/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220628.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 28, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 122 Headlines 856 RIVER: De La Cruz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL AFRICAN METHODIST: Alexander Suit Moved From D. Md. to W.D. Tenn. AFRICAN METHODIST: Carmichael ERISA Suit Transferred to W.D. Tenn. ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 23 AMAZON WEB: Former Employee Convicted in Capital One Hack AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Filed Over Grocery Delivery Fees AMERICAN FAMILY: Park Has Standing to Pursue Case, Court Rules APRIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Wood Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls AVIS BUDGET: Court Denies Pines' Bid to Intervene in Bacon Suit B4 PIZZA: Long Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under FLSA BAM TRADING: Roche Freedman Discloses Securities Class Action BAYER HEALTHCARE: Carrigan Sues Over Mislabeled Cold and Flu Drugs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Misrepresents Passenger Vehicles, Suit Says CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court CARVANA CO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Business Practices CASE-MATE INC: Clement Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages CHRISTIANITY TODAY: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Prestel Alleges CIGNA HEALTH: Underpaid In-Network MultiPlan Claims, Suit Says COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Stablecoin Trading Platform COZY CORNER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Enriquez Suit Says DAKOTA PLAINS: Court Approves Revised Class Notice in Gruber Suit DEERE & CO: Casselbury Antitrust Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Ill. DEGLER ENTERPRISES: Philo Sues Over Construction Staff's Unpaid OT DENTONS DAVIS: Faces Proposed Class Suit Over COBRA Notices DENTSPLY SIRONA: Kuznicki Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Lieff Cabraser Files Federal Antitrust Lawsuit EARLY WARNING: Fails to Protect Customers From Fraud, Suit Claims EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Antibacterial Wipes ELECTROLUX HOME: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Shannon Alleges FAMILY DOLLAR: Lacy Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee FAMILY DOLLAR: Sharp Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Dernoshek Seeks to Certify Classes FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Transmission Issues FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Osei-Tutu Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages GERMAN AMERICAN: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action Suit for $3-M HARLEM CANDLE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HIGH ENERGY: Fails to Pay Pizza Delivery Drivers' Mandated Wages HOGARTH CALIFORNIA: Osborn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HORNE LLP: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HYATT CORP: $990K Class Settlement in Crump Suit Wins Prelim. Nod IONQ INC: Rosen Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Wis., Lake Holcombe Says JUUL LABS: Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Benton School Says JUUL LABS: Faces East Allen Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Faces McDowell Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Faces Webster County Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Lewis County Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction JUUL LABS: Luck School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Stanley-Boyd Area Claims JUUL LABS: Pepin Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in Wis. JUUL LABS: Plum City School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Pocahontas County Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Southwest Allen Alleges JUUL LABS: Spooner Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Lincoln County Claims KNIX WEAR: Seeks Sanctions for Lawyers Behind Consumers' Suit LESLIES POOLMART: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIBERTY MUTUAL: Cortinas Sues Over Improper Withholdings of Labor LITIGATION PRACTICE: Scheduling Order Entered in Beech Class Suit MACK DERMATOLOGY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MACY'S CREDIT: Caldera Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California MAZDA MOTORS: New York District Court Issues Summons in Bey Suit META PLATFORMS: Advertisers Can Pursue Class Action Over Ad Rates NEMAK USA: Harrington Seeks OT for Hourly-Paid Employees Under FLSA ONE DAY ROOFING: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania PACIFIC BELL: Denial of Class Certification in Meza Suit Reversed PAPARAZZI LLC: Jewelry Products Aren't Lead, Nickel Free, Suit Says PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit Seeks $45-M in Refunds Over Handling Fees PETLAND INC: Covino Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls PILGRIM AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delahaye Class Suit Says PILOT TRAVEL: Bid to Compel Waltrip to Arbitration Granted in Part PIONEER METAL: Unlawfully Pays Non-Exempt Employees, Moore Says PORCH.COM INC: Liberti CFA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey PROBST PRESERVES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Snoddy FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: 6th Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing Cowley Suit RALPH LAUREN: Faces Class Suit Over Sweaters' Pima Cotton Labels RED ROBIN: Avalos-Aviles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REMINGTON SEEDS: Haenlein Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois RIO GRANDE: Uranga Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers ROB ROY: Palkon Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties SAN DIEGO: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $1-M SANTANDER SECURITIES: U.S. Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Data Breach SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach SECURITY KING: Clarke Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL SGE MGMT: $10-Mil. Award of Attorneys' Fees in Torres Suit Affirmed SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Berry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime SHIELDS HEALTH: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Smith Suit Says SIEMBRA LLC: Faces Martinez Labor Suit Over Time Shaving Violations SIETE BUCKS SPIRITS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIMPLE GIRL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SMART OILFIELD: Misclassifies Pump Supervisors, Guthrie et al. Say SOCLEAN INC: Faces Monaghan Suit Over Misleading Cleaning Devices SOULCYCLE INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Dominguez Class Suit SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Wakefield Claims SPICE LAB: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York T-MOBILE USA: Faces Lawsuit for Shutting Down Sprint's Networks TALKING RAIN: Soft Drinks Contain Artificial Flavoring, Tatum Says TATE LEGACY: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Securities Suit for Misleading Investors TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces $2 Billion Class Action Over Defective Vehicles TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Directed to File Class Cert Reply Brief TRUEBLUE INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Sued Over Misleading Performance Statements UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Malik Sues Over Breach of Employment Contract UNILEVER PLC: Portnoy Law Discloses Securities Class Action UNILEVER PLC: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 15 Deadline UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt ADA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to D. Neb. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit VANGUARD CHESTER: Richardson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbott Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: $1.5MM in Attys.' Fees Awarded in BCBSM Suit VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Judgment & Order Entered in BCBSM Suit VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Employees' Class Suit VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LaChapelle Suit WAFFLE HOUSE: Mason Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Texas WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Account Digital Streaming Income, Hall Says WEST MONROE: Sanford Named Interim Class Counsel in Daly Suit WHY BE NORMAL: Hyder Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers WORLD WRESTLING: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action WYZE LABS: Quevedo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging YEXT INC: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action YEXT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline ********* 856 RIVER: De La Cruz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- Julio De La Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. 856 River Ave. Rest. Corp., Georgios Manesis, Stamatios Manesis, and Vasilios Manesis, Case No. 1:22-cv-05080 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are individuals who have worked for Defendants in similarly-titled, hourly paid position, during the statutory period. The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Plaintiff contends that Defendants had a policy and practice commonly known as "time shaving". Specifically, the Defendants would force Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, to clock out for a 30- or 45-minute break, despite the fact that they would not actually receive an uninterrupted 30- or 45- minute break, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, were forced to work off the clock, without pay, during this period, the suit added. The Defendants own, operate and/or control Billy's Sports Bar a/k/a Billy's at the Stadium, located at 856 River Avenue, Bronx, NY 10451. The Individual Defendants possess operational control over the Corporate Defendant, possess an ownership interest in the Corporate Defendant, and controls significant functions of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com AFRICAN METHODIST: Alexander Suit Moved From D. Md. to W.D. Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled REVEREND CEDRIC V. ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DR. JEROME V. HARRIS, BISHOP SAMUEL L. GREEN, SR., TRUSTEES OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL RETIREMENT ANNUITY PLAN, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL RETIREMENT ANNUITY PLAN, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SERVICES, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC., GENERAL BOARD OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00707, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by mismanaging the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan and losing tens of millions of dollars in Plan assets. African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. is an independent Protestant denomination located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizbeth Hopkins, Esq. Scott M. Lempert, Esq. Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (877) 783-8686 Facsimile: (253) 285-1849 E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net slempert@kantorlaw.net smeter@kantorlaw.net AFRICAN METHODIST: Carmichael ERISA Suit Transferred to W.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled REV. A. OFFORD CARMICHAEL, JR., and REV. DIANE CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REV. DR. JEROME V. HARRIS, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL RETIREMENT ANNUITY PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00386, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01127-STA-jay to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by mismanaging the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial (AMEC) Retirement Annuity Plan and causing tens of millions of dollars losses in career retirement savings of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated AMEC ministers and employees. African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. is an independent Protestant denomination located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dhamian A. Blue, Esq. Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Esq. BLUE LLP 205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Advanced Exteriors, Inc v. Allstate Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-01539 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Scott T. Varholak entered an order on motion for class certification deadlines as follows: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. .[CC] -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 23, 2022 certification due: -- The Defendant's opposition to Feb. 3, 2023 motion for class certification due: -- Plaintiff's reply due: Feb. 3, 2023 -- Dispositive Motions due by: Feb. 17, 2023 -- The Status Conference set for April 12,2023 is vacated and reset for June 15, 2023. The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967.[BN] AMAZON WEB: Former Employee Convicted in Capital One Hack --------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Bursztynsky at cnbc.com reports that a former Amazon Web Services employee was convicted of hacking into Capital One and stealing the data of more than 100 million people nearly three years ago in one of the largest data breaches in the United States. Paige Thompson, who worked for the software giant as an engineer until 2016, was found guilty on seven federal crimes, including wire fraud, which carries up to 20 years in prison. The other charges, illegally accessing a protected computer and damaging a protected computer, are punishable by up to five years in prison. A jury found Thompson not guilty of aggravated identity theft and access device fraud after 10 hours of deliberations, a release said. Prosecutors argued that Thompson, who worked under the name "erratic," created a tool to search for misconfigured accounts on AWS. That allowed her to hack into accounts from more than 30 Amazon clients, including Capital One, and mine that data. Prosecutors argued Thompson also used her access to some of the servers to mine cryptocurrency that went to her own wallet. "She wanted data, she wanted money, and she wanted to brag," Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Friedman said of Thompson in closing arguments during the week-long trial. Capital One in December agreed to pay $190 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over the breach, in addition to an earlier agreement to pay $80 million in regulatory fines. The data stolen included about 120,000 social security numbers and roughly 77,000 bank account numbers, according to the complaint. An attorney representing Thompson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik set Thompson's sentencing for Sept. 15. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Filed Over Grocery Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that an upset Amazon Prime member is suing the company over the cost of grocery delivery. Dena Griffith filed suit against Amazon.com on June 7 in Seattle federal court, claiming there is a $9.95 delivery fee from Whole Foods markets even though Prime advertises free delivery. This new fee popped up in October 2021, the suit says. "Accordingly, Amazon's representations that Prime members will receive 'FREE Delivery' and 'FREE 2-Hour Grocery Delivery' are false, misleading and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer," the lawsuit says. "Amazon's $9.95 'service fee' is in essence a hidden delivery fee. In fact, the service fee was 'put in place to help cover delivery operating costs like equipment and technology without raising product prices,'" it adds, quoting a CNN report. The suit was filed by Borde Law and the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron. [GN] AMERICAN FAMILY: Park Has Standing to Pursue Case, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-171-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order holding that the Plaintiff has adequately responded to the Court's show cause order, and concluding that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue the case. I. Background In this putative class action, Plaintiff Park asserts claims on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals under the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724, and related California statutory claims based on Defendants American Family Life Insurance Co. and American Family Mutual Insurance Co., S.I.'s disclosure of drivers' license numbers, including that of Park's. The Court recently dismissed a case asserting similar claims for lack of standing -- Baysal v. Midvale Indem. Co., No. 21-CV-394-WMC, 2022 WL 1155295 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2022). In light of that decision, the Court directed the Plaintiff in the present case to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Having reviewed the Plaintiff's response, Judge Conley concludes that he has sufficiently alleged an injury, namely identity theft, as a consequence of the Defendant's alleged disclosure of his driver's license number. As such, he concludes that Park has standing to pursue his claim and the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. II. Opinion Critically, in the complaint, Judge Conley finds that the Plaintiff recognizes that the drivers' license numbers alone would not be sufficient to forge an identity, but alleges that drivers' license numbers, in addition to other personal information already gathered from other sources, can provide an opening for fraud, including applying for credit cards or loans or opening bank accounts. Unlike in Baysal, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an "objectively reasonable likelihood that an injury will occur," namely in the form of identity theft, and that injury is "fairly traceable" to the alleged data disclosure. As such, Judge Conley concludes that the Plaintiff has adequately explained his basis for standing in response to the Court's show cause order. Of course, nothing about this decision precludes the Defendants from filing a motion to dismiss for lack of standing if they believe that the Court's analysis is flawed or can direct the court to other Seventh Circuit cases that call the Court's holding into question. Similarly, the fairly unique circumstances as to the Plaintiff may make it difficult for him to pursue class certification. III. Order In light of the foregoing, Judge Conley holds that the Plaintiff has adequately responded to the Court's show cause order, and concludes that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42n86yry from Leagle.com. APRIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Wood Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ LARAINE WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01030-SMB (D. Ariz., June 15, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint to: 1. stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; 2. enjoin Defendant from continuing to call consumers using pre- recorded messages 9 who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them; and 3. obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. The Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition: "All persons within the United States who (a) received a telephone call on his or her landline or cellular telephone; (b) made by or on behalf of Defendant; (c) in which an artificial or prerecorded voice was played; (d) at any time in the period that begins four years before the filing of the complaint in this action to the date that class notice is disseminated." The Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the proposed Class. Excluded from the Class is Defendant and any entities in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, Defendant's agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families. Apria Healthcare provides medical equipment and clinical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com AVIS BUDGET: Court Denies Pines' Bid to Intervene in Bacon Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABIGAIL BACON, ARCADIA LEE, JEANNINE DEVRIES, LISA GEARY, RICHARD ALEXANDER, YVONNE WHEELER, AND GEORGE DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. AND PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-05939 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies Michael T. Pines' motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the action. The Court also denies Mr. Pines' request to coordinate the case with two other cases in this district and a case in California state court. The two other cases in this district are Valli v. Avis Budget Rental Car Group, LLC, et al., 2:14-cv-06072-CCC-JBC (D.N.J) and Mendez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al., 2:11-cv-06537-CCC-JSA (D.N.J.). The other case in California state court is Kramer, et al. v. Avis Budget Group Inc., No. 37-2018-00067024-CU-BT-CTL (Superior Court, County of San Diego, California). I. Background The putative class action alleges that Avis's subsidiary Payless charged the Plaintiffs' credit cards for ancillary car rental services that they had not agreed to. The case was first filed in 2016 and has been extensively litigated, including an appeal of a summary judgment decision, where it was affirmed. The proposed class period for the case is six years prior to the date of the complaint, Sept. 26, 2016. On Sept. 28, 2021, Michael T. Pines moved for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Pines alleges that he rented a car from Avis on July 12, 2021, and that his debit card was charged immediately for the car, despite Avis informing him that the card would be charged only upon returning the car. The car was then impounded and retrieved by Avis, which charged Pines' debit card more than $6,000. Wells Fargo, the bank which provided his debit card, refused to credit Pines for the disputed payments to Avis. Mr. Pines has filed a case against Avis related to this conflict in King County Superior Court in the State of Washington. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the case, as well as Wells Fargo, have filed briefs in opposition to Pines' motion to intervene. Pines has filed replies to all three opposition briefs. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. II. Discussion A. Rule 24(b) Intervention The permissive intervention provision, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), which grants the court discretion to allow intervention "on timely motion" where the movant "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Ultimately, the decision of whether to grant or deny permissive intervention lies within the Court's discretion. Courts also "consider various factors, including whether the proposed intervenors will add anything to the litigation and whether the proposed intervenors' interests are already represented in the litigation." Finally, Courts also consider whether the proposed intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. Judge McNulty denies Pines' motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). First, he opines that permissive intervention is not prudent in the case. His conflict with Avis has little to do with the case except in the broadest sense that both cases involve (different types of) allegedly improper charges. Pines' action does not share a main question of law or fact with the case. Second, the Plaintiffs' brief points out that that Pines' motion to intervene comes after five years of intensive litigation in the case. Not only is Pines' motion untimely, but the claim he asserts against Avis did not even arise until five years after the end of the class period; those circumstances make it highly unlikely that he has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Finally, assuming arguendo that Pines has any interest in the case, there is no demonstration that the Plaintiffs would not adequately represent those interests. Where the interests of the proposed intervenors are already represented in the action, courts typically deny such applications as a discretionary matter. In addition, Pines' intervention would certainly inject unrelated issues and delay resolution of the case, which has already been through more than five years of litigation, and thus prejudice the Plaintiffs and the Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). B. Request to coordinate cases In addition, Pines argues that three active cases, two in this District and one in California state court, are related to the case and must be "coordinated." The California case involves allegations that Avis did not properly protect customers' data. Pines says nothing about the content of the other two cases, except that they also involve allegations that Avis overcharged customers in some manner. Judge McNulty finds that the three cases cited by Pines do not sufficiently share common questions of law or fact with the case to justify consolidation or coordination. Valli, for example, involves Avis charging customers for traffic infractions while Mendez involves toll charges. Kramer, which is pending in California state court, is not a suitable candidate for coordination. Judge McNulty therefore denies Pines' request to consolidate or otherwise coordinate these actions. III. Conclusion For the reasons he set forth, Judge McNulty denies Pines' motion to intervene, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), and also denies his request for coordination with other cases. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5hy6e52h from Leagle.com. B4 PIZZA: Long Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA LONG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. B4 PIZZA, LLC, and MASON BURNHAM, Case No. 1:22-cv-00591 (W.D. Tex., June 16, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to herself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at its Domino's stores under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit. The Defendants require their delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. The Defendants' delivery drivers incur costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of Defendants, the suit added. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com BAM TRADING: Roche Freedman Discloses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Roche Freedman LLP and Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP filed a class action lawsuit on June 15, 2022 on behalf of investors in the crypto-asset "UST" against BAM Trading Services Inc. ("Binance U.S."), as well as Binance U.S.'s CEO Brian Shroder, alleging that Binance U.S. violated federal and state securities laws when it sold UST to investors beginning on or around April 13, 2022. The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges violations of Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act, Sections 5, 15(a)(1), 20, and 29(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and Sections 25110, 25130, 25503, 2521, 25501.5(a), and 25504 of the California Securities Act, based on Binance's sale of UST, despite UST being a security, without any registration statement in effect and without registering as a securities exchange or broker-dealer. According to the lawsuit, these actions led to investors being wiped out when UST crashed in May 2022, losing essentially all of its $18 billion market capitalization over the span of a few days. The lawsuit is thus brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased UST tokens on Binance U.S. from April 13, 2022, to the present. The action is captioned Jeffrey Lockhart v. BAM Trading Services Inc. and Brian Shroder, Case No. 53:22-cv-03461 (N.D. Cal.). Binance U.S. is a Delaware company headquartered in Palo Alto, California. Mr. Shroder is a resident of California. For investors who purchased UST securities on Binance U.S. during the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Sec 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi); Sec 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II); Sec 77z-1(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi); Sec 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 16, 2022. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Kyle Roche (kyle@rochefreedman.com) at 646-970-7509. About Roche Freedman Founded in 2019, Roche Freedman LLP is a national law firm comprised of innovative and tech-savvy attorneys with stellar credentials. With experience from some of the most prestigious litigation firms in the country, RF's legal team has a successful and decades-long track record of consistently achieving outstanding results in high-stakes and notable disputes on behalf of sophisticated clients. RF's legal team has extensive experience litigating complex commercial, securities, antitrust, class action and derivative matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of industries. RF couples a unique brand of creative thinking and technical expertise with well-balanced aggressive advocacy to achieve impressive results in complex, high-value, and class action matters. As the firm continues to grow, it has focused on building a diverse attorney pool with cross-functional expertise. Founding Partner Kyle W. Roche is a recognized thought leader in the cryptocurrency arena and has published multiple articles on the intersection of cryptocurrency and law, including in the Wall Street Journal. He is a frequent speaker and lecturer on the topic, having guest-lectured at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and having served on the Keynote panel at Harvard Law School's Blockchain, Fintech, & the Law conference. Founding partner Ted Normand is RF's most experienced litigator and has both prosecuted and defended numerous complex cases under the federal securities and antitrust laws and in national class actions. The firm's attorneys are currently litigating numerous cryptocurrency cases. RF has been appointed as lead counsel in the seminal cryptocurrency class actions, Leibowitz et al. v. iFinex Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09236 (S.D.N.Y.), Clifford et al. v. Tron Foundation et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y.), Messieh & Lee v. HDR Global Trading Limited & Arthur Hayes et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03232 (S.D.N.Y.), Valenti v. Dfinity Foundation et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-06118 (N.D. Cal.). About Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig Based in New York, Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP is an elite litigation boutique that regularly represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-stake trials in state and federal courts and arbitrations throughout the United States, as well as in jurisdictions around the globe. We are often retained by clients shortly before trial to help secure victory in their most important disputes. We are litigation generalists that do not specialize in any single practice area or discipline. Indeed, our attorneys have successfully represented clients in complex commercial matters involving securities, cryptocurrencies, class actions, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, RICO, patents, copyright, trade secrets, regulatory enforcement, and criminal defense, among other areas. Partner Tibor L. Nagy is an experienced trial lawyer who as lead counsel has successfully tried numerous cases, including class claims, with hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars at stake. He has been recognized as an "Elite Boutique Trailblazer" by the National Law Journal, in Benchmark Litigation's "Under 40 Hot List," and as one of Crain's New York Business's "Notable Hispanic Leaders & Executives." Counsel Gregory N. Wolfe is a trial lawyer who has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of complex matters seeking hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in damages. The firm routinely represents companies, investors, and other individuals in cryptocurrency disputes and has been doing so for over half-a-decade-a lifetime in the world of cryptocurrency. [GN] BAYER HEALTHCARE: Carrigan Sues Over Mislabeled Cold and Flu Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAUREEN CARRIGAN; KERRY LAMONS; NANCY ZIDE; and KHARI WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03780 (D.N.J., June 14, 2022) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Alka-Seltzer-branded "Non-Drowsy" over-the-counter cold and flu medicines that contain Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("the "Non-Drowsy Products"). According to the complaint, the Non-Drowsy Products state prominently on the front of their product packaging that they are "Non-Drowsy" and "Day" products. The Defendant also led the Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe that the Non-Drowsy Products are for use during the "Day" and intended to be used during waking hours. However, one of the active ingredients in the Non-Drowsy Products is Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("DM HBr"). While the average consumer may not be aware, drowsiness is a documented side effect of DM HBr at dosages recommended by the Defendant in respect to the Non-Drowsy Products. Authorities such as the National Library of Medicine and Mayo Clinic list drowsiness as a side effect of this ingredient, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members purchased the Non-Drowsy Products with the expectation that the products would not cause drowsiness and that they were intended to be used during waking hours. Because the Defendant sold products to consumers that cause drowsiness, the Plaintiffs and the Classes were deprived of the benefit of their bargain. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical products. The Company offers products and services such as pharmaceuticals, blood glucose monitoring systems, lancing devices, oral contraceptives, and diagnostic testing. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 640-3913 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313)303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Misrepresents Passenger Vehicles, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that BMW overstates the driving range of some of its i3 passenger vehicles in cold weather, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Brian Hurst filed the class action complaint against BMW of North America and BMW AG June 15 in a New Jersey federal court, alleging breach of warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint relates to certain 2014 through 2018 model year i3 BMW passenger vehicles sold in the United States. Some of the i3 models were powered solely by a high voltage lithium ion battery. Other models had an electric battery and a small gasoline engine to extend the range of the vehicle. According to the complaint, BMW made false representations that materially overstate the range of the vehicles "whether in battery only mode or in gasoline engine range extender mode in cold weather." An electric vehicle's usefulness is directly related to the distance the automobile can travel before needing a recharge, the lawsuit states. BMW's promotional advertising for the vehicles stated that mileage range for vehicles operating solely on the electric motor was 81 miles and the range of vehicles equipped with the optional gasoline range extender engine was advertised as 150 miles, it says. "These advertised ranges are far beyond the range Class Vehicles can provide in states where cold weather exists in the winter, such as New Jersey," the lawsuit alleges. Range Limited to 39 Miles in Winter In Hurst's case, the window sticker indicated that the mileage range for his vehicle operating solely on the electric motor was 72 miles. However, he was only able to obtain a range of 39 miles on a fully charged battery in the winter months. "Nowhere in Defendants' advertising and/or marketing materials are the adverse effects of cold weather on vehicle range discussed," he says. "As a result, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class cannot operate their respective Class Vehicles over distances that they expected to be able to travel, and owners of Class Vehicles with range extending engines are forced to spend money on gasoline to obtain the advertised electric motor range." The plaintiff is suing for breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation. He's seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, BMW is recalling 917,106 vehicles, many for the third time, over fears a faulty heater could cause engine fires. What do you think of the allegations in this BMW class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Gary S. Graifman, Daniel C. Edelman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & GRaifman, P.C. The BMW i3 Class Action Lawsuit is Brian Hurst v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03928-SDW-AME in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Camber Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that on October 29, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against the company, its CEO and CFO captioned "Ronald E. Coggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camber Energy, Inc., et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as a result of the defendants' violations of federal securities laws. Camber Energy, Inc., based in Houston, Texas is primarily engaged in the acquisition, development and sale of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids. CARVANA CO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Stoogenke at wsoctv.com reports that the online used car retailer Carvana is facing multiple legal battles, including a class-action lawsuit, Channel 9 has learned. Multiple drivers have complained to Action 9 investigator Jason Stoogenke recently about a range of issues involving the car dealer. Mark Crowell said he traded in his vehicle and bought a Chevy Silverado on Carvana. He showed Stoogenke the paperwork, and it said he doesn't owe any money. But Crowell said Carvana kept calling him, saying he still owed more than $5,900. "It's really hurtful because I've worked really hard to get my credit where it is," Crowell said. "(I'm) not sure what else to do." Crowell said Carvana gave him the runaround. "But I don't have six more thousand to throw out . . . I don't," he said. North Carolina attorney general Josh Stein told Stoogenke that he's received more than 60 complaints about Carvana that involve all sorts of issues, but mainly, "It has to do with paperwork. They're failing to give DMV the title paperwork," Stein said. "They're failing to give inspection reports and the proper paperwork to the buyer and to the lenders who need it in order to do the financing," he added. Stein says Carvana's Charlotte location is under probation until November. It is allowed to operate, but he said he's keeping a close eye on it. "We are working to hold Carvana accountable," Stein added. Wake County DMV would not let Carvana sell cars for six months because of tag, title and other issues. That suspension ended in January. Customers in another state are suing Carvana, claiming the company did not register their cars in a timely manner, so they were stuck paying for vehicles they could not legally drive. They said it should be a class-action lawsuit, which would open it to other drivers, including ones in the Carolinas. Since the case is so new, the judge won't decide on that for a while. Stoogenke contacted Carvana to try to help Crowell. He asked the company about all these legal issues, but the company did not respond in time for this report. [GN] CASE-MATE INC: Clement Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- OLIVIER CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CASE-MATE, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01052-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided the Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA, the lawsuit says. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have allegedly caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, the lawsuit adds. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as: -- DNC Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) were sent more than one text message call within any 12-month period; (2) where the person's telephone number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (3) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services; (4) who did not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first message; and (5) who did not contact Defendant during the three months immediately preceding the date of the first message with an inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by the Defendant." -- IDNC Class: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services." -- FTSA Class: "All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff. -- Seller Identification Class: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services, (3) that did not disclose the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted." Case-Mate, Inc. provides smartphone accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 CHRISTIANITY TODAY: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Prestel Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARL PRESTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHRISTIANITY TODAY INTERNATIONAL (CIT), Case No. 1:22-cv-00551-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich., June 15, 2022) alleges that Defendant CTI rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about the Plaintiff's Christianity Today magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail due to the alleged conduct. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Plaintiff's Private Reading Information during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, CTI violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the "PPPA"), says the suit. The complaint says that the documented evidence confirms these facts. For example, a list broker, NextMark, Inc., offers to provide renters access to the mailing list titled "CHRISTIANITY TODAY MASTERFILE Mailing List", which contains the Private Reading Information of 281,227 of CTI's active U.S. subscribers at a base price of "$110.00/M [per thousand]," (i.e., 11 cents apiece), added the suit. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Private Reading Information of its Michigan-based subscribers during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, CTI violated the PPPA. The Plaintiff was a subscriber to Christianity Today magazine, including during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period. CTI is the publisher of religious-focused publications, including Christianity Today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com CIGNA HEALTH: Underpaid In-Network MultiPlan Claims, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges Cigna Corporation has unlawfully underpaid health insurance claims submitted by consumers for services covered through MultiPlan, the country's largest third-party network. More than 1.2 million healthcare providers contract with MultiPlan, the case says, and are part of the "MultiPlan Network." Health benefit plan issuers and claims administrators, such as the defendant, also enter into contracts with MultiPlan to gain access to this network. Indeed, the suit says, one way Cigna communicates its relationship with MultiPlan is by the placement of a MultiPlan logo on insurance cards offered to members. According to the case, providers who have entered contracts with MultiPlan agree to accept a set percentage of a billed charge as payment in full. The lawsuit stresses that this means a provider agrees not to hold a patient liable for the difference between their original billed charges and the discounted MultiPlan rate, the lawsuit stresses. The case argues that Cigna, as a MultiPlan client, is required to apply the contracted MultiPlan rates when processing insureds' claims instead of the "lower reimbursement methodology" it uses in calculating reimbursement for out-of-network healthcare providers. The suit out of Connecticut alleges, however, that Cigna, in certain instances, does not apply the contracted MultiPlan rates to an insured's claim. By applying the "lower reimbursement methodology" it uses for non-participating providers, Cigna paid less in benefits, did not give proposed class members the benefits they were entitled to, and left them exposed to the threat of "balance billing," the suit says. "By engaging in this misconduct, Cigna underpaid Plaintiffs' claims," the suit alleges. "It also breached its fiduciary duties, including its duty of [sic] to honor written plan terms and its duty of loyalty, because its conduct serves Cigna's own economic self-interest and elevates Cigna's interests above the interests of plan member participants." For fully insured Cigna plans, in which the company administers the plans, receives premiums from insureds, andpays medical expenses from its own corporate assets, the company's self-interest is obvious, the lawsuit says. Namely, the less Cigna pays in benefits, the more money it gets to keep, the case states. For self-funded plans like those held by proposed class members, however, Cigna's alleged underpayment of MultiPlan claims "advances its self-interest" in that it allows the company to pull in higher administrative fees, the filing claims. The reason for this, according to the case, is that Cigna, under its contracts with employers who've established self-funded health insurance plans, receives a "savings" fee that is larger when the company causes a particular plan to pay less for a given claim. By paying less than the amounts required under MultiPlan contracts, Cigna is able to increase the amount of "savings" it claims and the resulting fees it stands to receive, according to the case. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who were insured under a Cigna Plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and who received healthcare services from a provider that contracted indirectly with Cigna via a MultiPlan contract, where the Cigna plan requires that the allowed amount be based on the MultiPlan contract, and where Cigna set the allowed amount for such services below the rate required by the MultiPlan contract. [GN] COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Stablecoin Trading Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shashank Bhardwaj, writing for Forbes India, reports that Terra-USTC fiasco's domino effect continues to spiral in industry big-wigs as a class-action lawsuit was filed against Coinbase on June 16. The lawsuit stated that the trading platform did not conduct due diligence before listing the TerraUSD Classic (USTC) stablecoin. The lawsuit also alleged that the platform failed to disclose its financial relationship with Terraform Labs. This is the second class-action lawsuit in the works against Coinbase. A lawsuit was filed last month concerning the November de-pegging of the GYEN stablecoin (GYEN). TerraUSD was deemed like every other stablecoin, with a low possibility of de-pegging against the USD. So when the news of the crash of $17.5 billion came to light, everyone was shocked. The lawsuit alleges that Coinbase was negligent to undertake proper checks on Terraform Labs before listing USTC and misrepresented USTC's risk as an algorithmic stablecoin. The lawsuit puts out a comparison of stablecoin information provided by different trading platforms such as Robinhood, Gemini, and Kraken to that provided by Coinbase and officially states that "rather than disclosing the nature of TerraUSD as uncollateralised, controlled by an algorithm, and highly risky, Coinbase passed it off as just another stablecoin." The lawsuit also claims that Coinbase Ventures, the firm's investment company, was among one of the major investors in Terraform Labs, adding to the group's need to keep TerraUSD's volatile nature hidden from the public eye. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman and Erickson Kramer Osborne are the law firms that are representing the plaintiffs and classes in the lawsuit case. The latter is also defending the plaintiffs in a dispute filed on May 13 against Coinbase and GMO-Z.com Trust concerning the November de-pegging of the Japanese yen-pegged GYEN stablecoin. GMO-Z.com is accused of neglecting its duties to the plaintiffs and the class in many ways, including with the design of stablecoin. GYEN's overall valuation had risen after being listed by Coinbase and then, later on, had dropped within a week. This resulted in the company freezing some of their user's wallets, and allegedly, as per the lawsuit, users also lost some funds, stating that the amount was "untold millions". [GN] COZY CORNER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Enriquez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Enriquez, Maria Szelai, and Elvira Olmos on behalf themselves and others similarly situated, v. Peter Iatrides, in his individual capacity, Cozy Corner Diner & Pancake House, Inc., Good Taste, Inc., Good Taste Three, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03144 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2022) seeks to remedy nonpayment of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the persons they seek to represent are former tipped server employees working in Defendant Iatrides' restaurants. The various Cozy Corner entities pay their servers a subminimum hourly wage under the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA and IMWL. The action further seeks to remedy the illegal deduction of tips from the paychecks of Olga Enriquez, Maria Szelai, Elvira Olmos (the Servers) and other members of the Server class in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and in violation of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and IMWL, says the suit. Defendant Peter Iatrides owns and operates several restaurants in Chicago that do business as "Cozy Corner" but have different locations and corporate identities. As a remedy for Defendants' acts, Plaintiffs seek relief, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated workers, including unpaid minimum wages, the amounts illegally deducted from their pay, liquidated damages under the FLSA, state law penalties interest, and attorney's fees and costs. Cozy Corner was established in 1977 serving breakfast and lunch menu items.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. Baldemar Lopez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 420-6784 DAKOTA PLAINS: Court Approves Revised Class Notice in Gruber Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JON D. GRUBER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. RYAN R. GILBERTSON, et al. Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-9727 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves the revised Class Notice. The class action lawsuit concerns purchases of Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. common stock during the period from March 23, 2012 through and including Aug. 16, 2016. Class Representative Gruber, on behalf of himself and the Class have reached an agreement to a partial settlement of the Action with the Officer and Director Defendants for a total of $13.95 million in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Officer and Director Defendants' Settlement") against the Officer and Director Defendants. The Class Representative has entered into a separate settlement with defendant Ryan R. Gilbertson for his cooperation at trial against non-settling Defendant Reger. Following a hearing held on May 31, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlements between the plaintiff class and Defendant Gilbertson and the so-called Officer and Director Defendants (i.e., all Defendants other than Gilbertson and Michael L. Reger). One aspect of that order was the approval of a form for notifying members of the class about the settlements. Since that preliminary approval was granted, however, the Court and a jury heard a six-day trial against Reger, the sole non-settling defendant. That trial resulted in a verdict of "Liable" on two of three counts. Following trial, the Court granted the Plaintiff's counsel leave to propose revisions to the class notice, which has not yet been sent. The revision provides information about the trial's outcome and further proceedings arising therefrom. Pursuant to the schedule set by the Court, that revised notice was received, and no objections from any defendant were registered. The Court has subsequently reviewed the proposed revision, and found it satisfactory. The revised class notice is therefore approved. All other aspects of the preliminary approval order remain intact. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhnkr55 from Leagle.com. DEERE & CO: Casselbury Antitrust Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SAMANTHA CASSELBURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEERE & CO. d/b/a JOHN DEERE, Case No. 4:22-cv-04049, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-50202 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment with onboard central computers known as engine control units (ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market for repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to farmers and independent repair shops. As a result of the Defendant's monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance services. Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2626 Philadelphia, PA 19096 Telephone: (267) 314-7980 Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and – Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Jeremy N. Nash, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com jnash@litedepalma.com - and – Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com DEGLER ENTERPRISES: Philo Sues Over Construction Staff's Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR PHILO and SAID ISLAS, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DEGLER ENTERPRISE, LLC, HILLARY DEGLER and CHRISTOPHER DEGLER, Case No. 5:22-cv-240 (E.D.N.C., June 15, 2022) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act to Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours in a week. Upon information and belief, other Construction Workers also regularly worked over 40 hours in a week. When Defendant paid the Plaintiffs for hours worked over 40 in a week, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs their regular rate for those hours. In other words, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 each week, says the suit. Degler is a freight shipping trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristin G. Oakley,Esq. RICCI LAW FIRM, P.A. 2221 Stantonsburg Road Greenville, NC 27834 Telephone: (252) 752-7785 Facsimile: (252) 752-1016 E-mail: kgoakley@riccilawnc.com - and - Courtney Harness, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DENTONS DAVIS: Faces Proposed Class Suit Over COBRA Notices ----------------------------------------------------------- news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Dentons Davis Brown PC failed to send a former employee a COBRA notice or inform her how to enroll in its health insurance program as required when she left, the employee said in a proposed class action filed in a federal court in Iowa. The Iowa-based law firm's failure left Tiffany Schriner unable to make an informed decision on electing continuing health insurance coverage, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Schriner wasn't able to elect COBRA due to the firm's failure, the lawsuit says, and she lost her health insurance coverage as a result. Schriner says in her complaint that she worked as a paralegal in the firm's Des Moines offices from May 14, 2018, until she resigned on May 6, 2022. She and her family received health insurance from Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa while she participated in the firm's health plan, according to the June 14 filing. COBRA requires health plan sponsors to give notice to covered employees and qualifying beneficiaries of their continuation of health coverage after their employment ends or after another qualifying event. Dentons Davis Brown failed to give any such notice after Schriner's employment ended in May, the lawsuit says. As a result, Schriner's health insurance was canceled May 31, 2022, according to the complaint. Health insurance "is one of the most valuable things employees get in exchange for working for an employer like defendant," the lawsuit says. "Insurance coverage has a monetary value, the loss of which is tangible and an economic harm." Causes of Action: U.S. Code; Code of Federal Regulations. Potential Class Size: All participants and beneficiaries of the plan who weren't sent a COBRA notice during the statute of limitations period due to a qualifying event and didn't select continuation coverage. Relief: A designation of plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff's council as class council; certification of the class action; an order for defendant to issue notice to the class at its expense; a declaration that defendant violated federal law by failing to send a compliant COBRA notice; penalties in the amount of $110 per day for each class member that didn't receive a compliant notice; an order blocking defendant from further COBRA violations; pre-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs. Response: Dentons Davis Brown didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys: Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese PC and Edelson Lechtzin LLP represent the plaintiff and the proposed class. The case is Schriner v. Dentons Davis Brown PC, S.D. Iowa, No. 4:22-cv-00192, complaint 6/14/22. [GN] DENTSPLY SIRONA: Kuznicki Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NasdaqGS: XRAY), if they purchased the Company's shares between June 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until August 1, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-xray/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Lieff Cabraser Files Federal Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- June 17, 2022, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Berger Montague PC, Hausfeld LLP, and the Law Offices of Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C. filed a federal class action complaint against Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, and Softbank Group challenging the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint as a violation of the antitrust laws, specifically the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. The case is brought on behalf of AT&T and Verizon subscribers. The merger reduced the number of mobile carriers in the U.S. from four to three and eliminated vibrant competition from Sprint. It left the three remaining behemoths, the new T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon, in a far less competitive market and gave them the opportunity to charge more while delivering less. The case alleges that as a result, AT&T and Verizon retail customers have paid higher prices on a quality-adjusted basis. "I'm hard-pressed to think of a more anti-competitive and damaging acquisition in recent history," said Lieff Cabraser partner Brendan P. Glackin, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Mobile phones are now integral to American life, and the three carriers provide mobile wireless service to the vast majority of American subscribers. The consequences of the merger are currently being felt in the pocketbook of nearly every person living in this country and will continue to be felt until competition is restored and the ill effects of this merger are undone." The Complaint alleges that before the merger, "T-Mobile and Sprint were two scrappy upstarts" vying for subscribers by introducing price cuts and better plan terms. Pre-merger, Sprint frequently used "competitors' prices as a starting point" and "targeted each of its three rivals by name and slashed prices accordingly." T-Mobile similarly advertised itself as the "'Un-carrier,' introducing one competition-enhancing innovation after another." As a result, "[r]ates for retail mobile wireless services declined across the market." The Complaint goes on to explain, however, that competing as an "Un-carrier" was "never the long-term plan of Deutsche Telekom," T-Mobile's corporate parent in Germany. DT tried for years to find a merger partner to consolidate the market and boost profits. According to the Complaint, when the merger finally closed, its CEO bragged "It's harvest time." The case alleges further that the only apparent effects of the merger appear to be less competition and more consumer harm. Real world post-merger data cited in the Complaint confirms that after the merger, the competitive landscape shifted and consumers have less choice. After years of decline in consumer pricing for wireless services, since the merger quality-adjusted prices have gone up and introduction of competitive promotions has fallen. "We seek recovery of overcharges our clients paid due to the merger, plus restoration of competition in one of the world's largest and most concentrated markets," said Berger Montague Chairman Eric L. Cramer, who also represents the plaintiffs. "We allege that every consumer and small business in the U.S. is paying the price for this anticompetitive merger, including our proposed class of AT&T and Verizon customers who, because of the merger, no longer face any pricing challenges from the former mavericks of the telecom space." This case follows an unsuccessful lawsuit filed by ten states to block the merger and a settlement with the United States Department of Justice. In both instances, T-Mobile made commitments to government regulators and the courts to continue to compete aggressively and at the same time help DISH emerge as a strong fourth competitor to replace Sprint. The Complaint alleges that neither promise was fulfilled. "Courts cannot be expected to predict the future competitive impacts of proposed mergers with perfect precision. This suit alleges that the Sprint-T-Mobile merger is one example where judicial predictions of the merger's effects did not align with real world outcomes," said Gary I. Smith Jr., a Partner at Hausfeld LLP. "Private enforcement actions like this one serve an important function in remediating undesirable effects of a merger that should not have been, and restoring competitive balance moving forward." [GN] EARLY WARNING: Fails to Protect Customers From Fraud, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that consumers filed a number of class action lawsuits recently against financial institutions accused of not protecting account holders who were financially injured after being defrauded while using the digital peer-to-peer payment platform Zelle. An influx of scams targeting Zelle users prompted a pair of U.S. senators to write a letter in April to the owner of Zelle, warning it about the amount of fraud perpetrated on the platform. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., accused Zelle owner Early Warning Services LLC of not doing enough to prevent fraud from occurring on the platform. The Democratic senators also placed blame on Zelle's owner banks, including Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Truist. "We seek to understand the extent to which Zelle allows fraud to flourish and the steps your company is taking to increase consumer protection and help users recover lost funds," the senators wrote. Consumers, meanwhile, have since begun going after financial institutions, claiming they are not doing enough to protect them from falling victim of Zelle fraud. Capital One class action accuses bank of refusal to reimburse Zelle fraud victims Earlier this month, a Capital One customer who claims he was the victim of a Zelle scam filed a class action lawsuit against the bank, arguing it declines to reimburse account holders who are scammed or exposed to fraud on Zelle. "Despite the plaintiff's timely alerting Capital One of the fraud, Capital One refused to reimburse him for the losses," the class action lawsuit states. The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims Capital One told him it would be unable to put a stop payment on a money transfer made through Zelle that ended up falling into the hands of a scammer. Wells Fargo class action alleges company fails to protect customers from fraud Also this month, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and Zelle over claims the companies fail to protect them from scammers who target Zelle mobile payment app users. The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims he was scammed out of $7,500, with Wells Fargo eventually reimbursing them for $3,500, after a scammer pretending to be with the bank convinced them to send funds. In addition to allegedly initially declining to reimburse him, the consumer argues Wells Fargo and Zelle aren't willing to put more protections in place that would help prevent their customers from becoming fraud victims. "The immediacy of Zelle's service has made it a favorite primarily among consumers, but that has made it a favorite among criminals, who can access bank accounts directly," the class action lawsuit states. "Once scammers can scare or trick their victims into sending money via Zelle, they can siphon away thousands of dollars in seconds." A consumer also hit Bank of America with a class action lawsuit this month that alleges the financial institution fails to disclose to its account holders the risks of using Zelle for money transfers. Further, the consumer behind the class action lawsuit argues Bank of America declines to reimburse customers who are victims of fraud through Zelle and that there is "virtually no recourse for consumers to recoup losses due to fraud." Navy Federal class action accuses credit union of failing to keep reimbursement promise Navy Federal Credit Union, meanwhile, faces claims that it fails to keep its promise that it will reimburse account holders who lose money from fraudulent activity on Zelle. Further, the Navy Federal class action accuses the credit union of misrepresenting to its customers the safety of using Zelle for money transfers. "(Navy Federal) misrepresents and omits a key fact about the service that is unknown to accountholders: that there is virtually no recourse for consumers to recoup losses due to fraud," the class action states. The consumer behind the complaint claims Navy Federal has a "secret policy" of not reimbursing account holders who suffer financial losses due to fraudulent activity on Zelle, regardless of whether or not it is reported right away. [GN] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Antibacterial Wipes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Edgewell Personal Care misleads and deceives consumers by falsely marketing and labeling that its Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand Wipes "Kills 99.99% of Germs," a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Nancy Leboeuf claims Edgwell's Wet Ones products contain Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC), which she argues is proven to be "ineffective at killing non-enveloped viruses, certain gram-negative bacteria and spores." "BAC-based disinfectants such as Defendants' Products are ineffective at killing many germs commonly transmitted through human hands," states the Wet Ones class action. Leboeuf wants to represent a New York Class of consumers who have purchased Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand Wipes within the past four years. Efficacy Of Wet Ones Antibacterial Wipes Not As High As Stated Edgewell, Leboeuf argues, is aware it has been "scientifically proven that BAC-based products do not kill 99.99% of germs and that no evidence supports their claim that the Products kills 99.99% of germs." Leboeuf claims further that, by making an efficacy claim to the hundredth digit and not placing a modifier between "99.99%" and "of germs," Edgewell is attempting to "create the clear impression that it has been scientifically proven that their Products kill 99.99% of all germs." "Defendants' Product labels are therefore materially misleading, in that they plainly state, in a manner giving the impression that it has been scientifically proven, that their Products kill 99.99% of germs, when studies show that it does not kill many types of germs," states the Wet Ones class action. Leboeuf claims Edgewell is guilty of fraud and unjust enrichment and in violation of New York General Business Law. Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief along with actual, statutory, treble, and punitive damages for herself and all Class Members. It was rumored that Walmart may have to recall its Parent's Choice brand baby wipes last month after reports of parents discovering possible issues with the product. The plaintiff is represented by Thiago M. Coelho, Robert Dart, Carolin Shining, Jonas Mann, Jesse Chen, and Jennifer Leinbach of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, and Daniel A. Schlanger of Schlanger Law Group LLP. The Wet Ones Antibacterial Wipes Class Action Lawsuit is Leboeuf v. Edgewell Personal Care Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00642, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN] ELECTROLUX HOME: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Shannon Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KENYA SHANNON, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02370-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., June 14, 2022) alleges the Defendant of willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee at its Memphis, Tennessee manufacturing and warehouse facility. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for the 30-minute meal breaks that was automatically "clocked-out" for payroll purposes and they were not fully relieved of their job duties. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures appliances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com FAMILY DOLLAR: Lacy Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Martha Keisha Lacy, Lorraine Bennett-Freeman, Sheena Bibbs, Nakedra Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00098 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02379-SHL-tmp to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square N Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. 404 Court Square N. P.O. Box 987 Lexington, MS 39095-0987 Phone: (662) 834-2628 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Gerald Moses Abdalla, Jr., Esq. ABDALLA LAW, PLLC 602 Steed Road, Suite 200 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Phone: (601) 487-4590 Fax: (601) 487-4595 The Defendant is represented by: P. Ryan Beckett, Esq. BUTLER SNOW O'MARA STEVENS & CANNADA PLLC P.O. Box 22567 17th Floor, Deposit Guaranty Plaza Jackson, MS 39225-2567 Phone: (601) 948-5711 FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Randall Robertson, Julian A. Graves, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas LLC, Family Dollar Services, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00269 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02378-SHL-tmp to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Janna L. Maples, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: beng@bsjfirm.com gerards@bsjfirm.com jannam@bsjfirm.com - and - James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 Email: james@streettlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Katherine Church Campbell, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP 3550 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Phone: (479) 695-6040 Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com - and - Marshall S. Ney, Esq. MITCHELL WILLIAMS SELIG GATES & WOODYARD PLLC 380 West Capitol Ave. #1000 Little Rock, AR 72201 FAMILY DOLLAR: Sharp Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Karen Sharp, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00269 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02376-SHL-jay to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen F. Libby, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN F. LIBBY 294 Washington Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 523-1844 Fax: (901) 523-1857 Email: steve@libbylawfirm.com - and - James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 Email: james@streettlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Katherine Church Campbell, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP 3550 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Phone: (479) 695-6040 Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com - and - Marshall S. Ney, Esq. MITCHELL WILLIAMS SELIG GATES & WOODYARD PLLC 380 West Capitol Ave. #1000 Little Rock, AR 72201 FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Vinnie L. Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Inc., Dollar Tree Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00043 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02375-SHL-tmp to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Declaratory Judgement. Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory E Bryant, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY E. BRYANT 300 Spring Bldg., Ste. 310 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 375-3344 Fax: (501) 376-0770 Email: geb@gregbryantlaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. William Thomas Crowder, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 374-1058 Fax: (501) 374-2222 Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com The Defendants are represented by: Katherine Church Campbell, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP 3550 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301 Rogers, AR 72758 Phone: (479) 695-6040 Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Dernoshek Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN DERNOSHEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL INC; FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL CAROLINAS; and NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a HOMEWISEDOCS.COM, Case No. 1:21-CV-00056-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting certifying the Proposed Class and Proposed Alternative Class; -- Proposed Class "All natural persons who, during the Relevant Time Period, were charged and paid SOUA Fees to FirstService and HomeWise in North Carolina." -- Proposed Alternative Classes "All natural persons who, during the Relevant Time Period, were charged and paid SOUA Fees to HomeWise associated with FirstService-managed OAs in North Carolina;" and All natural persons who, during the Relevant Time Period, were charged and paid SOUA Fees to FirstService associated with FirstService-managed OAs in North Carolina." Excluded from the Classes are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) Defendants and any entity which Defendants have a controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in Defendants and all legal representatives; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion. 2. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel; and 3. appointing him as Class Representative. FirstService Residential is a property management company in North America. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 22, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3njIIyN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com pwallace@milberg.com jwilliams@milberg.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Transmission Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that Ford fails to properly identify and pay for the diagnosis, repair, and replacement of the transmission of some of its vehicles, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Victoria Berghuis filed the class action against Ford Motor Company June 14 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. She alleges that Ford has failed to properly identify and pay for the diagnosis, repair, and replacement of the transmission of certain vehicles for 15 years or 150,000 miles for partial zero emissions vehicles (PZEVs) and super ultra low emissions vehicles, for which Ford has received a .2 Zero Emissions Credit from the California Air Resources Board. Her claims relate specifically to all vehicles distributed by Ford that are zero or super low emissions vehicles and for which Ford does not provide 15-year or 150,000-mile coverage relating to the transmission. Under the California Emissions Warranty, defects which increase regulated emissions in low emissions vehicles, such as the Class Vehicles, shall be covered under warranty for 15 years or 150,000 miles, the lawsuit states. Transmission defects in the vehicles increase regulated emissions, cause the Malfunction Indicator Lamp to illuminate, and cause the vehicle to fail a California smog check, Berghuis says. Therefore, the transmission in the vehicles should be covered by the California Emissions Warranty, the lawsuit alleges. Drivers had to pay out of pocket for repairs As a result of Ford not providing proper warranty coverage for the transmission in the affected vehicles, drivers have and are continuing to pay out of pocket for repairs that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty, the lawsuit states. "Further, as a result of Ford not providing proper warranty coverage for the transmission in Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the members of the Class and Subclasses have and are continuing to suffer damage as a result of purchasing or leasing Class Vehicles with a deficient warranty which was worth less than the warranty they were legally entitled to at the time of purchase or lease." The plaintiff is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, Ford has recalled certain 2021 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SUVs after a spate of under-hood fires in the vehicles that have already injured one person. What do you think of the allegations in this case? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Ari Y. Basser, Robert L. Starr and Manny Starr of Pomerantz LLP. The Ford PZEV Class Action Lawsuit is Victoria Berghuis v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00871-JLS-KSC in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California. [GN] FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Osei-Tutu Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICKAEL OSEI-TUTU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA and FRESENIUS HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-04992 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for its alleged illegal pay practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as patient care technician from the date that is 6 years prior to the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants failed to pay regular and overtime wages as a result of its time shaving policy; -- The Defendants failed to pay its PCTs' wages on a timely basis as required by NYLL, instead they were paid on a bi-weekly basis; and -- The Defendants failed to provide proper wage notices, and proper wage statements. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated PCTs, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages and regular wages, liquidated damages for untimely payment of wages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is a German healthcare company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Tel: (212) 295-5828 Fax: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com GERMAN AMERICAN: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action Suit for $3-M ------------------------------------------------------------------ duboiscountyfreepress.com reports that Jasper-based German American Bancorp (Nasdaq: GABC) has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the bank overcharged customers for overdraft fees. The bank has agreed to pay more than $3 million to the plaintiffs, though it denies any wrongdoing. The case was filed by a Marion County resident in 2020. She claimed she was charged overdraft fees for debit card charges that were approved at the time of purchase. "The plaintiffs allege that defendant German American Bancorp., Inc. ("GAB") incorrectly assessed the following fees: (1) fees assessed on debit card transactions when there was a sufficient balance at the time the transaction was authorized, but there was an insufficient balance when the transaction subsequently settled; and (2) fees assessed on a transaction that posted when there were sufficient funds in the account to cover the transaction. If you are a Class Member and if the Settlement is approved, you may be entitled to receive a cash payment from the $3,050,00.00 fund established by the Settlement." As part of the settlement, German American is not acknowledging any wrongdoing. "Defendant does not in any way acknowledge, admit to, or concede any of the allegations made in the Amended Complaint, and expressly disclaims and denies any fault or liability, or any charges of wrongdoing that have been or could have been asserted in the Amended Complaint. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be used or construed as an admission of liability and this Agreement shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding in any court or other forum as an admission or concession of liability or wrongdoing of any nature or for any other purpose, other than to enforce the terms of this Agreement," the settlement said. "While Defendant disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and vehemently denies any liability or wrongdoing, it enters into the settlement solely to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and distraction of further proceedings in the litigation." A final approval hearing will be held in Indianapolis before the agreement is finalized. [GN] HARLEM CANDLE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Harlem Candle Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Harlem Candle Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05020-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Harlem Candle Company -- https://www.harlemcandlecompany.com/ -- is a luxury home fragrance brand specializing in scented candles inspired by the richness of Harlem.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com HIGH ENERGY: Fails to Pay Pizza Delivery Drivers' Mandated Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. HIGH ENERGY PIZZA, LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, and JEFF STEGEN, Case No. 4:22-cv-00041 (N.D. Ind., June 15, 2022) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Act. The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked. According to the complaint, all delivery drivers at the High Energy Domino's stores, including the Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former delivery drivers who elect to opt in pursuant to FLSA to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour provisions by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at one of the High Energy Domino's locations in Lafayette, Indiana. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchises ("High Energy Domino's" stores), including at least nine Domino's Pizza franchises in Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168 Carmel, Indiana 46032 Telephone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com rfh@indianawagelaw.com HOGARTH CALIFORNIA: Osborn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hogarth California LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Osborn, individually, and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Hogarth California LLC, Hogarth Worldwide Inc., Does One through Fifty, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22598537 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 15, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class Action Complaint)." Hogarth -- https://www.hogarth.com/ -- is a WPP-owned global company that provides marketing Implementation services, including all-channel production and language services to blue-chip international companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Keller, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Phone: 510-394-0455 Fax: 510-832-1101 Email: dkeller@themmlawfirm.com HORNE LLP: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horne LLP, et al. The case is styled as Perrin Lee, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Horne LLP, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00320725-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 27, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." HORNE -- https://horne.com/ -- is a professional services firm founded on a cornerstone of public accounting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 HYATT CORP: $990K Class Settlement in Crump Suit Wins Prelim. Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINE CRUMP, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00295-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. I. Background Plaintiff Crump was employed as a Line Cook at Hyatt House in Emeryville, California from approximately January to June 2019. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a timekeeping policy that rounded hourly employees' time to the nearest hour, as opposed to paying them for every minute they were working. She further alleges that as a result, the Defendant failed to pay overtime and minimum wage; timely pay all wages upon termination; and keep accurate payroll records. In July 2021, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with mediator Paul Grossman. The parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement, fully executed in February 2022. The key terms are as follows: a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as "all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees working for Defendant in California at any time between Dec. 6, 2015 through June 9, 2019." b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will make a $990,000 non-reversionary payment. It will make this payment in two tranches: The first 50% will be paid ten days after judgment has been entered, and the remaining 50% will be paid six months later. The parties propose that $50,000 of this gross settlement fund be allocated to the PAGA claim as civil penalties. Of this PAGA Payment, $37,500 will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $12,500 will be distributed pro rata to class members. The gross settlement fund also includes Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration fees, the employees' share of payroll taxes, any incentive payment to the Plaintiff as class representative, and payments to class members. The cash payments to the class will be based on the number of weeks each class member worked during the relevant class period. d. Incentive Award: The named Plaintiff may apply for an incentive award of no more than $10,000. e. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel will file an application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 35% of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $346,500, and costs not to exceed $100,000. f. Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to submit a request for exclusion or to object to the Settlement is 30 days after the initial mailing date of the notice. The Defendant retains the right to withdraw from the settlement agreement if 5% or more of the class members opt out. II. Discussion A. Class Certification The plaintiff bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Class certification is a two-step process. First, a plaintiff must establish that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) is met: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Second, it must establish that at least one of the bases for certification under Rule 23(b) is met. Where, in the case, a plaintiff seeks to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), it must show that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Judge Gilliam finds that finds that all the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met: a. Numerosity: Joinder of the thousands of estimated class members would be impracticable. b. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact include the propriety of the Defendant's rounding policy. c. Typicality: The Plaintiff's claims are both factually and legally similar to those of the putative class because the Defendant allegedly applied its rounding policy to Plaintiff and all class members. d. Adequacy of Representation: The Court is unaware of any actual conflicts of interest in the matter and no evidence in the record suggests that either the Plaintiff or the counsel have a conflict with other class members. The Plaintiff's counsel has been appointed class counsel in numerous federal and state class actions. Judge Gilliam finds that the proposed class counsel and the Plaintiff have prosecuted the action vigorously on behalf of the class to date, and will continue to do so. Judge Gilliam also finds that the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met. He concludes that for purposes of settlement, common questions predominate here because under the the Plaintiff's allegations Defendant's wage and hour policies were uniform and violated California law. Although the class members will need to rely upon individual evidence to some extent to calculate their individual damages, the mere fact that there might be differences in damage calculations is not sufficient to defeat class certification. He further concludes that a class action enables the most efficient use of Court and attorney resources and reduces costs to the class members by allocating costs among them. This forum is also appropriate, and there are no obvious difficulties in managing the class action. Because he finds that the Plaintiff meets the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Gilliam appoints the Plaintiff as the class representative. And, because the counsel have investigated and litigated the case throughout its existence and have submitted declarations detailing their expertise in representing plaintiffs in class action suits, especially wage and hour class actions, he appoints Parris Law Firm as the Class Counsel. B. Preliminary Settlement Approval Finding that provisional class certification is appropriate, Judge Gilliam considers whether he should preliminarily approve the parties' class action settlement. Courts may preliminarily approve a settlement and notice plan to the class if the proposed settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) does not grant improper preferential treatment to class representatives or other segments of the class; (3) falls within the range of possible approval; and (4) has no obvious deficiencies. Courts lack the authority, however, to "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions. The settlement must stand or fall in its entirety." Having weighed the relevant factors, Judge Gilliam preliminarily finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. He finds that (i) the Settlement Agreement contains a clear sailing arrangement; (ii) he will consider the evidence presented at the final fairness hearing and evaluate the reasonableness of any incentive award request; (iii) the settlement amount, given these risks, weighs in favor of granting preliminary approval; and (iv) there are no obvious deficiencies. For these reasons, Judge Gilliam grants preliminary approval. He directs the parties to include both a joint proposed order and a joint proposed judgment when submitting their motion for final approval. C. Class Notice Plan The parties have agreed that a third-party settlement administrator will send class notice via first-class U.S. mail to each class member at their last known address, as provided by the Defendant and updated by the administrator as appropriate.Any letters returned as undeliverable will be sent to any updated address provided with the returned mail.If no forwarding address is provided, the settlement administrator will attempt to determine the correct address using the National Change of Address Database. Judge Gilliam finds that the proposed notice process is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise all class members of the proposed settlement." As to the substance of the notice, the parties have attached a copy of their proposed class notice to the Settlement Agreement. The notice also informs class members that the Class Counsel will file a motion with the Court for attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses advanced by the Class Counsel. the It also provides that Plaintiff may request up to $10,000 for her services as Class Representative. To enable class members to review the motion for attorneys' fees and the motion for incentive award, the Class Counsel will include language in the settlement notice: (1) indicating the deadline for filing the attorneys' fees motion and request for the Plaintiff's incentive award; (2) specifically stating the deadline for any class member objections to these motions; and (3) informing the class members how to access the motion and supporting materials. Judge Gilliam therefore finds that with these changes, the content of the proposed notice provides sufficient information about the case and thus conforms with due process requirements. III. Conclusion Judge Gilliam grants the motion for preliminary approval. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed below, which will be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of the Order: a. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all putative Class Members b. Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion c. Filing deadline for incentive payment motion d. Deadline for the Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment, at least 45 days after the filing of the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive payments e. Filing deadline for final approval motion f. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan with the edits identified. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4t7xwyn5 from Leagle.com. IONQ INC: Rosen Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of IonQ, Inc. (NYSE: IONQ) between March 30, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 1, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased IonQ securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the IonQ class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 1, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) IonQ's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates, rendering it useless; (3) IonQ's quantum computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being available through major cloud providers; (4) a significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper round-tripping transactions with related parties; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about IonQ's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the IonQ class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6703 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.[GN] JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Wis., Lake Holcombe Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAKE HOLCOMBE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03486 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Lake Holcombe School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Holcombe, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 94, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03507 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Illinois Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Community High School District 94 is a public school district with its administrative offices located in West Chicago, Illinois. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Benton School Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03501 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Benton Community School Corporation is a public school district with its administrative offices located on Grant Avenue in Fowler, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces East Allen Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- EAST ALLEN COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03503 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. East Allen County Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices located in New Haven, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Faces McDowell Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic -------------------------------------------------------------- MCDOWELL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, MCDOWELL COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03496 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. McDowell County School Board is a school district with its administrative offices located at 155 Park Street, Pineville, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: Faces Webster County Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- WEBSTER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, WEBSTER COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03492 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Webster County Board of Education is a school district with its administrative offices located at 315 South Main Street, Webster Springs, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: Lewis County Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction ------------------------------------------------------------ LEWIS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, LEWIS COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03499 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Lewis County Board of Education is a public school district with its administrative offices located at 239 Court Avenue, Weston, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: Luck School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------- LUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03488 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Luck School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Luck, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Stanley-Boyd Area Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY-BOYD AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03498-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Stanley-Boyd Area Schools is a public school district with its administrative offices are located in Stanley, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Pepin Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEPIN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03489 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Pepin Area School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located in Pepin, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Plum City School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PLUM CITY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03491 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. School District of Plum City is a public school district with its administrative offices are located in Plum City, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Pocahontas County Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------ POCAHONTAS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, POCAHONTAS COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03494 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Pocahontas County Board of Education is a school district with its administrative offices located at 404 Old Buckeye Road, Buckeye, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Southwest Allen Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTHWEST ALLEN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03502 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Southwest Allen County School District is a public school district with its administrative offices are located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Spooner Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------------- SPOONER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03493-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Spooner Area School District is a public school district with its administrative offices are located in Spooner, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Rahul Ravipudi, Esq. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com - and – John P. Fiske, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com - and – Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C. 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 617-1269 E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Lincoln County Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, LINCOLN COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03497-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Lincoln County School Board is a school district with its administrative offices located at 10 Maryland Avenue, Hamlin, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com KNIX WEAR: Seeks Sanctions for Lawyers Behind Consumers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Solarina Ho at CTVNews.ca reports that Canadian undergarment maker Knix Wear Inc. has filed a motion for sanctions against the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in a class-action complaint, saying they did not conduct an independent investigation before filing a lawsuit in April alleging the company's products contain harmful chemicals. Knix has also filed a motion to have the class-action complaint dismissed. A class action complaint against the undergarment brand was filed in April, alleging the company's menstrual underwear are "unfit for their intended use" because they contain a harmful class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), sometimes nicknamed "forever chemicals", despite being advertised as free of the substances, according to an amended court document filed on April 7, 2022. In new court documents filed on June 11, 2022 and obtained by CTVNews.ca, Knix argued that the plaintiffs, Gemma Rivera and Marisa Franz, and their lawyers, "have no idea whether any Knix product actually contains fluorine or not, let alone the specific type of fluorine (organic fluorine) that can potentially indicate the presence of PFAS. Indeed, they conducted no independent investigation whatsoever to even attempt to confirm the truth of that assertion." Knix said the allegations against the company's products are tenuous and are based on unsubstantiated claims made in a "mom blog". It is asking for the complaint to be entirely dismissed with prejudice, or stricken and that the company be awarded the cost of defense. The original lawsuit alleged that Knix products contain unsafe PFAS, a family of chemicals used since the 1950s across a wide variety of industries and found in numerous everyday products. That lawsuit was subsequently amended to say that Knix's menstrual underwear contain "heightened levels of fluorine which is an indicator" of unsafe PFAS. Knix said in a statement to CTVNews.ca that it takes product safety seriously, has always been transparent about its testing, and that it strongly disputed the allegations made in the California lawsuit. "This is an unfair attack on our brand integrity. Any suggestion that our products are somehow unsafe is wrong which is why we have filed both a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion against the lawyers who filed it," the company stated. "Rule 11 motions are rarely filed in US litigation. However, in this situation, because the court filing is so factually baseless, we are asking the Court to not only dismiss the case but to also sanction the law firm that filed it . . . [we] sincerely apologize to our customers for any fear or confusion that this is causing." The plaintiff's lawyers, Sean Litteral and Rachel Miller, with the law firm Bursor & Fisher, did not respond to a request for comment regarding Knix's motions. "FRIVOLOUS" CLAIMS Knix says it has conducted extensive testing by third-party laboratories, but the plaintiffs stated in its lawsuit that these claims are inaccurate or misleading. In its sanctions motion, which also cited previous cases involving "frivolous suits", the company said the lawsuit is based on claims made in a blog post published by "Mamavation" and that they conducted no independent investigation of their own. "Rule 11 exists to prevent this very type of 'file first and ask questions later' pleading," the company stated in its sanctions motion. "The Rule requires that the filing attorney personally conduct a reasonable investigation; it does not allow him to simply regurgitate unsupported and defamatory accusations from internet bloggers who are not subject to Court rules." Knix says that Mamavation did not provide any details regarding its claim, including the name of the lab or the test results, and that no details were produced on how the testing was conducted, including testing conditions, procedures and how the samples were collected and prepared. "Those factors are important, because fluorine is ubiquitous in the environment and Mamavation itself acknowledges that fluorine detection can result from contamination before or during the testing process," the sanctions motion stated. The motion also noted that the blog also did not specify whether the products tested positive for organic or inorganic fluorine. The latter is not a potential indicator for PFAS and can include compounds like fluoride salts and minerals. Knix noted that the plaintiff's lawyers had previously acknowledged these distinctions in other lawsuits filed against other companies. They also noted that the lawyers have filed "at least half a dozen PFAS lawsuits in the last two months, all of which appear to rely entirely on third-party testing reported in articles, blog posts or litigation documents filed by other lawyers." Knix stated in its filings that it continues to conduct routine PFAS and organic fluorine testing on its products and requires its suppliers to do the same, with the testing process and sample results posted on the company's website. In the motion, the company described Mamavation as "an affiliate 'mom blogger' with no scientific background who receives financial compensation from various apparel brands, including Knix competitors, for directing its readers to those competitors' websites." The hearing is currently set for November 10, 2022 in California. WHAT ARE "FOREVER CHEMICALS"? There are thousands of PFAS according to the U.S. government's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and studies have suggested that the substances are found in the blood of 97 per cent of Americans. They were previously known as perfluorochemicals, or PFCs. They can be found in a number of everyday products from make-up, non-stick cookware and stain-repelling fabric to pizza boxes and fast-food packaging, as well as in more specialized industries from aerospace to firefighting. Low levels of the PFAS have been be found in food including honey, eggs, and vegetables, and even beef. Because the chemicals do not break down or dissolve easily, there have been ongoing concerns that these chemicals could reach levels that are harmful to both humans and the environment. Some research suggests that at very high levels, certain PFAS can cause health problems including higher chances of certain types of cancer, higher cholesterol level and changes within the immune system. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a warning that two types of PFAS compounds found in drinking water posed a greater health risk than previously thought, even at undetectably low levels.[GN] LESLIES POOLMART: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslies Poolmart, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Leslies Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05000-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Leslie's, Inc. -- https://lesliespool.com/ -- operating as Leslie's Swimming Pool Supplies, is the largest retailer of swimming pool supplies and related products.[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 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Cortinas Sues Over Improper Withholdings of Labor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Cortinas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY ("LMPIC"), Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG (W.D. Tex., May 26, 2022), is brought arising out of a dispute between a policyholder and property insurer and seeking to remedy the improper withholdings of future labor from the Plaintiff and putative class members' actual cash value (ACV) payments. The seminal legal dispute before the Court is whether future labor, yet to be incurred, may be "depreciated" by LMPIC when LMPIC calculates its actual cash value payment obligations for structural property losses. This lawsuit does not contest that labor used to make a building product (such as a shingle or electrical outlet) or labor used to construct a building (such as a roofer or electrician) become "embedded" within the building product or home and can be depreciated as part of an ACV calculation. Future labor is at issue because, pursuant to LMPIC's property insurance policy forms at issue, ACV payments are to be made prospectively, that is, prior to the policyholder undertaking repairs to a damaged structure. In contrast to ACV coverage, replacement cost value coverage payments ("RCV") are made retrospectively, after repairs have been completed. Property insurers within the Liberty Mutual Group, including LMPIC, have faced repeated lawsuits around the country concerning its practice of depreciating future labor from ACV payments. Most property insurers in Texas do not withhold future labor under the auspice of "depreciation" when making ACV payments for structural loss claims. However, some property insurers in Texas do withhold future labor as depreciation when making ACV payments for structural loss claims but only pursuant to the terms of their insurance policies, which expressly permit future labor to be withheld, i.e., a form that expressly uses the terms "labor" and "depreciate" or "depreciation" and addressing the issue within the text of the policy or endorsement. Others, such as LMPIC, withhold future labor as depreciation even under policies that do not contain such provisions. The LMPIC policies at issue did not include any provision or language that allow it to withhold labor as depreciation when making ACV payments for structural loss claims, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Cortinas owned the dwelling and other structures located at 3310 Crows Ldg., San Antonio, Texas. LMPIC is authorized to sell property insurance policies in the State of Texas, including within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun W. Hodge, Esq. THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC The Historic Runge House 1301 Market Street Galveston, TX 77550 Phone: (409) 762-5000 Facsimile: (409) 763-2300 Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com LITIGATION PRACTICE: Scheduling Order Entered in Beech Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation Practice Group, PC,Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Robert H. Walker entered an scheduling order as follows: -- The parties will conduct class Dec. 1, 2022 certification-related discovery which shall end: -- The deadline for filing any Jan. 17, 2023 motion to conditionally certify collective action is: The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions. LPG offers debt resolution services.[CC] MACK DERMATOLOGY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mack Dermatology, P.C. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mack Dermatology, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05009 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mack Dermatology doing business as Glamderm -- https://glamderm.com/ -- is a dermatologist in New York, City offering personalized treatment & management plans for skin, hair, and nail disorders.[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 MACY'S CREDIT: Caldera Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lucina Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04116 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Macy's -- https://www.macys.com/p/credit-service/benefits/ -- is an American chain of high-end department stores founded in 1858 by Rowland Hussey Macy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com MAZDA MOTORS: New York District Court Issues Summons in Bey Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAMERLANE T. BEY III, Plaintiff v. MAZDA MOTORS OF AMERICA, INC.; DENSO CORP.; DENSO INT'L AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-3328 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to the Defendants. The Plaintiff is directed to serve the summons and complaint on the Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of the summons. If within those 90 days, the Plaintiff has not either served the Defendants or requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss the claims against the Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and cannot act on behalf of others, the Court does not treat the matter as a potential class action. A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8s27n8 from Leagle.com. META PLATFORMS: Advertisers Can Pursue Class Action Over Ad Rates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that a U.S. judge ruled that a lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc's (FB.O) Facebook of deceiving advertisers about its "potential reach" tool can proceed as a class action. The decision by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco allows potentially millions of individuals and businesses that paid for ads on Facebook and its photo-sharing app Instagram since Aug. 15, 2014 to sue as a group. Meta did not immediately respond to a request for a comment. The lawsuit began in 2018, as DZ Reserve and other advertisers accused Facebook of inflating its advertising reach, by increasing the number of potential viewers by as much as 400%, and charging artificially high premiums for ad placements. They also said senior Facebook executives knew for years that the company's "potential reach" metric was inflated by duplicate and fake accounts, yet did nothing about it and took steps to cover it up. After calling out Meta's "blunderbuss" objections to class certification, Donato rejected its contention that the class was too diverse, including "large sophisticated corporations" as well as individuals and small businesses, and that it would be too hard to calculate damages. Donato also said it made sense to let individual plaintiffs sue as a group, given that "no reasonable person" would sue Meta individually to recover at most a $32 price premium. The judge is expected later this year to consider Meta's bid to dismiss the lawsuit. [GN] NEMAK USA: Harrington Seeks OT for Hourly-Paid Employees Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- HOPE HARRINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NEMAK USA INC., Case No. 22-cv-693 (E.D. Wisc., June 15, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of the employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the suit. The similarly situated employees include: "All hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint who have not been compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at the proper, correct, and/or lawful overtime rate of pay." Nemak specializes in the production of high complex aluminum components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com ONE DAY ROOFING: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Day Roofing, LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. One Day Roofing, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00883-LPL (W.D. Pa., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. One Day Roofing -- https://www.onedayroofing.com/ -- is a full exterior remodeling company that's main focus is to provide a top notch process from start to finish for the consumer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. P.O. Box 244 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Phone: (814) 777-5080 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com PACIFIC BELL: Denial of Class Certification in Meza Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVE MEZA, Plaintiff and Appellant v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B317119 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Three, issued an order: a. dismissing the appeal from the order disposing of Meza's claim under Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a)(6); b. reversing the order denying class certification with directions to the trial court to consider whether Meza is an adequate and typical class representative; and c. affirming the orders granting summary adjudication of Meza's section 226, subdivision (a)(9) and the PAGA claims. I. Introduction Mr. Meza filed the consolidated class action lawsuit against his former employer, Pacific Bell. Meza alleged Pacific Bell violated California law by failing to provide lawful meal and rest periods and failing to provide lawful itemized wage statements among other Labor Code violations. Mr. Meza appeals four trial court orders: (1) an order denying class certification to five meal and rest period classes (the class certification order); (2) an order granting summary adjudication of Meza's claim relating to wage statements under section 226, subdivision (a)(9) (the wage statement order); (3) an order striking Meza's claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(6) (the order to strike); and (4) an order granting summary adjudication of Meza's claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Section 2698 et seq.) (the PAGA order). II. Background Pacific Bell is a telecommunications corporation providing voice, video, data, internet and professional services to businesses, consumers, and government agencies. It has branches around the world, including in California. Pacific Bell hired Meza in January 2014 as a premises technician. Meza's duties included installing and repairing Pacific Bell's products and services including UVerse TV, telephones, and internet, transporting equipment and products to and from client locations, conducting pretrip and posttrip inspections of the company van, cleaning and maintaining the company van's interior, and keeping the company van stocked. Though not alleged in the complaint, Pacific Bell employed Meza until October 2015. In his operative second amended complaint, Meza alleged many Labor Code violations. Meza alleged that Pacific Bell failed to accurately document hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide legally required meal, failed to furnish accurate and complete wage statements, and failed to pay costs for the upkeep of uniforms. Based on the allegations of Labor Code violations, Meza asserted a claim for unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 and a claim under PAGA. Meza also asserted a claim for wrongful termination. Meza sought compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and penalties. In December 2017, Meza moved to certify six statewide classes of premises technicians, five of which pertained to Meza's meal and rest period claims, and one of which pertained to his wage statement claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(9). Pacific Bell opposed certification of the meal and rest period classes, arguing that its meal and rest period policies were facially compliant. Pacific Bell further argued that the 2011 guidelines on which Meza relied were not in effect during his employment, and that Meza testified that he had no recollection of receiving the operative guidelines. It also argued that Meza was an inadequate class representative because he "repeatedly lied in his deposition" and because of the circumstances of his discharge. The trial court denied Meza's class certification motion for the meal and rest period classes, stating, "While the policies are undisputed," "it appears that the actual management practices of Pacific Bell's supervisors result in a diverse application of the company's Premises Technician Guidelines" that renders the claims "unsuitable for class action treatment." Because it did not certify these proposed classes, the trial court did not address the argument that Meza was an inadequate class representative. The trial court certified a class to pursue Meza's wage statement claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(9). In 2018, Meza appealed the class certification order. The Fifth Appellate District dismissed this appeal in July 2020. It found that the order was not yet appealable under the death knell doctrine. In June 2018, Meza and Pacific Bell filed cross-motions for summary adjudication of the sole class claim that had been certified: Meza's wage statement claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(9). The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of Pacific Bell, ruling that the wage statements complied with the law. With this ruling, no further class claims remained in the case. In April 2019, Meza filed his third amended complaint. Meza added a claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(6) alleging that Pacific Bell's wage statements failed to accurately show the inclusive dates of the pay period. Pacific Bell filed a motion to strike these portions of the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim because Pacific Bell's pay statements listed the first and last day of the regular pay period. The court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend. In February 2020, Pacific Bell moved for summary adjudication of Meza's PAGA claim, arguing that a final, approved settlement in a prior action, Hudson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (Super. Ct. Sacramento County, 2016, No. 34-2016-00202203) (Hudson), barred Meza from pursuing his claim under the doctrines of res judicata and settlement and release. The Hudson action had alleged failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages (Sections 510, 1194, 1197); failure to provide compliant meal periods (Sections 226.7, 512); failure to provide rest periods (Section 226.7); failure to provide accurate wage statements (Section 226); failure to pay wages owed at termination (Sections 201, 202, 203); unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.); and derivative penalties under PAGA (Section 2698 et seq.). The court in Hudson granted final approval of a settlement and entered judgment. On July 24, 2020, the trial court granted Pacific Bell's summary adjudication motion. It agreed that Meza's PAGA claims were barred under the theory of res judicata. On July 28, 2020, Meza appealed to the Fifth Appellate District. On Dec. 20, 2021, the state Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Second Appellate District. III. Discussion A. Except for the order to strike, the trial court orders are appealable The right to appeal in California is generally governed by the 'one final judgment' rule, under which most interlocutory orders are not appealable." All four orders that Meza challenges are interlocutory orders. Because the existence of an appealable order is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal, the Court of Appeals firsts considers whether the orders are appealable. It concludes that Meza's appeal of the order to strike must be dismissed because Meza did not include it in his notice of appeal. It agrees that the other orders are appealable under the death knell doctrine, which allows immediate appeals of certain interlocutory orders that resolve all representative claims but leave individual claims intact. B. The trial court erred in denying certification based on inconsistent applications of Pacific Bell policies Mr. Meza contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying class certification. Specifically, Meza contends that the legality of the Pacific Bell company guidelines, communicated to Pacific Bell premises technicians in writing, is a common issue that should be resolved as to all class members. The Court of Appeals agrees. On the merits, it concludes that the trial court erred in refusing to certify the meal and rest period classes based on its conclusion that common issues do not predominate. On remand, however, the trial court must consider whether Meza is an adequate class representative, an issue it did not reach in its previous ruling. C. The trial court correctly granted summary adjudication as to Meza's wage statement claim Section 226, subdivision (a)(9) provides that an employee wage statement must include "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee." Meza contends Pacific Bell violated this statute by failing to include the "rate" and "hours" attributable to Pacific Bell's overtime true-up payments. Pacific Bell, supported by amici curiae, argues that its wage statement complies with the statute and that Meza's reading of the statute would expose employers to serious compliance burdens, disincentivize bonus pay, and result in confusing wage statements. The Court of Appeals finds no error in the trial court's order granting summary adjudication of Meza's claim on the basis that Pacific Bell's wage statements comply with the statutory requirements. It affirms the wage statement order and the PAGA order. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeals explains that the trial court correctly granted summary adjudication of Meza's wage statement claim because Pacific Bell's wage statements do not violate the Labor Code. D. The trial court correctly granted summary adjudication of Meza's PAGA claim Mr. Meza contends that the trial court improperly granted Pacific Bell's motion for summary adjudication of the PAGA claim. Meza argues that claim preclusion does not apply because the Hudson complaint did not allege the same predicate facts and violations of law as Meza alleged in this action. The parties do not dispute the essential facts, including the Hudson judgment and written release. As previously noted, the Court of Appeals reviews the order on summary judgment de novo. It holds that the trial court correctly granted summary adjudication of the PAGA claim because it was barred by claim preclusion in light of the settlement and dismissal of a previous PAGA lawsuit. IV. Disposition The appeal from the order disposing of Meza's Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a)(6) claim is dismissed. The order denying class certification is reversed with directions to the trial court to consider whether Meza is an adequate and typical class representative. The orders granting summary adjudication of Meza's section 226, subdivision (a)(9) and the PAGA claims are affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrys5bzc from Leagle.com. The Dion-Kindem Law Firm, Peter R. Dion-Kindem --peter@dion-kindemlaw.com; The Blanchard Law Group and Lonnie C. Blanchard -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- for the Plaintiff and Appellant. Paul Hastings, Raymond Bertrand -- raymondbertrand@paulhastings.com -- James de Haan -- jamesdehaan@paulhastings.com; Mayor Brown, Shaeff Jaffe and Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@schaerr-jaffe.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent. O'Melveny & Myers, Adam Karr -- akarr@omm.com -- and Heather Welles -- hwelles@omm.com -- for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and California Chamber of Commerce as Amici Curiae on behalf of the Defendant and Respondent. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Max C. Fischer -- max.fischer@morganlewis.com -- and Aimee Mackay -- aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com -- for California Employment Law Council and Employers Group as Amici Curiae on behalf of the Defendant and Respondent. PAPARAZZI LLC: Jewelry Products Aren't Lead, Nickel Free, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HeatherGilbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paparazzi, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-11339-SFC-CI (E.D. Mich., June 16, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of persons who purchased Paparazzi's necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and other accessories, which Plaintiff's testing has revealed contain lead and nickel, in contradiction to Paparazzi's express claims that its Products were lead and nickel free. According to the complaint, a central tenet of Paparazzi's marketing and sales strategy during the relevant time period was to prominently promote its Products as lead and nickel free. Paparazzi's marketing appeals were conspicuously saturated with such claims. In stark contrast to Paparazzi's pervasive marketing of its Products as lead and nickel free, the Plaintiff's independent testing, as well as test results obtained from other customers, has revealed that Paparazzi's Products do in fact contain significant amounts of lead and nickel, says the suit. Consumers lack the ability to ascertain the true contents of Paparazzi's Products prior to purchase. Accordingly, reasonable consumers must and do rely on Paparazzi to accurately and honestly disclose the materials in its Products. This is especially true for materials such as lead and nickel. Paparazzi made its "lead and nickel free" claims a central part of its marketing message to consumers in order to misleadingly create the impression that its Products are safer and of a higher level of quality than they are in reality, added the suit. As a direct result of Paparazzi's pervasive marketing campaign, customers reasonably relied and continue to rely on Paparazzi's widespread express false statements, misleading representations and material omissions and expected that its Products would be free of lead and nickel and, therefore, they mistakenly believed they would not be exposed to the adverse effects associated with these materials. As a result of Defendant Paparazzi's misconduct, false statements, misrepresentations and material omissions, the Plaintiff and proposed Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages, the suit alleges. Defendant Paparazzi designs, formulates, manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes, and sells women's and men's Products and, until about February 2022, children's Products. Paparazzi's business model is what is widely known as a multi-level marketing business, in which Paparazzi recruits salespersons to market and sell its Products to consumers for a commission. Paparazzi also claims its salespersons can earn large commissions and bonuses for recruiting other individuals to be Paparazzi salespersons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu III, Esq. Patrick Wallace, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP 6905 Telegraph Road, Ste. 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com pwallace@milberg.com - and - Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit Seeks $45-M in Refunds Over Handling Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Individuals, bars and restaurants statewide are a step closer to receiving refunds potentially worth tens of millions of dollars on orders of alcohol not carried at Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores, but which were required to be picked up there. The Commonwealth Court recently overruled the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's objections to a class action suit that seeks the return of an estimated $25 million to $45 million the PLCB collected since 2017 through its $1.75-per-bottle handling fee on such "special orders." The Log Cabin restaurant in Warwick Township is the lead plaintiff in the suit, which also asks for the PLCB to pay back "pick up expenses" incurred by restaurants, specialty stores and individual customers that were forced to drive to a store because the PLCB didn't allow direct shipments to a home or business. "We just want to have the ability to get stuff delivered so we don't have to drive somewhere to pick everything up," said Kirk Liddell, owner of The Log Cabin. A state law had directed PLCB to end its handling fees for special orders and allow direct shipping by June 2017. But the agency didn't make any change until earlier this month when it notified wine and liquor producers that "new in 2022, suppliers wishing to deliver (special orders) directly to licensees may do so." Those simple words from the PLCB were the culmination of a 2-year-old legal dispute that has earned the agency stern rebukes from a variety of judges and left it in the crosshairs of the class-action suit that could force it to pay back the tens of millions of dollars in fees it collected as an unwanted middleman. "When a state or state agency takes something that doesn't belong to it, it can't keep it," said John G. Papianou, a partner at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP in Philadelphia, and the lead attorney in the case. 