/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220706.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 6, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 128 Headlines ADORE ME: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AON PLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Williams Suit Alleges ARCARE: Exposed Patients' Private Health Information, Johnson Says ATLANTA, GA: Prelim. Injunction Orders in Martin v. MARTA Vacated BEN F. DAVIS CO: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BROADWAY ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Beauregard PMWA Suit Denied BROOKLYN CENTER: Wolk Files Suit in D. Minnesota CAPSULE CORPORATION: Hamm Files Suit in S.D. New York CHOBANI LLC: Herceg Balks at Dairy Products' Deceptive Ads DENIRO MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ulery Suit Claims DIREXION SHARES: Faces Xu Suit Over ETF Market Manipulation DOVER STREET MARKET: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FEIN SUCH: Court Dismisses Vaughan Class Suit Without Prejudice FIRST GUARANTY: Slater Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff FIRST GUARANTY: Wolter Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice FROOGAL LIMITED: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GERBER LIFE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Loguidice Suit GREAT OREGON WINE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GTS/ML TRUSTCO: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered HARRIS TEA COMPANY: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HCI CLEANING PRODUCTS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Carvalho Suit IHEARTRAVES LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IMEDIA BRANDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INDIANA: District Court Denies Boyd's Bid to Stay Complaint v. HTCF INMAR INC: Court Stays Class Certification in Holmes JAYFLEX FITNESS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JUUL LABS: Camas School Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis, Franklin Pierce Suit Says JUUL LABS: Cheney School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Wash. JUUL LABS: Clover Park Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Ferndale School Claims JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Pullman Says JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Battle Ground Says JUUL LABS: Faces Caney Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Faces Chehalis School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Faces Quincy School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Faces Tahoma School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Faces West Holmes Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Granite Falls School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Kahlotus School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Lake Chelan Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in Wash. JUUL LABS: Lake Local Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Ohio JUUL LABS: Lyle School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Okemos Public Suit Claims JUUL LABS: Meridian School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Kelso School Says JUUL LABS: Reardan-Edwall Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Centralia Suit Says JUUL LABS: Waterville Suit Alleges Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign KOHGENDO USA: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KONTOOR BRANDS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Under Advisement in Goren LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS: Quagliariello's Class Conditionally Certified LELO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LENOVO GROUP: Ham Sues Over Deceptive Computer Product Valuations LITHIA MOTORS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOUISVILLE VEGAN JERKY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOYAL SOURCE: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California MARKETSOURCE INC: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Brum MARS INCORPORATED: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARUCCI SPORTS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MIELLE ORGANICS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MIRACLE INTERNATIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MISSISSIPPI DELTA: Short Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi MNP INDUSTRIES: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MRS BPO LLC: Goldstein FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York MRS BPO: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 8 N.A.R. INC: Almeida Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah NEURON PUBLISHING: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEW SUNSHINE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEW YORK, NY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Dorce Class Suit NEXT LEVEL RESOURCE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NINE LINE APPAREL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Rzepkoski Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties NUMRICH GUN PARTS: Koeller Files Suit in N.D. New York OLLIE'S BARGAIN: 3rd Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Allen Suit ONLY HEARTS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OTTO WILDE GRILLERS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PANGEA VENTURES: Mbandi Files Suit in S.D. Indiana PAPER SOURCE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PAUL LABRECQUE SALON: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PEACH SKIN SHEETS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PENZIM PRODUCE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PEPSICO INC: King Suit Transferred to S.D. New York PETLAB CO: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHILZ COFFEE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PIQUE INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PORK BARREL BBQ: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Strange Seeks to Certify Collective S-FER INTERNATIONAL: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SEBASTIAN CRUZ COUTOURE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STATE FARM: Jama Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Insurance Suit TESLA INC: Lynch Alleges WARN Violations Over Mass Layoff TOKIMEKU INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TYSON FOODS: All Dates in Final Sched Order Stayed in Freeman UNILEVER PLC: Rosen Reminds of August 15 Plaintiff Deadline VEGANCUTS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VITALANT: Jimenez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois VIVINT INC: Court Denies Cunningham's Bid to Certify 3 Classes ********* ADORE ME: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adore Me, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Adore Me, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03752 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adore Me -- https://www.adoreme.com/ -- is a women’s underwear company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com AON PLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Williams Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MISTY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AON PLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03397 9N.D. Ill., June 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including at least Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and benefits information (the "PII"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite Aon's proclaimed expertise in the area of cybersecurity and its acknowledgement of the risk that companies like itself and its clients face, Aon failed to detect an unauthorized intrusion into its systems for over a year. From December 2020, to February 6, 2022 an unknown actor had access to certain segments of Aon's network, including segments that contained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the PII impacted during the Data Breach included at least Social Security numbers, driver's license information, and benefit enrollment information, says the suit. The exposed PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiffs and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers - the gold standard for identity thieves, the suit added. AON PLC is a professional services provider. The Company is comprised of risk and insurance brokerage consulting. Aon's services include helping manage risk for clients, negotiating and placing insurance risk with other carriers, and advising clients related to health and benefits, retirement, compensation, strategic human capital, and human resource outsourcing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com - and - Ryan A. Stygar, Esq. CENTURION TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC 8880 Rio San Diego Dr., Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (858) 206-8833 Facsimile: (760) 753-3206 Email: ryan@centurionta.com ARCARE: Exposed Patients' Private Health Information, Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCARE, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00571-BSM (E.D. Ark., June 17, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII") and medical diagnosis or condition information and health insurance information ("protected health information" or "PHI"). On February 24, 2022, the Defendant experienced a data security incident that impacted its computer systems and caused a temporary disruption to services. The investigation determined that an unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's systems and that information contained in those systems was, in all likelihood, viewed and/or taken by the unauthorized actor. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII and PHI was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII and PHI using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, the suit asserts. ARcare is a healthcare network throughout Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com ATLANTA, GA: Prelim. Injunction Orders in Martin v. MARTA Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VINCENT MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action File No. 1:01-CV-3255-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an Opinion and Order: a. granting the Defendants' Motion to Dissolve, Release, and Vacate the Preliminary Injunction Orders; and b. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Decision on the Pending Petition that Defendants be Held in Contempt. I. Introduction The case is a civil rights action. It case began nearly 21 years ago when the complaint was filed in November 2001. n their class action complaint, the Plaintiffs sought "injunctive and declaratory relief" to end the "Defendants' systemic failure to provide basic and necessary public transportation services to them" and to end "the Defendants' pattern and practice of discrimination against such individuals" under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs specified approximately nineteen ways that the Defendants were violating the ADA, largely based on concrete incidents that the Plaintiffs endured throughout 2000 and 2001. In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin the Defendants "to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by making its service, programs and activities, including its public transportation system, readily accessible to and usable by" the Plaintiffs. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctive relief, which was ultimately granted. In the original 2002 preliminary injunction order, the Court ordered the Defendants to, among other things: (1) make their website and customer information available to paratransit customers in alternative formats; (2) perform maintenance, repairs, and daily inspections to ensure the wheelchair lifts on MARTA's paratransit buses remained functional; (3) establish a protocol for transporting paratransit riders when a lift is found to be non-operational; (4) make stop announcements and limit the amount of time that paratransit riders spend on a bus; (5) significantly reduce hold times and increase customer service operations for MARTA's paratransit telephone customer services; (6) strive for 100 percent on-time performance for paratransit bus service; (7) establish a system for paratransit customers to file complaints regarding MARTA's ADA compliance; and (8) update policies and provide training to paratransit operators with regard to ADA compliance. The original injunction also incorporated provisions for monitoring MARTA's compliance with the ADA and with the injunction terms. In May 2003, the parties reported to the Court that they had resolved the remainder of the claims raised in the Plaintiffs' complaint, and the Court memorialized the terms of the parties' agreement in an Order. In particular, the parties "agreed to forego further discovery and hearing and to have the Preliminary Injunction made the final order of the Court." The case was also closed at that time. The original preliminary injunction was first modified through a consent order entered in 2005. It has been further modified several times since over the years. One such modification entered by consent order in 2014 made minor changes to the original injunction order. In May 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why the Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt. They alleged generally that MARTA's paratransit service performance had not only failed to meet the standards set forth in the Court's injunction orders but had actually declined since the injunction orders were entered. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to impose sanctions on the Defendants -- including monetary ones -- until compliance with the injunction orders was obtained, to "adopt a plan" to bring the Defendants into compliance with the injunction orders, and to consider revising the injunction orders "to bring the operation of MARTA Paratransit into compliance with" the ADA. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion and held a show cause hearing on the contempt issue in July 2017. The parties filed post-trial briefing, and then filed a proposed consent order asking the Court to adopt their resolution of portions of the contempt allegations, and the Court entered the consent order. A portion of the consent order further modified the previous preliminary injunction orders. At present, there is no formal motion or "petition" on contempt pending before the Court. In February 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dissolve, Release, and Vacate the Preliminary Injunction Orders, which is presently pending before the Court. