did not pay her and other
similarly situated employees overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to keep track
of the time the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
have spent performing duties for the Defendants because they did
not utilize any time tracking device that accurately reflected
their actual hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
provide them with wage statements and with any notice of their rate
of pay and regular pay day, says the suit.
Amarachi Inc. operates a restaurant. Joseph Adewumi is the owner,
officer and/or agent of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Summary Judgment in Moskowitz TCPA Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG MOSKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK,
F.S.B., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-15024 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues an Opinion:
a. affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of ASB;
b. affirming the district court's award of costs; and
c. reversing the district court's award of attorney's fees as
"costs" under Rule 41(d) as a matter of right.
I. Introduction
Craig Moskowitz filed a class action against American Savings Bank,
F.S.B. ("ASB"), in which he claimed ASB sent text messages to his
mobile phone without the consent required by the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The district court
in Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of ASB. The district
court also granted ASB's motion for an award of "costs" under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), for costs which ASB incurred
in defending the identical litigation commenced by Moskowitz in the
District of Connecticut, in which Moskowitz entered a voluntary
dismissal, following which the Connecticut district court dismissed
the case, "without costs to any party." Finally, the Hawaii
district court decided "costs" under Rule 41(d) included the
attorney's fees incurred by ASB in defending the Connecticut
litigation and therefore included such attorney's fees in the award
of "costs." Moskowitz appeals.
II. Background
ASB offers mobile text banking services to customers, so that such
customers can perform banking functions on their mobile phones. ASB
maintains a "short code" for use for this service, 27244. A short
code is a short (in the case, five digit) telephone number a
business can use to send and receive text messages. ASB uses its
short code to provide mobile banking services via text messages to
customers who have enrolled their mobile phone numbers with ASB
after using a multistep enrollment process.
ASB also receives text messages from mobile phone numbers of
customers who are not enrolled in its program. These text messages
might originate from ASB customers who wish to enroll, or from
non-customers interested in ASB's services, or they might be
accidental or intentionally mischievous misdials of the short code.
ASB responds to these text messages automatically with a single
message chosen from one of two standard responses. One response
tells the sender of the text message how to stop communications
from ASB, or how to contact ASB.1 The other response is sent if the
sender has texted "STOP." In that case, ASB tells the sender he is
not subscribed to ASB, and that he will not receive alerts.
Mr. Moskowitz was not a customer of ASB during the relevant period,
May through July 2016. During that time, however, Moskowitz's
mobile phone sent 11 text messages to ASB's short code number. Ten
of the text messages were unrelated to ASB or its services, and ASB
replied with the first responsive text option. The remaining text
message from Moskowitz to ASB consisted of the word "STOP" to which
ASB replied with the second responsive text option. These reply
texts were the only text messages ASB sent to Moskowitz's mobile
phone.
After he received these reply text messages, Moskowitz, a
Connecticut resident, filed a TCPA federal class action suit in the
District of Connecticut. Moskowitz claimed ASB's reply texts put
the company afoul of a section of the TCPA which prohibits calling
a mobile phone by use of automatic call generating capabilities
absent the call recipient's prior express consent. ASB moved to
dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction over it by the
Connecticut district court. ASB argued that it is a Hawaii company
without minimum contacts in Connecticut, and that Moskowitz's cell
phone had an area code, 914, which applied to the New York
geographic area, not Connecticut, such that ASB's text responses
had gone to New York, not Connecticut; thus, ASB had not availed
itself of Connecticut; hence, the district court did not have
jurisdiction over ASB.
Mr. Moskowitz did not respond to ASB's motion to dismiss by answer
or other responsive pleading. Rather, he filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) in
the Connecticut district court. ASB did not respond to Moskowitz's
motion for voluntary dismissal, and ASB did not request the
Connecticut district court award it attorney's fees per Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a) as a term of granting
Moskowitz's motion. The Connecticut district court then dismissed
the case, in an order which did not award costs to either party --
Moskowitz v. Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B., Civil No. 3:17-00307 AWT (D.
Conn. May 19, 2017).
Mr. Moskowitz then filed a suit in the District of Hawaii with the
same claims, against the same parties, and based on almost
identical factual allegations. ASB filed a motion for summary
judgment, and it moved for costs under Rule 41(d) to recoup the
costs it had incurred defending the earlier suit in Connecticut.
The district court in Hawaii granted ASB's motion for summary
judgment, concluding that each text message from Moskowitz's mobile
phone constituted prior express consent for each of ASB's reply
texts to his mobile phone. The district court also granted ASB's
motion for costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(d)
after finding that the two complaints were almost identical, and
that the Connecticut litigation had not advanced the Hawaii case.
Citing decisions by other district courts in our circuit, the
district court awarded attorney's fees to ASB, holding that an
award of costs under Rule 41(d) included attorney's fees, and that
Rule 41(d) did not require a showing of "subjective bad faith,
vexatiousness, or forum shopping" to award attorney's fees as
"costs."
III. Discussion
Mr. Moskowitz appeals both the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of ASB on his TCPA claim, and its inclusion of
attorney's fees as part of its Rule 41(d) award of costs to ASB.
A. Grant of Summary Judgment
The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court's grant of summary
judgment de novo, citing Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC,
847 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017). It has already determined that
the type of message Moskowitz sent ASB provided the express consent
required for each of ASB's responsive text messages. "Express
consent is not an element of a plaintiff's prima facie case but is
an affirmative defense," and it is a "complete defense" to a TCPA
claim.
Mr. Moskowitz argues the district court erred in granting summary
judgment for ASB because ASB did not have the consent required
under the TCPA to send the responsive text messages to Moskowitz.
He argues that the Ninth Circuit has, and the Van Patten court had,
discretion to refuse to employ the FCC's order interpreting "prior
express consent."
The Ninth Circuit opines that unlike Van Patten, it was Moskowitz
who initiated contact with ASB, and ASB that automatically replied
to each contact with a single responsive text message to confirm
receipt and provide information that the short code was ASB's and
how to stop or continue communication. By sending text messages to
ASB's short code, Moskowitz expressly consented to receive reply
text messages. Each informative and confirmatory reply text message
from ASB falls within the scope of Moskowitz's text message
initiating contact, and therefore, "the scope of Moskowitz's
consent to contact."
Thus, the district court did not err in applying Van Patten and
finding for ASB, and the Ninth Circuit affirms the grant of summary
judgment for ASB.
B. "Costs" under Rule 41(d)
Rule 41(d) allows a court to award "costs" incurred in litigation
to a party if the plaintiff dismissed that litigation and then
filed another suit based on the same claims, against the same
defendant. The Ninth Circuit has not previously decided whether
attorney's fees are available under Rule 41(d) as part of "costs,"
and other circuits have decided cases in which attorney's fees were
sought as part of Rule 41(d) "costs" in four ways.
The Ninth Circuit holds that Rule 41(d) "costs" do not include
attorney's fees as a matter of right, and thus reverses the
district court's award of attorney's fees in favor of ASB as a
matter of right under Rule 41(d). In so holding, it joins every
published circuit court opinion that has meaningfully considered
this issue. As made clear in the foregoing discussion, "costs" is a
term which has a long-standing definition that does not inherently
include attorney's fees. Nothing in the text of Rule 41(d) compels
a contrary reading of this well-understood term.
The Ninth Circuit does not decide one way or the other if
attorney's fees are available under Rule 41(d) if the underlying
statute so provides. This is because it is undisputed that the TCPA
does not provide for the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing
party. Moreover, it does not decide if bad faith is sufficient to
allow a party to recover attorney's fees as "costs" under Rule
41(d), as bad faith has not been alleged, much less proven, by ASB
in the district court. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit decides no
more than is necessary to resolve the facts of the case.
IV. Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court correctly granted
summary judgment in favor of ASB, but it abused its discretion in
including attorney's fees in its award of costs under Rule 41(d).
A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bddte72x from Leagle.com.
Aytan Y. Bellin -- aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com -- in White Plains,
New York, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Steven D. Allison -- steven.allison@troutman.com -- Samrah R.
Mahmoud -- samrah.mahmoud@troutman.com -- Sheila Z. Chen --
sheila.chen@troutman.com -- and Stephanie V. Phan --
stephanie.phan@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, in Irvine,
California, for the Defendant-Appellee.
APPLE INC: Settles Web, App Developers' Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Hanson at courthousenews.com reports that a judge granted a
request to finalize Apple's class action settlement with a large
group of U.S. web developers for the second time.
The settlement signed by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
requires Apple to take several actions aimed to empower app makers:
The company must allow developers to share purchase options with
users outside the iOS, expand price tiers developers can offer,
release transparency reports each year on apps and accounts
deactivated and reasons why and establish a fund of $100 million
for qualified developers with at least $250 million to qualifying
class members and a 15% commission for at least another three
years.
The case began with an antitrust class action brought in June 2019
by iOS developers who alleged App Store fees and practices
disadvantaged them while continuing Apple's monopoly on app and
in-app-product distribution services.
The plaintiffs requested a final approval for the $100 million
small developer assistance fund settlement with Apple "because it
secures an outstanding recovery" that will "enable developers to
better create, distribute and monetize their apps." As part of the
relief, Apple agrees to relax anti-steering rules, which make it
difficult for developers to communicate directly with users within
apps, and to maintain a commission rate of no greater than 15% for
U.S. developers who are enrolled participants in the Small Business
Program.
The court previously granted this agreement on Nov. 16 last year,
with Rogers calling it "a fair and good settlement." After
plaintiffs filed for attorney's fees in February, Apple objected to
the allegedly too-high costs.
The new order was granted in federal court after a hearing. The
fees will total $26 million alongside $3.5 million in other
litigation costs, and plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat
Basketball Inc. will each receive a $5,000 incentive award.
Rogers deemed the agreement "fair, adequate, and reasonable." It
only applies to U.S. developers and does not address the ongoing
case with Epic Games, which Rogers also ruled on, that addresses
the issue of developers' rights to accept payments from users in
other app stores.
Apple's announcement of the settlement in August last year framed
the coming agreement as "an even better business opportunity for
developers" which took place using "developer feedback and ideas."
The law firm Hagens Berman, one of four firms representing
plaintiffs in the case, posted an analysis in the same month
finding that the Small Developer Assistance Fund created in the
settlement will benefit over 99% of American iOS developers.
"These developers can claim sums from the fund ranging between
minimums of $250 to $30,000, based on their historic participation
in the App Store ecosystem," the report noted. The statement also
quoted Steve Berman, the firm's managing partner and an attorney
representing the iOS developers.
"This hard-won settlement will bring meaningful improvements to
U.S. iOS developers who distribute their digital wares through the
App Store, especially for those small developers who bring so much
creativity and energy to their work."
The case settlement order released also noted that the plaintiffs'
expert, Nicholas Economides, calculated that the developers group
will save approximately $177.2 million in commissions through Apple
maintaining its Small Business Program for the next three years. He
also said other aspects of the structural relief, like allowing
developers to communicate with customers outside the app store,
will lead to those developers paying less in commission fees.
Apple disputed his figures, but did not deny that structural relief
offers substantial benefits to the developers, according to the
settlement order. [GN]
ARC ONE: Court OK's FLSA Settlement in Raposo Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX A. RAPOSO, for
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ARC ONE PROTECTIVE
SERVICES LLC, CHANCE RAMOS, and AUSTIN WALLACE, Case No. e
1:22-cv-21194-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered
an order approving Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement.
The Court said, "The parties' Settlement Agreement is approved as
fair and reasonable, and the case is dismissed with prejudice. The
Court shall retain jurisdiction for 45 days from the date of
issuance of this Order to enforce the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. In the interim, the Clerk shall close this case for
administrative purposes only. All pending motions, if any, are
denied as moot."
On April 18, 2022, the Plaintiff Felix A. Raposo filed the
Complaint against the Defendants seeking unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the FLSA.
In addition to the unpaid overtime allegations, the Complaint also
contains collective class action allegations pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b).
The Plaintiffs Padilla, Castro and Padron consented to join the
litigation after the Complaint was filed. On May 19, 2022, the
Plaintiffs Raposo, Padilla, and Castro filed their Statement of
Claim. Mr. Padron was not a party to the litigation at the time the
Statement of Claim was filed, but his estimated damages were
discussed during confidential settlement negotiations.
According to the Complaint and the Statement of Claim, the parties
allege that, although they were paid for overtime hours worked,
they were paid for those overtime hours at their regular rate of
pay rather than the mandated time and a half rate pursuant to the
FLSA.
In the Statement of Claim, Mr. Raposo estimates that he is owed
$19,475.10 in overtime wages for work performed between March 28,
2021, and April 20, 2022.
Mr. Padilla estimates that he is owed $24,045.12 in overtime wages
for work performed between March 25, 2021, and April 9, 2022. Id.
at 3. And, Mr. Castro estimates that he is owed $24,045.12 in
overtime wages for work performed between May 17, 2021, and
February 20, 2022.
The Plaintiffs sought the amounts allegedly owed to them in
overtime wages, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.
On June 15, 2022, the parties attended a settlement conference with
the undersigned, during which they were able to agree to settlement
terms. The following day, on June 16, 2022, the Court held a
Fairness Hearing as to the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xtJXQQ at no extra charge.[CC]
ARGYLE FIRE: Amended Prelim Scheduling Order Entered in Ring
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD "TREY" RING v.
DENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT No. 1, also d/b/a ARGYLE
FIRE DISTRICT, as the Successor of the ARGYLE VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, also d/b/a ARGYLE FIRE DISTRICT, ET AL., Case No.
4:21-cv-00917-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sean D. Jordan
entered an amended preliminary scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for class certification August 10, 2022
discovery:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file August 17, 2022
any class certification motion(s):
-- Deadline for Defendants to file October 17, 2022
a response to Plaintiff’s class
certification motion(s):
-- Hearing on class certification: November 10, 2022
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b8l59Q at no extra charge.[CC]
ASSURANT INC: Faces Steen Suit for Discrimination, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARIS STEEN, WILLIAM JUDSON, SR. and RICHARD STEIN, as Class
Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ASSURANT, INC., BRANDON BROWN, ASH BAUER,
and JOSEPH AMENDOLA, in their individual and professional
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04571 (S.D.N.Y., June 2,
2022) arises from the Defendants' unlawful discriminatory and
retaliatory conduct in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant discriminated against
Plaintiffs on the basis of their race in violation of Title VII by
subjecting them to disparate treatment, including, but not limited
to, subjecting them to harassment, giving them less favorable work
assignments, repeatedly denying them promotions, and ultimately
terminating them both because of making protected complaints of
race discrimination.
Plaintiffs Daris Steen currently is a district manager and formerly
an area manager at Defendant Assurant, Inc.
Plaintiffs Judson and Stein were former district managers at
Defendant Assurant, Inc.
Assurant is a global seller of various finance and insurance
products, including insurance products related to the automobile
industry, a division internally referred to as "Assurant Dealer
Services."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
John S. Crain, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
jcrain@wigdorlaw.com
B HOSPITALITY: Buerger Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY BUERGER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B HOSPITALITY CORP. d//b/a BUTLER
HOSPITALITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04823 (S.D.N.Y., June 9,
2022) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant
to recover damages as a result of its alleged violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from July 2021 until May
13, 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant unlawfully terminated him
alongside over one dozen employees without any cause or warning on
or about April 22, 2022 consequently after the Defendant ordered a
plant closing at all locations and/or a mass layoff of over 750
employees on or about May 13, 2022. The Defendant did not provide
them with 60 days' notice of their termination. In addition, the
Defendant failed to pay their respective wages, salaries,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for
60 days following their respective terminations, along with other
vested compensation perks during the 60-day period, says the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid wages for himself and all
other similarly situated employees, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, litigation costs and disbursements, and other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.
B Hospitality Corp. d/b/a Butler Hospitality
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Tel: (516) 873-9550
BEACH BOYS: Seeks More Time to Respond to Conrey Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CONREY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BEACH BOYS OF FT.
LAUDERDALE, LLC, And KRIKOR KEVORKIAN, individually, Case No.
0:22-cv-60843-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants file an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiff Robert
Conrey's Motion for Conditional Certification of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action.
On May 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Amended Collective Action
Complaint. On May 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action.
The Court's docket indicates that Defendant's response to the
Motion for Conditional Certification was due on June 8, 2022.
The Defendants were served with the Amended Complaint on May 25,
2022, the same day as the filing of the Motion for Conditional
Certification.
On June 16, 2022, undersigned counsel made an appearance in this
case and filed the Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to
the Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the Defendants request a 14-day enlargement of time
from the date of this motion up to and including June 30, 2022 to
respond to the Motion for Conditional Certification.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xUYdDz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles S. Caulkins, Esq.
Michael E. Bonner, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4800
Facsimile: (954) 525-8739
E-mail: ccaulkins@fisherphillips.com
mbonner@fisherphillips.com
BEACH CHALET: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Beach Chalet,
L.P., et al. The case is styled as Jesus Garcia, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The
Beach Chalet, L.P., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600090
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 9, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
The Beach Chalet -- https://www.beachchalet.com/ -- is an American
restaurant in a historic building in Golden Gate Park with ocean
views, housemade beer and American fare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
BIG EASY: Ramos, et al., Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOE VEGA RAMOS; ANA KAREN
VALENZUELA SOTO; JOSE ADRIAN LEYVA; and ANA KAREN QUIROZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIG
EASY FOODS OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C., and MELCHOR MAYA SOTO, Case No.