'Dilatory and Obdurate' The PLCB has suffered a series of defeats in the matter, with the latest being a May 27 Commonwealth Court ruling in a separate case that found the agency liable for more than $100,000 in damages and more than $300,000 in legal fees. That ruling, which was issued on the same day as the recent Log Cabin order, was made in a case initially filed by two wine merchants in April 2020 after Gov. Tom Wolf's closure of state stores and licensee service centers made it impossible for them to sell products in the state. The PLCB had claimed it was not liable for damages because it enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning it can't be sued without its consent. But the Commonwealth Court's 3-2 ruling firmly rejected that argument. "This Court, having determined that the PLCB had a clear and unambiguous statutory duty to implement a procedure to process direct shipment (special orders) by June 1, 2017, . . . concludes that the PLCB's initial inaction was, at the very least, arbitrary, and its ongoing refusal to implement a procedure to process direct shipment (special orders) and continuing to assess handling fees is dilatory and obdurate," the May 27 ruling said. Merriam-Webster defines dilatory as "tending or intended to cause delay" and obdurate as "stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing." On June 3, the agency published its eight-page "Special Order Program Guide for Suppliers," which included the new section on "Direct Delivery of (special orders) to Licensees." A spokesman for the PLCB said the agency is "considering its next steps." Counting The Costs Barring an appeal to the state Supreme Court, the Log Cabin-led class-action lawsuit will proceed with a discovery phase Papianou expects will reveal exactly how much the PLCB has collected in handling fees between June 2017 and now. Based on the agency's published reports of sales of special orders, Papianou estimates an amount between $25 million and $45 million. An award in a class-action lawsuit could increase by "millions" if there is allowance made for travel and employee costs related to making pickups, he said. Determining exactly how much PLCB's policy cost The Log Cabin would be difficult since it would be hard to put an exact dollar figure on the expense of sending an employee on the 40-minute round trip to the PLCB's licensee service center near Lancaster. "Our suit is to say, 'Hey, can we recover some of these fees we had to incur during this whole long wait to get the system up and running?'" Liddell said. While the PLCB has now given the go-ahead for direct shipments, Liddell says he is still waiting to hear from suppliers about how those will work, and if the suppliers will charge their own fees. He suspects they will have fees but doubts they will be as hefty as PLCB's $1.75-per-bottle levy. Although the case bears his restaurant's name, Liddell says he doesn't actually have much to do with how the class-action suit proceeds. The lawyers have asked him for insight into how the PLCB's system works, but he isn't incurring legal fees, and would realize the same payment as any other restaurant if the suit succeeds. In the unlikely event that the case goes to trial, he would have to testify. "As the lead plaintiff, you're really not in control of the lawsuit, per se, because it is a representative class and the lawyers represent the class," said Liddell, who earned a law degree at the University of Chicago. "If the Cabin decided it didn't want to be part of the lawsuit, there would be someone else. There's no great advantage to be the lead. I just agreed to it." [GN] PETLAND INC: Covino Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- FLAVIA COVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PETLAND, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-21852 (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephonic sales calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, to promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members , including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant. The Plaintiff was the regular user of a cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Specifically, the Defendant initiated and directed the transmission of unsolicited advertisement or telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number to sell goods, services or products in Florida. Plaintiff's telephone number has an area code that specifically coincides with locations in Florida, and Plaintiff received such messages while residing in and physically present in Florida, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as: -- DNC Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) were sent more than one text message call within any 12-month period; (2) where the person's telephone number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (3) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services; (4) who did not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first message; and (5) who did not contact Defendant during the three months immediately preceding the date of the first message with an inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by Defendant;" -- FTSA Class: "All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call the Plaintiff;" -- Seller Identification Class: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services, (3) that did not disclose the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted." Petland is a privately owned operator and franchisor of pet stores based in Chillicothe, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 PILGRIM AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delahaye Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAMES DELAHAYE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PILGRIM AUTO, LLC, and MARTIN YOUNCE, Case No. 5:22-cv-11341 (E.D. Mich., June 16, 2022) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay proper wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a week for Defendants. Other Mechanics also regularly or occasionally worked over 40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other Mechanics 1.5x their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 each week. The Plaintiff and other Mechanics are entitled to 1.5x their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 each week, says the suit. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other Mechanics were working hours for which they were not paid an overtime premium. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, the suit added. Pilgrim Auto's registered agent for service of process is Martin Younce at 280 Ann Arbor Road, Plymouth, Michigan. Separate Defendant Martin Younce ("Younce") is an individual and resident of Michigan. The Defendants own and operate auto repair shops in Michigan. The Defendants employ two or more individuals who engage in interstate commerce or business transactions, or who produce goods to be transported or sold in interstate commerce, or who handle, sell, or otherwise work with goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for interstate commerce, such as auto parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PILOT TRAVEL: Bid to Compel Waltrip to Arbitration Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JUSTON WALTRIP, et al., Plaintiffs v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, et al., Defendant, Civ. No. 21-642 GBW/KRS (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued an order: a. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability; b. grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitrability; c. grants in part, denies in part, and defers judgment in part the Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action Waiver; and d. denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. I. Background The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated truck drivers in violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 50-4-19 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. On Oct. 27, 2021, the Defendants moved the Court to compel arbitration, enforce class action waivers, and dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint, contending that its claims "are barred because the Plaintiffs expressly waived their rights to proceed as a class or collective, and affirmatively agreed to resolve any and all disputes through binding, individual arbitration." The Plaintiffs timely responded on Nov. 29, 2021. Briefing was complete on Dec. 27, 2021, with the timely filing of the Defendants' reply. On March 31, 2022, the Defendants filed a notice of recent supplemental authority, informing the Court that the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar had granted their Motions to Compel Arbitration and Enforce Class Action Waiver in a companion case involving many of the same parties. Meanwhile, on Nov. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved the Court for a jury trial on arbitrability in their Response to the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery, contending that a genuine factual dispute about contract formation exists. The Defendants opposed this request for procedural impropriety and lack of such a factual issue. On Dec. 14, 2021, the Court denied this initial jury trial request for being made in a response brief rather than a separate motion. On Jan. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs renewed their request for a jury trial via in their Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability. The Defendants responded in opposition on Feb. 3, 2022, contending that the Plaintiffs' request for a jury trial is untimely and no genuine issues of material facts exist. Briefing was complete on this motion on Feb. 17, 2022, with the filing of the Plaintiffs' reply. II. Analysis The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") permits a party to move the Court to compel arbitration of issues covered by a valid arbitration agreement. Substantively, the movant must show that (i) the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate; and (ii) their dispute falls within that agreement's scope. Formation "must always be decided by a court." Courts also decide arbitrability -- i.e., whether the parties' dispute falls within the scope of their arbitration agreement -- unless there is "clear and unmistakable evidence" that the parties agreed to delegate this issue to the arbitrator. Arbitrable disputes include not only the interpretation of an agreement's scope but also gateway issues such as the agreement's enforceability as a matter of public policy. Procedurally, a motion to compel arbitration resembles a motion for summary judgment: The party moving to compel arbitration bears the initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an enforceable agreement and the opposing party's failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate; if it does so, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of an agreement or the failure to comply therewith. "Evidence need not be submitted 'in a form that would be admissible at trial'" but its "content or substance must be admissible." Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing arbitration, the Court takes a "quick look" at the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. "An issue is 'genuine' if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way. An issue of fact is `material' if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim." If a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the Court proceeds to a summary trial to clarify the facts. Otherwise, it resolves the two-part inquiry as a matter of law without trial. In the case, Judge Wormuth concludes that all the Plaintiffs except Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, and Rocha must arbitrate their disputes with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs other than these three executed arbitration agreements with the Defendants, which contain conscionable provisions that clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. Except for Plaintiffs Olivas and Sanchez, the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, and Rocha must arbitrate as individuals because their arbitration agreements waive class arbitration, and these waivers are not unconscionable. Whether Plaintiffs Olivas and Sanchez may arbitrate as a class is an issue for the arbitrator to decide. As for Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha, Judge Wormuth finds genuine issues of material fact exist about whether they formed agreements to arbitrate with the Defendants. These factual disputes will be resolved via a summary jury trial. The Plaintiffs' request for a jury trial in their Response to the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability is sufficient to invoke their statutory right to a jury trial provided in 9 U.S.C. Section 4, even if the general jury demand in the Plaintiffs' complaint is not. Judge Wormuth denies that request for being raised in a response but exercises discretion to revisit that interlocutory order and grant Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha a jury trial. Finally, as for Plaintiff Guerrero, Judge Wormuth holds that the Defendants present no evidence that he formed any agreement to arbitrate (as Plaintiff Guerrero opted into the collective action after Defendants filed their Motions). Therefore, he denies their Motions as to him without prejudice to their renewal. III. Disposition For the reasons he stated, Judge Wormuth: (i) revisits the Plaintiffs' Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability in their Response to the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery, grants this Motion in part as to Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha, and denies this Motion in part as to other Plaintiffs; (ii) denies the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability as moot; (iii) grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitrability in part as to the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, and Rocha, denies this Motion in part as to Plaintiff Guerrero, and defers judgment on this Motion in part as to the Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha pending a summary jury trial to resolve genuine issues of material fact; (iv) grants the Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action Waivers in part as to the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, Rocha, Olivas, and Sanchez, denies this Motion in part as to Plaintiffs Guerrero, Olivas, and Sanchez, and defers judgment on this Motion in part as to Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha pending a summary jury trial to resolve genuine issues of material fact; and (v) denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all the Plaintiffs. All denials as to Plaintiff Guerrero are without prejudice to the parties' renewing their motions as to him. The Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, and Rocha will arbitrate their disputes with the Defendants. The case is stayed as to these Plaintiffs for the pendency of their arbitration. The Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Olivas and Sanchez will arbitrate as individuals. The parties will appear for a telephonic trial scheduling conference on July 20, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. to address the scheduling and location of the summary jury trial for Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha and other significant pre-trial hearings. The parties will call Judge Wormuth's teleconference line at (877) 402-9753, access code 7578461, to connect to the proceedings. The parties will meet and confer about the Order's application to Plaintiff Guerrero under the following schedule: (i) the Defendants shall, within two weeks of the entry of the Order, serve the Plaintiffs with any exhibits about Plaintiff Guerrero's agreement to arbitrate and/or waive class proceedings that they would attach to any forthcoming motion to compel arbitration and/or enforce class action waivers; (ii) the Plaintiffs shall, within one week of their receipt of the Defendants' exhibits, serve the Defendants with any exhibits about Plaintiff Guerrero's agreement (or non-agreement) that they would use to oppose that forthcoming motion; and (iii) the parties will meet and confer about the Order's application to Plaintiff Guerrero and cooperatively file a Joint Status Report about their conclusions within four weeks of the entry of the Order. If the parties do not reach a consensus about the Order's application to Plaintiff Guerrero, the Court will set briefing deadlines for the applicable motions for Plaintiff Guerrero at the telephonic trial scheduling conference. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3fcyu3 from Leagle.com. PIONEER METAL: Unlawfully Pays Non-Exempt Employees, Moore Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PIONEER METAL FINISHING, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-692 (E.D. Wisc., June 15, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, the suit added. Pioneer Metal is a manufacturer and metal finishing company that owns, operates, and managed multiple physical locations across the United States, including in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com PORCH.COM INC: Liberti CFA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PAUL LIBERTI and SUZANNE LIBERTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PORCH.COM, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. BUR-L-865-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Burlington, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-03816-KMW-EAP to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer-Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Contractor's Registration Act, the Home Improvement Contractor Registration Regulations, and the Home Improvement Practices Regulations. Porch.com, Inc. is a company that operates an online website which connects homeowners with local home improvement contractors, based in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Spizzuco, Jr., Esq. BRACH EICHLER LLC 101 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-5700 Facsimile: (973) 618-5944 E-mail: mspizzuco@bracheichler.com PROBST PRESERVES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Probst Preserves Inc. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Probst Preserves Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05033 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Probst Preserves Inc. is located in Heber City, Utah and is part of the Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Snoddy FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JIM SNODDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00096, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01935 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Mr. Snoddy worked for the Defendant as a directional drilling supervisor from approximately October 2017 through February 2020. Professional Directional Enterprises, Inc. is a provider of horizontal and directional drilling services to oil and gas operators throughout the United States, located in Conroe, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sue L. Robinson, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, 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 - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: 6th Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing Cowley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSHUA COWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1635 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacates the district court's order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution and remands for reconsideration. I. Introduction In 2019, Cowley sued Prudential in the Eastern District of California. But Prudential got the case transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan. Not too long afterwards, the Eastern District of Michigan issued a notice instructing the parties' counsel to file appearances. The notice advised that attorneys must be admitted to practice in their new venue before they can appear on the docket. And so Cowley's legal team set out to find a local lawyer to sponsor their admission. But they took an awfully long time going about it, and several months went by without an appearance and without any communication to the trial court. Believing that Cowley had abandoned the litigation, and without warning, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. But the district court's brief order did not address the circuit's four-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute. Cowley appeals. II. Background Mr. Cowley worked for Prudential as a security guard. In 2019, he filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of California, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a collection of California wage and hour laws. He claimed that Prudential underpaid its security guards and denied them meal and rest periods. Skip ahead to July 2020, and Prudential moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan. The court granted that motion several months later, in January 2021. Sometime between January and March, Cowley's counsel called the Eastern District of Michigan to find out when the docket would open in their new venue. But the clerk's office did not provide a specific date. The Eastern District of Michigan opened the docket on March 3, 2021. And on that same day, it issued a text-only notice. To comply with local rules, Cowley, whose counsel was not a member of the State Bar of Michigan, was required to "specify as local counsel a member of the bar of [the Eastern District of Michigan] with an office in the district." Cowley claims he "ramped up his search for local counsel in earnest" almost two weeks after receiving the district court's notice, beginning on March 15, 2021. Of course, Cowley had known about the transfer as early as January. Three months passed without any updates from Cowley's counsel. On June 11, 2021, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court issued a three-sentence order finding that "the parties had clearly abandoned the litigation." Even though the dismissal was without prejudice, it created some issues for Cowley as a practical matter. That's because the FLSA's two-year statute of limitations narrows his claim significantly. The timing of the dismissal would cabin Cowley's damages and require him to reckon with a willfulness requirement as well. Mr. Cowley, having located local counsel, followed up with a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from dismissal. He claimed, despite his months-long radio silence, that his California counsel had worked diligently to pin down local counsel. As Cowley put it, his lawyers spent several weeks "engaging in diligent efforts to research and obtain referrals" before eventually reaching out to potential counsel in April 2021. Negotiations allegedly lasted a couple months for some reason, and Cowley finally sealed the deal at the tail-end of June 2021. But in September 2021, the district court denied Cowley's motion for relief from dismissal. And so Cowley appealed. III. Discussion When evaluating Rule 41(b) dismissals for failure to prosecute, the Sixth Circuit applies a four-factor test. More specifically, it must consider "(1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered." Under the first factor of its test, the Sixth Circuit has emphasized -- even where the dismissal was without prejudice -- that "the dismissal of 'a claim for failure to prosecute is a harsh sanction which the court should order only in extreme situations showing a clear record of contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.'" Contumacious conduct means "stubbornly disobedient and willfully contemptuous." Or put another way, the court should ask, before choosing to dismiss the case: Did Cowley "display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of his conduct on those proceedings"? While counsel's conduct was dilatory, the Sixth Circuit opines that the facts seem to fall a bit short of this bar. But the district court might see it differently, in which case the Sixth Circuit would review any such finding for clear error. The Sixth Circuit must also consider prejudice. When considering prejudice, it normally looks to whether the non-dilatory party "wasted time, money, and effort in pursuit of cooperation which it was legally obligated to provide." Prudential contends that because this is a wage and hour action, the potential damages continued to grow with every delay. On the other hand, Prudential did not enter an appearance either, and Cowley's counsel represented that the parties continued to negotiate a settlement during the period Cowley let the docket sit idle. And as to the third and fourth factors, the district court did not issue a warning or "consider the imposition of less severe alternative sanctions before dismissing the case." But because no parties had appeared on the docket, a dismissal without prejudice may have been the least severe sanction the court could have imposed at the time. Now that the parties have appeared, however, the court remains free to consider Cowley's conduct, and any prejudice it caused to Prudential, in fashioning an alternative sanction less severe than dismissal should it conclude that dismissal is not appropriate under the test set out. IV. Conclusion The Sixth Circuit vacates the district court's order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution and remands for reconsideration consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ky68bzr from Leagle.com. RALPH LAUREN: Faces Class Suit Over Sweaters' Pima Cotton Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Balsamini at Ralph Lauren Corp. tried to pull the wool over the eyes of customers who bought one of their pricey sweaters, a woman claims in a class-action lawsuit. The sweater saga began in November 2019 when Texas resident Gloria Miramontes bought a women's burgundy lightweight V-neck from a Ralph Lauren Polo Factory store in El Paso. Miramontes believed the sweater was made exclusively of pima cotton based on the tags, which boasted, "Fine luxurious yarns crafted from Pima Cotton fibers distinguish this signature design, knit in a fine gauge stitch for lightweight comfort and an exquisitely soft hand," court documents show. Pima cotton is a higher-end product with a longer fiber than conventional cotton. It has a reputation for producing a smooth fabric that's soft to the touch, wrinkle-resistant, and ultra-durable. But consumers were short-changed, the Manhattan Federal Court lawsuit alleges, because the fibers in the sweater were a few tenths of an inch too short to be pima, which the US Department of Agriculture measures at 1.3125 inches long on average. Lab tests proved the Ralph Lauren sweaters weren't 100% pima cotton, said Miramontes' attorney, Spencer Sheehan. Miramontes claims she would not have forked over $39.99 if she had known it was not entirely pima, the suit says. Pima cotton is typically more expensive, so "there is great incentive to mix cotton byproducts and shorter fibers with higher value longer fibers," according to the court papers, which were filed in New York based on the Manhattan location of Polo's headquarters, plaintiff's attorneys said. The Lauren V-neck sweater was sold in "thousands of locations," according to the $5 million class action lawsuit, which includes customers from 19 states, including New York. The Ralph Lauren Corp. declined comment. Lauren is not named individually as a defendant. [GN] RED ROBIN: Avalos-Aviles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Robin International Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Jesus Avalos-Aviles, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Red Robin International Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00320877-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 31, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- https://www.redrobin.com/ -- more commonly known as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews or simply Red Robin, is an American chain of casual dining restaurants founded in September 1969 in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orlando J Villalba, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8002 Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com REMINGTON SEEDS: Haenlein Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Haenlein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Remington Seeds, LLC, Case No. 2022CH03768 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02849 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Remington Seeds -- https://remingtonseeds.com/ -- is recognized as the lead provider in the corn, soybean and wheat seed industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam John Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC 73 West Monroe Street, 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (973) 476-5650 Email: aflorek@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Paul A. Lesko, Esq. 3853 Dutch Bottom Road Arnold, MO 63010 Email: plesko@simmonsfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory P. Abrams, Esq. Justin O'Neill Kay, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 South Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 569-1000 Email: gregory.abrams@faegredrinker.com Email: justin.kay@faegredrinker.com - and - Taylor Lee Haran, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 311 South Wacker, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-2268 Email: taylor.haran@faegredrinker.com RIO GRANDE: Uranga Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- SARLA URANGA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. RIO GRANDE PIZZA, INC., and GORDON E. NELSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00452-LF-KK (D.N.M., June 15, 2022) is a collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. According to the complaint, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from March 2019 to October 2020 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store located in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Gordon E. Nelson is the director of corporate Defendant Rio Grande Pizza Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com ROB ROY: Palkon Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------- Dennis Palkon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROB ROY, DONALD D. SNYDER, ANGELA N. ARCHON, JASON GENRICH, LIANE J. PELLETIER, ZAREH SARRAFIAN, KIMBERLY H. SHEEHY, THOMAS A. THOMAS, BRYAN E. WOLF, DIGITALBRIDGE GROUP INC., IFM INVESTORS PTY LTD, SUNSHINE BIDCO INC., SUNSHINE MERGER SUB, LTD., AND SUNSHINE PARENT MERGER SUB INC., Case No. A-22-853216-B (Nev. 18th Judicial Ct., Clark Cty., May 26, 2022), is brought on behalf all other public stockholders of Switch, Inc. against the Company's Board of Directors (the "Individual Defendants"), DigitalBridge Group, Inc., and IFM Investors Pty Ltd (collectively referred to herein as the "Defendants"), seeking to enjoin Individual Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair process that was tilted in favor of DigitalBridge and IFM (the "Proposed Acquisition"). The Company's most recent quarterly report demonstrated the success of Switch's business. On May 10, 2022, after the market closed, the Company announced increased revenue, income from operations, and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"). However, Switch's stockholders were unable to benefit from these stellar financial results. The next day, on May 11, 2022, Defendants announced that the Board had agreed to sell Switch to affiliates of DigitalBridge and IFM, wherein DigitalBridge and IFM will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Switch for just $34.25 per share in cash (the "Proposed Consideration"), in a transaction valued at approximately $11 billion. Upon completion of the Proposed Acquisition, Switch will become a privately held company and its shares will no longer be listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The Proposed Acquisition is the result of an unfair and self-serving process that produced consideration of $34.25 per share, which materially undervalues the Company. The Proposed Consideration represents just an 11.5% premium over the Company's average stock price for the month before the announcement. By comparison, similar transactions over the past three years average a one month premium of nearly 35%. In addition, at least three analysts have target prices over the Proposed Acquisition. The Proposed Acquisition, however, allows key individuals to cash out their significant Switch holdings, while also maintaining their lucrative and prestigious positions. In particular, defendant Rob Roy ("Roy"), Switch's founder and Chief Executive Officer, will receive nearly $100 million in merger consideration, including over $37 million in accelerated vesting of stock awards. Defendant Thomas A. Thomas ("Thomas") will receive over $107 million in merger consideration. They will be about to receive this over $200 million in cash immediately upon the close of the Proposed Acquisition without worrying that their sales will drive down the price of Switch's stock. Further, Switch will retain its key management after the close of the Proposed Acquisition, including defendant Roy. Further, the Proposed Acquisition is subject to a number of "deal protection" devices that ensure that Switch will only be sold to the Individual Defendants' preferred acquirer. In particular, the Merger Agreement contains a "no solicitation" provision, preventing the Board from seeking other bidders for the Company. In the unlikely event that a bidder does emerge on its own without solicitation and offers a superior bid, DitigalBridge and IFM have four days to match any potential offer. Most egregiously, the Board agreed to a termination fee of $260 million. In the event Switch decides to enter into a transaction with a superior bidder, the Merger Agreement requires switch to pay the $260 million to DigitalBridge and IFM. This payment represents approximately 5.05% of the total equity value of the Proposed Acquisition and increases the amount that a competing bidder would have to offer to acquire the Company by at least $1.73 per share before it would even potentially qualify as a superior proposal under the Merger Agreement. In pursuing their unlawful plan to merge Switch into DigitalBridge and IFM, the Individual Defendants, who are directors and officers of Switch, have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care. The other Defendants have aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, says the complaint. The Non-defendant Switch is a technology infrastructure ecosystem corporation whose core business is the design, construction and operation of advanced data centers. The Plaintiff is an owner of Switch stock. The Defendant Roy has been Switch's CEO and Chairman of the Board since June 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Aldrich, Esq. ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. 7866 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Phone: (702) 853-5490 Facsimile: (702) 227-1975 Email: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Eric M. Carrino, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 Email: brobbins@robbinsllp.com soddo@robbinsllp.com ecarrino@robbinsllp.com SAN DIEGO: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $1-M ------------------------------------------------------------ Recently, San Diego Family Care (SDFC) settled a class action related to a 2020 data breach for $1 million. The class includes all SDFC patients (or their parents/guardians) who received a breach notification in May 2021. SDFC offers patients primary care services as well as dental and mental health care, has eight health centers in San Diego and examines thousands of patients. In December 2020, SDFC was the victim of a data breach, leading to the unauthorized disclosure of names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, account numbers, treatment information, insurance data, and other sensitive patient data. The breach occurred as a result of SDFC's technology-hosting provider's lax security safeguards. The provider was the victim of a breach, which led to the attack on SDFC. SDFC stated in the notification letter that it learned of the breach in January 2021. The complaints in the consolidated class actions allege that SDFC failed to protect patients' information during the 2020 data breach, and that SDFC did not promptly notify patients upon learning of the breach so they could take steps to protect themselves from identity theft or other harm. Eligible class members may receive cash payments up to $100 and may also submit documentation for reimbursement for ordinary out-of-pocket expenses of up to $1,000 and up to $5,000 for extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses. Each class member may also redeem identity theft protection services within 90 days of receiving a code for such services. The court is scheduled to issue its final approval of the settlement on July 29, 2022, and class members have until July 15, 2022, to submit a claim for reimbursement. [GN] SANTANDER SECURITIES: U.S. Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- On May 20, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a bank and its affiliates (the "Bank"). Ponsa-Rabell v. Santander Sec. LLC, et al., No. 20-01857 (1st Cir. May 20, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged the Bank devised a scheme to defraud investors into purchasing Puerto Rican government bonds by omitting material information about the state of the market and about its own alleged program to rid itself of those securities. The appeal did not pertain to the district court's dismissal of claims under Section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act or Plaintiffs' claims brought under Puerto Rican law for which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing plaintiffs' securities claims. According to the Complaint, the Bank acted as broker to plaintiffs who allegedly purchased Puerto Rico Municipal Bonds, Puerto Rico Closed End Funds, and Puerto Rico Open End Funds (collectively the "PRMB securities") from December 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013 (the "Putative Class Period"). Plaintiffs alleged that the PRMB securities were marketed to the public via fund-specific prospectuses that disclosed the fund's investment objectives, risk factors, and tax consequences, along with investment risks associated with each particular fund. According to the Complaint, the PRMB securities were "attractive investments" that offered relatively high interest and were exempt from Puerto Rican and Federal income and estate taxes. Shortly before the Putative Class Period, however, the Complaint alleges that Puerto Rico began experiencing an economic recession, which made investments in the PRMB securities particularly risky. Plaintiffs alleged that during the recession, Puerto Rico issued billions of dollars in PRMB securities and used the proceeds to pay off existing debts rather than to stimulate the Puerto Rican economy. Puerto Rico's deficit allegedly increased to approximately $2.2 billion and became unpayable. According to the Complaint, in 2012, various public sources began warning about the increased risks of holding PRMB securities, including a March 2012 published report that warned that Puerto Rico was "flirting with insolvency", and an August 2012 report from Moody's Investor Service ("Moody's") lowering Puerto Rico's bond credit rating to Baa1 and advising that "[c]onservative investors . . . should pursue portfolio diversification." Plaintiffs' alleged that on December 13, 2012, Moody's again downgraded Puerto Rico's credit rating to Baa3, "just above junk bond status." The Complaint alleges that the bond market "crashed" in the fall of 2013, resulting in financial losses for all those who invested in PRMB securities. Plaintiffs alleged that leading up to this crash, the Bank actively tried to rid itself of its PRMB securities inventory "at an accelerated pace," which, according to plaintiffs, motivated the Bank to sell the securities to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against the Bank four years after the crash, alleging that they never would have purchased the PRMB securities if the Bank had disclosed the risk of the crash. The district court dismissed the federal securities claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Section 10(b) claims-specifically, whether plaintiffs sufficiently pled (i) a material misrepresentation or omission, and (ii) scienter. The First Circuit first considered the misstatement or omission element of plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim. Plaintiffs alleged that two disclosures in the fund prospectus were "fatally defective" because of information the Bank omitted. In the disclosures, the Bank allegedly disclosed that "there is no Assurance that a Secondary Market for the Offered Bonds will Develop," and that "the Underwriters are not obligated to do so [meaning to guarantee a secondary market] and any such market making may be discontinued at any time at the sole discretion of the Underwriters." Plaintiffs contended that these disclosures did not include material facts which were necessary to make them not misleading; namely, that market conditions were deteriorating in Puerto Rico and that the Bank was selling off its own inventory of PRMB securities for that very reason. Plaintiffs further alleged that even if the omitted information was public, it did not relieve the Bank of its duty to disclose the information at the time plaintiffs allegedly purchased the PRMB securities, or of its ongoing obligation to update its prospectuses. In affirming the district court's decision, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Bank should have disclosed information regarding the deteriorating market conditions, holding that the Bank "was simply not under any duty to repeat information already known or readily accessible to investors." In so holding, the Court maintained that "it is not a material omission to fail to point out information of which the market is already aware" and added that "plaintiffs' own complaint points to public statements about the deteriorating economy in Puerto Rico." Turning to plaintiffs' allegation that the Bank should have disclosed that it was divesting itself of the PRMB securities, the Court similarly affirmed the district court's dismissal. In particular, the Court distinguished Tutor Perini Corp. v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC, 842 F.3d 71, 90 (1st Cir. 2016), a case in which a bank allegedly knew the market for a particular security was "on the brink of collapse" when it allegedly encouraged plaintiff to purchase more of the securities while rapidly selling the same securities. The Court distinguished Tutor on the basis that the bank there had a "special relationship" with plaintiff as its investment advisor; whereas, in contrast here, plaintiffs made no allegations that they had a special relationship or had given any particularized investment instructions to the Bank that would support a duty to disclose. The Court determined that plaintiffs merely alleged that the Bank "solicited" (or recommended) they purchase the PRMB securities, and that their investment objectives were to "preserve capital" and "current fixed income." Further, the Court held that, unlike in Tutor, plaintiffs made no allegation that the Bank promised to outline the risks of their investment or failed to inform plaintiffs of a market crash they knew was occurring. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege an actionable omission. After making his finding, the Court noted that it was able to avoid a lengthy analysis concerning whether plaintiffs sufficiently pled scienter. [GN] SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Aubrey Woods at tribtown.com reports that Schneck Medical Center faces a class action lawsuit related to a data breach that occurred Sept. 29, 2021. That lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jalen Nierman and all others who may have been affected by the data breach, which he contends the Seymour hospital deliberately underplayed its severity and misrepresented there was no evidence cybercriminals had "misused" the stolen information even though Schneck knew the cybercriminals had infiltrated its systems for months without detection. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Columbus man in Jackson Superior Court I in Brownstown by the Indianapolis law firm of Cohen and Malad LLP and the Madison, Wisconsin, law firm of Turke and Strauss LLP. According to a prepared statement from the hospital, "Schneck Medical Center has no evidence that any of the information was or will be misused; however, out of an abundance of caution, Schneck notified individuals whose information was included in the limited number of files involved in this incident. Notified individuals have been provided with credit monitoring services where applicable and best practices to protect their information. As a team of dedicated and caring medical professionals, we understand that health care is about people taking care of people, and Schneck is committed to its patients, their treatment and their families as well as to protecting the privacy and security of their personal information." The lawsuit further contends Schneck had lost control of at least 92,000 of its former and current patients' highly sensitive personal and medical information to cybercriminals and then failed to adequately notify victims of the breach. The stolen personal health information included at least patients' names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, financial account and/or credit card information, medical records and diagnoses, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers, according to the lawsuit. The 16-page lawsuit also contends cybercriminals were able to breach Schneck's systems because the hospital did not maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect its patients' PHI, leaving it an unguarded target for theft and misuse. It further contends Schneck's failure to timely detect and notify breach victims violates Indiana law and has made its patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their public health information. Because of the data breach, Schneck also failed to adhere to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 aka HIPAA, according to court documents. The lawsuit, which seeks damages to be determined, asks the judge to direct Schneck to adequately safeguard the personal health information of the plaintiff by implementing improved security procedures and measures and provide notice to each member of the class relating to full nature and extent of the data breach and the disclosure of protected health information to unauthorized persons. On or about May 17, Schneck started notifying breach victims that hackers had gained unauthorized access to patients' confidential personal identifying information and/or protected health information. [GN] SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- therepublic.com reports that Schneck Medical Center faces a class action lawsuit related to a data breach that occurred Sept. 29, 2021. That lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jalen Nierman and all others who may have been affected by the data breach, which he contends the Seymour hospital deliberately underplayed its severity and misrepresented there was no evidence cybercriminals had "misused" the stolen information even though Schneck knew the cybercriminals had infiltrated its systems for months without detection. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Columbus man in Jackson Superior Court I in Brownstown by the Indianapolis law firm of Cohen and Malad LLP and the Madison, Wisconsin, law firm of Turke and Strauss LLP. Schneck officials issued a statement, saying "Schneck Medical Center has no evidence that any of the information was or will be misused. However, out of an abundance of caution, Schneck notified individuals whose information was included in the limited number of files involved in this incident. Notified individuals have been provided with credit monitoring services where applicable, and best practices to protect their information. As a team of dedicated and caring medical professionals, we understand that healthcare is about people taking care of people and Schneck is committed to its patients, their treatment and their families - as well as to protecting the privacy and security of their personal information." The lawsuit contends Schneck had lost control of at least 92,000 of its former and current patients' highly sensitive personal and medical information to cybercriminals and then failed to adequately notify victims of the breach. The stolen personal health information included at least patients' names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, financial account and/or credit card information, medical records and diagnoses, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers, according to the lawsuit. The 16-page lawsuit also contends cybercriminals were able to breach Schneck's systems because the hospital did not maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect its patients' PHI, leaving it an unguarded target for theft and misuse. It further contends Schneck's failure to timely detect and notify breach victims violates Indiana law and has made its patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their public health information. Because of the data breach, Schneck also failed to adhere to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 aka HIPPA, according to court documents. The lawsuit, which seeks damages to be determined, asks the judge to direct Schneck to adequately safeguard the personal health information of the plaintiff by implementing improved security procedures and measures and provide notice to each member of the class relating to full nature and extent of the data breach and the disclosure of protected health information to unauthorized persons. On or about May 17, Schneck started notifying breach victims that hackers had gained unauthorized access to patients' confidential personal identifying information and/or protected health information. [GN] SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Schneck Medical Center faces a class action lawsuit related to a data breach that occurred Sept. 29, 2021. That lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jalen Nierman and all others who may have been affected by the data breach, which he contends the Seymour hospital deliberately underplayed its severity and misrepresented there was no evidence cybercriminals had "misused" the stolen information even though Schneck knew the cybercriminals had infiltrated its systems for months without detection. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Columbus man in Jackson Superior Court I in Brownstown by the Indianapolis law firm of Cohen and Malad LLP and the Madison, Wisconsin, law firm of Turke and Strauss LLP. Schneck did not respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit. The lawsuit further contends Schneck had lost control of at least 92,000 of its former and current patients' highly sensitive personal and medical information to cybercriminals and then failed to adequately notify victims of the breach. The stolen personal health information included at least patients' names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, financial account and/or credit card information, medical records and diagnoses, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers, according to the lawsuit. The 16-page lawsuit also contends cybercriminals were able to breach Schneck's systems because the hospital did not maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect its patients' PHI, leaving it an unguarded target for theft and misuse. It further contends Schneck's failure to timely detect and notify breach victims violates Indiana law and has made its patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their public health information. Because of the data breach, Schneck also failed to adhere to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 aka HIPPA, according to court documents. [GN] SECURITY KING: Clarke Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Clarke, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Security King International LLC, Bee Amato, and Akiva "Doe", Case No. 1:22-cv-05082 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. Mr. Clarke was employed as a security guard at Defendants' security company. He was employed as a non-managerial employee at Security King International company from August 2020 through and including October 2020. The Defendants own, operate and/or control Security King International, located at 12 College Road, Monsey, New York. The Individual Defendants possess operational control over the Corporate Defendant, possess an ownership interest in the Corporate Defendant, and controls significant functions of the Corporate Defendant. The Defendants are associated and joint employers, act in the interest of each other with respect to employees, pay employees by the same method, and share control over the employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com SGE MGMT: $10-Mil. Award of Attorneys' Fees in Torres Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Scott M. Clearman, individually and on behalf of The Clearman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Appellant v. Andrew Jack Kochanowski, individually and on behalf of Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Eric Franklin Citron, individually and on behalf of Goldstein & Russell, P.C.; Jeffrey West Burnett, individually and on behalf of Jeffery W. Burnett, P.C.; Matthew J.M. Prebeg, individually and on behalf of Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, P.L.L.C.; Juan Ramon Torres, as Representative of the Estate of Eugene Robison; Christopher Robison, as Representative of the Estate of Eugene Robison; Lucas ("Luke") Thomas, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals; Thomas C. Goldstein, individually and on behalf of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Appellees, Case No. 21-20518 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's award of approximately $10 million in attorneys' fees after the settlement of the class action. I. Introduction The appeal arises from the district court's award of approximately $10 million in attorneys' fees after the settlement of the class action. The Fifth Circuit first reviewed the fee award in 2019 but, because the district court failed to apply the factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), overruled on other grounds, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989), it vacated and remanded with instructions to the district court to elaborate on its reasoning. See Torres v. SGE Mgmt., L.L.C. ("Torres I"), 945 F.3d 347, 355 (5th Cir. 2019). At issue now is whether the district court properly explained its findings and reasonings under the Johnson framework on remand. II. Background On remand, Appellant Scott Clearman successfully moved to recuse Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt from the proceedings and the matter was transferred to Judge Charles R. Eskridge, III -- Torres v. SGE Mgmt., LLC ("Torres II"), No. 4:09-cv-02056, 2021 WL 3661528, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2021). Judge Eskridge directed the parties to address their positions under the Johnson framework with respect to the record previously before Judge Hoyt. After independently reviewing all materials and considering each of the Johnson factors, Judge Eskridge adopted the original fee award. Mr. Clearman, who sought between 30% and 50% of the award and received roughly 15%, challenges the allocation. All other counsel ("Appellees") argue that the allocation is fair and reasonable. III. Analysis The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court's award of attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion, its factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an erroneous application of the law or on a clearly erroneous evaluation of the evidence. First, Clearman argues that the district court abused its discretion because it stated that its recitation of the facts was "drawn from the unanimous panel opinion" in Torres I. In a similar vein, Clearman asserts that the district court failed to independently review the record and "simply adopted Judge Hoyt's precise allocation." The Fifth Circuit rejects both contentions holdings that the district court supported its findings of fact with citations to the record in a thorough, 19-page opinion discussing each of the Johnson factors. Second, Clearman argues that the district court abused its discretion because judicial estoppel bars Appellee Matthew J.M. Prebeg of Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, P.L.L.C. ("PFA") from receiving fees relating to the class action. Clearman points to state-court proceedings between himself and PFA dissolving the Clearman Prebeg LLP partnership in 2015, during the pendency of the class action proceedings. He concludes, Prebeg is judicially estopped from arguing that it should be awarded attorneys' fees in the instant proceedings. Mr. Prebeg responds that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the determination of attorneys' fees is the exclusive province of the federal district court and outside agreements and state court settlements do not bind its award. Clearman, in turn, counters that district courts do not have authority over the distribution of attorneys' fees between independent counsel representing the class, only over the full sum of the attorneys' fee aw ard. The Fifth Circuit agrees with Prebeg. It explains that the district court is tasked with ensuring that the attorneys' fee award is fair and reasonable, and that includes the individual fee awards. Thus, the settlement agreement that dissolved the Clearman Prebeg LLP partnership did not deprive the district court of authority over the fee allocation between the individual, independent counsel. Third, Clearman argues that the district court erred as a matter of law when it struck his first fee petition for failure to submit contemporaneous billing records or similar objective evidence. To evaluate the first Johnson factor -- the "time and labor required for the litigation" -- courts customarily require the applicant to produce contemporaneous billing records or other sufficient documentation so that the district court can fulfill its duty to examine the application for noncompensable hours. While the failure to provide contemporaneous billing records "does not preclude an award of fees per se," the evidence submitted must be "adequate to determine reasonable hours." The Fifth Circuit holds that Clearman failed to produce contemporaneous billing statements or similarly reliable evidence of time spent on the suit in his first fee petition. At the urging of the Class Representatives, the district court struck the petition and allowed Clearman to file a new motion for attorneys' fees that included reconstructed records of his time spent, his usual rates, and his incurred expenses. The court needed a sufficient factual basis, consistent with the Johnson factors, on which to base its attorneys' fee award. The district court did not err when it struck Clearman's first fee petition and directed him to refile with adequate records. Nor did the district court err when it struck Clearman's attempt to submit new evidence and new arguments in support of his fee petition on remand. It correctly concluded that the renewed fee petition, submitted in February 2020, violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the deadline for class members to consider and object to a fee petition had already passed in October 2018. Under Rule 23(h), parties must file motions for attorneys' fees before the deadline to object to the settlement. The district court did not err when it limited the record to the evidence that existed for the first fee allocation. Fourth, the Fifth Circuit rejects Clearman's contention that the district court abused its discretion because it "relied only on 'time sheets' to consider the 'time and labor involved'" under the first Johnson factor. After considering Clearman's filings on remand, the district court recognized that Clearman had "no doubt devoted many hours to this case over a number of years." However, it found that the first Johnson factor did not weigh in Clearman's favor "for the simple reason that no reliable records credibly established his time and labor invested in the case." Where the documentation is inadequate or unreliable, it is within the sound discretion of the district court to determine a reasonable fee award. Clearman fails to specify evidence in the record establishing that the district court's evaluation was clearly erroneous. Finally, the Fifth Circuit rejects Clearman's arguments that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the eighth Johnson factor -- the results obtained -- did not favor Clearman. Clearman fails to point to evidence opposing the district court's factual finding that Clearman "simply wasn't as substantially involved in certifying the class or thereafter," which the court found "is what most directly enabled successful settlement." Rather, Clearman conceded that his participation in the class certification briefing and hearing "was much diminished." In addition, he fails to demonstrate that his asserted negotiation for the inclusion of approximately 15% of the class to the final settlement -- the Georgian class members -- is incompatible with his reward of 15% of the fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it compared "counsels' respective contributions for the common benefit," and found that the eighth factor weighed in favor of all counsel other than Clearman. IV. Order For the foregoing reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/u482hx5e from Leagle.com. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Berry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTWAN BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03118 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the payment provisions of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee from February 2018 until April 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to compensate him and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees for all hours they have worked. Specifically, they were not paid for the breaks, lasting approximately fifteen minutes, which the Defendant required them to take and to clock out for those breaks. The law states that rest periods are customarily paid for as working time and must be counted as hours worked, the Plaintiff alleges. Consequently, despite regularly or occasionally working over 40 hours in a week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees were not sufficiently paid for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees, the Plaintiff seeks damages for all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fee, litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Cleveland, Ohio–based company in the paint and coating manufacturing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SHIELDS HEALTH: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Smith Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA SMITH, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SHIELDS HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10932 (D. Mass., June 15, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons whose sensitive personal information (SPI) was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii) adequately warn its current and former customers and potential customers of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. Shields Health Care Group is a medical services provider which provides, among other things, MRIs, PET/CT scans, and ambulatory surgical services for patients in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. On June 8, 2022, Shields announced publicly that on March 28, 2022, it had been the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of SPI involving approximately two million of its clients (the "Data Breach"). Shields reported that this SPI included at least names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, provider information, diagnosis, billing information, insurance information, medical record numbers, patient IDs, and "other medical or treatment information." According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members now face a present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers. The information stolen in cyber-attacks allows the modern thief to assume victims' identities when carrying out criminal acts such as: -- Filing fraudulent tax returns; -- Using the victim's credit history; -- Making financial transactions on behalf of victims, including opening credit accounts in victims' names; -- Impersonating victims via mail and/or email; -- Impersonating victims in cyber forums and social networks; -- Stealing benefits that belong to victims; and -- Committing illegal acts which, in turn, incriminate victims. The Plaintiff's and Class members' SPI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the SPI of Plaintiff and Class members. Further, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct, the suit asserts. The Defendant is a medical services provider with approximately 40 offices in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. The Defendant also maintains partnerships with several New England hospitals for its medical services, including Tufts Medical Center, Emerson Hospital, and the Central Maine Medical Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Maselek, Jr., Esq. McDONOUGH COHEN & MASELEK, LLP 53 State Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 742-6520 Facsimile: (617) 742-1393 E-mail: rmaselek@mcmlawfirm.