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. In April 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of a Decision on the Pending Petition that Defendants be Held in Contempt, which is also presently pending before the Court. The Defendants did not file a response to the motion. II. Discussion A. Motion to Vacate and Dissolve the Injunction Orders Having reviewed the Defendants' Motion and brief in support, the Plaintiffs' response brief, and all supporting exhibits, Judge Thrash concludes that the Defendants' Motion to Dissolve, Release and Vacate the Preliminary Injunction Orders should be granted. At the outset, he finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required because the facts in dispute are not material to the relief sought -- namely, dissolution of the existing injunction. In particular, the parties dispute only the interpretation of the myriad reports MARTA has compiled and whether that data shows that MARTA has been in substantial compliance with the injunction orders for the last nine months. He does not find that interpretation dispositive in the case. Instead, what the parties do not dispute is that the injunction orders set forth one, discrete goal -- getting MARTA's paratransit services in compliance with the ADA. In other words, the injunctions merely ordered MARTA to follow established federal law, with specific goals to meet and measures for compliance. Continuing to modify the injunction orders would simply equate to ordering MARTA to comply with its ADA obligations; something that it is already statutorily obligated to do. On that basis, continued modifications to the injunction orders and Court oversight of MARTA's paratransit operations are no longer practical, or even equitable. Judge Thrash notes that the only portions of the injunction orders that MARTA is not already bound to comply with under the ADA are the portions requiring the compilation and presentation of data and statistics regarding its compliance, but as the Plaintiffs have admitted, this information is easily attainable through a Freedom of Information Act request. Moreover, he agrees with the Defendants that MARTA paratransit riders remain free to hold MARTA accountable for its ADA obligations by pursuing individual claims against them; such claims may very well be better targeted at obtaining appropriate relief given the age of this case and the fact that the Plaintiffs waived any further discovery in this matter nearly twenty years ago. On that note, Judge Thrash finds that vacatur of the injunction orders in the matter is particularly appropriate given how far removed the Plaintiffs' current requests for modification are from their prayer for relief in the original 2001 complaint. A review of the complaint shows that the Plaintiffs' requests were premised on discrete ADA violations allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs in 2000 and 2001, but the Plaintiffs have continued to seek injunctive relief unrelated to those violations through further modifications to the injunction orders twenty years later, including in their response in opposition to this Motion. It is axiomatic that in civil actions, the complaint frames the case, and the scope of the injunction orders and relief requested has long since outgrown that frame. In no uncertain terms, the Plaintiffs are asking the Court to continue to enjoin MARTA to comply with the ADA in perpetuity, despite the Eleventh Circuit's "sound public policy that litigation should come to an end." But "the dissolution of a preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion" of the Court, and for these reasons, Judge Thrash finds exercise of that discretion is warranted. Accordingly, he grants the Defendants' Motion to Dissolve, Release, and Vacate the Preliminary Injunction Orders. B. Motion for a Ruling on Contempt Having reviewed the transcript of the contempt hearing held in July 2017 and the evidence admitted therein, the parties' post-trial briefing, and the Plaintiffs' present motion, Judge Thrash declines to find the Defendants in contempt of the preliminary injunction orders for the reasons stated in the Defendants' post-trial briefing. In particular, he finds that the Defendants have made all reasonable efforts to comply with the Court's preliminary injunction orders. o the extent that MARTA has been at times unable to comply with the Court's injunction orders, there is no evidence supporting a finding that any non-compliance was the result of bad faith. In their brief in support of their Motion for Entry of a Decision on the Pending Petition that Defendants be Held in Contempt, the Plaintiffs argue that while the existing injunctions have not been effective in bringing MARTA into compliance with the ADA, additional modifications to the injunctions would be an effective remedy. Judge Thrash disagrees. In his view, the Plaintiffs' position that, although MARTA has allegedly been unable for the last several years to comply with an injunction that essentially requires it to adhere to the ADA, additional injunctive measures would be effective is curious, to say the least. As he explained, the Plaintiffs' position is contradictory with its own goals and would likely result only in the Plaintiffs' continued pursuit of injunction modifications and civil contempt sanctions against the Defendants. If the Plaintiffs feel that MARTA has been in willful contempt of the preliminary injunctions for several years now, despite multiple modifications over the years, it is unclear how the Plaintiffs can also argue that further injunctive relief would be an effective remedy. Likewise, while the Plaintiffs now argue that free ride vouchers would compensate them for MARTA's alleged contempt, they previously argued that the same remedy would trivialize their poor experiences with MARTA's paratransit services Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Decision on the Pending Petition that Defendants be Held in Contempt is granted. Judge Thrash declines to hold the Defendants in civil contempt. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth, Judge Thrash grants the Defendants' Motion and the Plaintiffs' Motion. He vacates and dissolves the initial Preliminary Injunction Order and all subsequent modifications to that Order. No further injunctive relief will be entered in the matter. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xnz4e8s from Leagle.com. BEN F. DAVIS CO: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ben F. Davis Company. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ben F. Davis Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05438 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ben Davis -- https://bendavis.com/ -- is an American workwear brand, founded in 1935 and headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BROADWAY ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Beauregard PMWA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN BEAUREGARD, Plaintiff v. BROADWAY ELECTRIC SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-1600 (W.D. Pa.), Judge William S. Stickman, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. I. Introduction Plaintiff Beauregard filed the putative class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), 43 P.S. Sections 333.101-333.115, against Defendant Broadway Electric Service Corp. ("BESCO") in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania. In the single-count Complaint, Beauregard asserts, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, that BESCO violated the PMWA by failing to pay overtime wages to hourly employees for required activities before their scheduled start time and after their scheduled end time. BESCO removed the case to the Court. It then filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that Beauregard's PMWA claim is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 185. II. Background Shell Polymers, a subsidiary of Shell Oil Co., is currently constructing a large petrochemical facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Work at the Monaca facility is governed by a Project Labor Agreement ("PLA"), which consists of several collectively bargained agreements, including the National Construction Agreement and various addendums, interpretations, and memoranda of understanding. The PLA requires contractors to employ "members of the local construction unions" and sets forth the terms and conditions of employment at the Monaca facility. The PLA also contains a "Grievance Adjudication Procedure" that applies "in the event any disputes arise out of the interpretation of this Agreement." Specifically, the PLA provides that any grievance must be "called to the attention" of the employer or the union "within five (5) calendar days after the alleged violation was committed." Thereafter, grievances are subject to a multi-step review process involving union and employer representatives and must ultimately be resolved through "final and binding arbitration." BESCO, an electrical services contractor, employed individuals who were paid an hourly wage to perform work at the Monaca facility. Beauregard was one such employee, and he actively worked at the Monaca facility on a full-time basis from January 2021 to September 2021. Beauregard's employment was thus subject to the PLA. Beauregard alleges that he and other hourly employees "typically worked over 40 hours per workweek." However, according to Beauregard, BESCO failed to pay "any compensation for required activities before their scheduled start time and required activities after their scheduled end time." Pre-start time activities included "waiting at an assigned parking lot for a shuttle bus, riding a shuttle bus from the parking lot to the Monaca facility, reporting to an assigned facility/lunch area, obtaining and donning personal protective equipment at the facility/lunch area, and walking or riding a vehicle onsite from the facility/lunch area to the initial job assignment." Post-end time activities were the same, but in reverse -- i.e., "walking from the last job assignment to the assigned facility/lunch area," "doffing and storing personal protective equipment at the facility/lunch area," and "waiting for and riding the shuttle bus to the assigned parking lot." Beauregard further alleges that "parking at the assigned parking lot was required." There, employees were "required to swipe a security badge to enter the shuttle bus loading area." "This time was recorded for security purposes (but not compensation purposes)." Upon arrival at the job site, employees were again required to swipe a security badge, "but that did not trigger the start of paid time." Rather, until the employees "arrived at the job assignment location on site by the scheduled start time, no compensation was paid." In October 2021, Beauregard filed suit in state court on behalf of himself and other hourly employees of BESCO who worked at the Monaca facility "during the past three years." He asserts that BESCO's failure to pay them overtime wages for required activities violated the PMWA. BESCO removed the case to the Court and subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). III. Analysis In support of its Motion to Dismiss, BESCO contends that Beauregard's PMWA claim is preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA because the claim is "inextricably tied to an interpretation of several provision[s] set forth in the PLA." BESCO maintains that the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, and "the task of interpreting the collective bargaining agreement must be performed by an arbitrator, not a district court judge." Beauregard responds that LMRA preemption is inapplicable because "resolution of this particular PMWA claim as pleaded by the Plaintiff does not require interpretation of the PLA." To determine whether LMRA preemption applies in the case, Jduge Stickman first considers whether the PMWA "confers nonnegotiable state-law rights on employers or employees." The answer is straightforward. The PMWA was intended to "protect an employee's right to be adequately compensated for all hours for which they work." To give effect to that right, the PMWA affords an employee a civil cause of action to recover minimum wages. And it further provides that "any agreement between the employer and the worker to work for less than such minimum wage will be no defense to such action." In other words, the PMWA expressly states that its protections cannot be waived by contract. Judge Stickman, therefore, finds that the PMWA confers nonnegotiable rights on employees -- a conclusion that follows directly from the text and purpose of the PMWA. To prevail on the PMWA claim, Beauregard must demonstrate that (1) he and the other hourly workers were "employees," (2) BESCO was their "employer," and (3) BESCO failed to pay them the wages required by the PMWA. Judge Stickman holds that resolution of the first two elements (which are inherently related) will not require any interpretation of the PLA." He finds that application of the "economic reality" test to determine whether Beauregard and the other hourly workers were BESCO's employees will not require interpretation of any provision of the PLA. Indeed, the PLA is largely -- if not entirely irrelevant to this inquiry. BESCO does not challenge that conclusion. Instead, BESCO focuses on the third element of the PMWA claim -- whether it failed to pay its employees the statutorily required wages. Resolution of this element will require a factual determination of the amount of overtime the employees worked and a legal determination of whether such time is compensable under the PMWA. To be compensable as overtime, the employees must have worked "in excess of forty hours in a workweek," and their time must constitute "hours worked." BESCO asserts that determining whether the employees' pre- and post-shift activities constitute "hours worked" under the PMWA -- i.e., "whether BESCO employees are required to ride the shuttle busses and to don and doff their PPE [(personal protective equipment)] at the Monaca Facility" -- will necessitate "interpretation of the PLA." Specifically, BESCO contends that "the terms of the PLA are inextricably intertwined with Beauregard's PMWA claim because resolution of his claim necessarily raises questions relating to an interpretation of the PLA's provisions, i.e. what duties Beauregard and other Putative Class members were required to perform as part of their jobs under the PLA." Judge Stickman opines that the PLA is thus silent as to whether any of the challenged pre- and post-shift activities were compensable "hours worked." In other words, with respect to the third element of Beauregard's PMWA claim, there is nothing in the PLA for the Court -- or an arbitrator -- to interpret. Resolution of this element will ultimately require the Court to look beyond the PLA. That task will not involve contractual interpretation. And in the absence of any required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the doctrine of complete preemption under the LMRA is inapplicable. Judge Stickman, therefore, concludes that Beauregard's PMWA claim is not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stickman denies BESCO's Motion to Dismiss. An Order of Court will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p97prm5 from Leagle.com. BROOKLYN CENTER: Wolk Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Brooklyn Center, et al. The case is styled as Sam Wolk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The City of Brooklyn Center; Tim Gannon, Brooklyn Center Police Chief; Tony Gruenig, Brooklyn Center Police Commander; David Hutchinson, Hennepin County Sheriff; John Harrington, Department of Public Safety Commissioner; Matthew Langer, Chief of Minnesota State Patrol Colonel; Hennepin County; Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Rodman Smith, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Director of Enforcement Colone; Aaron Kahre; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Incident Commander Captain; John Does, 1-100, in their individual capacities; Case No. 0:22-cv-01666 (D. Minn., June 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Brooklyn Center -- https://www.ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us/ -- is a first-ring suburban city in Hennepin County, Minnesota, United States in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Stauber, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: tstauber@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com CAPSULE CORPORATION: Hamm Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capsule Corporation. The case is styled as Sarah Hamm, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capsule Corporation doing business as: Capsule, Case No. 1:22-cv-05435 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Capsule Corporation -- https://capsule.com/ -- is a healthcare technology business rebuilding the pharmacy from the inside out.