2:17-CV-01298-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) and appointing class counsel pursuant to Rule
23(g).
The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of the second, third, and
fourth claims for relief set out in their Second Amended
Complaint, brought under Louisiana contract law; the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. section 1981; and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., respectively.
The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of a class consisting of:
"All Mexican nationals employed through the H-2B program and
who worked at the Big Easy Foods plant in Lake Charles,
Louisiana, at any time between September 30, 2013 and
September 23, 2018."
Big Easy Foods wholesales foods. The Company distributes a range of
food to retailers such as shrimps, smoked sausages, and boneless
chickens.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zRbVsJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward B. Cloutman, III
LAW OFFICES OF ED CLOUTMAN
618 Largent Avenue
Dallas, TX 75214
Telephone: (214) 232-9015
Telecopier: (214) 939-9229
E-mail: ecloutman@lawoffices.email
- and -
Christopher J. Willett, Esq.
Anna Bocchini, Esq.
Colleen Mulholland, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
314 E. Highland Mall Blvd., Ste. 401
Austin, TX 78752
Telephone: (512) 474-0007, ext. 107
E-mail: cwillett@equaljusticecenter.org
abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org
cmulholland@equaljusticecenter.org
BLUE DIAMOND: Has Until June 24 to Oppose Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colpitts v. Blue Diamond
Growers, Case No. 1:20-cv-02487-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Colleen Carey Gulliver entered an order granting BDG's requests to
extend its current deadline to oppose the plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification from June 15, 2022 to June 24, 2022.
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 Court's order dated June 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xTGRH5 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
BOSKOVICH FARMS: Ventura Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PEREZ VENTURA, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all
other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys'
General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. BOSKOVICH FARMS, INC., a
California corporation; LABORNOW, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 22STCV18179 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2020) is a
representative action arising from the Defendants' policy or
practice of failing to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages; pay minimum wages for all hours worked; provide 30-minute
uninterrupted, timely, and complete meal and rest periods; furnish
itemized wage statements; timely pay wages; pay paid time off and
vacation time owed upon separation of employment; reimburse costs
incurred for driving personal vehicles; provide and use safety
devices and safeguards reasonably adequate to render the employment
and place of employment safe; and give sufficient, adequate and
proper notice to employees of the Covid-19 exposure within one
business day of receiving notice of a Covid-19 workplace exposure
from a qualifying individual.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
diagnosing and repairing machinery failures from May 2016 through
March 2021.
Boskovich Farms, Inc., a California corporation, procures
outplacement staffing and payroll services from various staffing
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
Joshua Shirian, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jbils@tomorrowlaw.com
josh@tomorrowlaw.com
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Illegal, Dangerous Road Blockades
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Labbe at delta-optimist.com reports that a group opposing
road blockades meant to draw attention to old-growth logging in
British Columbia says it is considering a class-action lawsuit for
"disrupting highway users."
The group, calling itself Clear the Road, said it's asking anyone
who has their commute disrupted "to document the harm they
suffer."
Clear the Road organizer Tamara Meggit says the group wants to hear
from anyone who has lost a shift at work, missed a job interview or
medical appointment, or whose business has experienced losses due
to shipping delays.
The group made the threat of legal action ahead of June 13
blockades planned by Save Old Growth.
"It was time that the people that are held hostage pushed back
against these illegal and dangerous blockades," Meggit told Glacier
Media from her home in Comox Valley on Vancouver Island.
Describing the Save Old Growth protests as "purely a nuisance
campaign," Meggit added that B.C. "already has world-leading
standards in place for protecting rare ecosystems."
Meggit says the Clear the Road group is directly backed by the
Resource Works Society, an organization originally founded with the
Business Council of British Columbia. The council has advocated for
the development of liquefied natural gas pipelines, logging and
Canada as "the good guys in the international oil business."
In a statement, the Resource Works Society described the blockades
as "indiscriminate tactics" that "hurt the innocent, and risk
creating a backlash against progress in responsible forest
practices."
The Clear the Road group cites an over $300-million proposed
class-action lawsuit filed by Ottawa residents earlier this year to
free up city streets from the 'Freedom Convoy' blockade that
paralyzed the nation's capital for weeks.
Lawyers for the residents won an injunction in an Ontario court,
leading to the freezing of up to $20 million in assets raised
around the world for the Freedom Convoy.
The anti-blockade group says that case sets a precedent for
protesters opposing old-growth logging in B.C., who have previously
blockaded roads in Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island.
"Freedom of expression is protected by Section 2 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but expressing a point of view
about an issue does not confer the right to commit criminal acts,"
the group said in a press release.
Last month, a spokesperson for Save Old Growth told Glacier Media
the activist group was planning to escalate its blockades, shutting
down intersections and bridges across the Metro Vancouver region.
The group has been behind a number of high-profile public protests,
blocking roads on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland.
A day before Clear the Road made its legal threat of a class-action
lawsuit, two old-growth protestors charged the field and chained
themselves to a goal post at a Canada versus Curacao Concacaf
Nations League soccer game at BC Place in Vancouver.
The intent, said Save Old Growth co-founder Zain Haq, was to
increase police costs to the point where government would have to
step in to properly address climate change.
Blocking roads and bridges has become an increasingly popular
tactic to draw attention to social injustice or environmental
crises. For years, it has been used by the Black Lives Matter
movement to bring attention to the disproportionate targeting and
killing of Black men at the hands of police. And around the world,
protesters demanding action on climate change have increasingly
chained, glued or thrown their bodies in front of traffic to bring
attention to the global environmental crisis.
"Our plan would be in June to escalate to a point where the cost is
just too high for the police to see this as a public safety issue
or as a protesting issue," said Haq, a Simon Fraser University
student who was sentenced in jail in February for actions related
to stopping construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline extension.
"And after a certain point, if the cost rises too much, it becomes
a political issue. Police have to let the government know that this
is a political issue, and not for the police to deal with."
Haq agreed confronting moving traffic is "extremely dangerous" but
that other avenues to draw attention to the climate crisis have
been exhausted without adequate action.
"I personally almost got run over by a car in January, and other
people have been in similar situations in April," said Haq,
pointing to the power of "transgressive non-violence" and how it
galvanized public opinion in the U.S. civil rights movement of the
1960s.
"But the reason why we've been taking this risk is not because we
don't recognize how dangerous it is, it's just that we're more
terrified by what's coming down the road due to rising temperatures
[of the Earth]."
Those statements came shortly after Vancouver Police Chief Adam
Palmer said he was concerned about a ballooning cost to manage
environment-related protests and concerns over safety of all
involved.
Last year, the Vancouver Police Department spent more than $3
million of its budget on policing protests, most of which related
to the environment and anti-vaccine movements, which disrupted
traffic at major intersections and on the Lions Gate and
Ironworkers Memorial bridges.
That cost represents a nearly six-fold increase over three years.
[GN]
BROOKFIELD PROPERTY: Jefferson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookfield Property
Multifamily, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Steven Jefferson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Brookfield Property Multifamily, LLC, Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. CGC22600085 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 9,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Brookfield Properties --
https://www.brookfieldproperties.com/en.html -- develop and lease
multifamily units across the United States, focusing on great
assets and great service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
BROOKLYN ROBOT: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Robot
Foundry LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Brooklyn Robot
Foundry LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04842 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brooklyn Robot Foundry -- https://brooklynrobotfoundry.com/ --
strives to empower kids through fun, DIY classes in robotics,
engineering, circuitry, programming, design and more.[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
CABLECOM LLC: Slick Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KASEY SLICK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CABLECOM LLC, CABLECOM OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C22-00692, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 9, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-03415 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, waiting time
penalties, failure to timely pay wages, and unfair business
practices.
CableCom LLC is a provider of engineering, construction, and
testing services, located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CableCom of California, Inc. is a construction engineering company
based in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
- and –
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
April A. Perkins, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
april.perkins@ogletree.com
CISION US: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime for $325K
--------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that plaintiffs from New York, Illinois,
and Maryland submitted a motion for preliminary settlement approval
to the Manhattan court overseeing their Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) class action. Filing explains that the plaintiffs and
primary defendants Cision US Inc. and Cision Ltd. (together Cision)
reached a deal in late May which purportedly represents a
meaningful recovery for the class.
The plaintiffs, sales employees of Cision, a public relations
software and services provider, contends that the company shorted
them overtime wages. For its part, Cision denies the allegations.
The settlement followed 18 months of contested litigation including
motion practice and discovery, the motion says. In October 2021 and
again in February 2022, the parties discussed settlement, which the
plaintiffs note they tried to achieve before the litigants incurred
significant additional discovery expenses.
The approval motion says the $325,000 non-reversionary settlement
resolves the claims of the 38 named and opt-in plaintiffs. It
argues that the conciliation represents almost two-thirds of the
eligible settlement members' unpaid wages, a percentage accepted by
Second Circuit courts.
The plaintiffs further contend that courts routinely use a one-step
approval process for FLSA settlements that do not include Rule 23
classes. Unlike the latter, members of FLSA settlements do not
forgo their right to bring their own suits at a later date by
failing to opt-in, the motion says.
"The settlement is the result of contested litigation, reached
after significant motion practice and extensive discovery, and was
resolved through arm's-length negotiations between counsel," the
filing concludes.
The plaintiffs are represented by Outten & Golden LLP and Cision by
ArentFox Schiff LLP. [GN]
CJ LOGISTICS: Ledbetter Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CJ Logistics America,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as John Ledbetter, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. CJ Logistics America,
LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00967 (C.D. Cal., June
9, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
CJ Logistics -- https://www.cjlogistics.com/ -- provides integrated
global supply chain services, maximizing customer value through
continuous improvement and innovation.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Bruno Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIGNA VASQUEZ BRUNO
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CLEAN ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-APM (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the Local
Civil Rule 23.1(b) deadline for filing a motion for class
certification until such time, to be set at the initial scheduling
conference, as will allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery needed to
support the motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff filed the present action individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals seeking unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and all
related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the D.C. Wage Payment and Wage Collection Act ("DCWPA"),
and the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act ("DCMWA").
In this type of "hybrid" class and collective action, the employees
first seek conditional certification of the FLSA collective.
Thereafter, the employees seek class certification under the D.C.
wage laws.
Clean Advantage is a janitorial company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N0WalB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariusz Kurzyna,Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com
COLORS WORLDWIDE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bencosme Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAIYA BENCOSME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. COLORS WORLDWIDE INC., Defendant, Case No.
151189890 (Fla Cir., June 9, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
COLORS WORLDWIDE INC. produces live and digital events, media,
albums, merchandise and is creating an online platform aimed at
growing and feeding the R&B music. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, F: 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
Email: Spam-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMERCE
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LLC, a California limited liability company;
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC, a California limited liability company;
SMART & FINAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18277 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 3, 2022) is a representative action pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code,
on behalf of other current and former aggrieved employees of the
Defendants for allegedly engaging in a pattern and practice of wage
and hour violations.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematic pattern of
wage and hour and IWC Wage Order violations toward Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees in California include, failure to provide
compliant meal and rest periods; failure to allow employees to take
duty-free meal and rest periods; failure to pay all minimum,
regular and overtime wages; failure to correctly calculate the
regular rate of pay; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure
to maintain true and accurate records; failure to reimburse for
required business expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; and failure to timely pay wages due during, and
upon termination of employment.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants in California
since 1996 and was at all times classified as a non-exempt
employee, paid on an hourly basis.
Commerce Distribution Company LLC is a food and cosmetics company
based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
Eduardo Garcia, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3500
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619)599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
E-mail: ilapuvade@icl-lawfirm.com
egarcia@icl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
Jackland K. Hom, Esq.
Julieann Alvarado, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com
jackland@zakaylaw.com
julieann@zakaylaw.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that in July
2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed a class action
against the company and a staffing company alleging violations of
the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest
periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and final wages,
and for unfair business practices. The case is captioned "Dimas v.
Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024; San
Joaquin Superior Court.
The company has moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's
individual claims and to dismiss the class action complaint. On
September 7, 2021, the same former employee filed a separate
representative action under PAGA asserting the same Labor Code
violations and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The
case has been stayed pending the motion to compel in the related
case.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates
membership warehouses and e-commerce websites.
DOHERTY ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Johnson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DWONNA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v.
DOHERTY ENTERPRISES, LLC and BRIAN ALOIA, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03397 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2022) arises from the Defendants'
alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention
Act of NYLL.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a baker at the
Defendants' restaurant known as "Panera Bread" from on or around
June 2021 through and including February 2022.
Although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants did
not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek. The Defendants allegedly employed a flawed policy
and practice of shaving their employees time worked in order to
avoid paying them overtime. In addition, the Defendants never
granted them with meal breaks or rest periods of any length, and
did not provide them with a statement of wages and with any notice
of their rate of pay. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff for the last week of her employment, thereby failing to
compensate him with the applicable minimum hourly wage, alleges the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover all unpaid wages for herself and all other similarly
situated employees, as well as statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
costs and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
Doherty Enterprises operates a restaurant. Brian Aloia is an owner,
officer, and/or agent of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
ELEMENTS THERAPEUTIC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elements Therapeutic
Massage, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Elements Therapeutic
Massage, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04806 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Elements Massage -- https://elementsmassage.com/ -- provides custom
massages at an affordable price to improve health and overall well
being.[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
EMONEYUSA HOLDINGS: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH HAAS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. EMONEYUSA HOLDINGS
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00212-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order
as follows:
-- Amendments to the pleadings: August 1, 2022
-- Motion & Brief To Certify May 5, 2023
Classes:
-- Deadline for filing dispositive November 3, 2023
motions:
-- Settlement Letters: February 23, 2024
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and
all motions
in limine: March 1, 2024
Objections: March 15, 2024
-- Trial: April 15, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39zS5Y6 at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Crews Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCKAY CREWS v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,Case No. 8:21-cv-02103-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order
as follows:
-- All discovery, including discovery April 27, 2023
motions, shall be completed by:
-- The parties shall have until June 26, 2023
to file and have heard all
other motions, including
motions to join or amend
the pleadings:
-- A pretrial conference will be August 28, 2023
held on:
-- The case is set for a jury trial: Sept. 5, 2023
-- The Plaintiff shall have until Nov. 28, 2022
to file and have heard any
class certification motion.
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ok6TZx at no extra charge.[CC]
FASHION NOVA: Filing Deadline for Class Certification Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN GRIEBEN and TYNIKAL
PRESSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FASHION NOVA, INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-60908-BB (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order setting a
deadline for the filing of their motion for class certification,
and a briefing schedule for a response and reply:
Event Deadline
The Plaintiffs shall file their Dec. 30, 2022
Motion for Class Certification by:
The Defendant shall file its 30 days after the
Response to Plaintiffs' Motion filing of the Motion
for Class Certification by:
Plaintiffs shall file their Reply 14 days after the
in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion filing of the Response
for Class Certification by:
Fashion Nova is an American fast fashion retail company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xByHlr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
FIRST WESTERN: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aaron H. Fleck Revocable
Trust, The et al v. First Western Trust Bank, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01073-CMA-GPG (D. Colo), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline for them to respond to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification from June 24, 2022 to
July 1, 2022, and to expand the page limit for their response brief
from 15 pages to 25 pages.
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1, counsel or the Defendants conferred
with counsel for Plaintiffs concerning this motion. Plaintiffs do
not oppose this motion.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on May
25, 2022. The Motion seeks to certify a sweeping class of all
persons who have, or have had, "accounts of portfolios consisting
of assets managed by FWTB."
The Defendants' response to the Motion for Class Certification is
currently due on June 24, 2022.
The Court has previously extended the deadline for Plaintiffs to
move for class certification, but the Court has not specifically
extended Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
First Western provides wealth management services including,
private banking, personal trust, investment management, mortgage
loans, and institutional asset management.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39FPRGx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam B. Stern, Esq.
Timothy R. Beyer, Esq.
Adam B. Stern, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303)861-7000
E-mail: tim.beyer@bclplaw.com
adam.stern@bclplaw.com
FOX REHABILITATION: Conner Files Bid to Extend Reply Brief Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN A. CONNER DPM,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01580-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff files unopposed motion to extend reply
brief deadline.
The Plaintiff submitted its motion for class certification on May
11, 2022, as instructed in this Court's order entered April 27,
2022.
The Defendant submitted materials in opposition to class
certification on June 1, 2022, consistent with this Court's order.
Pursuant to this Court's order, Plaintiff's reply is due today,
June 15, 2022. Two of Plaintiff's counsel recently tested
COVID-positive and are currently symptomatic.
Because of this illness, Plaintiff's counsel requests a brief
extension of the deadline to Friday, June 17, 2022.
The Plaintiff's counsel emailed Defendant's counsel requesting
stipulation and agreement to the brief two-day extension.