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (212) 545-4669 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: burt@whafh.com SIEMBRA LLC: Faces Martinez Labor Suit Over Time Shaving Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- ADAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. SIEMBRA L.L.C., d/b/a ENZO'S PIZZERIA and ROBERTO COLLADO, Case No. 1:22-cv-03557 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022) seeks to to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages due to time shaving, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of all non-exempt front-of-house and back-of-house employees (including but not limited to food preparers, delivery persons, servers, cashiers, porters, cooks, line-cooks, pizza makers, and dishwashers) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint. In March 2020, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work simultaneously as a food preparer/pasta preparer for Defendants' restaurant SIEMBRA L.L.C. d/b/a ENZO'S PIZZERIA located at 81-02 Rockaway Blvd., Ozone Park, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until March 2021. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was always paid $13 per hour in cash for all hours worked on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff was not a tipped employee. At all times Plaintiff's pay rate was below the prevailing minimum wage in New York City. Class members were paid similar hourly rates, which were also below the prevailing New York City minimum wage, says the suit. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 SIETE BUCKS SPIRITS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siete Bucks Spirits, LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Siete Bucks Spirits, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05032 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Siete Bucks Spirits doing business as Teremana -- https://teremana.com/ -- create a high quality, responsibly sourced tequila that brings people together.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SIMPLE GIRL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simple Girl LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Simple Girl LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05035 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Simple Girl -- https://www.simplegirl.com/ -- offers sugar-free organic BBQ sauce and dressings, plus all-natural and gluten-free seasonings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SMART OILFIELD: Misclassifies Pump Supervisors, Guthrie et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER GUTHRIE and SHANE NORTH, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMART OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00485-PRW (W.D. Okla., June 14, 2022) bring this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to recover monetary damages as a result of is alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Guthrie and North were employed by the Defendant as pump supervisors from December 2021 until March 2022 and from January 2022 until March 2022, respectively. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant classified them and other similarly situated Pump Supervisors as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Although they regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek throughout their employment with the Defendant, they were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs added. The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours in any week, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Smart Oilfield Solutions, LLC provides rental equipment for oil wells. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com SOCLEAN INC: Faces Monaghan Suit Over Misleading Cleaning Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE MONAGHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01509-RMR-KLM (D. Colo., June 16, 2022) contends that SoClean falsely represents that its devices use "no water or chemicals" or "no harsh chemicals" to clean continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, despite using ozone gas -- a harsh chemical that causes respiratory problems in humans. SoClean represents that its devices use the same sanitizing process found in "hospital sanitizing," however, hospitals cannot and do not use ozone sanitizers in spaces occupied by patients. SoClean also claims that separately sold filters convert "activated oxygen" into "regular oxygen," which is false because SoClean's filters have no measurable effect on the device's ozone output. Finally, SoClean falsely claims that its devices are "sealed" such that "activated oxygen" (i.e., ozone) does not escape the devices, the suit says. Since approximately 2012, SoClean manufactured and marketed devices used to clean continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines. SoClean concealed and omitted material information on the presence and risk of ozone exposure from the SoClean 2 CPAP Sanitizing Machine, the SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing machine, and their predecessor devices ("the SoClean devices"). The SoClean devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and deodorize CPAP machines. Ozone is an unstable toxic gas with a pungent characteristic odor that can kill bacteria and viruses. To be effective as a germicide, ozone must be present in a concentration far greater than can be safely tolerated by humans or animals. According to the complaint, SoClean's marketing materials fail to disclose that its devices emit ozone, which is a longstanding requirement of federal law. Instead, SoClean falsely represents that its devices use "activated oxygen" to clean CPAP machines. SoClean markets the devices as "safe" and "healthy," which is false give that they generate toxic ozone gas at levels that substantially exceed federal regulations. SoClean's violation of federal regulations as well as its misrepresentations, concealment, half-truths, and omissions have allowed it to commandninety-percent of the relevant market. Due to the nature of SoClean's business, its customers all are ill or infirm because they have breathing problems for which they are receiving medical treatment in the form of CPAP therapy. If CPAP users knew that the SoClean devices generate unsafe levels of toxic gas, which is then pumped into their CPAP machines and into their bedrooms, they would find this risk material to their purchasing decisions. SoClean's representations are designed to mislead consumers into believing that the machine uses a benign form of oxygen to clean CPAP machines rather than a harsh gas that is generally only suitable for commercial sanitization under highly controlled conditions. These misrepresentations, concealment, half-truths, and omissions are made more egregious because the SoClean devices are designed and marketed for use on the consumer's bedside table and because CPAP users suffer from many symptoms that ozone exposure exacerbates -- making the falsehoods especially reprehensible and dangerous, the suit added. The Plaintiff purchased a SoClean 2 device to clean her ResMed CPAP machine. Plaintiff Monaghan purchased the SoClean 2 because its advertising indicated that the SoClean 2 would be easier to clean her SoClean 2 and it would also be safe to use. She would not have purchased the SoClean 2 if she knew what she knows now about the SoClean 2. She also paid more for the SoClean 2 because she believed the product used activated oxygen and was safe and healthy. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the device or paid as much for it if that information was fully disclosed. Plaintiff was injured by paying a premium for a device that has no or very little value -- or whose value was at least less than what she paid --based on the presence of ozone, the suit further asserts. SoClean manufactures and sells medical devices that clean continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines. Plaintiff is the owner of a SoClean CPAP cleaning device and has used that device on a regular basis since she purchased the device at the end of 2020.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com - and - Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. SHARP LAW FIRM 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com - and - Ronald Verdell Johnson, IV, Esq. Russell L. Johnson, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Telephone: (601) 544-0631 E-mail: rljohnson@djlawms.com rvjohsnon@djlawms.com SOULCYCLE INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Dominguez Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses the case, YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOULCYCLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19 CV 10815-LTS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.). The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, Judge Swain dismisses the action with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other Plaintiffs and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to Judge Swain's calendar if settlement is not achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order. If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before this 30-day period expires. The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court to be so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/29yb5hnm from Leagle.com. SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Wakefield Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DEBORAH WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PIZZA, LLC and NICHOLAS M. BURCH, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01262 (S.D. Ill., June 14, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately March 2021 to July 2021 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located in Du Quoin, Illinois. According to the complaint, the Defendants required her and other similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. As a result, they have incurred automobile expenses while performing duties for the primary benefits of the Defendants. However, the Defendants had a reimbursement policy that reimburses its delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. The Plaintiff claims that because of the Defendants' flawed reimbursement policy, her and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements, says the suit. Southern Illinois Pizza, LLC operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Nicholas M. Burch is an owner and director of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 210-7493 Fax: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com SPICE LAB: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Spice Lab. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Spice Lab, Case No. 1:22-cv-05036 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Spice Lab -- https://spices.com/ -- is a woman-owned and family-run business specializing in seasoning blends, premium organic spices, salts and gourmet gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com T-MOBILE USA: Faces Lawsuit for Shutting Down Sprint's Networks --------------------------------------------------------------- lawstreetmedia.com reports that a consumer filed a class-action lawsuit in the Western District of Washington against T-Mobile USA, Inc. for effectively making numerous types of phones unusable by shutting down older networks and replacing them with 5G towers, which older phones cannot support. Due to the previous merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, T-Mobile shut down Sprint's 5G networks, which left approximately 75,000 5G phones to only connect to 4G and lower networks across the country unless they paid to switch their plans to T-Mobile, which significantly reduced download speeds from 20 gigabytes per second down to 100 megabytes per second, the complaint states. Additionally, according to the complaint, numerous phones became completely unusable as T-Mobile shut down both Sprint and T-Mobile's 3G and LTE networks leaving the "Samsung Galaxy S10 5G, LG V50 ThinQ 5G, HTC 5G Hub, OnePlus 7 Pro 5G, and various tablets, security systems, and other devices" worthless, forcing customers to buy new phones. The plaintiff and putative class argue that "selling 5G data plans [. . . ] with a limited shelf life and Class Devices unable to connect to existing 5G and other networks is a fraud on consumers." Due to T-Mobile's "unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices," the plaintiff and proposed class have suffered an "ascertainable" loss of money, property and value which the defendants allegedly knew would happen to a large contingent of their customers. T-Mobile allegedly concealed this information since it knew "no reasonable consumer expects to spend more for a device whose advertised and differentiating features will be rendered useless in a few months' time." As a result, the plaintiff is suing on the counts of breach of express and implied warranty, breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, fraud and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks class certification; the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative; actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorney's fees and costs; and other relief. [GN] TALKING RAIN: Soft Drinks Contain Artificial Flavoring, Tatum Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEGGY TATUM on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TALKING RAIN BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03525 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2022) is a national consumer class action for the violation of state consumer protection, unfair competition, and false advertising statutes, and for common-law breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by omission. The Defendant manufactures, labels, distributes, advertises, and sells the "Sparkling Ice" line of soft drinks including but not limited to "Classic Sparkling Ice" and "Sparkling Ice + Caffeine." "Classic Sparkling Ice" and "Sparkling Ice + Caffeine" products are offered in at least 23 different flavor varieties. All of these varieties are labeled as premium, naturally-flavored beverages 18 containing only natural flavors. According to the complaint, at least fifteen of these (the "Products"), however, contain undisclosed artificial flavoring. The Products' packaging, labeling, and advertising expressly represent that these beverages are made from "natural flavors," that the flavors are "sourced from nature," and that the drinks' "colors and flavors [are] from natural sources." These representations are false. The Products all contain undisclosed artificial flavoring. Federal regulations and state consumer protection law require any food or beverage product that contains an artificial flavor to prominently disclose this fact on the product's front- and back-labels, the suit says. The Products are also misbranded under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and therefore unlawful to sell anywhere in the United States. The Defendant willfully conceals from consumers the fact that these Products contain artificial flavoring chemicals that simulate, resemble, and reinforce the Products' claimed natural flavors, the suit alleges. Twelve of the fifteen Products include "malic acid" as either the first or second ingredient by weight after water. The "malic acid" Defendant puts in its Products is an artificial compound called dl-malic acid. Artificial dl-malic acid is a synthetic petrochemical compound synthesized from benzene or butane in a chemical manufacturing process involving highly toxic intermediates or byproducts. Dl-malic acid does not occur in nature, added the suit. Plaintiff Tatum is a resident and citizen of California and purchased the Products multiple times in Contra Costa County, California, for personal and household consumption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com - and - David Elliot, Esq. Michael Dobbs, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICE PC 2028 3rd Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 468-4865 TATE LEGACY: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Tonya Howard and Ebony Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TATE LEGACY INCORPORATED and DARLENE TATE, Case No. 1:22-cv-02817 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the payment provisions of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and to seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated sufficient wages under the FLSA and the IMWL within the applicable statutory limitations period. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs either an hourly rate or a salary. The Plaintiffs were not paid a weekly minimum guaranty. The Plaintiffs regularly or occasionally worked over 40 hours in a week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs an overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendant did not provide a method by which Plaintiffs and other Tax Preparers could track their time. The Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other Tax Preparers regularly or occasionally worked hours over 40 each week. The Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and other Tax Preparers of sufficient wages for all hours worked. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA, the IMWL and the IWPCA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Tax Preparers. The Defendants own and operate a tax preparation business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Colby Qualls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com colby@sanfordlawfirm.com TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Securities Suit for Misleading Investors -------------------------------------------------------------- Nikhilesh De at coindesk.com reports that an Illinois resident sued Terraform Labs, its founder Do Kwon and several VC firms that make up the Luna Foundation Guard (LFG) on claims the defendants violated federal securities laws and misled investors. The plaintiff, Nick Patterson, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the Northern District of California in the hopes of recouping losses and any injunctive or punitive fees from a jury trial. Patterson alleged both California state and federal law violations against the defendants. The plaintiff said the "Terra Tokens," (a catchall term for both UST, LUNA and other tokens in the ecosystem) resembled securities, even if investors may not have been able to recognize them as such, pointing to how Terraform Labs and the VCs behind the LFG marketed the project. LUNA and UST both collapsed in dramatic fashion last month after the stablecoin lost its peg. An attempt to relaunch LUNA has so far failed to bring investors back to the project. The filing, which includes screenshots from Twitter, heavily quotes Kwon and his dismissive reactions to other parties who claimed UST faced a depegging risk. In addition to Terraform Labs and Do Kwon, the suit lists as defendants Definance Capital/ Definance Technologies Oy, GSR/GSR Markets Limited, Jump Crypto, Jump Trading LLC, Nicholas Platias, Republic Capital, Republic Maximal LLC, Three Arrows Capital, Pte. Ltd. and Tribe Capital. Three Arrows Capital is facing financial woes of its own. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces $2 Billion Class Action Over Defective Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Day at Daily Mail Australia reports that Toyota could be forced to pay customers more than $2 billion after 260,000 Australian were found to be affected by defective vehicles. Customers who bought a Prado, HiLux, or Fortuner model from the Japanese manufacturer in 2015 to 2020 could be eligible for compensation. Motorists complained their brand-new vehicles were emitting foul-smelling white smoke and exhaust caused by faulty diesel particulate filters. They also complained the vehicle required repeated inspections, servicing, and repairs as well as costing drivers more due to increased fuel consumption. Toyota owners stand to receive the approximated reduction in value of each vehicle at the time it was sold, which is 17.5 per cent of the average retail price, plus an additional 10 per cent for excess GST. Owners are eligible if they bought a diesel Toyota Prado, HiLux, or Fortuner between October 1, 2015, and April 23, 2020, and did not sell it during that time. Australian law firm Gilbert + Tobin brought a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer in 2019 on behalf of the people who owned the defective models. The Federal Court of Australia ruled against Toyota in April, finding the manufacturer engaged in 'misleading' conduct in marketing the cars. The law firm will start contacting eligible owners by phone, text message, and post, to invite them register their interest for thousands in compensation. The lead applicant of the class action, Ken Williams, has already been awarded $18,000 in compensation for the faulty Prado he bought in 2016. Less than a year later, the Queensland father realised he had been sold a 'dud'. Foul-smelling white smoke began pouring out from the vehicle while he was stopped at a set of traffic lights, scaring him and his young children. Mr Williams told News Corp he went back to the dealership 12 times since the 'horrendous' moment but was yet to see any improvement. 'Having the judgment in my favour was good for me but also for hundreds of thousands of other people to see they can come forward and be compensated for all the pain and suffering,' he said of the Federal Court judgement. Gilbert + Tobin partner Matt Mackenzie described the class action as 'significant' due to the Federal Court moving to award the damages on an aggregate basis. The last order of this kind was made in 1998, when proceedings were commenced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The total amount of damages to be paid by Toyota is yet to be decided and will depend on how many drivers take part in the class action. Estimates predict the manufacturer will be forced to pay more than $2 billion. Owners who register for compensation and are deemed eligible will be reimbursed through a court-supervised distribution scheme. Toyota lodged an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia, questioning the 'factual and legal basis for the award of damages'. The manufacturer apologised to affected customers and said it was committed to assisting drivers with faulty diesel particulate filters. 'At the same time, we understand some customers have experienced inconvenience and discomfort from this issue. For this we apologise,' it said. 'We have worked continuously since becoming aware of DPF concerns on an effective resolution for affected customers. 'At every step, we have implemented customer focused and technically grounded remedies to resolve customers' concerns.' [GN] TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Directed to File Class Cert Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- Huang et al., v. TriNet HR III, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-02293 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order on motion for leave to file document: -- The Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of their class-certification motion. -- The reply brief shall not exceed five pages in length and is due July 6, 2022. The nature of suit Employee Retirement Income Security Act involving employee benefits. TriNet provides human resource services.[CC] TRUEBLUE INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of TrueBlue, Inc. (NYSE: TBI) resulting from allegations that TrueBlue may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased TrueBlue securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7019 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2022, during trading hours, TrueBlue issued a press release "announc[ing] . . . that Patrick Beharelle has resigned as Chief Executive Officer and as a member of the Board of Directors of TrueBlue, effective June 14, 2022." The Company stated that "Mr. Beharelle's resignation follows an investigation, led by outside counsel, into allegations regarding his conduct. Based on the investigation's findings, the Board of Directors determined that he had engaged in behaviors that violated TrueBlue's policies and Code of Conduct. Mr. Beharelle's conduct in question was not related to financial controls, financial statements, or business performance." On this news, TrueBlue's stock price fell $1.06 per share, or 5%, to close at $18.55 per share on June 15, 2022. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Sued Over Misleading Performance Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that Tupperware Brands Corporation and its top executives made "materially false and misleading" statements about its business, operations and compliance policies, a new federal securities class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Michael Edge claims Tupperware, along with its president and CEO Miguel Fernandeaz and CFO and COO Cassandra Harris, failed to disclose that it was "facing significant challenges" in maintaining its earnings and sales. Edge claims further that Tupperware's full-year guidance for 2022 was "unrealistic" and/or "unsustainable," which, when revealed, would likely have a "material negative impact" on the company's financial condition. "As a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times," the Tupperware class action states. Tupperware announced its financial results from the first quarter of 2022 on May 4, revealing, among other things, that its adjusted earnings from continued operations and net sales fell "well short of consensus estimates," according to the Tupperware class action. Tupperware class action says company places blame for 'less-than-expected' results on Russia, Ukraine war Edge claims Tupperware initially placed the blame for its less-than-expected financial results on the war between Russia and Ukraine; however, he argues the company later admitted Russia and Ukraine only make up 2% of its revenue. Upon news of Tupperware's first quarter financial results, meanwhile, the company's stock price dropped by around 32% on May 4, according to the Tupperware class action. "As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages," the Tupperware class action states. Edge claims Tupperware, Fernandez and Harris violate the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. He demands a jury trial and requests damages for himself and all class members. He wants to represent a nationwide class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tupperware securities between Nov. 3, 2021, and May 3, 2022, and were damaged "upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures." [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Malik Sues Over Breach of Employment Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Soha Malik, an individual, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees and the State of California v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; RUSSELL TOBIN AND ASSOCIATES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-3, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-599004 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 1, 2022), is brought seeking to recover damages arising from Defendants' unjustified and arbitrary breach of her fixed term employment contract, unlawful retaliation for raising concerns that Uber was violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and several wage and hour violations. The Plaintiff asked Ms. Owyand and Uber's IT department to reimburse her for the expenses that she had incurred to reasonably perform her job duties, but both refused to reimburse her for any of her expenses. The Plaintiff also asked her contact at RTA, Malia, to receive reimbursement for her work related expenses in January 2021, but RTA did not reimburse Plaintiff. At no point did Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for any of the expenses she incurred to reasonably perform her job duties. Plaintiff also did not accrue any paid sick leave from August 2020 through November 2020 and from December 2020 through January 2021. Plaintiff also was not permitted to carry over any paid sick leave that she accrued in 2020 to the new calendar year. As a result, Plaintiff's wage statements are inaccurate because they fail to accurately reflect Plaintiff's accrued paid sick time and paid time off (PTO). On April 12, 2021, the Plaintiff gave written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and all the Defendants of the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated, which also included the facts and theories to support the alleged violations. On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff received Notice of Commencement of Investigation and Statutory Tolling Pursuant to Labor Code Section 90.6 (July 1, 2021 Notice) from the LWDA based on an understanding that the Plaintiffs' Labor Code violations related to Uber and Uber Eats drivers. On November 5, 2021, the Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Tolling Agreement to toll all applicable statute of limitations for all claims alleged in this Complaint not already tolled pursuant to the LWDA's July 1, 2021 Notice from November 5, 2021 through and including March 7, 2022. On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff gave written amended notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and all the Defendants clarifying that the Plaintiff's claims related to Uber LERT Specialists and not Uber or Uber Eats drivers. More than 65 days have elapsed since Plaintiff provided written amended notice of the claims without the LWDA assuming jurisdiction over the claims alleged. Accordingly, Plaintiff has fully satisfied her administrative prerequisites to file suit under PAGA. Furthermore, on February 18, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a subsequent Tolling Agreement to toll all applicable statute of limitations for all claims alleged in this Complaint including all claims under PAGA from May 5, 2021 through and including April 4, 2022. In January 2021, the Plaintiff continued to work at Uber on a full time basis and she had a positive job performance discussion with Uber and RTA about two weeks into the New Year. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, no one ever raised any concerns to her that she was willfully breaching any of her duties, habitually neglecting her duties, or incapable of performing her duties. Then--inexplicably--Defendants terminated Plaintiff's contract effective as of January 21, 2021. As a result of the sudden termination of the contract, Plaintiff was extremely distraught and embarrassed as she frantically scrambled to save her lease agreement at her current apartment, cancel the agreement with the new apartment, has had to pay out of pocket for approximately $2,635 for health and dental care, has had to jump through hoops attempting to obtain unemployment benefits from a clogged system, and has had to search for alternative employment in the midst of a novel pandemic that has led to unprecedented unemployment rates in California, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was offered a full-time non-exempt position of a Law Enforcement Response Team Specialist at Uber for four months by the Defendant. RTA is a staffing agency that locates and hires employees for companies including Uber, which is a mobility-as-a-service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dorothy C Yamamoto, Esq. Gregory R Michael, Esq. MICHAEL YAMAMOTO LLP 1400 Shattuck Ave., #412 Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: 510.296.5600 Fax: 510.296.5600 Email: dyamamoto@myllp.law gmichael@myllp.law UNILEVER PLC: Portnoy Law Discloses Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Unilever (NYSE: UL) investors that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors. Unilever investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or click here to join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the complaint, in 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold the company to Unilever for $326 million. In July 2020, Ben & Jerry's independent board passed a resolution to end sales of Ben & Jerry's products in areas that the Ben & Jerry's Board considers to be Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel. However, Ben & Jerry's CEO did not "operationalize" the resolution immediately. On July 19, 2021, Unilever "operationalized" the Ben & Jerry's Board's resolution to boycott Israel. On that day, Ben & Jerry's announced that, upon the expiration of the current licensing agreement by which its products had been distributed in Israel for decades, it would end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" but purportedly continue to sell its products in Israel. However, in a separate response reported by NBC News, the Ben & Jerry's Board disputed that Ben & Jerry's would remain in Israel and that Unilever had any authority to make such a promise. The class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that in July 2020, Ben & Jerry's board passed a resolution to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" as well as the risks attendant to the board's decision. Additionally, Unilever's description of its legal risks was materially false and misleading because Unilever acknowledged that complying with all applicable laws and regulations was important but omitted discussing Ben & Jerry's boycott decision, which risked adverse governmental actions for violations of laws, executive orders, or resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment, and sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states ("Anti-BDS Legislation"). In response to the boycott, Texas and Florida announced it was examining Ben & Jerry's action in connection with the states' Anti-BDS Legislation, with Florida's CFO stating in a letter to Ben & Jerry's CEO that refusal to do business in Israel will result in Ben & Jerry's being placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel list and that Florida would then be prohibited from investing in Ben & Jerry's or Unilever. On this news, the price of Unilever ADRs closed down over 5%. Ultimately, the states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, and Arizona announced decisions to divest their pension fund investments in Unilever due to violations of their Anti-BDS Legislation. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] UNILEVER PLC: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 15 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Unilever (NYSE: UL) American Depository Receipts (ADRs) September 2, 2020 and July 21, 2021, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unilever is one of the world's largest consumer goods companies. If you would like more information about Unilever plc's misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/unilever-plc-bw/. What is this Case About: Unilever plc (UL) Failed to Disclose its Resolution to End Sales of its Ice Cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" and the Risks Associated with the Board's Decision According to the complaint, in 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold the company to Unilever for $326 million. In July 2020, Ben & Jerry's independent board passed a resolution to end sales of Ben & Jerry's products in areas that the Ben & Jerry's Board considers to be Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel. However, Ben & Jerry's CEO did not "operationalize" the resolution immediately. On July 19, 2021, Unilever "operationalized" the Ben & Jerry's Board's resolution to boycott Israel. On that day, Ben & Jerry's announced that, upon the expiration of the current licensing agreement by which its products had been distributed in Israel for decades, it would end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" but purportedly continue to sell its products in Israel. However, in a separate response reported by NBC News, the Ben & Jerry's Board disputed that Ben & Jerry's would remain in Israel and that Unilever had any authority to make such a promise. The class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that in July 2020, Ben & Jerry's board passed a resolution to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" as well as the risks attendant to the board's decision. Additionally, Unilever's description of its legal risks was materially false and misleading because Unilever acknowledged that complying with all applicable laws and regulations was important but omitted discussing Ben & Jerry's boycott decision, which risked adverse governmental actions for violations of laws, executive orders, or resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment, and sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states ("Anti-BDS Legislation"). In response to the boycott, Texas and Florida announced it was examining Ben & Jerry's action in connection with the states' Anti-BDS Legislation, with Florida's CFO stating in a letter to Ben & Jerry's CEO that refusal to do business in Israel will result in Ben & Jerry's being placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel list and that Florida would then be prohibited from investing in Ben & Jerry's or Unilever. On this news, the price of Unilever ADRs closed down over 5%. Ultimately, the states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Colorado, and Arizona announced decisions to divest their pension fund investments in Unilever due to violations of their Anti-BDS Legislation. Next Steps: If you acquired your shares of Unilever plc ADRs between September 2, 2020 and July 21, 2021, you have until August 15, 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] UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt ADA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to D. Neb. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CHARLES WALDSCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-03808, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on June 14, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nebraska assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00210-JFB-CRZ to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discrimination against its hearing-impaired employees in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a railroad company, headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC. 500 Crawford St., Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Telephone: (757) 393-4093 Facsimile: (757) 397-7257 E-mail: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com - and – Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- natlawreview.com reports that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) recently settled a data breach class action for $450,000 stemming from a 2020 data breach that led to the compromise of about 36,000 UPMC patients. UPMC is a Pennsylvania medical center and medical insurer. From April to June 2020, UPMC's legal counsel, Charles J. Hilton PC, suffered a data breach that compromised its email accounts. As a result, UPMC information was also compromised, including patient names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, financial account numbers, identification numbers, signatures, medical records, and insurance information. UPMC notified the affected patients in December 2020. The complaint alleges that UPMC had a duty to protect the patient data and failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to do so. The lead plaintiff in the case alleged that after the incident occurred, he had a fraudulent Amazon credit card opened up in his name. He also claims that this led to significant time spent to mitigate the issue. Class members may receive up to $250 in cash payments for documented expenditures related to this incident, and up to $2,500 for documented identity theft loses or fraudulent charges, as well as up to $30 for undocumented time spent. All class members will also receive 12 months of free credit monitoring. [GN] VANGUARD CHESTER: Richardson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanguard Chester Funds, et al. The case is styled as Mary Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vanguard Chester Funds, Mortimer J. Buckley, Christine M. Buchanan, John E. Schadl, Emerson U. Fullwood, Amy Gutmann, F. Joseph Loughrey, Mark Loughridge, Scott C. Malpass, Deanna Mulligan, Andre F. Perold, Sarah Bloom Raskin, Peter F. Volanakis, The Vanguard Group, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02091-ER (E.D. Pa., May 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Vanguard Group, Inc. -- https://vanguard.com/ -- is an American registered investment advisor based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212/545-4600 Facsimile: 212/545-4653 Email: rifkin@whafh.com VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbott Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brendan Abbott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. doing business as: VPX Sports, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 22SL-CC02272 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 31, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00587-CDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., doing business as VPX Sports, provides sports and energy beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1 St. Louis, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 550-3717 Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael T. Crabb, Esq. KUCKELMAN AND TORLINE 10740 Nall, Suite 250 Overland Park, KS 66211 Phone: (913) 951-5651 Fax: (913) 948-8611 Email: mcrabb@ktk-law.com VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: $1.5MM in Attys.' Fees Awarded in BCBSM Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, PHOENIXUS AG, MARTIN SHKRELI, and KEVIN MULLEADY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-1884-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants Lead Counsel Robins Kaplan LLP's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Payment of Litigation Expenses, and Incentive Award for Plaintiff. The Court held a Fairness Hearing on June 17, 2022. After considering the six factors set forth in Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000), Judge Cote awards the Lead Counsel $1.5 million in attorneys' fees from the $7.56 million that has been paid into the Class Settlement Fund to date. To the extent additional contingent settlement payments are paid into the Class Settlement Fund in the future, the Lead Counsel may request additional attorneys' fees of up to 10% of any additional funds received. The Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over any additional requests for attorneys' fees in the litigation. Judge Cote also grants the Lead Counsel's request to be reimbursed for $294,055 in litigation expenses from the Class Settlement Fund, which includes the $52,500 in anticipated future expenses. As agreed to in the Settlement Agreement and previously ordered by the Court, the Lead Counsel may continue to pay from the Class Settlement Fund the actual costs of notice, settlement administration, and taxes without further order of the Court. Lastly, Judge Cote grants a $50,000 incentive award to Plaintiff BCBSM in recognition of the time and resources that it devoted to the case on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Lead Counsel will direct $50,000 to be paid from the Class Settlement Fund to the Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/576npv7w from Leagle.com. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Judgment & Order Entered in BCBSM Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal in the case, BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, PHOENIXUS AG, MARTIN SHKRELI, and KEVIN MULLEADY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-1884-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). The matter came before the Court at a hearing on June 17, 2022 upon Plaintiff BCBSM's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Feb. 10, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and certified the following Settlement Class: All entities that, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and not for resale, indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Daraprim from Aug. 7, 2015 through Jan. 28, 2022. The Court also appointed the Plaintiff as the representative of the Settlement Class, appointed Kellie Lerner and Benjamin Steinberg as the Settlement Class Counsel, and appointed A.B. Data as the Notice Provider and Claims Administrator. It further approved the proposed forms and methods of providing notice to the Settlement Class (the "Notice Plan") and the proposed plan of allocating settlement funds to the Settlement Class (the "Plan of Allocation"). Having held the Fairness Hearing and considered all papers filed and proceedings related thereto, Judge Cote grants final approval to the Jan. 28, 2022 Settlement Agreement. She finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, serves the best interests of the Settlement Class Members, and complies with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the same reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Cote continues to find that, in connection with and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). The Settlement Class will remain certified for purposes of the Settlement. Judge Cote finds that the executed Notice Plan satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(e)(1) and due process. Five entities have validly requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Opt-Outs are therefore excluded from the Settlement Class for all purposes, are not bound by the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, and may not make any claim to, or receive any benefit from, the Settlement. Pursuant to the terms and definitions used in the Settlement Agreement, the Action and all Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice and released against the Releasees in their entirety. The Releasors will be deemed to have released and forever discharged the Released Claims against the Releasees, and will be forever enjoined from prosecuting the Released Claims against the Releasees. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and the orders of the Court. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal for purposes of appeal, the Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement, the related Collateral Assignment and Security Agreement dated Feb. 28, 2022, and all other Settlement-related agreements, including the administration, consummation, and enforcement of each. The Settling Parties will consummate the Settlement according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation. If necessary, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out provisions of the Settlement Agreement without further order of the Court. Once all timely settlement claims have been processed, the Claims Administrator will distribute the money paid into the Class Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members less deductions made for taxes, settlement administration expenses, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, incentive awards, and any other charges authorized by the Court ("Net Settlement Funds") in accordance with the Plan of Allocation. To the extent the Corporate Defendants make additional contingent payments into the Class Settlement Fund after the first wave of settlement funds is distributed, additional Net Settlement Funds will be distributed to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Plan of Allocation on a schedule intended to reduce administration costs and maximize the Settlement Class' recovery. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzzv4na from Leagle.com. VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Employees' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Vystar Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that in January 2022, the parties settled a class action filed on May 21, 2021 by one former and one current employee in the Worcester District Court. The Plaintiffs allege that the company failed to pay them and other salespeople who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. Vystar Corporation, based in Massachusetts, uses patented technology to produces a line of innovative air purifiers. VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LaChapelle Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Vystar Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that the parties in a class action complaint against the president of the company, Steve Rotman, settled with the plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle and certain other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de minimus amount where plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of their complaint with prejudice. On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans Furniture, the Company's majority-owned subsidiary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, section 1A), and the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 sections 148 and 150) Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him and other salespeople who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. The parties settled with the named plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle and certain other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de minimus amount which was paid in March 2021. Plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. Vystar Corporation, based in Massachusetts, uses patented technology to produces a line of innovative air purifiers. WAFFLE HOUSE: Mason Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waffle House, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shakeema Mason, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waffle House, Inc., WH Capital, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01956 (S.D. Tex., June 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. WH Capital, L.L.C., doing business as Waffle House -- https://www.wafflehouse.com/ -- is an American restaurant chain with 2,100 locations in 25 states in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donny J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Account Digital Streaming Income, Hall Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN HALL, an individual; and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation; and WARNER RECORDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn., June 16, 2022) is a nationwide class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly account to Plaintiffs and Class Members for income derived from the exploitation of their works internationally via digital streaming. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory and/or monetary relief against the Defendants for their unlawful conduct of unilaterally and unlawfully accounting to and paying Plaintiffs and Class Members less than the full amount owed to them in connection with the exploitation of their works. The Plaintiffs are musician, recording artists, and performing artists who were a member of Orleans. Warner Records (WR) is a record label that obtained the rights to exploit the artistic works of Plaintiffs and Class Members in exchange for the payment of money to these individuals and entities as required by standard contracts ("Compensation Agreements"). The terms of the Compensation Agreements between the Defendants and Plaintiffs and Class Members contain the same, if not identical, language regarding the method of accounting for and paying the artists their share of the revenues based on all the revenue received by Defendants. However, these Agreements presumed that the record labels' main business was, and would always be, the sale of phonorecords embodying the signatory artists' performances, which formerly constituted the virtual entirety of the recordings' monetary earnings. Accordingly, these Agreements neither addressed nor contemplated the possibility of "digitally streaming" music directly to consumers or the royalties to be paid, says the suit. While this omission did not pose an issue when such technology was nascent, digital streaming now accounts for 83% of all recorded music consumption, compared to physical phonorecords, which accounts for 11%. 1 In other words, the Defendants are now administering large swaths of Agreements that are no longer supported by their original consideration, and to leave them as such would have meant risking both a public relations crisis and a wave of artists seeking to rescind their depreciated Agreements and reclaim their works. In an attempt to quietly address this ticking time bomb, Defendants began issuing payments to Plaintiffs and Class Members for the digital streaming of their recordings, with written statements issued by WMG indicating the ostensible royalty rate (i.e., "50.0," meaning 50%) at which the payments were calculated, the suit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com mapearson@pswlaw.com - and - Neville L. Johnson, Esq. Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Daniel B. Lifschitz, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com djohnson@jjllplaw.com dlifschitz@jjllplaw.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and - John J. Griffin, Esq. Michael A. Johnson, Esq. KAY GRIFFIN PLLC 222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340M Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-4800 Facsimile: (615) 742-4801 E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com mjohnson@kaygriffin.com WEST MONROE: Sanford Named Interim Class Counsel in Daly Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MATTHEW DALY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. NATHAN A. ULERY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ronald A. Guzman WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 21 C 06805, 22 C 781 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants Daly's motion for appointment of interim counsel and denies Ulery's motion for appointment of counsel. I. Introduction The Court grants Daly's motion for appointment of interim counsel and appoints Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP as interim class counsel and Matthew Singer as local counsel. It denies Ulery's motion to appoint interim class counsel. The Interim class counsel will file a consolidated amended complaint by July 8, 2022. The Defendants will answer or otherwise plead to the consolidated amended complaint by July 29, 2022. In the event the Defendants move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, they will make every effort possible to file a consolidated motion. If they require additional pages, they will seek leave of Court to file an enlarged brief well ahead of the responsive-pleading deadline. The Court directs the parties to confer, no later than July 11, 2022, to discuss the nature and bases of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. They will also discuss deadlines for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and a proposed discovery plan. A written initial status report and proposed discovery plan will be filed no later than July 25, 2022. Plaintiff Daly is responsible for initiating such a meeting, and all lead counsel for all parties are required to participate. Failure or refusal to participate in such a meeting or to cooperate in the preparation of the written report may constitute a basis for sanctions. In-person status hearing set for July 28, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. II. Background West Monroe, a private company, adopted an Employee Stock Ownership Plan in 2012. The Plan had approximately 1,500 members by 2021. The Plaintiffs in the two related cases, Daly and Ulery, filed complaints alleging generally that they and similarly situated individuals were forced in September 2021 to sell their stock in the Plan at a significantly undervalued price. The parties' claims arise under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and Delaware state law. The Court granted Ulery's motion to reassign his case to the Court and has consolidated the cases for pretrial purposes only at this time. The Court now addresses the parties' competing motions for appointment as interim class counsel. While both parties have done work in investigating the claims, Daly's counsel's efforts began before those of Ulery's counsel. Daly's complaint was filed on Dec. 22, 2021, while Ulery's complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2022, after Ulery's counsel reviewed Daly's complaint and documents supplied by Ulery and conducted their own research. Judge Guzman acknowledges Ulery's counsel's efforts in researching the relevant legal and factual issues; nevertheless, it had the advantage of the groundwork laid by Daly's counsel, including a filed complaint, from which to begin its inquiry into Ulery's claims. Judge Guzman also finds that while counsel for both Daly and Ulery have experience litigating ERISA class actions, Ulery's counsel appears to have more experience in this area; they have successfully represented class members in numerous ESOP class actions and are currently lead or co-counsel in numerous other pending ERISA ESOP cases. Nevertheless, Daly's counsel's firm also has been involved in at least seven ERISA class action cases and has obtained multi-million-dollar recoveries in three of them. Charles Field, Co-Chair of the Financial Services Litigation Practice at Sanford Heisler Sharp, Daly's counsel, has significant experience in the financial services industry. Field acted as General Counsel, Director, and Chief Legal Officer of an "SEC-registered investment management firm," where he "oversaw the firm's compliance with ERISA, as well as federal and state securities laws, including the federal fiduciary duty standards embodied in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940," among other things. Field attests that he "undertook an extensive investigation of the facts pertaining to the allegations and claims in the complaint." In addition, Field's co-counsel, Kevin Sharp, a former federal district court judge, has litigated numerous ERISA cases, several of which involved company valuations and at least one that involved an ESOP. Finally, Daly's counsel's firm has experience in employment class actions and other complex litigation, which is a relevant consideration under Rule 23(g)(2). Mr. Ulery's counsel's contentions that Daly's complaint contains numerous mistakes does not persuade the court otherwise. The purported mistakes are either not mistakes or are differences in interpretation. In any event, Daly's counsel will be able to consider and incorporate, to the extent they deem necessary, the comments, suggestions, and purported corrections by Ulery's counsel when filing the amended consolidated complaint. Daly's counsel has committed to allocating the resources necessary to properly representing the class members in this case. Given Daly's counsel's experience in various large class action cases, the Court sees no reason to doubt their ability to do so. While the Court did harbor concerns about the potential conflict of interest created by having Ulery, a former Director and board member of West Monroe, as a plaintiff, Ulery states in his reply memorandum that a former West Monroe employee, Daniel P. Williams, "will serve as named plaintiff and class representative," apparently in Ulery's place. Accordingly, the potential conflict of interest has not played a role in the Court's selection of interim counsel. IV. Order For the reasons he stated, Judge Guzman grants Daly's motion for appointment of interim counsel and denies Ulery's motion for appointment of counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7xnaw6yh from Leagle.com. WHY BE NORMAL: Hyder Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH HYDER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. WHY BE NORMAL PIZZA, INC., and CHRISTOPHER RONALD HAMILTON, Case No. 4:22-cv-25 (E.D. Tenn., June 15, 2022) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 2020 to present as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located in Kimball, Tennessee. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com WORLD WRESTLING: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE) resulting from allegations that WWE may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased WWE securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7052 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "WWE Board Probes Secret $3 Million Hush Pact by CEO Vince McMahon, Sources Say" which revealed that "[t]he board of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. [] is investigating a secret $3 million settlement that longtime chief executive Vince McMahon agreed to pay to a departing employee with whom he allegedly had an affair, according to documents and people familiar with the board inquiry." The article further revealed, among other things, that "[t]he board's investigation, which began in April, has unearthed other, older nondisclosure agreements involving claims by former female WWE employees of misconduct by Mr. McMahon and one of his top executives, John Laurinaitis, the head of talent relations at WWE, the people said." On this news, WWE stock price fell $2.31 per share, or 3.4%, to close at $64.87 per share on June 16, 2022, the next full trading day. On June 17, 2022, before trading hours, WWE issued a press release entitled "WWE(R) & Board of Directors Joint Release" which announced that "a Special Committee of the Board is conducting an investigation into alleged misconduct by its Chairman and CEO Vincent McMahon and John Laurinaitis, head of talent relations, and that, effective immediately, McMahon has voluntarily stepped back from his responsibilities as CEO and Chairman of the Board until the conclusion of the investigation." On this news, WWE stock fell during intraday trading on June 17, 2022. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] WYZE LABS: Quevedo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Quevedo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WYZE LABS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-21658-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone solicitor."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 YEXT INC: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Yext, Inc. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Yext securities between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until August 16, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution, and performance, as well as COVID-19-related disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its full-year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Yext class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Yext class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] YEXT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Yext, Inc. ("Yext" or the "Company") (NYSE: YEXT) and certain of its former officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-05127, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Yext securities between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Yext securities during the Class Period, you have until August 16, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Yext organizes a business's facts to provide answers to consumer questions online. The Company operates Yext platform, a cloud-based platform that allows its customers to, among other things, provide answers to consumer questions, control facts about their businesses and the content of their landing pages, and manage their consumer reviews. Yext's website describes its service as "a modern, AI-powered Answers Platform that understands natural language so that when people ask questions about a business online they get direct answers-not links." As COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021, Yext consistently assured investors that pandemic-related impacts on the Company's business were limited as the Company adapted to lockdowns and improved efficiencies in its sales and other operations. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution and performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (ii) accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its full year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023 outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 8, 2022, Yext issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter ("Q4") and FY fiscal 2022 results. Among other items, Yext reported Q4 fiscal 2022 revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of consensus estimates by $140,000; first quarter ("Q1") fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $96.3 million to $97.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $103.79 million; Q1 fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.08 to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of $0.05; FY fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3 million, versus consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and FY fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17, versus consensus estimates of $0.09. The Company further disclosed the departure of its CEO and CFO. That same day, on a conference call to discuss Yext's Q4 and FY fiscal 2022 results, the Company's incoming CEO, Michael Walrath ("Walrath"), addressed the Company's disappointing financial results, revealing, inter alia, that "we have seen fragmentation in our interactions with customers and our ability to deliver premium service and support" and that, "[i]n hindsight, it is clear we were too focused on building sales capacity and not focused enough on other functions that drive productivity, particularly sales enablement, training, client success and services." Walrath also disclosed that "we saw a really significant disruption in our business" such as "in Q4, 50% -- over 50% of our in-person events were canceled because of the Omicron surges[,]" while opining that Yext could "[a]bsolutely" improve its "sales motion so that it's more efficient during disruptions like that[.]" Following that call, a Truist Securities analyst lowered the firm's rating on Yext to hold from buy and slashed its price target to $6 from $17, noting, among other things, that key performing indicators showed an "unexpected slowdown" in Q4, guidance for fiscal 2023 shows no near-term turn around, and that "planned changes under new management (in go-to-market strategy, sales organization) carry execution risks and the timing for a meaningful and sustainable revival in growth is unclear[.]" Following these disclosures, Yext's stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 9.29%, to close at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com [GN] ********* 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 ***