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: byagman@milberg.com CHOBANI LLC: Herceg Balks at Dairy Products' Deceptive Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- AGNES HERCEG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOBANI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-05137 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022) is a class action complaint for equitable relief and damages against the Defendant regarding the deceptive marketing of Chobani's "Fair Trade Certified" dairy products in violation of the New York General Business Law and State Consumer Protection Statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets its products as beneficial to farm workers and animals involved in its supply chain based on being Fair Trade USA Certified, explicitly representing that its's products adhere to the "highest standards" for workers, "promote[] sustainable livelihoods," and "support[] . . . safe animal care." In stark contrast to its marketing representations, Chobani's products do not represent the highest standards for workers, nor do they promote sustainable livelihoods or safe animal care. Instead, its representations are false, without basis, and are meant to deceive consumers, the suit asserts. Allegedly, the Fair Trade USA certification -- which has been strongly opposed by farm workers for its lack of meaningful protections -- falls far short of the "highest standards" available to dairy workers under other programs, fails to improve key factors for sustainable livelihoods beyond the bare minimum under U.S. law, and includes no standards whatsoever relating to animal care, contends the Plaintiff. Because Defendant's marketing of the products tends to mislead and is materially deceptive about the true nature and quality of the products, Plaintiff brings this deceptive advertising case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated consumers and seeks equitable and monetary relief. Chobani, an American food company headquartered in New York, is one of the largest sellers of yogurt in the United States. Fair Trade USA is an independent non-profit that sets standards that it claims protect farm workers and partners with businesses to certify certain products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com - and - Clark A. Binkley, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 E-mail: cbinkley@richmanlawpolicy.com - and - Christopher Esbrook, Esq. ESBROOK P.C. 321 N. Clark, Suite 1930 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 319-7680 E-mail: christopher.esbrook@esbrook.com - and - Erika Pedersen, Esq. ESBROOK P.C. 135 E. 57th Street, Suite 15-111 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (312) 319-7685 E-mail: erika.giwa-amu@esbrook.com DENIRO MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ulery Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENIRO MARKETING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-at-00666 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. DIGITAL MARKETING LLC is a full service electronic marketing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Ste. 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com DIREXION SHARES: Faces Xu Suit Over ETF Market Manipulation ----------------------------------------------------------- LEE XU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST, RAFFERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, DIREXION FAMILY OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES, DANIEL O'NEILL, DANIEL J. BYRNE, GERALD E. SHANLEY, III, JACOB C. GAFFEY, PATRICK J. RUDNICK, ANGELA BRICKL, TODD KELLERMAN, PAUL BRIGANDI, TONY NG, MICHAEL RAFFERTY, KATHLEEN RAFFERTY HAY, U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC, FORESIDE FUND SERVICES, LLC, DIREXION ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05090 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022) seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 asserting strict liability claims, civil damages, penalties, and injunctive relief against Defendant for materially false and misleading statements and market manipulation. The class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased, invested or otherwise acquired shares in the Direxion Daily Gold Miners Index Bull 2X, Daily Junior Gold Miners Index Bull 2X Shares, and other Direxion leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs), 3X or 2X actively managed ETFs offered by Direxion Shares ETF Trust pursuant to Direxion's false and misleading statements in all Prospectuses, traceable Form N-1A Registration Statements, and other post-effective Amendments, Statements of Additional Information and other Exchange Act filings, as well as price manipulation, fraudulent, deceptive tactic in the purchase and sale of the security, in connection with the Funds during the Class Periods: December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2021 for Exchange Act Section 10(b) claim, no class period for Exchange Act Section 20A claim, and during the period of December 1, 2018 through November 30, 2021 for all other claims. According to the complaint, Direxion provided partial information of enlarged volatility and compounding to deceit the public investors, hiding the serious compounding effect of long-term loss of the Funds. Direxion provided fraudulent and misleading information in its public disclosures, from the registration to the SEC information disclosures, that long-term investment may receive higher return or at least have similar win-loss return opportunities. Direxion also misrepresented that the Funds are seeking daily leveraged return and named the Funds as "Daily" period. However, the Funds' price cannot be leveraged during trading day period other than the pinpointed closing time, in which time Direxion rebalance and readjust its position, says the suit. Further, Direxion manipulates the intraday prices to mimic the underly indexes' trend while investors do not know. It controls the closing prices to deviate the leveraged return. It also manipulates the rebalance and readjustment of the closing price to make short swing trade profit. Direxion practiced all tactics to deceive and mislead investors, control and manipulate prices, hunting short term, long term, middle term profit, making the trend to serve its illegal market manipulation purposes, the suit alleges. Direxion Shares ETF Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and a registered investment company with Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, offering a variety of exchange-traded funds. The Plaintiff, of Flushing, New York, appears pro se.[BN] DOVER STREET MARKET: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dover Street Market New York, LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dover Street Market New York, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05344 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dover Street Market New York -- https://newyork.doverstreetmarket.com/ -- is a hip, sprawling showcase of high-end clothing & fashion-forward displays, plus a gourmet cafe.[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 FEIN SUCH: Court Dismisses Vaughan Class Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DOUGLAS VAUGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD, P.C., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-16013 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants Defendant Fein's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Vaughan's putative class-action complaint. I. Introduction The matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C.'s ("Defendant") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Vaughan's putative class-action complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's motion, and the Defendant replied. Judge Cecchi has considered the submissions made in support of and in opposition to the motion and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R, Civ. P. 78(b). II. Background The matter arises out of the Plaintiff's defaulted loan and security agreement in favor of Greater Alliance Federal Credit Union, and subsequent debt collection efforts made by Defendant Fein's behalf. The Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2021, the Defendant sent him a collection letter that was misleading and deceptive as to the amount of debt and the identities of the debt collector and creditor, thereby providing a defective written validation notice (a "G notice"). As a result, the Plaintiff claims that the Letter violated his rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. The Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that sometime prior to March 4, 2021, he incurred a financial obligation to Greater Alliance, which was referred to the Defendant for collection. On March 4, 2021, he received the Letter from the Defendant on behalf of Greater Alliance, which the Plaintiff alleges explained that the debt had been transformed into a wage garnishment and provided the G-notice required for first communications from the debt collector. On Aug. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff brought the putative class-action against Defendant and other unnamed defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey for violations to sections 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the amount stated as due is false (and thus misleading) because, even though the balance is due to a judgment and the "Plaintiff knows that judgments generally accrue interest," the letter does not state that interest is accruing or, conversely, that interest is waived. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's reference to Greater Alliance as the "Plaintiff in this matter" instead of as the creditor obscures the identity of the creditor. Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Letter's "generic" references to "the consumer" and "the debt collector" fail to provide clarity as to the parties, and thus the Defendant has not clearly communicated the Plaintiff's rights to dispute his debt as required under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g. The Defendant then filed the instant motion to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 1, 2021, focusing solely on the Court's jurisdiction and the Plaintiff's Article III standing. The Plaintiff opposed the motion III. Discussion The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, as he has failed to establish an injury-in-fact. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's motion, arguing that his Complaint has sufficiently alleged concrete intangible harms and actionable informational injuries resulting from the Defendant's misleading and incomplete letter. Of the three components of standing, at issue is whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement—that is, whether his asserted injuries are "concrete," citing Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2204 (2021). The Defendant argues that any injury alleged by the Plaintiff is purely informational and thus lacks the concrete harm required to confer Article III standing after Transunion. In response, the Plaintiff offers multiple theories that he contends establish standing. First, he argues that misleading information concerning the amount of debt owed or the identities of the creditor and debt collector is a core concern of the FDCPA that confers standing "irrespective of any additional harm suffered by the plaintiff." Relatedly, he argues that the FDCPA provides a substantive right to be free of deceptive debt collection practices, which constitutes a concrete injury even after Transunion. Second, the Plaintiff argues that the harm alleged here has a common-law analogue in fraud and he has sufficiently pleaded its elements. Finally, the Plaintiff argues that even if he has not established intangible harm, his expenditure of time and money in response to the Letter establishes a tangible injury conferring standing. Judge Cecchi finds that the Plaintiff has not established a concrete harm and thus lacks standing. Initially, she notes that the Plaintiff's first argument -- that misleading information in a debt collection letter confers standing irrespective of any additional harm suffered by him -- fails to account for these recent clarifications on the concreteness requirement. Similarly, the Plaintiff's related argument that the FDCPA provides a substantive right that confers standing in and of itself begs the question given the inquiry required by Transunion. Accordingly, Juduge Cecchi finds that neither argument provides a proper basis for concreteness and turns to the Plaintiff's additional arguments that address Transunion. The Plaintiff next argues that the harm resembles common law fraud, a harm "traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts." Consequently, heavers that his reliance on the misleading information in the Letter satisfies the comparison to this historical analogue. Applying the Transunion framework, Judge Cecchi finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a proper common-law analogue but has not established that the harms here bear a close enough relationship to it. The Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts resembling common-law fraud's element of detrimental reliance. His claim lacks a sufficiently close relationship to its historical analogue of commonlaw fraud because he has not adequately pleaded facts resembling its reliance element. Finally, the Plaintiff's argument that the time, money, and effort spent determining the proper response to the Letter constituted tangible harms must also be rejected for multiple reasons. Putting aside the fact that the Plaintiff offers no semblance of specificity concerning these claims, his argument relies exclusively on cases decided prior to Transunion. However, after Transunion, these cannot amount to concrete harms unless "bound up in a cognizable injury." That is, if the Plaintiff has not established a sufficient risk of harm from the misrepresentations of the Letter itself (which he has not), efforts to mitigate that risk do not constitute concrete harm. Moreover, to the extent this claim alleges harm via the fees and efforts of litigation, it is well settled that "the burdens of bringing a lawsuit cannot be the sole basis for standing." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's harms constitute neither intangible nor tangible harms that satisfy the requisite concreteness standard. Iv. Conclusion For the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysrznfbr from Leagle.com. FIRST GUARANTY: Slater Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SLATER; and LEE ANN CASANOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00547 (E.D. Tex., June 29, 2022) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") by causing Plaintiffs and class members to suffer an employment loss, without providing sufficient advance written notice. The Plaintiff in the complaint seeks to recover back pay and benefits under the WARN Act to redress a common course of alleged conduct by Defendant which resulted in hundreds of employees suffering an "employment loss," as defined by the WARN Act, as part of a series of mass layoffs without proper legal notice. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION provides mortgage financing services. The Company originate, purchase, sell, and service mortgage loans granted for homes and home improvements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8581 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5352 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 Email:pbotros@forthepeople.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Gregory R. Schmitz, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 204-2170 Facsimile: (407) 563-9986 Email: gschmitz@forthepeople.com FIRST GUARANTY: Wolter Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER WOLTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01030 (Nev. Dist., June 29, 2022) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION provides mortgage financing services. The Company originate, purchase, sell, and service mortgage loans granted for homes and home improvements. The Company markets its services to commercial lenders throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Schwartz, Esq. SCHWARTZ LAW, PLLC 601 East Bridger Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101 Email: saschwartz@nvfirm.com Telephone: (702) 385-5544 Facsimile: (702) 442-9887 FROOGAL LIMITED: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Froogal Limited Liability Company. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Froogal Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05383 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Froogal LLC is a limited liability company located in Columbia Heights, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GERBER LIFE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Loguidice Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE & EMILIE NORMAN, v. GERBER LIFE INS. CO., Case No. 7:20-cv-03254-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' motion is due: January 16, 2023 -- Defendant's response is due: March 3, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due: March 31, 2023 Gerber Life Insurance Company provides life insurance services. The Company offers whole life insurance for children, college and adult life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NsZ1Eo at no extra charge.