Defendant's counsel stated by email that the Defendant does not
oppose the requested two-day extension.
Fox Rehabilitation Services PC provides rehabilitation services.
The Company offers physical, occupational, and speech therapy
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QpIlQH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and -
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Barry J. Blonien, Esq.
Molley E. Stemper, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM LLC
203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
GOOGLE LLC: $118-MM Settlement in Pay Equity Class Action Reached
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' law firms Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and
Altshuler Berzon LLP announced that Plaintiffs have reached an
agreement with Defendant Google LLC ( "Google"), in which Google
will pay $118 million to settle a class action gender
discrimination lawsuit, Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299,
pending since 2017. The settlement covers approximately 15,500
female employees in 236 job titles ("covered positions") in
California since September 14, 2013.
In addition to monetary relief, the Settlement provides that an
independent third party expert will analyze Google's
leveling-at-hire practices and that an independent labor economist
will review Google's pay equity studies. The post-settlement work
will be supervised by an external Settlement Monitor over the next
three years. The lawsuit challenged Google's pay and leveling
processes, and Plaintiffs believe these programs will help ensure
that women are not paid less than their male counterparts who
perform substantially similar work, and that Google's challenged
leveling practices are equitable.
Plaintiffs: The Named Plaintiffs are Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease,
Kelli Wisuri, and Heidi Lamar. All of the Plaintiffs are women who
worked for Google in California in a covered position since
September 14, 2013. Their backgrounds:
Plaintiff Kelly Ellis worked as a Software Engineer at Google's
Mountain View office for approximately four years, departing the
company with the title of Senior Manager.
Plaintiff Holly Pease worked for Google for approximately 10.5
years, in both Mountain View and Sunnyvale, holding numerous
technical leadership roles, including: Manager, Corporate Network
Engineering; Manager, Business Systems Integration; Manager,
Corporate Data Warehouse/Reporting Team; and Senior Manager,
Business Systems Integration.
Plaintiff Kelli Wisuri worked for Google for approximately 2.5
years in its Mountain View office, as an Enterprise Operations
Coordinator, Enterprise Sales Operations Associate, and Google
Brand Evangelist, Executive Communications Program (aka Sales
Solutions Senior Associate).
Plaintiff Heidi Lamar worked as a Preschool Teacher and
Infant/Toddler Teacher at Google's Children Center in Palo Alto for
approximately four years.
Next Steps: The court will set a hearing date for preliminary
settlement approval, which if approved will result in the
third-party administrator issuing notice to the class members. If
the court later grants final settlement approval, the third-party
administrator will allocate settlement amounts based on an
objective formula to each qualifying class member. More information
is available at the website: https://googlegendercase.com/
Statements on the Settlement:
"As a woman who's spent her entire career in the tech industry, I'm
optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of
this settlement will ensure more equity for women," said Plaintiff
Holly Pease. "Google, since its founding, has led the tech
industry. They also have an opportunity to lead the charge to
ensure inclusion and equity for women in tech."
Plaintiffs' co-counsel Kelly Dermody stated, "Plaintiffs believe
this settlement advances gender equity at Google and will be
precedent-setting for the industry."
"Google has long been a technology leader. We are delighted that in
this Settlement Agreement and Order Google is also affirming its
commitment to be a leader in ensuring pay equity and equal
employment opportunity for all of their employees," said
Plaintiffs' co-counsel Jim Finberg.
Information about Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP: Lieff Cabraser is one of
the country's largest and most successful firms exclusively
representing plaintiffs in civil litigation, having secured
verdicts or settlements worth over $127 billion for clients
nationwide. With 120 attorneys, the firm has led some of the most
significant litigation of the last decade, including the VW clean
diesel emissions case, which resulted in over $15 billion for VW
owners (In re: Volkswagen 'Clean Diesel' Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672
(Northern District of California federal court)); and the high-tech
cold-calling wage conspiracy case alleging an agreement among
prominent technology companies to not poach each other's employees,
which resulted in settlements totaling $435 million (In re:
High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2509-LJK (Northern
District of California federal court)). Partner Kelly Dermody,
co-lead counsel here, led High-Tech for her firm. She is currently
Chair of the Section of Labor and Employment Law of the American
Bar Association, and Managing Partner of the San Francisco Office
of Lieff Cabraser.
Altshuler Berzon LLP: Altshuler Berzon LLP is a San Francisco law
firm that specializes in labor and employment, constitutional,
environmental, civil rights, campaign and election, and impact
litigation. Altshuler Berzon, LLP has been co-lead counsel in a
number of civil rights class actions, including Ries v McDonalds,
1:20 CV 0002 HYJ RSK (W.D. Mich. 2022) (sex harassment class
action); and Satchell v Federal Express, C03-2878 SI ( ND Cal.)
(race discrimination class action). Altshuler Berzon is currently
serving as co-lead counsel in the Jewett v Oracle Equal Pay Act
class action in San Mateo Superior Court, 17 Civ 02669 (San Mateo
Sup.) set for trial on January 23, 2023.[GN]
GREENSKY INC: Cross-Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Belyea Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
GreenSky, Inc., et al., have filed a cross-appeal in the lawsuit
entitled ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREENSKY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01693-JSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
Elizabeth Belyea, Heidi Barnes, Hazel Lodge, and David Ferguson
brought this putative class action against GreenSky of Georgia, LLC
and GreenSky, LLC, alleging violation of California's consumer
protection, lending and credit services laws.
GreenSky is a "financial technology company" which among other
things, acts as a loan servicer for "point-of-sale loans for
consumers to pay for home improvement, home repair, and healthcare
costs." Between 2016 and 2019, each of the Plaintiffs took out one
or more such loans to pay for home repair projects. In each
Plaintiff's case, the contractor or plumber ("merchant") suggested
that he could arrange financing for the home repair/improvement
project. Once the Plaintiff agreed, the merchant "procured a loan"
for the plaintiff using the GreenSky App. Each of these loans was
provided by a third-party bank -- generally, SunTrust Bank (now
Truist) or InTrust Bank -- which was serviced by GreenSky.
Ms. Belyea filed the putative class action in the Superior Court
for the County of San Francisco against GreenSky, alleging
violations of California's lending and credit services laws, as
well as consumer protection laws. GreenSky thereafter removed the
action to the District Court under the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) ("CAFA"). Less than a week later,
GreenSky filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court
denied finding that GreenSky failed to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that Belyea agreed to arbitrate.
Ms. Belyea thereafter filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, and following GreenSky's stipulation to amendment, the
now operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed. The FAC
added Heidi Barnes, Hazel Lodge, and David Ferguson as
representative plaintiffs. In response to the FAC, GreenSky moved
to compel arbitration of Belyea, Lodge, and Ferguson's claims and
moved to dismiss Barnes' claims.
On May 23, 2022, David Ferguson filed an appeal from the Order
entered by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on March 15, 2022,
granting GreenSky's motion to compel arbitration of his claims.
The Defendant now files this cross-appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as David Ferguson, et al. v.
GreenSky, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15817, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants GreenSky, Inc. et al. Mediation Questionnaire was
due on June 10, 2022;
-- First cross appeal brief is due on August 29, 2022 for David
Ferguson;
-- Second brief on cross appeal is due on September 28, 2022 for
GreenSky, Inc., et al.; and
-- Third brief on cross appeal is due on October 28, 2022 for
David Ferguson.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants GREENSKY, INC., a corporation; GREENSKY OF
GEORGIA, LLC, limited liability company; and GREENSKY, LLC, limited
liability company, are represented by:
Barry Goheen, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
4279 Roswell Road
Suite 208, No. 351
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 793-3093
E-mail: barry.goheen@fisherbroyles.com
- and -
Diem Nguyen Kaelber, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor
Palo Alto,, CA 94301
Telephone: (408) 898-3170
Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID FERGUSON, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kyla Jenny Gibboney, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9709
E-mail: kjg@classlawgroup.com
ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Settles Class Action Over Improper Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Real estate company Greystar agreed to pay nearly $4.7 million to
resolve class action lawsuit claims surrounding improper eviction
and fee practices in North Carolina.
There are two classes included in the settlement.
The Collection Letter Class is made up of people who resided in a
Greystar property in North Carolina between May 10, 2014, and June
25, 2018, and received a collection letter. The Eviction Fee Class
is made up of residents of North Carolina Greystar properties
between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, and who were charged and
paid eviction fees.
Greystar is a rental management company headquartered in South
Carolina. In the United States, the company manages over 720,000
units or beds and over $23.7 billion in equity. According to the
company's website, Greystar is a leader in the rental industry.
Greystar may have taken advantage of its tenants with unfair debt
collection practices, according to a class action lawsuit against a
number of related companies. The Greystar class action claims the
rental company violated North Carolina law by attempting to collect
certain fees, penalties and other charges.
The plaintiff in the case says Greystar regularly charged filing
fees, sheriff service fees and attorneys' fees to tenants who owed
a balance. These fees were "separate and apart" from the fees
allowed under North Carolina laws, the class action lawsuit
contends.
Greystar allegedly didn't have the right to charge these fees
without the fees being awarded in a court proceeding.
According to the class action lawsuit, Greystar's actions violated
North Carolina's Residential Rental Agreements Act, Uniform
Commercial Code, Debt Collection Act, Uniform Judgement Act and
other state laws.
Greystar hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $4.665
million to resolve the claims.
Under the terms of the Greystar improper fees and eviction
practices settlement, Collection Letter Class members can receive a
cash payment of $50 for every collection letter they received.
Class members can claim up to three letters, for a total payment of
up to $150.
The Greystart settlement also provides cash benefits for Eviction
Fee Class members. This class can receive around $400 for every
instance in which they were charged and paid eviction fees.
Class Members can be a member of both classes, meaning that they
could be eligible for both types of compensation from the
settlement.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 20, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
22, 2022. Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing must file
a notice of intent to appear by June 27, 2022.
In order to receive benefits from the settlement, Collection Letter
Class Members must submit a valid claim form by June 20, 2022.
Members of the Eviction Fee Class do not have to file a claim in
order to receive their benefits.
Who's Eligible
There are two classes included in the settlement.
The Collection Letter Class is made up of people who resided in a
Greystar property in North Carolina between May 10, 2014, and June
25, 2018, and received a collection letter.
The Eviction Fee Class is made up of residents of North Carolina
Greystar properties between May 10, 2014, and June 25, 2018, and
who were charged and paid eviction fees.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Information about notices received
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/20/2022
Case Name
Wallace v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00501-LCB-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina
Final Hearing
07/22/2022
Settlement Website
NCWallaceTenantClassaction.com
Claims Administrator
Wallace v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al.
CPT GROUP, Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
ncwallacetenantclassaction@cptgroup.com
888-412-3411
Class Counsel
Scott Harris
Patrick Wallace
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Edward H Maginnis
Karl S Gwaltney
MAGINNIS HOWARD
Defense Counsel
Reid Calwell Adams Jr
Rudolf A Garcia-Gallont
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Christian H Staples
SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK LLP [GN]
HALAL GUYS: Has Until June 23 to Oppose Conditional Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hegazy et al v. The Halal
Guys, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order granting an extension of
time for the Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification:
-- By June 23, 2022, Defendants shall file their opposition
to Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.
-- By July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs shall file any reply. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the
motion at Docket No. 35.
The Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise that
began as halal carts on the southeast and southwest corners of 53rd
Street and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City. New locations,
both food cart and storefront, are being added throughout New York
and around the world.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mTIoGW at no extra charge.[CC]
HALAL GUYS: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hegazy et al v. The Halal
Guys, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time for them to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification on
May 26, 2022 and, per the court’s order, opposition is due June
16, 2022. The Defendants require additional time to properly
respond to Plaintiffs’ motion, and respectfully
request that the Court extend the time for Defendants to oppose
Plaintiffs' motion up to and including June 23, 2022.
The Plaintiffs consent to the requested extension and, if granted,
has requested a corresponding one (1) week extension, from June 30,
2022 to July 7, 2022, to file their reply. This is Defendants'
first request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification.
The Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise that
began as halal carts on the southeast and southwest corners of 53rd
Street and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39qk38J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 880 3800
Facsimile: (212) 880 8965
E-mail: jeffrey.kimmel@akerman.com
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayis Seek Extension to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KETAYI, and MIRYAM
KETAYI, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. HEALTH
ENROLLMENT GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-GPC-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending
their time to file a motion to certify a class to and including
December 14, 2022.
The Plaintiffs further request that to the extent other dates in
the operative scheduling order need to be altered given the new
class certification motion deadline, the Parties be ordered to
meet and confer and propose any further changes to those dates
through a joint motion filed on or before July 1, 2022.
The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class
Certification is currently set for June 24, 2022.
The Plaintiffs have not made any previous request(s) for a
continuance of the class certification briefing deadline and this
is the first such request of this nature.
On June 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File a Fourth Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 230) and on June 9, 2022,
the Plaintiffs filed their amended pleading.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xFdUO5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Fox, Esq.
Joanna L. Fox, Esq.
Russell A. Gold, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
225 West Plaza Street, Suite 102
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (858) 256-7616
Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
E-mail: Dave@FoxLawAPC.com
Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com
Russ@FoxLawAPC.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: @bholaw.com
LHurst@bholaw.com
jmacpherson@bholaw.com
HELLO PRODUCTS: Class Settlement in Patellos Initially Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH PATELLOS and ERIC
FISHON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
HELLO PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-09577-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order granting preliminary
approval of class settlement and direction of notice under Rule
23(e).
-- The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes
only, the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
consisting of all purchasers of the Products from the time
the Products launched until the date of this Order.
The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement
Class: (1) Hello and its affiliates, employees, officers,
directors, agents, representatives and their immediate
family members; and (2) Defense Counsel, Class Counsel, the
judge and the magistrate judge who have presided over the
Action, and their immediate family members.
-- The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement
and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1).
The Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the
Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(e)(2) and to certify the
Settlement Class for purposes of judgment on the proposed
Settlement.
-- The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to the Settlement Class Members
under the relevant considerations. The Court finds that
the Plaintiffs and proposed Class Counsel have adequately
represented, and will continue to adequately represent,
the Settlement Class.
-- The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement is
the product of arm's length negotiations by the Parties,
including two Zoom mediation sessions with the Court. The
Court preliminarily finds that the relief provided to the
Settlement Class is adequate taking into account, inter
alia, the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal and
the proposed method of distributing payments to the
Settlement Class.
-- The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement
treats the Settlement Class Members equitably relative to
one another. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
Settlement Class Members that submit a timely and valid
Claim Form will be sent a Cash Award, which will be based
on the number of Hello Products the Settlement Class
Member purchased, as provided on the Settlement Class
Member's submitted Claim Form.
-- Specifically, each Settlement Class Member will receive a
payment of approximately $6.00 from the Settlement Fund for
each Hello Product purchased in the United States during
the Class Period, subject to adjustments based on number
of claims submitted.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HvUv6M at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Seeks Initial Cert of Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH GIGUERE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOMEWORKS ENERGY,
INC., MARTIJN FLEUREN, individually and MAX VEGGEBERG,
individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-30015-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
seeks preliminary certification of a collective action and
permission to issue notice to the following:
"All current and former Technician I, Technician II, and Crew
Leads employed by HomeWorks Energy, Inc. from three years
prior to the filing of [the original] complaint through the
date of final judgment in this matter (Proposed Collective)."
The Plaintiff moves the Court to authorize him to send the Proposed
Notice and Proposed Summary Notice, to all individuals in the
proposed collective.
The Plaintiff further moves for an order requiring Defendants to
produce the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of
all individuals in the proposed collective.
HomeWorks is an environmental services company in Boston,
Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tDysVR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
Springfield, MA 01144
Telephone: (413) 785-1400
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com
rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
INMAR INC: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL
MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v.
INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, CAROLINA SERVICES,
and CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC., Case No. 1:19-CV-00141-WO-LPA
(M.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
a one-week extension of the deadline to file their response to the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment
of Class Counsel from June 21 to June 28, 2022.
On May 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Renewed Motion for
Class and Appointment of Class Counsel. Thereafter, the Defendants'
counsel sought certain additional information from Plaintiffs'
counsel regarding calculations relating to the motion which
information was finally completely provided on June 12, 2022.
The Defendants' counsel now has the information required to respond
to the motion. The Defendants seek a one-week extension of their
time to respond -- to June 28, 2022 -- in order to deal with the
circumstances relating to the time-period required to
obtain the additional information.
Mr. Dee's is in the Packaged Frozen Goods business.
Inmar develops technology and data analytics services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xwD69d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Pressly M. Millen, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 755-2135
Facsimile: (919) 755-6067
Email: Press.Millen@wbd-us.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Peanut Butter Contains Salmonella, Bopp Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON BOPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01812-BHH (D.S.C., June 9, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant's Jif peanut butter products contains Salmonella.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff will pursue claims
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of warranties,
fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment seeking redress for
the Defendant's business practices designed to mislead the public
in distribution, and sale of Jif peanut butter products which the
Defendant, during the relevant time period, promoted as containing
ingredients safe for human consumption and being safe for use,
when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections, gastrointestinal
illnesses and other illnesses resulting from Salmonella
contamination.