[CC] GREAT OREGON WINE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Great Oregon Wine Company. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Great Oregon Wine Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05387 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Great Oregon Wine Company -- https://greatoregonwine.com/ -- was founded out of a love for fine wine and an innate appreciation for the unique Oregon culture, community, and lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GTS/ML TRUSTCO: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deborah J. Livingston, et al. v. GTS/ML Trustco Bank, et al. Case No. 1:20-cv-01030-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before August 29, 2022 -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before August 29, 2022. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before September 7, 2022. -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by June 17, 2022. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before March 15, 2023. -- Class certification motions are to be filed on or before April 14, 2023. Trustco provides low cost personal & commercial bank services including checkings & savings accounts. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OtRshL at no extra charge.[CC] HARRIS TEA COMPANY: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris Tea Company LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harris Tea Company LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05379 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Harris Tea Company -- https://www.harristea.com/ -- is the leading producer of private brand black, green, herbal, decaffeinated and specialty organic teas, iced tea, and instant tea mixes in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HCI CLEANING PRODUCTS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCI Cleaning Products, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCI Cleaning Products, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05382 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HCI Cleaning Products is categorized under disinfectants, household or industrial plant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Carvalho Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY CARVALHO, et al., v. HP, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-08015-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that: -- Breach of express warranty is granted without leave to amend; -- HP's motion to dismiss the third and fourth claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation is granted with leave to amend; -- HP's motion to dismiss the first and second claims for breach of contract and HP's motion to dismiss the fifth, seventh, and ninth claims for violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), is granted with leave to amend as to the strikethrough prices allegations and denied as to the limited time offer allegations; -- HP's motion to dismiss the sixth claim for unjust enrichment is denied; and HP's motion to dismiss the eighth claim for violation of the FAL's provision regarding former prices is granted without leave to amend. The Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint no later than 21 days from the date of this Order. Failure to meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order will result in a dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Leave to amend is limited to the defects identified in this Order. Plaintiffs may not add new claims or parties absent leave of Court, the Court says. In this case, the Plaintiffs Rodney Carvalho and Mark Maher challenge the manner in which Defendant HP Inc. advertises products on its website. The Plaintiffs allege that HP displays false and inflated reference or "strikethrough" prices for its products that it then offers to consumers at a purported "discount price." HP allegedly markets its products this way to create the impression that consumers are saving money when in fact HP never sells its products at the higher strikethrough prices. The Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of individuals who purchased purportedly discounted products on HP's website in the last five years. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u6e5Rt at no extra charge.[CC] IHEARTRAVES LLC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against iHeartRaves, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. iHeartRaves, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05428 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. iHeartRaves -- https://www.iheartraves.com/ -- is the world leader in rave outfits, rave clothes, and rave wear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com IMEDIA BRANDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against iMedia Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. iMedia Brands, Inc. d/b/a Christopher & Banks, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05436 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. iMedia Brands, Inc. -- https://www.imediabrands.com/ -- operates as a media company. The Company offers interactive advertising, marketing, video, and live television production services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com INDIANA: District Court Denies Boyd's Bid to Stay Complaint v. HTCF ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEREK BOYD, Plaintiff v. ROBERT CARTER, JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00694-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an order: a. denying Mr. Boyd's motion to stay; and b. granting in part and denying in part Mr. Boyd's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice. I. Background Derek Boyd has filed two lawsuits concerning the response to COVID-19 at Heritage Trail Correctional Facility (HTCF), where he was imprisoned when the pandemic broke out in the spring of 2020. In Boyd v. Reaves, Case No. 1:20-cv-01844-TWP-TAB, Mr. Boyd is pursuing Eighth Amendment claims against several members of HTCF's correctional and medical staffs, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), and the IDOC's medical care contractor. That case has been pending for nearly two years, and the parties have completed summary judgment briefing. Mr. Boyd filed the present action on April 7, 2022. His complaint again arises from the response to COVID-19 at HTCF in 2020. In this case, however, he sought to bring claims on behalf of a class of all inmates incarcerated at HTCF from April 2020 forward. The Court dismissed Mr. Boyd's complaint as frivolous and malicious on April 20, 2022. In Reaves, the Court denied numerous motions to proceed with a class action, and Mr. Boyd disregarded those rulings by presenting the same claims in the new case. The Court ordered Mr. Boyd to show cause why the case should not be dismissed and final judgment entered. Mr. Boyd has filed, essentially, three responses to the show-cause order: A motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, a response to the show-cause order, and a motion to stay the action. II. Discussion A. Response to Show Cause Order and Motion to Stay Mr. Boyd's response to the show-cause order asks the Court to allow him to pursue Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims in the action. The grounds for these claims are either that he was subjected to different conditions and protocols than inmates in at least one other housing unit; that he was treated different from other inmates in his own unit; or both. In his motion to stay, Mr. Boyd asks the Court to grant him 90 days to search for an attorney to develop equal protection claims and file an amended complaint, possibly on behalf of a class. In both filings, Mr. Boyd asserts that equal protection claims are different from the claims proceeding in Reaves, that he could not have brought equal protection claims in Reaves, and that he is open to pursuing them either individually or on behalf of a class. He adds that dismissal of this action will prevent him from pursuing these claims because the statute of limitations has expired or will expire soon. Judge Hanlon holds that Mr. Boyd cannot pursue equal protection claims in the action. Whether through deliberate indifference or discrimination, Mr. Boyd suffered at most one injury in the spring of 2020. He was allegedly confined under unsafe conditions that allowed him to catch the virus, and he allegedly did not receive adequate care afterward. His response to the show cause order and his motion to stay do not articulate how his disparate treatment subjected him to an injury distinct from the injuries caused by the Reaves defendants' alleged deliberate indifference. His filings in the present case do not acknowledge the equal protection claims he attempted to raise in Reaves, and they do not attempt to distinguish them from the equal protection claims he attempts to bring in the present case. The Court afforded Mr. Boyd an opportunity to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. He responded with two separate filings and identified only claims that cannot proceed in the action. Affording him an additional 90 days to develop and plead those claims would be pointless. So, Mr. Boyd's motion to stay the action is denied. B. Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Mr. Boyd's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice is granted in part and denied in part, consistent with the following. In Part A, Judge Hanlon denies Mr. Boyd's requests to pursue certain claims in the present case because he is already pursuing them -- or could have pursued them -- in Reaves. In dismissing the action without prejudice, Judge Hanlon holds only that the dismissal of this action should not prejudice his pursuit of those claims in Reaves. Mr. Boyd should not construe the dismissal of the action without prejudice as license to file a new action asserting the claims discussed in this entry. Such an action could not proceed for all the reasons discussed. He also should not construe dismissal of the action as an invitation to amend his complaint in Reaves to add equal protection claims. To the extent Mr. Boyd wishes to avoid accrual of a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g), his motion has no effect. Further, Judge Hanlon cannot rule in the action that its dismissal will or will not function as a "strike" when Mr. Boyd seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a future case. However, the action is dismissed as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b)(1). The Court explained in dismissing Mr. Boyd's original complaint why the action was frivolous and malicious. For the reasons discussed in Part A, Mr. Boyd's subsequent filings only reinforce the conclusion that there is no legal basis for him to bring a second action concerning COVID-19 precautions and treatment at HTCF in the spring of 2020. III. Conclusion Mr. Boyd's motions to dismiss the action without prejudice is granted to the limited extent discussed in Part B and denied in all other respects. His motion to stay the action is denied. The action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and malicious. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment. The dismissal of the action pursuant to Section 1915A(b)(1) may be considered a "strike" for purposes of Section 1915(g). The Court is aware of at least two other dismissals that may also be counted as strikes against Mr. Boyd -- Boyd v. Johnson, no. 1:21-03081-JRS-TAB, dkt. 25 (S.D. Ind. May 27, 2022) (dismissing action for failure to state a claim); Boyd v. Dugger, no. 1:21-3083, dkt. 16 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2022) (dismissing action as frivolous). A prisoner who has accrued three strikes may proceed in forma pauperis only if he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury; otherwise, he must prepay the full filing fee. If Mr. Boyd seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in future cases and does not "disclose to the court the fact that" he has had three cases dismissed that could be counted as strikes, he will "risk dismissal of his case as a sanction for misconduct." A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yheb7jjk from Leagle.com. INMAR INC: Court Stays Class Certification in Holmes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holmes v. Inmar Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02093 (C.D. Ill.,), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Defendant's motion to stay class certification, to which the Plaintiff generally does not object. The Court said, "Consideration of Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stayed pending a ruling on the forthcoming motion to dismiss. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A), "the court will determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action" at "an early practicable time" following resolution of the motion to dismiss. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Inmar develops technology and data analytics services.[CC] JAYFLEX FITNESS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jayflex Fitness LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jayflex Fitness LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05348 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jayflex Fitness -- https://www.jayflexfitness.com/ -- is an innovative, easy-to-attach portable gym that delivers a powerful workout.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com JUUL LABS: Camas School Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT #117, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03700-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Camas School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Camas School District #117 is a unified school district with its offices located at 841 Northeast 22nd Avenue in Camas, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis, Franklin Pierce Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLIN PIERCE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 402, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03709 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Franklin Pierce School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Franklin Pierce School District No. 402 is a unified school district with its offices located at 315 129th Street South in Tacoma, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Cheney School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis in Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHENEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 360, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03703 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Cheney School District 360 case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Cheney School District 360 is a unified school district with its offices located at 12414 South Andrus Road in Cheney, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Clover Park Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Epidemic ------------------------------------------------------------- CLOVER PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT #400, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03687 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Clover Park School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Clover Park School District #400 is a unified school district with its offices located at 10903 Gravelly Lake Drive Southwest in Lakewood, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Ferndale School Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- FERNDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03706 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Ferndale School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Ferndale School District is a unified school district with its offices located at Vista Drive in Ferndale, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Pullman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PULLMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03690 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Pullman School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Pullman School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 240 Southeast Dexter Street in Pullman, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Battle Ground Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BATTLE GROUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03685 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Battle Ground Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Battle Ground Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 1104 Northeast 149th Street in Brush Prairie, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Caney Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------- CANEY VALLEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03684 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Caney Valley Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Caney Valley Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 620 Wyandotte Avenue Southwest in Ramona, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Chehalis School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHEHALIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03694 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Chehalis School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Chehalis School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 310 Southwest 16th Street in Chehalis, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Quincy School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------- QUINCY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03697 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Quincy School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Quincy School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 119 J Street Southwest in Quincy, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Tahoma School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 409, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03691 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Tahoma School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Tahoma School District No. 409 is a unified school district with its offices located at 25720 Maple Valley-Black Diamond Road Southeast in Maple Valley, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces West Holmes Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic ----------------------------------------------------------------- WEST HOLMES LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03681 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The West Holmes Local School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. West Holmes Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 28 West Jackson Street in Millersburg, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Granite Falls School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------ GRANITE FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03686 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Granite Falls School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Granite Falls School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 2015 North Alder Avenue in Granite Falls, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Kahlotus School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------- KAHLOTUS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03712 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Kahlotus School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Kahlotus School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 100 West Martin Street in Kahlotus, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Lake Chelan Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- LAKE CHELAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03716 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Lake Chelan School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Lake Chelan School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 309 East Johnson Avenue in Chelan, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Lake Local Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAKE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03682 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Lake Local School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Lake Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 436 King Church Avenue Southwest in Uniontown, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Lyle School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------- LYLE SCHOOL DISTRICT #406, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03688 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Lyle School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Lyle School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 625 Keasey Avenue in Lyle, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Okemos Public Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ OKEMOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03683 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Okemos Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Okemos Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 4406 Okemos Road in Okemos, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Meridian School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 505, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03689 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Meridian School District 505 case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Meridian School District 505 is a unified school district with its offices located at 214 West Laurel Road in Bellingham, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Kelso School Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KELSO SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03714 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Kelso School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Kelso School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 601 Crawford Street in Kelso, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Reardan-Edwall Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- REARDAN-EDWALL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03695 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. The Reardan-Edwall School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Reardan-Edwall School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 215 East Spokane Avenue in Reardan, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Centralia Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CENTRALIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03702 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit alleges. The Centralia School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Centralia School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 2320 Borst Avenue in Centralia, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Waterville Suit Alleges Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------------- WATERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03692 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. The Waterville School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Waterville School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 200 East Birch Street in Waterville, Washington. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com KOHGENDO USA: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohgendo USA, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kohgendo USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05350 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Koh Gen Do -- https://kohgendocosmetics.com/ -- is a manufacturer and distributor of beauty, makeup and skincare products as well as offers related tools and gift cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com KONTOOR BRANDS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kontoor Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kontoor Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05437 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kontoor Brands -- https://www.kontoorbrands.com/ -- is an American clothing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Under Advisement in Goren ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goren v. LawPracticeCLE, L.L.C., Case No. 8:21-cv-01503 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William F. Jung entered an endorsed order taking under advisement motion to certify class. The Parties must complete mediation by July 31, 2022. Mediation over Zoom or similar is permissible, says Judhe Jung. The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities. LawPracticeCLE is a national continuing legal education company.[CC] LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS: Quagliariello's Class Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TONI ANN QUAGLIARIELLO, MARIA SIMON, and CHRISTLYNN KARNS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. LEONARD DiPASQUALE, individually and t/b/d/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB and/or TAVERN IN THE GLEN, JOHN DOE t/d/b/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DUANE CRAIG, and JOSEPH SHOEMAKER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-699 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and Send Notice to the Collective. I. Introduction The Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and Send Notice to the Collective is pending before the Court. With the Motion, the Plaintiffs request the Court to take the following actions: Conditionally certify "a collective of all current and former dancers who provided services at Leave it to Beavers Gentlemen's Club from April 27, 2017, through the entry of final judgment in the case"; toll the statute of limitations for all potential collective members from April 27, 2020, to a deadline to be established by the Court for the collective members to file their respective consents to join the collective action; direct Defendant DiPasquale to provide relevant contact information for potential class members; permit the Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice of the pendency of the action to potential class members; permit the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a follow-up notice to potential collective members who have not responded after the mailing of the initial notice; and order the Defendants to post notice of the pendency of the collective action at the Leave it to Beavers Gentlemen's Club. The Defendants assert that conditional certification should be denied because the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are similarly situated to other potential members of the class collective. They also maintain that the statute of limitations should not be tolled for opt-in plaintiffs and the production of the information the Plaintiffs seek is not workable. II. Background In his Report and Recommendation ("R&R") addressing the Motion of Defendants Leonard DiPasquale and Duane Craig to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson set out the Statement of Facts of the Case. The Plaintiffs are former and/or current employees at the gentleman's club owned by the individual defendants, Leave it to Beaver's (the Club), and were employed as dancers at the Club at various times between 2012 and the present. The crux of the amended complaint is that during their employment at the Club, the Defendants failed to pay mandated minimum wages, failed to pay overtime compensation, and withheld certain amounts of gratuities earned by the Plaintiffs in violation of state and federal law. On this score, it is alleged that the Defendants had complete control over the dancers' schedules and compensation. This included capping the dancers' shifts if too many dancers were employed at any given time; determining the amount of money the dancers could charge for certain performances; prohibiting the dancers from retrieving their own tips from the stage following a performance; and requiring the dancers to pay House Fees for each shift, as well as charging extra fees or fines if the dancers were late to their shift. The amended complaint further alleges that due to these employment practices by the Defendants, the dancers sometimes received little to no actual compensation, and could actually end up owing Defendants tips to be paid from future shifts, despite hours of work. Thus, the Plaintiffs filed the action on April 27, 2020 and filed an amended complaint on Aug. 3, 2020, which is the operative complaint in the case. The amended complaint asserts collective and class action claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals under the FLSA, the PMWA, and the WPCL, alleging minimum wage violations, overtime wage violations, and unlawful tip retention. The Defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded facts to support their FLSA claims, and further, that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended denying the Defendants' Motion. No objections were filed to the R&R and the Court adopted it by Order of Feb. 26, 2021. In their Amended Class and Collection Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs generally allege the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA, the PMWA, the WPCL, and Pennsylvania common law (collectively, the PMWA, WPCL, and Pennsylvania common law are referred to as PA Laws) by: (1) improperly classifying Dancers as independent contractors; (2) failing to pay Dancers minimum wage; (3) failing to pay Dancers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and (4) unlawfully taking or withholding a portion of Plaintiffs' and other Dancers' gratuities received from customers. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and other Dancers were not paid anything by the Defendants. Rather, the Defendants required the Plaintiffs and other Dancers to perform adult entertainment work, such as stage and VIP room performances, solely for tips, and thereafter share the tips with the Defendants. Over the past two decades, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) and courts across the country have recognized that dancers are employees, not independent contractors, and thus are entitled to protection under various state and federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs specifically allege three Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violations: Count I for Minimum Wage Violations; Count II for Overtime Wage Violations; and Count III for Unlawful Tip Retention. The Plaintiffs' claim for Minimum Wage Violations in Count I includes the following allegations: At all relevant times, the Defendants had a uniform policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay its employees for all hours worked. As a result of the Defendants' willful failure to compensate its employees, including the Plaintiffs and the members of the Collective, the applicable federal minimum wage for all hours worked, Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. The Defendants' conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a). The Plaintiffs' claim for Overtime Wage Violations in Count II includes the following allegations: At relevant times in the period encompassed by this Complaint, the Defendants willfully refused to pay appropriate overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek due to the Defendants' improper classification of the Plaintiffs and Dancers as independent contractors. As a result of the Defendants' willful failure to compensate their employees, including the Plaintiffs and members of the Collective, the appropriate overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. The Defendants' conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a). The Plaintiffs' claim for Unlawful Tip Retention in Count Ill includes the following allegations: At relevant times in the period encompassed by this Complaint, the Defendants maintained a willful policy and practice of forcing Dancers to share a portion of their tips with Leave it to Beavers' managers and security personnel. As a result of the Defendants' willful practice of requiring their employees, including the Plaintiffs and members of the Collective, to share a portion of their gratuities with Leave it to Beavers personnel, the Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. The Defendants' conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a). The Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion on June 9, 2021. With the filing of the Plaintiffs' reply brief on July 7, 2021, the motion was fully briefed and ripe for disposition. III. Analysis The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has described the two-step certification process as follows: The first step, so-called conditional certification, requires the named plaintiffs to make a modest factual showing to demonstrate a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected him or her and the manner in which it affected the proposed collective action members. The second step, final certification requires that the named plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the opt-in plaintiffs are 'similarly situated' to them for FLSA purposes. Being 'similarly situated' means that one is subjected to some common employer practice that, if proved, would help demonstrate a violation of the FLSA. Of the numerous issues raised in the Plaintiffs' Motion, the legal framework indicates that the first question is whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated the required factual nexus under step one of the certification process. A. Factual Nexus Between Named Plaintiffs and Proposed Collective Action Members The Plaintiffs assert that they have met the required standard in that they have shown that "the proposed collective Dancers employed at the Club is similarly situated." The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to others. Judge Mariani concludes that the Plaintiffs have made "the modest factual showing demonstrating a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected the proposed collective action members." The evidence produced by the Plaintiffs is sufficient to show the required "factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected him or her and the manner in which it affected the proposed collective action members." Given the circumstances of this case and the nature of the supporting evidence, Judge Mariani does not agree with the Defendants that identical assertions made in the Declarations undermines the Plaintiffs' credibility. Further, at this stage of the proceedings, the Plaintiffs need not produce the type of evidence sought by the Defendants. B. Equitable Tolling The Plaintiffs assert that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled as to opt-in plaintiffs. In their proposed order, the Plaintiffs specifically request the Court to toll the statute of limitations for all potential collective members from the date this action was filed -- April 27, 2020 -- through a deadline to be established by the Court for the collective members to file their respective consents to join the action. The Defendants maintain tolling the statute of limitations is not appropriate. Judge Mariani concludes that equitable tolling is appropriate for the limitations period applicable to opt-in collective members. The FLSA provides that an action for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or liquidated damages must be commenced within two years of the alleged violation or within three years after the cause of action accrued for willful violations. For named plaintiffs, the action is commenced on the date the complaint is filed. For opt-in plaintiffs, the action is not commenced until the date on which the opt-in plaintiff files written consent. Judge Mariani concludes that equitable tolling is appropriate based on evidence that the Defendants actively misled named and potential plaintiffs respecting their cause of action. He further concludes that equitable tolling is appropriate given the Court's managerial responsibility in the certification process and this basis for equitable tolling is not subject to individual case reconsideration. Equitable tolling is appropriate in the case because the delay in administering the certification process has, to date, deprived the contemplated opt-in parties "of the ability to make informed decisions about their potential rights through no fault of their own." This result is consistent with the remedial nature of the FLSA and the practical approach to managing FLSA collective actions fostered by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Given the dual basis for equitable tolling, Judge Mariani tolls the statute of limitations as of the date of the filing of the Class and Collective Action Complaint, April 27, 2020. The statute of limitations will be tolled though the deadline to be established by the Court for the collective class members to file their consents to join this collective action. C. Statute of Limitations The Plaintiffs also request that notice be given for a three-year period, i.e, that the statute of limitations in the case should be three years based on willful violations of the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a). The Defendants do not address this issue in their opposition brief. Clearly, given the relevant legal context, Judge Mariani cannot make a determination on willfulness based on the current record. However, from an administrative perspective, numerous allegations of willfulness in the Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint, indicate that, pursuant to the Court's managerial responsibility to oversee the certification process in an efficient and proper manner, the time period identified in the notice should be three years to ensure that all potential collective action members receive proper notification of the pending action. If the Plaintiffs do not establish willfulness as this litigation proceeds, only claims which accrued within the then-applicable two-year limitations period will go forward. D. Production of Plaintiffs' Requested Information The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendant Leonard DiPasquale, individually and t/b/d/a Leave it to Beavers Gentlemen's Club, to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of members of the collective, including each Dancer's full name, last known address, current or last known personal e-mail address, and dates of employment. The Defendants respond that this request is not workable because the contact information from entertainers does not include e-mail addresses and they should only be required to provide information which they keep in the ordinary course of business. The Plaintiffs respond that the statement regarding the lack of e-mail information is only "the unsworn testimony of counsel, rather than a declaration from the principals" and, therefore, they reiterate their request for the information. Based on the parties' respective positions on this issue, Judge Mariani directs the Defendants to provide the requested information. If the Defendants are not able to provide the requested information, they will be required to provide a declaration as to why they are unable to do so. E. Other Matters Finally, the Plaintiffs' request that "the Court allows their counsel to send a follow-up notice to any potential class members who have not responded after the mailing of the initial notice as well as order the Club to post the notice at the Club in conspicuous places as soon as the Club reopens." In their opposition brief, the Defendants merely state that "a single notice should be sent." The Plaintiffs provide authority from district courts within the Third Circuit to support their requests. Because the Defendants provide no meaningful response, Judge Mariani allows the Plaintiffs to send a follow-up notice and directs the Defendants to post the notice at the Club. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mariani grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and Send Notice to the Collective. He conditionally certifies a collective action consisting of all current and former exotic dancers who provided services at Leave it to Beavers Gentlemen's Club at any time from April 27, 2017, through the entry of final judgment in the case. The FLSA statute of limitations will be tolled for all potential class members from April 27, 2020, through the date of the deadline to be established by the Court for all collective members to file their respective consents to join the collective action. The Defendants will be required to provide requested information about all person who provided services as dancers since at the Leave it to Beavers Gentlemen's Club since April 27, 2017. The counsel for the Plaintiffs is permitted to send notice of the pendency of the collective action to potential collective members in a form approved by the Court. The counsel for the Plaintiffs is further directed to submit a proposed form of notice for approval by the Court within 14 days of the date of the Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order. The Defendants are allowed seven days thereafter to submit their objections to the proposed form of notice. The counsel for the Plaintiffs will be permitted to send a follow-up notice in a form approved by the Court. The counsel for the Plaintiffs is directed to submit a proposed form of follow-up notice for approval by the Court within 14 days of the date of the Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order. The Defendants are allowed seven days thereafter to submit their objections to the proposed form of follow-up notice. They're ordered to post the notice of the pendency of the collective action in locations which will be conspicuous to Club dancers. The Court will enter a separate Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3pbh6h from Leagle.com. LELO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lelo Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lelo Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05353 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lelo Inc. -- https://www.lelo.com/ -- is a Swedish designer brand and the world's leading provider of intimate lifestyle products, high-quality pleasure objects and luxurious massage candles and oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com LENOVO GROUP: Ham Sues Over Deceptive Computer Product Valuations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY HAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENOVO GROUP LTD. and LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05131 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practice Act. The Plaintiff brings this consumer class action to remedy Lenovo's years-long policy of fabricating fictitious valuations for its laptop and desktop computers, falsely representing those valuations as the "estimated value" of their products, and then advertising purported discounts based on those fictitious valuations. The Plaintiff asserts that Lenovo's practice knowingly takes advantage of the complexity of personal computers and the need for consumers to rely on manufacturers' representations regarding the quality and value of different models. Lenovo's practice is deceptive, fraudulent, and violates the consumer protection laws of the state of New York, the Plaintiff asserts. The complaint further alleges that the exact presentation of Lenovo.com's product pricing has changed throughout the relevant period, but the overarching strategy has remained constant -- Lenovo fabricates a fictitious original price, sometimes called "Web Price" or explicit representation of a particular value or level of quality, promises users substantial "savings" with a significant discount off the fictitious price, and presents users with a comparatively lower price to pay at the point of sale. The Discount or Savings figure is prominently displayed in this scheme, to highlight to users just how much of a Discount they are purportedly receiving and just how high-quality the Product purportedly is, says the suit. Plaintiff Ham purchased one of the products on Lenovo.com during the relevant period. When Plaintiff purchased the product, Lenovo advertised it at a purported sale price supposedly discounted from a substantially higher list price. Lenovo Group Limited is a multinational technology company with its global headquarters in Beijing, China and its worldwide operational headquarters in Morrisville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: rbusch@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 401 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (714) 651-8845 E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com - and - Zoe T. Aaron, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: zaaron@milberg.com LITHIA MOTORS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lithia Motors, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lithia Motors, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05380 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lithia Motors, Inc. -- https://lithiamotors.com/ -- is one of America's largest automotive retailers featuring most domestic and import franchises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com LOUISVILLE VEGAN JERKY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. L.L.C. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05355 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Louisville Vegan Jerky -- https://www.lvjco.com/ -- products are hand-seasoned with thoughtful ingredients and spices, and each flavor contains a little piece of the hometown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com LOYAL SOURCE: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled REBEKAH DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV15413, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 23, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04316 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for expenses, failure to pay wages when due, and failure to pay sick pay wages. Loyal Source Government Services LLC is a staffing and recruiting company, headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin Harlow, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B. Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 E-mail: kevin.harlow@dlapiper.com MARKETSOURCE INC: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Brum -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP; INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17–CV–00241–KJM–JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order setting briefing schedule on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification as follows: -- The Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than July 26, 2022. -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than August 23, 2022. Marketsource offers customized outsourced sales support, training, and recruiting, as well as various marketing services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uapfon at no extra charge.[CC] MARS INCORPORATED: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mars, Incorporated. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mars, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05431-LJL (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mars, Incorporated -- https://www.mars.com/ -- is an American multinational manufacturer of confectionery, pet food, and other food products and a provider of animal care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MARUCCI SPORTS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marucci Sports, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marucci Sports, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05357 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marucci Sports -- https://maruccisports.com/ -- is an American sports equipment manufacturing company based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MIELLE ORGANICS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mielle Organics, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mielle Organics, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05362-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mielle Organics -- https://mielleorganics.com/ -- is a haircare brand known for its focus on using high-quality and certified organic ingredients in each of its products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MIRACLE INTERNATIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miracle International, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miracle International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05368 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Miracle International Corporation operates as an industrial machinery and equipment wholesaler.