Unfortunately for Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated
consumers of Jif peanut butter products, the peanut butter products
sold with the lot codes 1274425-2140425 with the first seven
numbers ending in "425" were contaminated with Salmonella, says the
suit.
Had Plaintiff known that the Jif peanut butter product they bought
were contaminated with Salmonella, he would not have purchased Jif
peanut butter products, the suit added.
THE JM SMUCKER COMPANY manufactures and markets food products on a
worldwide basis. The Company's principal products include peanut
butter, shortening and oils, fruit spreads, canned milk, baking
mixes and ready-to-spread frostings, flour and baking ingredients,
juices and beverages, frozen sandwiches, dessert toppings, syrups,
pickles and condiments, and potato side dishes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Eric Poulin, Esq.
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
JANNAH INC: Omeda Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ELVIN OMEDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JANNAH INC., 260 BROOK AVE INC., SALMAN
ASHRAF, and UZMA ARAIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04603
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for
unpaid minimum and overtime 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 Omeda was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2012 until January 2, 2022, as sales associate.
The Defendants operate a cellphone store located in the Mott Haven
section of the Bronx in New York.[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
JD WILSHIRE: Nava Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO NAVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JD WILSHIRE LLC DBA TEDS PLACE, EUN CHUNG,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22LBCV00273 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California's Public Policy, and the California's Business and
Professions Code including wrongful termination, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure
to reimburse expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked as a food preparer at Teds Place located at
23401 Normandie Avenue, Harbor City, California from around 2005
until his termination on May 4, 2022.
JD Wilshire LLC, doing business as Teds Place, is a restaurant
owner and operator in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
JOANNA VARGAS LTD: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joanna Vargas LTD.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Joanna Vargas LTD, Case No.
1:22-cv-04796 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Joanna Vargas -- https://joannavargas.com/ -- provides
results-driven spa treatments, spa services, skin care products in
New York and Los Angeles..[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
JOE S. UNION: Baayon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joe S. Union L.P., et
al. The case is styled as Daniel Baayon, Ruy Camposeco,
individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Joe
S. Union L.P., SODSF, LLC, Does 1 to 100, Case No. CGC22600071
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 8, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Joes Union LP doing business as Original Joe's --
http://www.originaljoes.ca/-- is a duo of restaurants in the North
Beach neighborhood of San Francisco and the Westlake neighborhood
of Daly City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allan Villanueva, Esq.
6101 Bollinger Canyon Rd., Ste. 379C
San Ramon, CA 94583-5117
Phone: 925-365-1680
Fax: 650-479-3086
JOHNSON HEALTH: Prince Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Health Tech
North American, Inc. The case is styled as Wendy Prince,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Johnson Health Tech North American, Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-00035-EKD (W.D. Va., June 9, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Johnson Health Tech family --
https://www.johnsonhealthtech.com/ -- includes multiple fitness and
wellness brands that serve all major sales channels and markets
around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark B. Holland, Esq.
HAYMORE & HOLLAND, P.C.
219 Patton Street
Danville, VA 24541
Phone: (434) 793-8378
Fax: (434) 793-8886
Email: mark@haymorehollandlaw.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: Must File Class Cert Sur-Reply by June 29
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as St John, et al., v. Keller
Williams Realty, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-01347 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order on motion for miscellaneous
relief.
On or before June 29, 2022, the Defendant may file a Sur-Reply for
the Motion for Class Certification, not exceeding seven pages, says
Judge Byron.
The nature of suit states Restrictions on Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.[CC]
LIBERTY HOMECARE: Re-Filed Bid for Class Cert. Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS HEADLY v. LIBERTY
HOMECARE OPTIONS, LLC, and LUCIA DEVIVO CATALANO, Case No.
3:20-cv-00579-OAW (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams
entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Re-Filed Motion for Conditional
Certification is granted in part.
a. The court conditionally certifies a collective
comprised of Personal Care Assistants who worked at
least one live-in shift for Liberty Homecare Options,
LLC, in Connecticut within the past three years.
b. The Defendants are instructed to produce to the
Plaintiff, on or before June 24, 2022, the names,
mailing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and
dates of employment for all qualifying PCAs in
Microsoft Excel format.
c. The Plaintiff is instructed to refile a proposed
notice, which reflects the relevant limitations period
and incorporates the accepted objections as noted in
this ruling, on or before June 24, 2022.
2. The Plaintiff's Re-Filed Motion for Class Certification is
granted in part.
a. The court certifies a class comprised of Personal Care
Assistants who worked at least one live-in shift for
Liberty Homecare Options, LLC, in Connecticut since
April 28, 2018.
b. The Defendants are instructed to produce to Plaintiff,
on or before June 24, 2022, the names, mailing
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and dates of
employment for all qualifying PCAs.
c. The Plaintiff is instructed to refile a proposed notice
reflecting the relevant time limitation on or before
June 24, 2022. Defendants may file objections to the
notice of the class action on or before July 1, 2022.
Liberty Homecare is a non-medical agency committed to providing
quality in home and community based services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39yLNrM at no extra charge.[CC]
LIVING WELL: Howard FLSA Suit Moved From D. Ariz. to D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PHILLIP HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. LIVING WELL HOMES LLP, LIVING WELL HOMES LP,
LIVING WELL HOMES II LP, LIVING WELL HOMES III LP, LIVING WELL
HOMES IV LP, LIVING WELL HOMES GP INC., LIVING WELL HOMES GP II
INC., LIVING WELL HOMES GP III INC., LIVING WELL HOMES GP IV INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-00150, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 9, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-01818-DCC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Living Well Homes LLP is an operator of apartment complexes, with
its principal place of business located at 13475 North 87th Drive,
Peoria, Arizona.
Living Well Homes LP is an operator of apartment complexes, with
its principal place of business located at 13610 North 51st Avenue,
Glendale, Arizona.
Living Well Homes II LP is an operator of apartment complexes, with
its principal place of business located at 13610 North 51st Avenue,
Glendale, Arizona.
Living Well Homes III LP is an operator of apartment complexes,
with its principal place of business located at 13610 North 51st
Avenue, Glendale, Arizona.
Living Well Homes IV LP is an operator of apartment complexes, with
its principal place of business located at 13610 North 51st Avenue,
Glendale, Arizona.
Living Well Homes GP Inc. is an operator of apartment complexes,
with its principal place of business located at 208 East Baseline
Road, Tempe, Arizona.
Living Well Homes GP II Inc. is an operator of apartment complexes,
with its principal place of business located at 208 East Baseline
Road, Tempe, Arizona.
Living Well Homes GP III Inc. is an operator of apartment
complexes, with its principal place of business located at 208 East
Baseline Road, Tempe, Arizona.
Living Well Homes GP IV Inc. is an operator of apartment complexes,
with its principal place of business located at 208 East Baseline
Road, Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
dthornton@bm.net
- and –
Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.
4647 N. 32nd. Street, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
MEADOW LARK: Quinn Sues Over Deceptive Driving Opportunity Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW QUINN, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEADOW LARK TRANSPORT,
INC., MEADOW LARK COMPANIES, INC., MEADOW LARK AGENCY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00055-SPW-TJC (D. Mont., June 2, 2022)
is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Truth-in-Leasing
Regulations and the Montana Employee Indemnification Act arising
out of a "lease-driver" business opportunity program, referred to
here as the Driving Opportunity, whereby certain truck drivers
leased trucks from Meadow Lark Transport and simultaneously
provided driving services to Meadow Lark utilizing such trucks.
According to the complaint, when selling the Driving Opportunity to
drivers, Meadow Lark failed to disclose material facts about the
economics of the Driving Opportunity, the income, and the overall
material terms and conditions the Driving Opportunity did and would
provide in order to induce drivers to purchase the Driving
Opportunity. Meadow Lark thus defrauded the drivers into paying for
the bulk of the expenses of transporting goods for Meadow Lark
customers including such items as truck lease payments, gas,
maintenance, computers, insurance, and other expenses associated
with the Driving Opportunity. After paying such expenses, the
drivers often had little or no compensation or sometimes even owed
Meadow Lark money despite the long hours they worked as drivers,
says the suit.
Quinn was a driver from approximately June 2020 to June 2021. He
seeks damages, declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, as
well as available attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of himself
and the drivers.
Meadow Lark Agency, Inc. is a transportation and logistics services
provider based in Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Morrison, Esq.
Scott Peterson, Esq.
MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON, & DEOLA, PLLP
401 N. Last Chance Gulch St.
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 442-3261
Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com
speterson@mswdlaw.com
- and -
Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER
1101 5th Ave #310
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 233-7100
E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com
MEDICAL SECURITY CARD: SASB Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Security Card
Company, LLC. The case is styled as SASB Corporation doing business
as: Okeechobee Discount Drug, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Medical
Security Card Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-21768-AMC (S.D. Fla.,
June 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Medical Security Card Company --
https://www.medicalsecuritycard.com/ -- provides prescription
savings solutions and decision support tools to help close the gaps
in prescription.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
BOCK & HATCH, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 658-5501
Fax: (312) 658-5555
Email: phil@classlawyers.com
MILITARY ADVANTAGE: Ramirez Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Military Advantage,
Inc. The case is styled as David Ramirez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Military Advantage, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10892-WGY (D. Mass., June 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Military Advantage -- https://www.military.com/militaryadvantage --
provides veteran and military benefits news and resources.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@thesandersfirm.com
MONSANTO CO: Roundup Class Suits, Settlement Agreements Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that class action
lawsuits and settlement agreements involving Roundup weedkiller
manufacturer Monsanto continue making their way through the
courts.
Consumers filing complaints against Monsanto claim the Bayer AG
subsidiary failed to declare that its Roundup weedkiller could
cause cancer and that consumers suffered adverse health effects
from exposure.
Monsanto first introduced Roundup as a commercial-use weedkiller
back in 1974; however, the product, which also goes by its
non-brand name, glyphosate, has been linked to a number of health
problems, including cancer.
Monsanto, meanwhile, has been forced to pay hundreds of millions in
compensation to consumers claiming exposure to Roundup weedkiller
was the cause of their cancer.
Monsanto class action alleges Roundup weedkiller harmed buyers
In January, a group of Roundup buyers asked a California court to
approve a settlement with Monsanto worth up to $45 million that
would resolve claims the company inflated the price of Roundup by
failing to declare it posed a cancer risk.
The settlement would allow consumers who purchased Roundup to make
a claim for a 20% reimbursement of the average retail price of the
product they purchased.
Buyers argued Monsanto illegally marketed Roundup to a class of
what could be millions of unwitting consumers who were unaware the
product could allegedly cause cancer and other adverse health
effects.
In April, the judge overseeing the case expressed concerns over the
$45 million settlement amount, fearing that it could be too low of
an amount, Law360 reports.
Further, the judge worried the settlement did not do enough to
notify class members of their rights to still file personal injury
claims against Monsanto in the event they develop non-Hodgkin
lymphoma.
Last November, meanwhile, the California Supreme Court upheld a
decision requiring Monsanto to pay a California couple $87 million
over claims Roundup was responsible for their cancer.
Monsanto was unsuccessful at that time in an attempt to get the
court's decision overturned with a jury determining that the couple
had adequately argued that Roundup was the cause of them developing
cancer.
The couple was back in court last month to urge the U.S. Supreme
Court not to review the $87 million settlement agreement and to
reject the company's certiorari petition, Law360 reports.
In a separate lawsuit, a jury in December sided with Monsanto in a
lawsuit filed against the company by a woman claiming her exposure
to Roundup caused her to develop cancer.
The jury determined Monsanto was not responsible for the woman's
cancer, that the company was not negligent in selling Roundup and
that it did not know the true dangers of exposure to its product.
The outcome was the second decision to go in Monsanto's favor in
recent months around that time.
Monsanto faced a new lawsuit one month prior in November with a
widower claiming her husband developed non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and
subsequently died after being exposed to Roundup.
The widower claimed her 55-year-old husband's death was premature
and the result of more than four decades of exposure to Roundup
weedkiller.
That same month, a married couple filed a complaint against
Monsanto, claiming the company was negligent by selling Roundup
weedkiller containing the herbicide glyphosate.
The couple claim the husband developed non-Hodgkin Lymphoma after
being exposed to the glyphosate and surfactant POEA found in
Roundup.
The couple also accused Monsanto of having known that the
glyphosate in its Roundup weedkiller was carcinogenic from as far
back as the early 1980s.
Monsanto completes several settlements over Roundup
Several settlement agreements involving Monsanto have already been
closed, including one from 2018 that awarded consumers a total of
$21.5 million.
The settlement resolved claims that Monsanto misrepresented the
spray ability of several of its Roundup weedkiller products.
In 2021, meanwhile, Monsanto agreed to a settlement worth $39.5
million that resolved claims it mislabeled certain of its Roundup
weedkiller products.
Consumers claimed Monsanto misled them by falsely labeling some of
its Roundup products that they would only target an enzyme in
plants and would not have an effect on people or their pets.
Finally, in December 2020, Monsanto agreed to pay as much as $300
million to end claims that its herbicides containing the chemical
dicamba damaged soybean crops.
The settlement benefited commercial soybean producers who claimed
their crops showed symptoms of being exposed to dicamba. [GN]
MORGAN PROPERTIES: Kohn Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICKY KOHN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC, MORGAN PROPERTIES
MANAGEMENT, L.P., and MORGAN PROPERTIES PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02278 (E.D. Penn., June 9, 2022) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants, asserts these
claims:
-- The Defendants required him and other similarly situated
employees to work off-the-clock without compensation;
-- The Defendants allegedly threaten them with discharge,
demotion, or discrimination and/or intimidating them if they do not
work off-the-clock;
-- The Defendants failed to provide them with meal and rest
periods;
-- The Defendants failed to properly compensate them for the
time they spent performing work during meal and rest periods; and
-- The Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time
records for all hours worked by its employees.
The Corporate Defendants operate approximately 55 properties in
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Manes, Esq.
MANES & NARAHARI, LLC
One Oxford Centre
301 Grant St., Suite 270
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 626-5570
Fax: (412) 650-4845
E-mail: dm@manesnarahari.com
MR. COOPER: Scheduling Order Entered in Le Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MY−DUYEN LE, et
al., v. MR. COOPER GROUP INC., et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-02013-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- All discovery, including discovery April 27, 2023
motions, shall be completed by:
-- The parties shall have until June 26, 2023
to file and have heard all
other motions, including motions
to join or amend the pleadings:
-- A pretrial conference will be held August 28, 2023
on:
-- The case is set for a jury trial: September 5, 2023
-- The Plaintiff shall have until November 28, 2022
to file and have heard any
class certification motion:
Mr. Cooper provides quality servicing, origination and
transaction-based services related principally to single-family
residences throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HuE5eA at no extra charge.[CC]
NASHVILE BOOTING: Ladd, Brindle File Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LADD and NICHOLAS
BRINDLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. NASHVILE BOOTING, LLC,Case No. 3:20-CV-00626 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying and
appointing them as representatives of the following class:
"All persons who had a vehicle in their possession
immobilized by Nashville Booting LLC in Nashville for longer
than one hour after requesting removal of the immobilization
device, from July 20, 2017 1 until June 17, 2022, but
excluding the claims of non-named parties arising before
December 1, 2018 (for whom Nashville Booting does not have
any records)."
The Plaintiffs also request that Kotchen & Low LLP be appointed as
counsel for the class.
The Plaintiffs primarily seek certification pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) and propose that the Nashville Booting's classwide
liability for its negligence, conversion, and trespass to chattels
claims be adjudicated in a single trial.
This putative class action arises from Nashville Booting's systemic
and ongoing failure to unboot vehicles within one hour of unbooting
requests, as is required by Nashville Ordinance section
6.81.170(E).
Nashville Booting has wronged thousands of local vehicle owners in
the same exact way, in deliberate indifference to its obligations
under Nashville Ordinance section 6.81.170(E) -- and it continues
to do so -- even after receiving constant direct complaints about
this issue, being publicly flagged by the Better Business Bureau
for this pattern of illegal conduct, and despite the pendency of
this putative class action.
Nashville Booting is a for-profit booting company based in Georgia,
but operates exclusively in Nashville, Tennessee. It immobilizes
vehicles by placing "boots" on the vehicle's tires that only
Nashville Booting technicians can remove.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xC1Ixp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hammervold, Esq.
Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
Daniel Low, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
E-mail: mhammervold@kotchen.com
dkotchen@kotchen.com;
dlow@kotchen.com
NEWREZ LLC: Court Denies Safeguard's Bid to Quash Yates' Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRENE YATES, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Case No. 8:21-cv-3044-TDC (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Ajmel A.
Quereshi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,
Southern Division, denies Non-Party Safeguard Properties Management
LLC's Motion to Quash Plaintiff Irene Yates' Subpoena.
I. Introduction
The lawsuit is a case concerning a class of Maryland property
owners' efforts to seek redress for being unlawfully charged home
inspection fees related to their purchased properties. Pending
before the Court is Safeguard's Motion to Quash Plaintiff Irene
Yates' Subpoena.