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MISSISSIPPI DELTA: Short Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mississippi Delta Community College, et al. The case is styled as Dalillah Short, Kenicha Johnson, Nicole Boykins, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Mississippi Delta Community College, (MDCC); Dr. Tyrone Jackson, President of MDCC, in his official and individual capacities; Derrick Fields, MDCC Dean of Student Services, in his official and individual capacities; Dr. Steven Jones, MDCC Vice President of Administrative and Student Services, in his official and individual capacities; Patricia Kelly, MDCC Dean of Health Science, in her individual capacity; Traci Beckham, MDCC Director of Nursing and MDCC Associate Degree Nursing (ADN) Chair, in her individual capacity, Case No. 4:22-cv-00095-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss., June 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Mississippi Delta Community College -- https://www.msdelta.edu/ -- is a public community college serving the Mississippi Delta region with its main campus in Moorhead, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paloma Wu, Esq. MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE 5 Old River Place, Ste. 203 Jackson, MS 39202 Phone: (601) 352-2269 Fax: (601) 352-4769 Email: pwu@mscenterforjustice.org - and - Robert B. McDuff, Esq. 767 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Phone: (601) 969-0802 Email: rbm@mcdufflaw.com MNP INDUSTRIES: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNP Industries LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MNP Industries LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05371 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MNP Industries LLC -- http://www.mnpindustries.com/-- specializes in: Miscellaneous Food Stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MRS BPO LLC: Goldstein FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Miriam Goldstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02750 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 27, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-05411-CS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MRS -- http://www.mrsbpo.com/-- is a full service accounts receivable management (ARM) firm with a unique combination of experience, technology, and compliance management processes powering industry-leading debt recovery solutions that enhance brand and reputation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 The Defendant is represented by: Michael Thomas Etmund, Esq. MOSS & BARNETT 150 S Fifth Street, Ste 1200 Minneapoilis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 877-5309 Fax: (612) 877-5050 Email: mike.etmund@lawmoss.com - and - Monica M. Littman, Esq. Richard J. Perr, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP Four Penn Center 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1030 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 501-7002 Fax: (215) 405-2973 Email: mlittman@kdvlaw.com MRS BPO: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to August 8 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON GEORGE and ROBERT KAYLOR on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00154-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge W. Carleton Metcalf entered an order that: 1. The consent motion to extend discovery deadline and associated deadlines in case management plan, is granted in part, and the following deadlines are extended: a. Discovery through and including July 25, 2022; b. Class Certification Motion through and including August 8, 2022; c. Mediation through and including August 22, 2022; and d. Motions through and including September 9, 2022. 2. All other provisions of the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan, including the January 9, 2023 trial setting, remain in effect. MRS BPO LLC is a collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ubyzrP at no extra charge.[CC] N.A.R. INC: Almeida Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.A.R., Inc. The case is styled as Cristiano Almeida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. N.A.R., Inc. doing business as North American Recovery, Case No. 2:22-cv-00423-DAK (D. Utah, June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. North American Recovery -- https://www.north-american-recovery.com/ -- provides professional debt collection services in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett D. Cragun, Esq. CRAGUN & CRAGUN PO Box 160234 Clearfield, UT 84016 Phone: (801) 450-3267 Email: brett@brettcragun.com NEURON PUBLISHING: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neuron Publishing, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Neuron Publishing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05384 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Neuron Publishing -- https://www.neuronpublishing.com/ -- provides site integration and white label printing for custom books, gifts and stationery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com NEW SUNSHINE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Sunshine, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Sunshine, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05395 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New Sunshine-- https://www.newsunshinellc.com/ -- manufacture lotions and creams for skin protection and care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Dorce Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MCCONNELL DORCE, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2216 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. I. Introduction McConnell Dorce, Cecelia Jones, and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchison brought this putative class action against the City of New York; Louise Carroll, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD"); Sherif Soliman, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance ("DOF") (together, the "City Defendants"); the Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Co. Inc.; and Bridge Street Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Co., Inc. (together, the "TPT Defendants"). Jones and Thomas-Murchison also name 585 Nostrand Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp. and 248 Madison Street Housing Development Fund Corp., respectively, as nominal parties in the event that their claims cannot be maintained as direct actions. In brief, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used and conspired to use in rem proceedings to seize their properties based on asserted tax debts, and that the Defendants have failed to compensate them for the excess value of their properties, in violation of their rights under the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution, and New York State law. Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. II. Background A. The TPT Program In 1996, the New York City Council enacted Local Law No. 37, which created the Third Party Transfer Program (the "TPT Program"). Pursuant to the TPT Program, when the City obtains a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the DOF may transfer title to the foreclosed-upon property to the City or to a third party designated by the HPD to participate in the TPT Program (a "TPT Partner"). Under Section 11-412.1(c) of the New York City Administrative Code, a TPT Partner may receive title to the property in fee simple absolute after the expiration of a statutory four-month redemption period following the award of judgment. The TPT Partner does not pay the City anything in exchange for this transfer of ownership, and makes no payment towards the underlying tax lien for which the City initiated the in rem proceeding. The original owner of the property receives nothing for the value of the transferred property in excess of the value of the tax lien (the "surplus equity"). The City's authority to use such in rem proceedings to collect tax liens and to administer the TPT Program is codified in Title 11, Chapter 4 of the Administrative Code. Today, the City includes in the TPT Program both (1) properties that meet the statutory definition of "distressed," and (2) properties that are located near distressed properties and that are tax delinquent but that do not themselves meet the statutory definition of "distressed." The Plaintiffs allege that, in recent years, the City Defendants, working in concert with the TPT Defendants, have used the City's in rem powers and the TPT Program to deprive owners -- and, in particular, elderly owners of color -- of their property rights in order to advance the housing agenda of the City and the Mayor and to "reward political allies" among the TPT Partners. According to them, the City and TPT Defendants have systematically targeted properties with little tax debt relative to their property value within communities of color for seizure through the TPT Program. They allege that homeowners of color are targeted because, among other reasons, the Defendants believe that such homeowners are "less likely to have the resources to mount legal challenges" and to have the abilities to fight the Defendants' tactics. The Plaintiffs further allege that, as part of the City and the TPT Defendants' scheme, the DOF intentionally and systematically manipulated property values so as to be able to designate a targeted property as "distressed," or else to designate a targeted property as "near" a distressed property, in order eventually to foreclose upon and transfer such property under the TPT Program. They claim that there is no real mechanism for a former owner to seek or regain their surplus equity after the property has been transferred under the TPT Program. According to the Plaintiffs, this alleged misuse of the TPT Program has stripped away "intergenerational black and brown wealth" and has contributed to steep racial disparities in homeownership. B. The Named Plaintiffs The named Plaintiffs are people of color whose properties were transferred to one of the TPT Defendants pursuant to the TPT Program. All three Plaintiffs allege that the TPT Defendants consulted with the City Defendants concerning the selection and targeting of their properties for inclusion in the TPT Program. Dorce is an elderly Caribbean-American immigrant. Jones is an elderly Caribbean-American woman. Thomas-Murchison is an African-American woman. All three Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive notice of the in rem proceedings against their properties. None of them received any compensation from the Municipal or TPT Defendants for the surplus equity they owned in their respective properties. Dorce alleges that he was deprived of at least $180,000 in surplus equity; Jones alleges that she was deprived of her pro rata share of over $575,000 in surplus equity; and Thomas-Murchison alleges that she was deprived of her pro rata share of over $285,000. Given the Plaintiffs' claim that the defendants manipulate the market value of targeted properties, they allege that the amount of surplus equity of which they were deprived in reality is substantially higher. C. Procedural History On March 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Defendants, seeking prospective equitable relief and various types of damages arising from the defendants' conduct. On May 15, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On May 17, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' federal claims (1) under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, (2) under the Tax Injunction Act ("TIA") and the doctrine of comity, and (3) because the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek prospective equitable relief. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' nonfederal claims. The Plaintiffs appealed, and, on June 23, 2021, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court of appeals agreed that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, but reversed the Court's finding that the TIA and comity barred all of the Plaintiffs' claims. The court of appeals also held that Rooker-Feldman did not bar the Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process claims, or their second takings claim "to the extent that for each of those claims, the Plaintiffs seek only the value of their lost property in excess of the amount owed in taxes." However, Rooker-Feldman barred the Plaintiffs from asserting their first takings claim. The court of appeals remanded the case for further proceedings. On Sept. 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint. They brought the following claims against all of the Defendants: (1) violation of the Takings Clause of both the United States and New York State Constitutions; (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of both the United States and New York State Constitutions; (3) violation of the Due Process Clause of both the United States and New York State Constitutions; (4) violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of both the United States and New York State Constitutions; (5) conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3); (6) conversion under New York State law; (7) unjust enrichment under New York State law; (8) deceptive practices in violation of New York State General Business Law Section 349; and (9) civil conspiracy in violation of New York State law. The plaintiffs also bring a claim for (10) violation of Article II of New York State's Municipal Home Rule Law against the City Defendants only. Neither Jones nor Thomas-Murchison made a demand to pursue this action on their respective HDFCs prior to filing the Amended Complaint. Both allege that such demand would have been futile, id., because, among other things, neither HDFC had a functioning board upon which demand could have been made. The Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. III. Discussion A. The Defendants first move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Municipal Home Rule, due process, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that "federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are, in substance, appeals from state-court judgments." The doctrine applies if four requirements are met: (1) the federal-court plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by a state court judgment; (3) the plaintiff invites review and rejection of that judgment; and (4) the state judgment was rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. In the case, Judge Koeltl holds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not affect the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims, because Rooker-Feldman's substantive requirements are not met for any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Municipal Home Rule, due process, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims as barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Defendants also argue that the claims asserted by Jones and Thomas-Murchison must be dismissed for lack of standing. To satisfy the constitutional requirement of Article III standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff "suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;" (2) "the injury was likely caused by the defendant;" and (3) "the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief." Judge Koeltl denies the motion to dismiss to the extent it is based on lack of constitutional standing, or for failure to meet the requirements of derivative standing. He opines that Jones and Thomas-Murchison bring their claims directly, and in the alternative, derivatively on behalf of the HDFCs of which they are shareholders. In either case, they have standing to bring the claims in this matter. To the extent that the Plaintiffs assert claims personal to themselves -- such as the transfer of their personally owned shares in the corporation -- these injuries are sufficiently "personal and individual" to them to constitute injury-in-fact. Moreover, to the extent that the Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of the HDFC, they have satisfied the requirements to bring a derivative action. B. Judge Koeltl proceeds to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiffs' favor. The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." It should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." The Defendants move to dismiss each of the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated four constitutional provisions: The Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Excessive Fines Clause. In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired against them to violate their constitutional rights in violation of both federal and state law, converted their rights to surplus equity in violation of state law, were unjustly enriched at the plaintiffs' expense in violation of state law, and -- as to the City Defendants only -- violated the Municipal Home Rule Law by exceeding the City's authority in seizing and retaining the Plaintiffs' surplus equity. All of the Plaintiffs' claims except for their facial due process challenge and their claim for conspiracy under New York State law are sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. 