II. Background
According to the Plaintiff's Complaint, on July 19, 2004, Plaintiff
Yates purchased a property in Lanham, Maryland. On April 2, 2008,
Ms. Yates and her husband, who has since passed, refinanced their
property via a loan from Chevy Chase Bank, a Maryland based company
that provided banking services in the Greater Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area. Chevy Chase Bank made the loan with the approval
of Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie
Mae, which agreed to acquire the loan shortly after its terms were
finalized. Id. Chevy Chase Bank retained the right to collect
payment on the loan.
Under the terms of the loan, Ms. Yates, Chevy Chase Bank, and
Fannie Mae agreed to abide by Maryland law. Specifically, the
parties agreed that Chevy Chase Bank and its assigns, including
Fannie Mae, may not charge fees that are expressly prohibited by
controlling applicable federal, state and local statutes,
regulations, and administrative rules and orders, as well as
applicable final, non-appealable judicial decisions. The terms of
the agreement have not since been modified.
On June 1, 2018, Defendant Shellpoint Partners LLC, a
Delaware-based limited liability company owned by New Residential
Investment Corporation -- also based in Delaware, acquired the
rights to collect payments on the loan from Chevy Chase Bank. On
approximately June 22, 2018, Shellpoint, on behalf of Fannie Mae,
sent Ms. Yates a periodic statement. Therein, Shellpoint
represented to Ms. Yates that it sought to collect from her a $105
appraisal fee, which Ms. Yates alleges was actually a property
inspection fee. According to Ms. Yates, this was the first time she
received notice of the fee. The same statement also included a
$20.66 fee specifically labeled an inspection fee to which Ms.
Yates had never agreed nor previously received notice. Ms. Yates
continued to receive monthly statements through the end of 2018,
which included inspection fee charges of similar amounts.
On June 22, 2021, Ms. Yates, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, filed the case in Prince George's County
Circuit Court, alleging that Shellpoint's and Fannie Mae's charging
of inspection fees to Ms. Yates and others similarly situated
individuals violated Maryland State law. On Oct. 5, 2021, Ms. Yates
filed an amended complaint in State court alleging that the
Defendants violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and specific provisions of
Maryland state law prohibiting the collection of inspection fees
after the origination of a loan. On Nov. 29, 2021, the Defendants
removed the case to the Court. On Nov. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff
noticed the voluntary dismissal of her claims against Fannie Mae,
without prejudice.
On Jan. 10, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.
In addition to including the information and claims described, the
Second Amended Complaint not only sought relief on behalf of a
class of Plaintiffs, but alleged that the actions allegedly taken
by the remaining Defendant was indicative of a regular practice by
numerous lending companies in Maryland.
Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint sought relief from a
Defendant class, as well, defined as: "all approved mortgage
servicers and sub-servicers a) of a mortgage loan that makes the
mortgage subject to Maryland law; b) who are responsible for
collecting monthly, mortgage payments and the administration and
accounting of those payments on behalf of Fannie Mae or another
owner of a mortgage in the State of Maryland; and c) who does so in
relation to any member of the Plaintiff class.
On Feb. 8, 2022, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in the case,
requiring among other things, that all discovery be completed by
June 23, 2022. The schedule did not include any deadlines
specifically related to class discovery or motions for
certification of a Plaintiff or a Defendant class.
On Feb. 24, 2022, the Plaintiff sent a subpoena for a range of
documents to Fannie Mae, relating to, among other things, the names
of other mortgage servicers and sub-servicers who charged
inspection fees. Fannie Mae initially refused to produce any
documents, but after some discussion, the parties were able to
reach agreement on a narrowed request.
On the same day, the Plaintiff also sent a subpoena to Non-Party
Safeguard Properties Management, LLC, a corporation that providers
property inspection services to mortgage servicers around the
country, including in Maryland. The subpoena requested a wide range
of documents dating back to the year 2000, relating to among other
things the properties that Safeguard inspected, the mortgage
servicers with which it contracted to provide these inspection
services, and the amount that Safeguard charged mortgage servicers
for these inspection services. Safeguard, in response, refused to
produce any information, challenging the relevance of the discovery
sought, as well as the burden producing it would impose on a
non-party like Safeguard. The parties conferred as to whether they
could reach agreement on a narrowed request, but were unsuccessful
in reaching a resolution.
On April 25, 2022, Safeguard moved to quash the subpoena, relying
on the arguments mentioned above, and arguing that it should not be
required to produce any information. On April 29, 2022, this case
was assigned to my Chambers for resolution of any discovery
disputes. On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiff responded, addressing the
substance of Safeguard's arguments, but also significantly
narrowing the documents requested. On May 18, 2022, Safeguard filed
its Reply in Support of its Motion to Quash, reiterating its
position from its Motion to Quash; notably, Safeguard asserted that
the Plaintiff's attempt to narrow the subpoena was merely illusory
and made no difference regarding the burden on Safeguard, the
relevance of the documents requested, and resultingly, Safeguard's
position on the Plaintiff's subpoena.
On May 23, 2022, the Court held a scheduling conference with the
parties to address among other things the discovery schedule
related to certification of the Plaintiff and Defendant classes.
Towards the end of the hearing, the Court suggested the parties
confer and jointly propose a schedule for discovery regarding both
the Plaintiff and the Defendant classes, ultimately culminating in
deadlines for a motion to certify both classes.
On May 31, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order, setting a deadline of Sept. 16, 2022, for the
Plaintiff's motions to certify the Plaintiff and the Defendant
classes. Therein, the Defendant conceded that although it initially
sought to strike the Plaintiff's request that the Court certify a
Defendant class as legally insufficient, before any discovery had
been conducted, it would simply oppose the Plaintiff's requests for
certification. The parties also requested that the deadline for
fact discovery be extended so the parties, for the time being,
could "focus on the class issues."
III. Analysis
The Plaintiff's subpoena requests: 1) a report generated by
Safeguard's current operating system that identifies the mortgage
servicers in Maryland for whom Safeguard has conducted property
inspections in Maryland on Fannie Mae loans since the new computer
system was implemented"; 2) "written contractual agreements for
home inspection services between Safeguard and Fannie Mae and
between Safeguard and any mortgage servicers for whom Safeguard
performs property inspection services in Maryland," dating back a
reasonable time period agreed to by the parties; and 3) a "report
generated by its current computer system" "which identifies the
sums of money charged by Safeguard to the members of the Defendant
class, Shellpoint, and Fannie Mae for property inspections or
property preservation services in the State of Maryland from Jan.
1, 2000."
Additionally, the Plaintiff requests that Safeguard produce a
witness to testify as to various matters, in lieu of broad document
requests that were included in its initial subpoena. Specifically,
they requests that Safeguard produce a witness who can testify
about: 1) "Safeguard's electronic records management and reporting
capabilities relating to reports and data summaries concerning
property inspections and property preservation services"; 2)
"Safeguard's current and historical capabilities regarding its
documents and data that may be used to identify with specificity
members of the Defendant class and members of the Plaintiff class.
The Plaintiff also requests that Safeguard's representative be
prepared to testify on various other matters including the
authentication of documents produced, the contents of contracts and
documents produced by Safeguard, Safeguard's use of scripts during
inspections, and electronic communication practices related to
communications between Safeguard and mortgage servicers performing
work in Maryland.
Safeguard opposes the subpoena on account of the alleged lack of
relevance of the materials sought and the burden of production.
Specifically, it argues that the Subpoena: 1) "has virtually no
relationship to the Plaintiff"; and 2) seeks discovery that "is not
proportional to the needs of the case" and is "unduly burdensome"
to Safeguard.
A. The Information Sought Is Relevant.
First, Judge Quereshi holds that Safeguard's complaint that it
lacks information relevant to Ms. Yates' property overlooks that
the case is a class action and the parties are in the midst of
discovery relevant to whether classes of the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants may be certified. Likewise, Safeguard's argument that
discovery regarding the Defendant class is improper, as a matter of
law, conflicts with the most recent developments in the case.
Finally, the information the subpoena seeks is relevant even if it
provides only indirect evidence of a violation of State law.
B. Production of the Information Sought in the Subpoena, As
Narrowed, Would Not Impose an Undue Burden on Safeguard and, Thus,
Is Proportional to the Case.
Safeguard alleges that the subpoena, even as narrowed, would pose
an undue burden on the company and thus seeks documents that are
not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, it makes
several global arguments regarding the scope of the subpoena.
First, Safeguard argues that because the subpoena seeks information
going back twenty-two years, Safeguard would need to collect
information from an older, inactive system that is no longer in
use. The Plaintiff requests a meet and confer as to whether the
parties can reach agreement on a reasonable time frame for
production.
Judge Quereshi agrees that this is a reasonable request as it
accords with the Local Rules of the Court regarding discovery
disputes. He cannot agree that any production of contractual
documents for any time period -- no matter how short -- would
impose an undue burden on Safeguard. Although he makes no
determination, at this point, as to what a reasonable time frame
may be, important considerations may include, but are not limited
to, whether a more limited initial production reveals information
relevant to a claim or defense and, thus, supports the production
of additional documents of the like; the total number of contracts;
the length of each contract, on average; whether the contracts
follow a standard format or are highly individualized; whether the
contracts include information regarding the scope of the
inspection, the charge for any inspection, the purpose of the
inspection, and whether the charge is passed on to the property
owner.
Second, Safeguard argues that compliance with the subpoena would
require the production of millions of documents, including the
review and potentially the production of 4.6 million work orders.
As noted, the Plaintiff, in her narrowed subpoena, seeks only
printouts of information compiled from Safeguard's current computer
system and its contracts with mortgage servicers in Maryland. Judge
Quereshi cannot conclude, at this time, that the production of the
contracts alone would impose an undue burden on Safeguard and,
thus, would not be proportional to the needs of the case. As noted,
the Plaintiff has agreed to discuss a narrowed time frame
applicable to the contracts.
Third, Safeguard argues that the Plaintiff should request the
information from Shellpoint, or other mortgage lenders directly.
The argument, according to Judge Quereshi, disregards the nature of
the Plaintiff's claims and fails to account for the fact that the
alternatives which Safeguard proposes would, in fact, be less
efficient. Likewise, Safeguard's argument that it has information
related to only a fraction of mortgage lenders in Maryland is
unpersuasive. Merely because Safeguard does not have all the
information, does not exempt it from responding to the subpoena.
Fourth, Safeguard argues that production of the contracts, which
the Plaintiff requests under the subpoena as narrowed would divulge
its proprietary and trade secrets, as well as those of its mortgage
lender clients. Judge Quereshi says Safeguard provides no legal or
factual authority in support of its position that: 1) the
information is exempt from disclosure; and 2) a party should be
exempt from producing the entirety of a document, a portion of
which may be confidential. Although Safeguard argues that the
Plaintiff, and by extension the Court, should be able to assume the
nature of the information solely from the type of business
Safeguard conducts, these assumptions are insufficient to
demonstrate its importance and satisfy the "strong showing"
required.
Fifth, Safeguard alleges that it cannot produce the excel sheets
requested in the form the Plaintiff has requested them in its
narrowed subpoena. The Plaintiff contests this point, citing prior
representations from Safeguard in a deposition of its corporate
representative in another case. It is unclear from the information
before the Court whether Safeguard has the ability to produce the
report in the specific form requested. Accordingly, Judge Quereshi
orders Safeguard respond to the subpoena's narrowed demands for
reports in Request Nos. 2, 4, and 6.
Sixth, Safeguard argues that requiring its corporate representative
to prepare for a deposition on the topics in the subpoena would
require it to review millions of work orders dating back over 22
years. Judge Quereshi holds taht this argument is derivative of the
argument addressed. In its opposition, the Plaintiff narrowed the
topics on which it seeks to depose Safeguard's representative to
exclude work orders.
Judge Quereshi holds further, those requests dating back to the
year 2000 concern only the use of standard and customary scripts
(Topic 5), Safeguard's ability to produce records or summary
reports (Topic 6), and Safeguard's electronic communication
practices (Topic 7). He further orders other specific modifications
to ensure that Safeguard is not subjected to an undue burden.
Regarding the use of scripts (Topic 5) and electronic
communications practices (Topic 7), the parties will meet and
confer as to a reasonable time period that the deposition will
cover in line with the narrowing discussed above related to the
production of contracts. If, in the future, the Plaintiff is able
to demonstrate a need for the complete time period, she may
re-raise that need with the Court.
Regarding the use of scripts specifically, other than those related
to the named Defendant, the representative will not be expected to
know the contents of any one particular script used at any one
point in time, but rather general facts regarding whether scripts
were used, if they were customized, if there were commonalities
over time and between types of properties and mortgage servicers
served, and the scope of those commonalities. As discussed, such
facts are relevant to the nature of the inspections at issue and
class certification.
Likewise, regarding Topic No. 3, the representative cannot be
expected to be aware of the identity of each of the hundreds of
servicers Safeguard serves in Maryland. Accordingly, Judge Quereshi
has limited this request to the means of identifying the identity
of servicers with whom Safeguard works. This is consistent with
narrowed Request for Documents No. 7.
Finally, as the Plaintiff has excluded its request for documents
under Document Request No. 1 from their subpoena as narrowed,
Request No. 1 will be excluded from Deposition Topic No. 4 for the
time being, as well.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Quereshi concludes that the Plaintiff has substantially
narrowed the subpoena, for the time being, and Safeguard has
refused to provide any information. In light of such, he denies
Safeguard's Motion to Quash with prejudice regarding those
materials ordered to be produced by his Opinion. Regarding those
materials which his Opinion does not order production, Judge
Quereshi denies Safeguard's Motion to Quash without prejudice.
Safeguard will respond to the subpoena within 30 days of the
decision.
Specifically:
a. Regarding Document Request No. 2: Within 30 days,
Safeguard will either produce a report generated by its current
operating system that identifies the mortgage servicers in Maryland
for whom it has conducted property inspections in Maryland on
Fannie Mae loans since the new computer system was implemented,
showing the number of inspections Safeguard conducted for each, and
the time period covered by those inspections or respond that its
current operating system cannot produce such a report. If it cannot
produce such a report, or producing such a report would impose
substantial time or financial burden, it will respond to the
subpoena stating such with particularity and promptly make its
representative available to be deposed regarding Deposition Topic
6. Once the deposition has occurred, Plaintiff may issue a revised
subpoena for any report it reasonably believes Safeguard can
produce without substantial time or financial burden.
b. Regarding Request No. 4: Within 30 days, Safeguard should
produce written contractual agreements for home inspection services
between Safeguard and any mortgage servicers for whom Safeguard
performs property inspection services in Maryland. Within 10 days,
Counsel for the Plaintiff and Safeguard will confer regarding a
reasonable time limit on the time-period encompassed by the request
if some of the responsive contractual agreements are archived or
not current and are, therefore, not readily accessible without
expense of substantial time and/or cost. Guidance is provided in
the Memorandum Opinion regarding factors to be considered in
determining an appropriate time-period.
c. Regarding Request No. 5: No later than one week before any
deposition, Safeguard's corporate representative will produce any
documents they utilized to prepare their deposition.
d. Regarding Request No. 6: Within 30 days, Safeguard will
produce a report generated by its current operating system that
identifies the sums of money charged by Safeguard to mortgage
servicers in Maryland for property inspection services since its
new computer system was implemented. If it cannot produce such a
report or producing such a report would require substantial time or
financial expense, it will respond to the subpoena stating such
with particularity and will make its representative available to be
deposed regarding Deposition Topic 6. Once the deposition has
occurred, the Plaintiff may issue a revised subpoena for any report
it reasonably believes Safeguard can produce without substantial
time or financial burden.
e. At a time mutually convenient for the Plaintiff and
Safeguard, but no later than 45 days after the entry of thw Opinion
and Order, Safeguard will designate one or more witnesses pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 to testify at
deposition concerning:
1. Topic 1: Authentication of any records produced by
Safeguard in response to the subpoena;
2. Topic 2: Safeguard's contractual relationship(s) and
agreement(s) with Fannie Mae, Shellpoint, and members of the
putative Defendant class concerning property inspections in
Maryland from the date of the first contractual agreement produced
in response to Request No. 3. Other than contracts with the named
Defendant and Fannie Mae, the representative will not be expected
to know the details of any one particular contract, but rather
general facts regarding whether contracts are customized, if there
are commonalities between contracts including subject matters
therein, the scope of those commonalities and differences between
contracts, and the general subject matters that are common between
contracts;
3. Topic 3: Means of identifying mortgage servicers for
whom Safeguard has provided property inspection services in
Maryland since implementation of its current computer operating
system relating to such services, with the limitation that the
representative will not be expected to list each during the
deposition, as this request is more properly handled through a
document request;
4. Topic 4: Data produced by Safeguard in response to
Request Nos. 2 and 6 for the time period that begins with the
implementation of Safeguard's current operating system relating to
property inspection and property preservation services in
Maryland.
5. Topic 5: Standard and customary scripts utilized by
Safeguard in communicating with property owners or mortgagors
concerning property inspections or property preservation services
conducted in the State of Maryland for a reasonable time period
agreed to by the Plaintiff and Safeguard;
6. Topic 6: Safeguard's ability to produce records or
summary reports from its records management system which identify
information about each residential property for which Safeguard has
conducted property inspections or property preservation services in
the State of Maryland from Jan. 1, 2000 to the present, including
whether the records management system identifies: (i) the property
owner's name(s); (ii) the property owner's loan number assigned by
Safeguard's client; (iii) the type of inspection requested by
Safeguard's client; and (iv) the script utilized by Safeguard's
inspectors.
7. Topic 7: Safeguard's electronic communications
practices for communications between Safeguard and Fannie Mae or
Safeguard and mortgage servicers, concerning the property
inspection or property preservation services performed by Safeguard
in the State of Maryland for a reasonable time period agreed to by
the Plaintiff and Safeguard.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p87h6km from Leagle.com.
OLIN CORPORATION: Davis Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Davis, Veronica Williams, individually
and on behalf of their minor children and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, real parties in interest T.J., T.W., R.D.;
Jamey D Johnson, individually and on behalf of and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, real party in interest J.J.; Lakeisha
Johnson, individually and on behalf of and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, real parties in interest K.S., JR., D.R.; v.
Olin Corporation, Blue Cube Operations LLC, The Dow Chemical
Company, Case No. 81515 Div A was removed from the 18th JDC,
Iberville Parish, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana on June 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00374-JWD-RLB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Olin Corporation -- https://www.olin.com/ -- is a global
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products and a leading
U.S. manufacturer of ammunition.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eulis Simien, Jr., Esq.
Jimmy Simien, Esq.
Roy Louis Bergeron , Jr., Esq.
SIMIEN & SIMIEN
7908 Wrenwood Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Phone: (225) 932-9221
Fax: (225) 932-9286
Email: eulis@simien.com
jimmysimien@simien.com
roybergeron@simien.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Karli Glascock Johnson, Esq.
Erich P. Rapp, Esq.
Jay Morton Jalenak , Jr., Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
P. O. Box 3513
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513
Phone: (225) 387-0999
Fax: (225) 388-9133
Email: karli.johnson@keanmiller.com
erich.rapp@keanmiller.com
jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Loan Interest Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Carobus at consumerfinancemonitor.com reports that plaintiff
Kristen Michael filed a class action lawsuit against FinTech lender
Opportunity Financial, LLC ("OppFi") on behalf of herself and a
putative class alleging, inter alia, that OppFi loans money at an
interest rate upwards of 130% higher than allowed by state law. Ms.
Michael alleges that OppFi offers "OppLoans" in over 30 states,
whereby it originates, underwrites, services and enforces these
loans, even claiming the loans on its financial reports. However,
in states where 160% APR is legal, OppFi names itself as the lender
in the loan contracts, but in states where such APR is illegal,
OppFi instead names a Utah-state chartered bank as the purported
lender and OppFi as the loan servicer. Then, after the consumer has
executed the loan, OppFi purchases 95% of the loan from the bank
and maintains it thereafter. Ms. Michael alleges OppFi runs this
"rent-a-bank" scheme to purposefully skirt state law, including in
Texas where Ms. Michael signed her loans and where the maximum
interest rate caps out at 30%.
Ms. Michael further notes in her Complaint that the Washington,
D.C. Attorney General's Office filed and later settled a lawsuit
against OppFi for the same "rent-a-bank" scheme and that OppFi's
own SEC filings concede OppFi "may be the true lender on these
loans and that the loans may therefore be invalid."
Ms. Michael asserts claims against OppFi for violations of Texas
usury laws, unjust enrichment, and RICO violations and seeks
declaratory relief. Ms. Michael further seeks to hold OppFi
"accountable for its racketeering and illegal loans in Texas" by
requesting restitution, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and a judicial determination that OppFi is the
true lender on the loans, that Texas law governs these loans, and
that the loan contracts, arbitration clauses, class waivers and
jury waivers are all void and unenforceable.
The case is styled Kristen Michael v. Opportunity Financial, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00529-LY, in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas.
Notably, OppFi is engaged in similar litigation in California where
the California Department of Financial Protective and Innovation
("DFPI") has attempted to apply California usury law to loans made
through OppFi's partnership with FinWise Bank by alleging that
OppFi is the "true lender" on the loans.[GN]
PABST BREWING: Peacock Bid to Certify Class Junked
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN PEACOCK, on Behalf
of Himself, and All Others Similarly Situated, v. PABST BREWING
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00568-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class.
The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Bruton. Here, as in
Bruton, the Plaintiff lacks the real and immediate threat of
repeated injury to establish standing because the Defendant's
Olympia Beer has been discontinued and the misleading slogan
officially removed in accordance with the Tax and Trade Bureau.
Thus, the Plaintiff "does not face an action or imminent threat of
future harm because the source of potential harm, namely
[Defendant's advertising and labeling], has ceased." The Plaintiff
argues Defendant may continue to sell the product in the future,
however, if so, the Plaintiff can bring another suit or use the
"capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception for mootness.
Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief, and accordingly, the Court denies certification
of a Rule 23(b)(2) class.
This case arises out of a dispute over Defendant’s marketing of
its product, Olympia Beer. The Plaintiff argues Defendant deceives
consumers by marketing Olympia Beer in a way that "falsely creates
the impression in the minds of consumers that its Olympia Beer
products are exclusively brewed using artesian water in Washington.
The Plaintiff contends the Defendant misled consumers in violation
of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff argues this misrepresentation is created by the
phrase "It's the Water" in the product's marketing. On September
30, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Certify Class. On
December 2, 2021, the Defendant filed an opposition to the motion.
On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HwHgm3 at no extra charge.[CC]
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Reconsideration of Court's Order Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, et al.,
v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., et al., Case No.
0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the plaintiffs file an instant
combined motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order granting
in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification, and Renewed Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs contends that the Court must grant their Motion and
order the following relief:
1. Certifying the following two classes defined as
follows:
-- Class 1
"All employees who worked for Defendants as hourly
"unskilled" "general" laborers ("daily ticket workers")
and were employed by the Defendants on "daily tickets"
in Florida at any time from January 29, 2015, to the
present;" and
-- Class 2
"All employees who worked for Defendants as hourly
"unskilled" "general" laborers ("daily ticket workers")
and were employed by Defendants on "daily tickets" in
Florida and incurred one or more daily transportation
charges in excess of $3 per day at any time from
January 29, 2016 to the present;"
2. Appointing the Plaintiffs, Shane Villarino, Laura Johnson,
Jeffrey Mondy, and Jerome Gunn, as Class Representatives;
3. Appointing counsel for the Plaintiffs, Dion J. Cassata,
Esq., Cassata Law, PLLC, and Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.,
Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as Class Counsel;
4. Compelling Defendants to produce a complete and accurate
employee list of all employees within the class
definitions;
5. Approving the form and method of Notice to be provided to
the Class, and finding said Notice to be fair, reasonable,
and adequate and Consistent with due process, and;
6. Any other relief that is just and proper.
By their instant Motion, the Plaintiffs respectfully entreat the
Court to reconsider two related aspects of its Order:
(1) its holding that individual issues predominate with
respect to the Plaintiffs' proposed class under the
Florida Labor Pool Act ("FLPA") regarding daily
transportation charges in excess of $3; and
(2) its holding that individual issues predominate with regard
to Plaintiffs' claims under the Florida Minimum Wage Act
("FMWA"). In the alternative, request that the Court
certify both classes on either Rule 23(b)(1) or (2)
grounds, a request the Court correctly noted was omitted
from Plaintiffs' initial Motion for Class Certification.
Pacesetter provides employment services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b4DZhP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, 4 th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
- and -
Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
CASSATA LAW, PLLC
7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (954) 364-7803
E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Parties Seek Extension to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually,
and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL
BERBER, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
similarly situated, v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation
to extend plaintiffs' motion for class certification, defendant to
file its opposition, and plaintiff to file his reply to the same:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to move Oct. 30, 2022
for class certification shall be:
-- The Defendant's deadline to file Dec. 29, 2022
an opposition to class
certification shall be:
-- The Plaintiff's Deadline to file Jan. 30, 2022
his reply in support of class
certification shall be:
The Plaintiffs and Defendant, along with plaintiffs' counsel in the
two related cases, have continued their efforts to get this case
back to mediation but all agree they wish to ediate with a
different mediator for the second session of mediation
The Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which is
set to be heard on September 2, 2022, and the parties entered a
previous stipulation to set a briefing schedule for that motion.
Pacific Steel provides concrete reinforcing steel bars,
pre-assembled rebar cages, and post tension cables.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39x85dx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
Jacob Karczewski, Esq
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
The Defendants are represented by:
Travis Jang-Busby, Esq.
Clint S. Engleson, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
1117 S California Ave, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 645-9000
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
PEPSICO INC: Madriz FLSA Suit Moved From to C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MOISES MADRIZ and RODNEY ULLOA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC.;
NAKED JUICE CO.; NAKED JUICE CO. OF GLENDORA, INC.; TROPICANA
PRODUCTS, INC.; TROPICANA SERVICES, INC.; and DOES #1 through #50,
inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00549, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 9,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04851-ALC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to comply
with record keeping requirements, waiting time penalties, unfair
competition, and civil penalties.
PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and
beverage corporation, headquartered in Harrison, New York.
Naked Juice Co. is an American brand that produces juices and
smoothies, headquartered in Monrovia, California.
Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc. is a manufacturer of food
products, headquartered in Monrovia, California.
Tropicana Products, Inc. is a producer and marketer of branded
fruit juices, headquartered in Bradenton, Florida.
Tropicana Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.,
headquartered in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PEPSICO INC: Vidaud Suit Moved From to C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICARDO VIDAUD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC. and DOES #1 through #50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02713, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 9,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04850-JSR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages, failure to comply with record
keeping requirements, waiting time penalties, unfair competition,
and civil penalties.
PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, and
beverage corporation, headquartered in Harrison, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PREMIER SENIOR: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robbins v. Premier Senior
Living, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01164 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Miroslav Lovric entered an order granting the letter motion insofar
as and to the extent that:
(1) the deadline for filing of motion for conditional class
certification is extended to July 22, 2022, and
(2) the deadline for completion of mandatory mediation is
extended to Sept. 23, 2022.
The parties are directed to file next status reports by 8/31/2022.
All other deadlines and schedules in Dkt. No. 16 remain in effect,
says Judge Lovric.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Premier Senior is a senior housing owner and operator with
headquarters in New York City.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Bost Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Premier
Insurance Company of Illinois. The case is styled as Michelle Bost,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois, Case No.
4:22-cv-00127-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers car, home, renters, condo,
motorcycle, life, pet, commercial, health, business, boat, and
other insurance products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
QUAKER OATS: Winger FLSA Suit Moved From to N.D. Ill. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMAL WINGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No.
1:22-cv-02023, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on June 9, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04828-MKV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt workers all wages
owed for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Indiana Minimum Wage Law, and the
Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
The Quaker Oats Company is an American food conglomerate based in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and –
Warren Astbury, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E. Monroe St., Ste. 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 706-0550
Facsimile: (313) 739-1976
E-mail: wastbury@forthepeople.com
RED ROBIN: Dismissal of Mina TCPA Suit with Prejudice Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK MINA, as an individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL,
INC., and RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 20-cv-00612-RM-NYW (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recommends
that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be granted.
I. Background
In 2015, Plaintiff Mina dined at a Red Robin restaurant in San
Bernardino County, California. During Mr. Mina's visit, a server
asked Mr. Mina if he would like to participate in the Red Robin
Royalty Program. In response, the Plaintiff provided his telephone
number. According to Mr. Mina, he did not sign any document
"reciting that Red Robin was authorized to send text messages to
him using an automatic telephone dialing system for telemarketing
or advertising purposes."
The Plaintiff alleges that after he provided his telephone number
to the Red Robin server, he received "numerous" text messages from
Red Robin that were sent "to advertise and promote the Red Robin
Royalty program and Red Robin products." He alleges that these text
messages were impersonal, "based on a template," and were "drafted
in advance and sent out automatically based on pre-programmed
parameters. "Reb Robin "sent or transmitted, or had sent or
transmitted on its behalf, the same or substantially similar
unsolicited text messages en masse to hundreds of thousands of
customers' cellular telephones nationwide in an effort to advertise
for Red Robin restaurants."
The Plaintiff states that he incurred "a charge" for the telephonic
communications that he received from Red Robin. In addition, he
alleges that Red Robin's telephonic communications "forced him to
live without the utility of his cellular phone" because his cell
phone was "occupied by text messages, causing annoyance and lost
time."
As a result, Mr. Mina initiated the case against Defendants Red
Robin International, Inc. and Red Robin Gourment Burgers, Inc. on
Nov. 17, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. On March 3, 2020, the Central District of California
transferred the matter to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado upon concluding that the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, as well as the interests of justice, warranted a
transfer of the case. Upon transfer to this District, the case was
assigned to the Hon. Raymond P. Moore and referred to Judge Wang.
On Aug. 28, 2020, Judge Moore stayed all proceedings in the matter
pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v.
Duguid. The Supreme Court issued its decision on April 1, 2021, see
141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021), and the stay in the matter was subsequently
lifted.
After the Court addressed a number of procedural matters with the
Parties concerning the status and scope of the case, Mr. Mina filed
the Amended Complaint with the Defendants' consent on Sept. 15,
2021, raising one claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). Thereafter, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court stayed discovery in the matter upon joint motion of the
Parties.
II. Analysis
The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person "to make any call (other
than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior
express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service." In
other words, a person can violate the TCPA either by using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" or by using an "artificial or
prerecorded voice."
In his Amended Complaint, Mr. Mina alleges that the Defendants
violated the TCPA using both methods: first, by sending him text
messages or by using an autodialer, and second, by sending him text
messages using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The Defendants
argue in their Motion to Dismiss that the Plaintiff's allegations
are deficient to establish a TCPA violation using either method, as
he has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendants used either
an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice in sending text
messages to the Plaintiff.
Judge Wang addresses the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's
allegations.
A. The Use of an Autodialer
The Defendants assert that in light of Duguid, the Plaintiff's
allegations are insufficient to allege that the Defendants used an
autodialer to send the subject text messages to the Plaintiff; for
this reason, they maintain that the Plaintiff fails to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The crux of the Defendants' argument is
Mr. Mina's allegation that "the phone numbers to be called by the
Defendants are stored in a list and are not themselves randomly or
sequentially generated." According to the Defendants, this
allegation is essentially a concession that Defendants did not use
an autodialer as defined in the TCPA.
Mr. Mina disagrees. He maintains that Duguid does not foreclose a
conclusion that the text messaging program used by the Defendants
constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA because he has alleged
that the Defendants' program has the capacity to randomly or
sequentially decide which numbers to dial from a stored list.
Judge Wang holds that because Mr. Mina does not sufficiently allege
that the phone numbers at issue were randomly or sequentially
stored, and because allegations that a program randomly or
sequentially selects numbers to be called are insufficient to
establish that the program randomly or sequentially produces those
numbers, Mr. Mina fails to allege that the Defendants used an
autodialer to send him the subject text messages for purposes of
the TCPA.
Judge Wang also finds that it is appropriate to recommend dismissal
based on the Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible TCPA claim
based on the Defendants' alleged use of an autodialer to send text
messages to the Plaintiff without further discovery. Where there is
no dispute about the process the Defendants used to text customers,
no discovery is needed. Indeed, the Parties engaged in informal
discovery with respect to the functionality of the Defendants'
technology, and the Plaintiff identifies no other discovery that is
necessary for him to learn about the functionality at issue.
B. The Use of an Artificial or Prerecorded Voice
Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's TCPA claim is
similarly deficient insofar as it is based on allegations that the
Defendants used an artificial or prerecorded voice in their text
messages to the Plaintiff. They maintain that in the context of the
TCPA, a "voice" necessarily requires an "element of audible
sound."
Mr. Mina responds that under "a plain language interpretation" of
the TCPA, a "voice" does not require an audible sound because
"there are dictionary definitions that extend voice to other forms
of communication." He urges the Court to adopt his selected
dictionary definition of the term "voice": "an instrument or medium
of expression." Further, Mr. Mina contends that the legislative
history of the TCPA demonstrates that "the artificial/prerecorded
voice prohibitions hinge on the fact that the calls are agentless,
i.e. the lack of having a conversation with someone on the other
side who can respond to questions or frustration, and instead
receiving a static, one-sided message," and maintains that because
the TCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed broadly in
his favor.
Judge Wang does not find Mr. Mina's proffered interpretation of the
term "voice" persuasive, as it "conflicts with a primary principle
of statutory interpretation -- that words in a statute should
generally be given their most natural understanding unless
circumstances suggest otherwise." Because Mr. Mina's allegations
rest on text messages, and because Mr. Mina does not plausibly
allege that Defendants used an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in
sending the subject text messages, Judge Wang finds that the
present allegations are insufficient to state a TCPA claim under
Rule 12(b)(6).
Furthermore, because Mr. Mina expressly alleges that he provided
his phone number to Red Robin and that the numbers used by the
Defendants were not randomly or sequentially stored or produced,
and because the text messages do not fall within the TCPA's
proscription of calls using an "artificial or prerecorded voice,"
she concludes that further amendment of Mr. Mina's claim would be
futile. Accordingly, she respectfully recommends that the Motion to
Dismiss be granted and that the Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with
prejudice.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Wang respectfully recommends
that:
(1) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be granted; and
(2) the Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Recommendation is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46f8m7v4 from Leagle.com.
REDCON1 LLC: Slowinski Sues Over Mislabeled Nutritional Powders
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SLOWINSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REDCON1, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00417-JLS (W.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff pursuing claims under the New York General Business Law
and for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty,
fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the alleged deceptive trade practices of
Defendant in its manufacture and sale of nutritional powders
containing branched-chain amino acids labeled "Total War
Preworkout" as well as "Grunt EAA" and its advertisements which
imply or claim that Total War Preworkout product line does not
contain calories. Meanwhile, the actual calorie estimate for the
product is approximately 53 calories, depending on formulation and
use guidance, which can include multiple servings per day, says the
suit.
The suit further asserts that RedCon1 continued to sell the product
with misleading labels despite knowing the inaccuracy of such
representations. RedCon1 chose, and continues to choose, financial
gain at the expense of consumers by concealing and omitting
disclosure of this critical misrepresentation to consumers who,
like Plaintiff, purchased the product based specifically upon this
"0 Calories" representation, for purposes of weight loss and
control, the suit adds.
RedCon1 makes and distributes health supplements, vitamins, and
nutritional protein powders throughout the United States and,
specifically, to consumers in the state of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
swatkins@peircelaw.com
- and -
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
P.O. Box 279
Sewickley, PA 15143
Telephone: (412) 370-9110
E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Amended Case Schedule Entered in Elder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elder v. Reliance
Worldwide Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01596 (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting in part
motion for order amending case schedule:
1) Non-Deposition Discovery Cut-Off July 15, 2022
(all written discovery and
document production complete,
with the exception of additional
production that may be warranted
based on deposition testimony or
conferrals on discovery served
prior to July 15 or requests for
admissions to authenticate documents):
2) Deadline to Complete Fact Aug. 26, 2022
Depositions:
3) Expert Disclosures: Sept. 23, 2022
4) Rebuttal Disclosure: Nov. 22, 2022
5) Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 9, 2022;
6) Deadline to File Class Jan. 10, 2023
Certification Motion:
7) Dispositive Motion Deadline: Jan. 10, 2023.
The Court has adjusted the deadlines for the filing of Plaintiffs
class certification motion and for the parties to file dispositive
motions to January 10, 2023.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property.
Reliance Worldwide Corporation Limited is an Australian-owned
publicly listed company which designs, manufactures and supplies
water flow and control products and solutions. The company operates
in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Spain and the
United Kingdom.[CC]
ROYAL SEAS: Seeks to Decertify Transfer Subclass 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.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying
the Transfer Subclass in this action because, after the closure of
discovery and completion of summary judgment briefing, it is
apparent Plaintiffs have failed to produce any classwide proof that
class members were called with a prerecorded or artificial voice,
and individualized issues exist as to consent.
Both issues will require individual mini-trials to resolve class
claims. As this Court noted in its summary judgment Order, th e
Plaintiffs failed to put forth any evidence to prove a critical
element of a TCPA claim for members of the class:
"There is simply no evidence as to whether an ATDS was or was not
used," and "Plaintiffs now face problems with their certified
class, since they now face individual inquiry issues as to which
calls made to the class were made using a prerecorded voice and
which were made without."
However, the Court concluded that it "need not reach this issue"
because it was entering summary judgment disposing of this case
entirely on vicarious liability grounds. Additionally, and based on
the same rationale, the Court found "moot" and did not address the
individualized factual issues that must be resolved as to the issue
of class members' consent to be called, noting only that
Plaintiffs' declarations explicitly denying they consented to be
called raised an issue of fact for the jury to determine, at least
with respect to the ECF 208 at 10-11.
However, the Court named Plaintiffs. In light of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals' partial reversal of that Order, the issues raised
by Royal at summary judgment and noted by the Court are ripe for a
ruling on the merits, and require decertification of the class.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mWrYO0 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, are:
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:
Richard W. Epstein, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
Brian R. Cummings, Esq.
Germain D. Labat, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
200 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 527-2427
Facsimile: (954) 333-4027
E-mail: richard.epstein@gmlaw.com
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
Brian.Cummings@gmlaw.com
Germain.Labat@gmlaw.com
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Adames Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adames v. Ruth's
Hospitality Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00036 (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ruth's Hospitality Group is a restaurant company with a focus on
American steakhouse restaurants.[CC]
RUTTER'S INC: Seeks More Time to file Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Rutter's Inc. Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. (), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion to extend its
deadline to file its response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.
The revised briefing schedule Defendant proposes, and Plaintiff
concurs with, would require:
a. The Defendant to file its brief in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and its class
certification expert report(s) on or before August 3,
2022;
b. Depositions of Defendant's class certification expert(s)
to be completed by August 25, 2022; and
c. The Plaintiff to file a reply brief in support of the
motion for class certification and any rebuttal expert
report(s) by September 23, 2022.
Rutter's is a chain of convenience stores and gas stations with 78
locations in Central Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b6QIjZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
Telephone: (513) 929-3400
Facsimile: (513) 929-0303
E-mail: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2929 Arch Street
Cira Centre -- 12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 564-8390
Facsimile: (215) 568-3439
E-mail: mkelly@bakerlaw.com
therrold@bakerlaw.com
SETTON PISTACHIO: Reply in Support of Class Status Bid Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ali v. Setton Pistachio of
Terra Bella, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00959 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara A. Mcauliffe entered an order granting a brief
extension of the class certification reply deadline:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the
motion for class certification on or before July 1, 2022.
-- No further modifications of the class certification
deadlines will be granted absent a demonstrated showing of
good cause.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.
Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc. is America's premier grower,
processor and exporter of California pistachios since 1986.[CC]
SHIELDS HEALTH: Faces Bisca Suit Over Alleged Medical Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BISCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHIELDS HEALTH CARE GROUP INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10901-PBS (D. Mass., June 9, 2022) is class action
arising out of a targeted cyber-attack at the Defendant's medical
facilities that allowed a third party to access the Defendant's
computer systems and data from approximately March 7, 2022 to March
21, 2022, exposing highly sensitive personal information and
medical records of approximately two million patients from the
Defendant's computer network (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses, including but not limited to, a diminution in the value of
their private and confidential information, the loss of the benefit
of their contractual bargain with the Defendant, out-of-pocket
expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and private personal
information—which was entrusted to the Defendant, its officials,
and agents—was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen as a
result of the Data Breach. Information compromised in the Data
Breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, insurance information, medical record numbers, patient
identification numbers, and other protected health information as
defined by the HIPAA, and other personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") that Defendant
collected and maintained (collectively, "Private Information"),
says the suit.
Shields Health Care Group, Inc. provides imaging equipment and
technologies. The Company offers medical imaging, radiation
oncology, MRI, pet and CT scans, and other related products.
Shields Health Care Group serves customers in the State of
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Tucker Merrigan, Esq.
Peter M. Merrigan, Esq.
SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP
268 Summer Street, LL
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 391-9001
Facsimile: (617) 357-9001
Email: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com
peter@sweeneymerrigan.com
-and-
Seth A. Meyer, Esq.
Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
Email: sam@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
-and-
Todd. S. Garber, Esq.
Andrew White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON
& GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
awhite@fbfglaw.com
SHOPIFY INC: Briskin Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brandon Briskin filed an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Brandon Briskin, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. Shopify Inc. and Shopify
(USA) Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06269-SK, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 3, 2021, the
lawsuit alleges that Shopify surreptitiously intercepts consumers'
communications and collects their private information when they
make online payments to merchants.
Shopify is an e-commerce platform that enables merchants to easily
sell products online. Many of Shopify's customers are merchants who
operate websites and mobile applications, such as IABMFG. Shopify
created a software code to enable merchants to integrate Shopify's
payment forms into their applications. Allegedly, Shopify does not
disclose to consumers its role in the transaction, let alone that
Shopify is sending code to consumers' devices to display the
payment forms. To the consumer, the website and payment forms
appear to be generated by the merchant itself. Thus, a consumer
never knows that they have shared their sensitive information,
including sensitive financial information, to Shopify, the lawsuit
says.
On February 17, 2022, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
case which the Court granted on May 5, 2022 through an Order and
Judgment entered by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
The appellate case is captioned as Brandon Briskin v. Shopify,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15815, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 2, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Brandon Briskin Mediation Questionnaire was due on
June 9, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by July 1, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on August 1, 2022;
-- Appellant Brandon Briskin opening brief is due on September
9, 2022;
-- Appellees Shopify (USA), Inc., Shopify Payments (USA), Inc.
and Shopify, Inc. answering brief is due on October 11, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON BRISKIN, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
835 Douglass Street
San Francisco, CA 94114
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
todd@gutridesafier.com
Defendants-Appellees SHOPIFY, INC., SHOPIFY (USA), INC., and
SHOPIFY PAYMENTS (USA), INC. are represented by:
Jacob M. Heath, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: (650) 614-7367
E-mail: jheath@orrick.com
- and -
Thomas King-Sun Fu, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
777 S Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-2458
E-mail: tfu@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
Nicole M. Tadano, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
701 5th Avenue, Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
Telephone: (206) 839-4300
E-mail: aswaminathan@orrick.com
ntadano@orrick.com
SOUTH BAY ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Bay Energy
Corp. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. South Bay Energy Corp.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02279 (E.D. Pa., June 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
South Bay Energy -- https://southbayenergy.com/ -- educates clients
about the current energy market & provides customized plans,
including renewable options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
STATE FARM: Has Until June 30 to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY PEDERSEN, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert L. Lindsay; BETTY
L. RADOVICH; WANDA WOODICK; and ROSALIE KIERNAN, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Rebecca Nicholson; individually and
behalf of those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
4:19-cv-00029-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order granting State Farm's unopposed motion for
extension of time to file its Response to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
State Farm shall have up to and including June 30, 2022, to file
its response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and
Plaintiffs shall have up to and including July 14, 2022, to file
their reply in support of Motion for Class Certification, the Court
says.
State Farm Insurance is a large group of mutual insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b2UBpY at no extra charge.[CC]
STEPHANIE MUSICK: Faces Ammons Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON AMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEPHANIE MUSICK d/b/a FARMERS INSURANCE
MUSCK AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00121-Z (N.D. Tex., June
9, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant allegedly sent
numerous telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 1980 over the past two years, including
on February 28, 2020, May 14, 2020, and June 14, 2021. Despite the
Plaintiff's repeated use of clear opt-out language, the Defendant
ignored the Plaintiff's opt-out demand and continued sending the
Plaintiff telemarketing text messages. In addition, the Plaintiff
never provided the Defendant with his express written consent to be
contacted to his cellular telephone, which has been registered with
the National Do-Not-Call Registry since March 13, 2005, says the
suit.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have suffered harm
in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion, inconvenience, and
disruption to their daily life. Thus, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff seeks for an
injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text
messaging activity. The Plaintiff also seeks for an actual and
statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems necessary,
the suit added.
Stephanie Musick d/b/a Farmers Insurance Musck Agency is an
insurance agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
3839 McKinney Avenue, Suite 155-2319
Dallas, TX 75204
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
SWEET EARTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to June 3, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELA SOTO HURTADO v.
SWEET EARTH, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-04894-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting stipulation to
continue motion for class certification deadlines and advising
parties regarding case schedule:
-- The Last Day to File Motion for Class Certification is
continued to June 3, 2023.
-- The Court notes that based on the continued class
certification motion filing deadline, it is likely that
there will not be a hearing on any class certification
motion until October 2023, and the Court likely will not
issue a class certification order until December 2023.
-- Further, the notes that the Last Day to Hear Dispositive
Motions remains set for February 8, 2024. Any delay in the
Court issuing an order on class certification shall not be
grounds to continue dispositive motion briefing or hearing
dates.
On June 15, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the
Last Day to File Motion for Class Certification from August 19,
2022 to June 3, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QsIent at no extra charge.[CC]
TELADOC HEALTH: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Teladoc
Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) securities between October 28, 2021 and
April 27, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Teladoc provides virtual healthcare services in the U.S. and
internationally through Business-to-Business and Direct-to-Consumer
distribution channels.
If you would like more information about Teladoc Health, Inc.'s
misconduct, click here.
What is this Case About: Teladoc Health, Inc. Misses First Quarter
Financial Estimates Due to $6.6 Billion Non-Cash Goodwill
Impairment Charge to Increased Competition
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
touted itself as "the first and only company to provide a
comprehensive and integrated whole person virtual healthcare
solution that provides and enables care for a full spectrum of
clinical conditions[.]" As recently as February 2022, Teladoc
forecasted full year 2022 revenue of $2.55-$2.65 billion, and
adjusted EBITDA of $330-$355 billion, on anticipated continued
growth through its competitive advantages.
However, despite these projections, defendants failed to disclose
that increased competition, among other factors, was negatively
impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care businesses, and the
growth of those businesses was less sustainable than defendants had
led investors to believe. As a result, Teladoc's revenue and
adjusted EBITDA projections for full year 2022 were unrealistic.
On April 27, 2022, Teladoc announced its first quarter 2022
financial results, including revenue of $565.4 million, which
missed consensus estimates by $3.23 million and "[n]et loss per
share of $41.48, primarily driven by [a] non-cash goodwill
impairment charge of $6.6 billion or $4.11 per share[.]"
Additionally, the Company revised its full year 2022 revenue
guidance to $2.4-$2.5 billion and adjusted EBITDA guidance to
$240-$265 million "to reflect dynamics we are currently
experiencing in the [D2C] mental health and chronic condition
markets." On this news, Teladoc's stock price fell $22.48 per
share, or over 40%, to close at $33.51 per share on April 28,
2022.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Teladoc Health, Inc.
securities between October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022, you have
until August 5, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead
plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]
TRANS UNION: Christian FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ricky Christian, Alejandro Garcia Venegas,
Leslie Richardson, Alexis Lynn Licciardello, Jose Alberto Aleman
Lopez, Jose Santiago Gutama Criollo, for themselves and all
similarly situated individuals v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No.
220501634 was removed from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on June 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Transunion -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- offers total credit
protection all in one place from credit score, credit report and
credit alert.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-4656
Fax: (215) 875-4674
Email: scarson@bm.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Samantha L. Southall, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
50 S. 16th St., Ste. 3200
Two Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 665-3884
Email: samantha.southall@bipc.com
TRINITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Atkinson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KERRESHA ATKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22: cv-11284 (E.D. Mich., June 9, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Atkinson was employed by the Defendant as staff.
TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION operates as a non-profit healthcare
organization. The Organization offers services such as heart
disease, obstetrics and birth, behavioral health, gynecology,
pediatrics, cancer care, psychiatry, and treatment therapy. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999 5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 251-1399
Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Vizcarra Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA VIZCARRA,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02777-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify the
following class:
"All persons residing in California who have purchased
Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream, for their own use and not
for resale, since April 21, 2016."
Excluded from the Class are: governmental entities; the
Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
interest; Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal
representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and
assigns; and any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff.
The Class will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq. (UCL); the California
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500 et seq.
(FAL); and the California Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
section 1750 et seq., (CLRA).
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint (1) Plaintiff
Liza Vizcarra as class representatives on all claims, and (2) Reese
LLP and Sheehan & Associates, P.C. as co-lead class counsel.
Unilever manufactures, markets, and sells Breyers Natural Vanilla
Ice Cream in cartons, the front label of which stated "Natural
Vanilla" in large, light green letters against a black background
and displayed 15 images of vanilla beans, vanilla flowers, and a
scoop of ice cream with noticeable dark specks (collectively, the
"Vanilla Representations").
The Plaintiff alleged that she relied upon the Vanilla
Representations when purchasing the Product and that the Vanilla
Representations led her to believe that the Product’s vanilla
flavor "would come only from the vanilla plant," even though some
of the vanilla flavor is derived from non-vanilla plant sources.
Unilever manufactures personal care products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QrnSem
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd Ste 311
Great Neck, New York 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
UNITED PROPANE: Joint Bid to Extend Briefing Deadline Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL BRUMMETT, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED PROPANE
GAS, INC. and DCC PROPANE, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00037-TBR (W.D.
Ky.), the Parties file a joint motion to extend deadline for
briefing of plaintiff's motion for the issuance of court-supervised
notice and stipulation on tolling.
On May 25, 2022, the Plaintiff Angel Brummett moved this Court for
an order authorizing notice, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
To allow the Parties time to confer as to whether an agreement can
be reached to resolve the issues raised by this Motion and to allow
them time to explore whether this litigation may be resolved
subject to Court approval, the Parties request that this Court
extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to said motion to
July 15, 2022.
Additionally, the Parties request that Plaintiff have until July
29, 2022 to file a Reply in support of her Motion. During this
extended time period, Defendants have committed to provide
Plaintiff with informal discovery to allow her to assess the
possibility of reaching agreement on her pending motion and/or an
agreement that would resolve her claims and the claims of those she
seeks to represent, subject to Court approval. The purpose of this
request is for no other reason.
In order to facilitate resolution of Plaintiff's pending Motion
and, possibly, Plaintiff's claims, the Parties further specifically
agree and stipulate that:
a. the Defendants waive and agree not to assert or pursue the
defense of statute of limitations based on the 30-day
extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's
pending motion agreed to above for those putative members
of the FLSA collective action who timely submit a consent
form to join this lawsuit pursuant to Section 16(b) of
the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (in other words,
putative collective members' statute of limitations will
be tolled for a period of 30 days to the extent any such
individuals submit a consent form after the
extension referenced above); and
b. the Parties will engage in limited discovery focused on
ensuring the Parties can engage in meaningful
negotiations, and such limited discovery shall include the
production of payroll data for Plaintiffs who have joined
this case to date.
United Propane is a North Texas Full Service Propane Company
providing residential, commercial & industrial services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aXAPfz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, 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: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
1041 Goss Avenue
Louisville, KY 40217
Telephone: (502) 587-2002
E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com
The Attorneys for Defendant United Propane Gas, Inc., are:
J. Keith Coates, Jr., Esq.
J. Chadwick Hatmaker, Esq.
WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 900
Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
Telephone: (865) 215-1054
Facsimile: (865) 215-1015
E-mail: kcoates@wmbac.com
chatmaker@wmbac.com
The Attorneys for Defendant DCC Propane, LLC, are:
Katharine C. Weber, Esq.
Ryan M. Martin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
201 E. Fifth Street, 26 Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: 513-898-0050
Facsimile: 513-898-0051
E-mail: katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com
ryan.martin@jacksonlewis.com
UNIVERSAL CITY: Mellon Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES MELLON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC,
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV13797, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 9, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03950 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to pay wages timely
upon termination of employment.
Universal City Studios LLC is an American film production and
distribution company, headquartered in New York, New York.
NBCUniversal Media, LLC is an American multinational mass media and
entertainment conglomerate corporation, headquartered in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Remy Kessler, Esq.
Ayan K. Jacobs, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
E-mail: rkessler@constangy.com
ajacobs@constangy.com
VTECH HEALTHCARE: Seeks Filing Extension of Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAVADA WHEELER,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. vTECH
HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00561-PTG-IDD (E.D. Va.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the date by
which it must file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint until July
21, 2022.
The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification was
filed on Monday, June 13, 2022. Parties' counsel have been in
communication about potential alternative dispute resolution of
this matter.
The requested four-week extension will neither unduly delay this
matter nor prejudice any party.
vTech offers a wide range of staffing services and provides
end-to-end support in areas such as clinical and healthcare
staffing.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OpxLrf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel W. Hughes, Esq.
Clark Law Group, PLLC
1100 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 920
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 871-8121
E-mail: shughes@benefitcounsel.com
WALMART INC: Deadlines Related to Class Cert Bid Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MERCK, individually
and as a representative of the class, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers entered an order granting second joint motion to
extend certain deadlines related to plaintiff's motion for class
certification as follows:
a. The deadline for Walmart's memorandum in opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be extended
from June 21, 2022 to June 27, 2022;
b. The deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of his
motion for Class Certification extended from July 11, 2022
to July 22, 2022;
c. The deadline for any motion to seal documents used in
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Walmart's
Response and/or Plaintiff's Reply be set for August 1,
2022, ten days after the deadline for Plaintiff's Reply.
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 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QllRAi at no extra charge.[CC]
WEST BEND: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Set for July 15
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AKN Properties 2, LLC v.
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-04063 (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order setting
Rule 16 scheduling conference on July 15, 2022.
Counsel are to phone into conference by calling (551) 285-1373 and
enter the Meeting ID: 16009516536 when prompted to do so.
A discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) shall be
filed on or before July 12, 2022. The parties may, but are not
required to, follow the format of the sample discovery plan set
forth as Attachment A to the standing order attached to this text
order. If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the
proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a
motion to certify class at a stage early in the the case. The
Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system within the
other Documents category. All counsel must read and be familiar
with the standing order attached to this text order prior to their
Rule 26(f) planning meeting, says Judge Hawley.
The nature of suit states Breach of Insurance Contract.[CC]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Milligan Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY MILLIGAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01411-RJC (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her
motion by which to file for class certification to July 19, 2022.
The instant action was filed on October 15, 2021, and the Rule 26
Report of the Parties was filed on February 17, 2022. However, the
Plaintiff has encountered an unexpected obstacle and delay in this
litigation: From the date of filing to the present, and despite
myriad communications from Plaintiff to the contrary, the Defendant
has maintained that Plaintiff intended to name Wexford of Indiana
as the Defendant in this lawsuit, that Wexford of Indiana should be
named as the Defendant in this lawsuit, and that Wexford Health
Sources should not be a part of this action.
Wexford Health is a healthcare services company headquartered in
Foster Plaza Two in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zMchkb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl Fitz, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ZINUS INC: Bid to Strike Chandler's Class Claims Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA CHANDLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. ZINUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-265-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Judge David W.
Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois grants in part and denies in part Zinus' Motion to Dismiss
and Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of
individuals who have purchased and used mattresses containing
fiberglass that were manufactured by Defendant Zinus. Zinus
manufactures "bed-in-a-box mattresses" which it sells on online
marketplaces, such as Amazon, and through "big box" retailers, such
as Walmart and Target. The company is incorporated and has its
principal place of business in California.
Zinus' mattresses have a fire-retardant sleeve made of fiberglass.
The mattresses also include an outer cover that is equipped with a
zipper and can be removed from the mattress. Central to the
Plaintiffs' case is the claim that glass fibers routinely break off
the fiberglass sleeve, penetrate the outer cover, and spread into
the surrounding environment. These fibers have caused skin and eye
irritation, breathing issues, and property damage. Breakage of the
fibers also makes the fiberglass sleeve less fire-retardant.
On its website, Zinus provides a 10-year "Worry Free" Limited
Warranty which provides that "Zinus warrants your mattress against
defects in workmanship and materials." The Warranty also provides
that Zinus will replace or refund defective mattresses. At least
some of Zinus' mattresses contained a tag instructing the user to
clean the outer cover by placing it in a washing machine and drying
it on a gentle air cycle. Other Zinus mattresses included warnings
that say, "DO NOT REMOVE COVER." In the summer of 2019, Zinus
posted a statement on the FAQ page of its website warning users not
to remove the outer cover. Reviews of Zinus mattresses on Amazon
from as early as 2017 also complained of Zinus mattresses releasing
glass fibers which injured consumers.
Now before the Court are Zinus' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Strike.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss
The Plaintiffs bring breach-of-warranty claims, a claim based on 15
U.S.C. Section 2073, strict liability and negligence claims, claims
based on state consumer fraud laws, and common law fraud claims.
Zinus seeks dismissal of all these claims under Rule 12(b)(6). But
before addressing Zinus' claim-specific arguments, Judge Dugan
begin with Zinus' arguments concerning jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(2).
a. Personal Jurisdiction
Zinus first argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
all non-Illinois Plaintiffs' claims against it.
The nature of Zinus' contacts with Illinois determines whether it
is appropriate to exercise personal jurisdiction and also the scope
of that jurisdiction, i.e., whether it is general or specific to
the claims in the case. The inquiry focuses on the relationship
between Zinus, Illinois, and the non-Illinois Plaintiffs' claims. A
defendant's relationship with a plaintiff is "not sufficient to
create the necessary 'minimum contacts.'" That "relationship must
arise out of contacts that the defendant itself creates with the
forum State," and "the defendant's contacts with the forum State
itself."
The Plaintiffs argue that Zinus waived its objections to personal
jurisdiction by giving the "Plaintiffs a reasonable expectation
that it will defend the suit on the merits and causing the Court
some effort that would be wasted if personal jurisdiction is later
found lacking." Defenses such as lack of jurisdiction "may be
waived by formal submission in a cause, or by submission through
conduct."
Judge Dugan finds that the non-Illinois Plaintiffs did not join the
action until the second amended complaint was filed on April 7,
2021. The motion to dismiss under consideration was Zinus' first
substantive response to the second amended complaint and was filed
just a few weeks after the second amended complaint. Under these
circumstances, he finds that Zinus has not waived the defense of
lack of personal jurisdiction against the non-Illinois Plaintiffs.
And because the claims of the non-Illinois plaintiffs have no
connection to Zinus's activity in Illinois, the Court has no
jurisdiction over those claims. Therefore, Zinus' motion to dismiss
is due to be granted as it relates to the non-Illinois Plaintiffs.
b. Failure to State a Claim
1. Warranties (Counts One & Forty-One)
Zinus argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege
breach of implied and express warranties. The Plaintiffs have
brought a state-law claim for breach of implied warranty (County
Forty-One). Zinus argues that the Plaintiffs' claim fails because
they did not provide adequate pre-suit notice of the defects to
Zinus. Judge Dugan finds that the Plaintiffs' claims satisfy the
second exception to the notice requirement. Therefore, the lack of
notice is not fatal to their state law breach of implied warranty
claim.
Zinus also argues that the Plaintiffs' claims based on the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") fail because the MMWA has a
separate pre-suit notice requirement that the Plaintiffs did not
satisfy. The Plaintiffs have alleged that Zinus made two express
warranties. First, Zinus' website provides a 10-year "Worry Free"
Limited Warranty which provides that "your mattress will be
replaced or you will receive a prorated refund, at our option,
should your mattress be found defective because of faulty
workmanship or structural defects." Second, a tag attached to the
mattresses warranted that the mattresses meet the requirements of
the Open Flame Resistance Standards in 16 C.F.R. Section 1633.
Judge Dugan holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
allege a breach of the 10-year Limited Warranty. Because the
Plaintiffs have not alleged that Zinus failed to comply with the
terms of the warranty, their claim for breach of the 10-year
Limited Warranty is due to be dismissed.
Zinus also argues that the tag does not provide a written warranty.
The Plaintiffs argue that the mattresses are required to comply
with Section 1633 for the life of the mattress, thus supplying a
specified period of time. However, Judge Dugan is not persuaded by
the Plaintiffs' argument. The tag itself does not indicate any time
period at all, much less a specific one. And Section 1633 requires
that mattresses meet certain flammability requirements "before sale
or introduction into commerce"; it does not promise that mattresses
will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period
of time. Therefore, the tag does not provide an express warranty
under the MMWA, and Plaintiffs' claim for breach of warranty based
on the tag is due to be dismissed.
2. 15 U.S.C. Section 2073 (Count Two)
The Plaintiffs seek to enforce the Open Flame Resistance Standards
by bringing a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 2073(a), which provides
a private right of action to enforce a consumer product safety rule
or an order under 15 U.S.C. Section 2064. They argue that the Open
Flame Resistance Standards are a consumer product safety rule.
Judge Dugan finds that Section 2056(a) provides rulemaking
authority for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue
consumer product safety standards. But the Open Flame Resistance
Standards are rules issued under 15 U.S.C. Sections 1193 & 1194,
which are provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act, a statute that
provides no private right of action. Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 2073 is due to be dismissed.
3. Strict Liability and Negligence (Counts Three, Four & Five)
The Plaintiffs bring claims for strict liability under two
theories: Failure to warn and design defect. They allege that the
fiberglass in the mattresses presented a danger to users and that
Zinus failed to provide adequate warning to users regarding that
danger. Zinus argues that the Plaintiffs also allege that many of
the mattresses contained warnings about the fiberglass and
instructions not to remove the outer cover.
Judge Dugan holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a
failure-to-warn theory of strict liability. For pleading purposes,
it is enough that they have alleged specific details regarding the
problems caused by specific components of the mattress. The
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a strict liability claim based
on a design defect. In addition, Zinus has provided adequately
specific details regarding the alleged defects in the mattresses
and the warnings (or lack thereof) attached to the mattresses.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged negligence.
4. Fraud (Counts Fourteen, Thirty-nine & Forty)
Counts Six through Thirty-eight constitute the Plaintiffs' claims
under the consumer fraud statutes of the various states represented
by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that Zinus made
affirmative misrepresentations regarding the safety of its
mattresses, specifically that tags on the mattresses indicated they
were in compliance with 16 C.F.R. Section 1633. They also claim
that Zinus violated ICFA by omitting and suppressing material
facts. They also assert common law fraudulent concealment claims
for Zinus' alleged failure to disclose the risks presented by the
mattresses. Finally, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for unjust
enrichment.
Judge Dugan holds that (i) the Plaintiffs have plead their ICFA
claim for fraudulent concealment, suppression, or omission of
material facts with sufficient particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b);
(ii) the Plaintiffs have stated a claim against Zinus under ICFA
for concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts; (iii)
the Plaintiffs have not alleged that any mattresses failed to meet
the requirements of the open-flame test required by Section 1633;
and (iv) the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged some tort and fraud
claims.
c. The Johnson Plaintiffs
Zinus argues that Illinois Plaintiffs Kristy and Christopher
Johnson have failed to allege damages or injuries of any kind. In
the portion of the second amended complaint specific to the
Johnsons, the Plaintiffs allege only that the Johnsons purchased a
mattress from Zinus, unzipped and removed the outer cover, and
found no warning tags on the mattress.
However, the Plaintiffs refer throughout the complaint to the
damages suffered by the "Plaintiffs," which JUdge Dugan reads as
referring to all the Plaintiffs. Given the consistent details
offered by the Plaintiffs, he can make the reasonable inference
that the Plaintiffs are alleging that the Johnsons overpaid for a
defective mattress that caused personal injuries and property
damage. Therefore, he finds that the Johnsons have alleged damages,
and Zinus' motion to dismiss is due to be denied on these grounds.
B. Motion to Strike
First, Zinus argues that the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because its claims are
rife with individualized issues and because the nationwide classes
would require application of the laws of all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. It argues that the Plaintiffs present another
set of highly individualized issues when it comes to their injuries
and damages.
Despite the problematic individualized issues presented by the
Plaintiffs' class allegations, Judge Dugan finds that Zinus has
failed to carry its burden to definitively establish that the
Plaintiffs' class allegations are facially defective or inherently
deficient. As discussed, the Plaintiffs' class allegations of
breach of warranty appear more viable than their other claims. And
the Court will not dissect class allegations on a motion to strike
when the parties have not yet had the benefit of discovery.
Therefore, Judge Dugan will not grant Zinus' motion to strike based
on the individualized issues in the class allegations.
Zinus argues that the Plaintiffs' nationwide classes would include
purchasers from all fifty states and the District of Columbia,
"each of whose claims is governed by materially different law." The
Plaintiffs dispute this claim by arguing that it is unclear at this
point that Illinois law would not control all of the claims and
that Zinus has not met its burden to show that there are material
differences in the applicable laws of the states.
Judge Dugan holds that the allegations in the second amended
complaint make it possible to assess some of these factors but not
others. The second amended complaint claims that some Plaintiffs
purchased their mattresses online but alleges that others purchased
them at Target and Walmart without specifying where those stores
are located. Thus, given the fact-intensive analysis demanded by
Illinois' choice-of-law rules, JUdge Duagn finds that Zinus has not
met its burden to definitively establish that the Plaintiffs'
nationwide class allegations are facially defective or inherently
deficient. This issue stands to benefit greatly from fact discovery
and further evidence.
Next, Zinus argues that the Plaintiffs have utilized improper
failsafe classes. A failsafe class is one that is improperly
defined such that a person will only qualify as a member if they
have a valid claim. It also argues that the Plaintiffs have failed
to adequately allege numerosity for their nationwide and statewide
personal injury and property damages classes. Finally, Zinus argues
that if the Court dismisses the non-Illinois Plaintiffs for lack of
jurisdiction, it should also strike the non-Illinois
"Statewide/District Classes."
Judge Dugan holds that (i) he will permit the Plaintiffs the
opportunity to refine their class definitions as they prepare to
seek class certification; (ii) the Plaintiffs have alleged that
joinder of all class members is impracticable and that thousands of
defective mattresses have been sold nationwide; and (iii) the lack
of a named representative makes it impossible for Plaintiffs to
demonstrate typicality under Rule 23(a)(1)(3). Hence the
Plaintiffs' allegations as to statewide classes, other than the
Illinois class, are due to be stricken.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Dugan grants in part and denies in part
Zinus' motion to dismiss.
The claims of all non-Illinois Plaintiffs are dismissed without
prejudice.
The following claims are dismissed without prejudice as to all the
Plaintiffs: Count One as it pertains to express warranties; Count
Two; Counts Six through Thirteen; Count Fourteen as to affirmative
misrepresentations; and Counts Fifteen through Thirty-nine.
The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the following claims: Count
One as it pertains to implied warranties; Counts Three through
Five; Count Fourteen as it relates to concealment, suppression, or
omission of material facts; Count Forty; and Count Forty-one.
Judge Dugan grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to strike. All allegations relating to the statewide
classes, other than the Illinois class, are stricken.
If the Plaintiffs wish to file a third amended complaint, they must
do so within 21 days after the entry date of the Order. The
Defendant will file its answer or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiffs' third amended complaint within 30 days after the
complaint is filed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p84y888 from Leagle.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 ***