1. Constitutional Claims a. State Action The Plaintiffs bring their federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and their state constitutional claims pursuant to the New York State Constitution. The state action requirement under the New York State Constitution is consonant with, if not more flexible than, the state action requirement under the United States Constitution. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs satisfy the state action requirement under Section 1983, the Plaintiffs have also alleged state action for purposes of their state constitutional claims. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the federal and state constitutional claims against them, to the extent the motion is based on the alleged lack of state action, is accordingly denied. b. Takings The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' actions in seizing their surplus equity constituted unconstitutional takings under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. Because the guarantees under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution are generally coextensive, Judge Koeltl considers them together. The Defendants' main argument in support of their motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' takings claims is that the withholding of surplus equity following an in rem foreclosure does not constitute a "taking" within the meaning of the Takings Clause so long as an opportunity to obtain such surplus is provided, and that such an opportunity was in fact provided to each of the Plaintiffs in the case. In the case, Judge Koeltl finds that the Pplaintiffs adequately allege that no such process for the recovery of their surplus equity exists, and therefore they have adequately pleaded a violation of the Takings Clause at this stage. The two apparent means by which the foreclosed-upon owners may redeem their properties -- through installment agreement or full payment -- are, according to the Plaintiffs, illusory. Taking the Plaintiffs' allegations as true -- and given the fact that they dispute that foreclosed-upon owners even receive notice of the foreclosures -- the Plaintiffs' allegations suffice to demonstrate that there is no real process for former owners to recover their surplus equity. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss, to the extent it seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' takings claims, is denied. c. Equal Protection The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants' actions violated their rights to equal protection under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. Because the equal protection guarantees of both Constitutions are similar, Koeltl considers the federal and state claims together. In the case, the Plaintiffs allege that the TPT Program -- an otherwise facially neutral law -- has been discriminatorily applied against homeowners of color. They support this charge with statistics showing that homeowners in communities of color are more likely to experience in rem foreclosures under the TPT Program than homeowners in predominantly white communities, and that homeowners of color are the frequent targets of the TPT Program. These allegations, according to Judge Koeltl, are sufficient at this stage. The Plaintiffs have also carried their burden of demonstrating that the Defendants' unequal application of the TPT Program was motivated by racial discrimination. In all, the Plaintiffs' allegations state a claim for a violation of their equal protection rights at this stage in the litigation. d. Due Process The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants' actions violated their rights to due process under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. The Plaintiffs bring both as-applied and facial claims, and Judge Koeltl considers the federal and state claims together. The Plaintiffs allege that they never received notice that their properties were being foreclosed upon, and that they therefore lacked notice that their surplus equity was being seized. Judge Koeltl says more information is needed at this stage before the Court could conclude that the Plaintiffs' due process rights were not violated. The Defendants' motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' as-applied due process challenge, is denied. However, the Plaintiffs' facial challenge must be dismissed. The provision requires that notice be provided and that owners have an opportunity to be heard. While there remain questions as to whether this process was in fact followed in the Plaintiffs' cases, there is nothing facially unconstitutional about the TPT Program's notice provisions. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' facial due process challenge. e. Excessive Fines The Plaintiffs' final constitutional claim alleges that the Defendants' seizure and retention of their surplus equity constituted an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The Plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional claims are considered together. Judge Koeltl opines that the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for violation of the Excessive Fines Clause. First, they have plausibly alleged that the retention of their surplus equity is a fine, because its purpose is at least partly punitive. Second, the "fine" constituting the retention of a former homeowner's entire surplus equity, as alleged, is disproportionate to the tax offense. Hence, the Defendants' motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' excessive fines claims, is accordingly denied. 2. New York State Law Claims a. Conversion and Unjust Enrichment The Plaintiffs also bring claims under New York State law, including for conversion and unjust enrichment. The Defendants dispute only the timeliness of the Plaintiffs' claims and whether the Defendants' exercise of control over the Plaintiffs' surplus equity is "unauthorized" or inequitable so as to constitute conversion and unjust enrichment, respectively. But neither of these arguments is persuasive at this stage, Judge Koeltl opines. First, the statute of limitations does not require dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims. Second, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendants exercised "unauthorized" dominion over their surplus equity, and that this dominion is also inequitable. Because the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendants converted their surplus equity, and that the Defendants were thereby unjustly enriched, the Defendants' motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks dismissal of these claims, is denied. b. Deceptive Practice The Plaintiffs additionally allege that the Defendants' conduct constituted a deceptive practice in violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 ("GBL Section 349"). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' conduct in administering the TPT Program misled homeowners like themselves. Judge Koeltl holds that the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for violation of GBL 349. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' unlawful administration of the TPT Program has affected homeowners of color across New York, and has resulted in injury to the public at large and to the Plaintiffs in particular. These allegations are sufficient at this stage. Because the Defendants do not otherwise dispute the Plaintiffs' allegations under GBL Section 349, the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of pleading a violation of Section 349. The motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to GBL Section 349, is denied. c. Municipal Home Rule Law As to the City Defendants only, the Plaintiffs additionally claim that the administration of the TPT Program is ultra vires because it violates the Municipal Home Rule Law. They allege that the City's seizure and retention of surplus equity through the TPT Program exceeds the City's powers as delegated by New York State. Taking the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, Judge Koeltl holds that the Plaintiffs state a claim for violation of the Municipal Home Rule Law, because they allege that Local Law No. 37, and the TPT Program that it created, are inconsistent with the New York State Constitution for the reasons described. AAccordingly, the motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Municipal Home Rule Law claim, is denied. 3. Conspiracy Finally, complementary to their direct constitutional and state law claims, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully conspired against them in violation of both 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and New York State law. a. Federal Claim Judge Koeltl opines that the Plaintiffs adequately allege a conspiracy pursuant to Section 1985(3). The Plaintiffs adequately allege an agreement between the TPT Defendants and the City Defendants to deprive communities of color of their homes and their surplus equity. They have also adequately alleged overt acts in the furtherance of this conspiracy and resulting injuries to the Plaintiffs in the form of the loss of their properties and surplus equity. Finally, the Plaintiffs have alleged that they are members of a protected class -- namely, racial minorities -- and that the conspirators acted with racial motivation for the reasons explained in their equal protection claim. These allegations suffice at this stage to carry the Plaintiffs' burden. The Defendants' motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim pursuant Section 1985(3), is therefore denied. b. State Claim "It is a well-settled and often repeated principle of New York law that no cause of action lies for civil conspiracy." While a conspiracy may be alleged "to connect a defendant to an otherwise actionable tort," a plaintiff may not "reallege a tort asserted elsewhere in the complaint in the guise of a separate conspiracy claim. "As this is precisely what the pPlaintiffs have attempted to do, and as the purported purpose of their conspiracy claim is already advanced by the allegations of conspiracy set forth elsewhere in their complaint, this claim is dismissed as to all the Defendants." The motion to dismiss, to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim, is accordingly granted. C. The Defendants finally argue that the Plaintiffs may only seek damages for their surplus equity given their express limitation of claims for compensation to the amount of their surplus equity before the court of appeals. Based on the court of appeals' holdings with respect to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and otherwise, it is plain that the Plaintiffs are limited to damages in the amount of the excess of the value of the property over the taxes due. While it is not clear what other damages the Plaintiffs seek, Judge Koeltl finds that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to nominal damages if they could prove a constitutional violation and no actual damages. However, punitive or exemplary damages are barred against the City. Moreover, to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek to collect punitive or exemplary damages from the individual City Defendants in their official capacities, as opposed to their individual capacities, those claims are also barred. IV. Conclusion Judge Koeltl has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, they are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 112 and 118. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye2299de from Leagle.com. NEXT LEVEL RESOURCE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Level Resource Partners, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Next Level Resource Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05388-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Next Level Resource Partners, Inc. -- https://www.nlrp.com/ -- is a logistics service in Denver, Colorado and engages in ERP implementation, product sourcing, customer service, web development and marketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com NINE LINE APPAREL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nine Line Apparel, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nine Line Apparel, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05369 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nine Line -- https://www.ninelineapparel.com/ -- is an apparel company that aims to give back to American soldiers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Rzepkoski Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- DR. TERRY RZEPKOSKI and KRISTEN ASSELTA, on behalf of the Nova University Defined Contribution Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries, Plaintiffs v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61147 (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breaching its fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The University offers a retirement plan to its employees under 26 U.S.C. Section 401(k). Eligible faculty and staff members may elect to participate in the Nova Southeastern University 401(k) Plan, which provides the primary source of retirement income for many former employees. Each of the Named Plaintiffs are Plan participants. The Plan has over 7,500 participants and nearly $400 million in assets. Accordingly, the Plan has substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that are charged against participants' investments. According to the complaint, instead of leveraging the Plan's tremendous bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, the Defendant chose poorly performing investments, inappropriate, high-cost mutual fund share classes, and caused the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for recordkeeping and other administrative services. However, to the extent that the Defendant made any attempt to reduce the Plan's expenses or to prudently monitor and review the Plan's investment options, the Defendant employed flawed and ineffective processes, which failed to ensure that: (a) the fees and expenses charged to Plan participants were reasonable, and (b) that each investment option that was offered in the Plan was prudent, the suit asserts. As a result of Defendant's actions, the Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to restitution in the amount of the difference between the value of their account currently, or as of the time their accounts were distributed, and what their accounts are or would have been worth, but for Defendant's breaches of fiduciary duty alleged herein, adds the suit. Nova Southeastern University, Inc. is a private research university with its main campus in Davie, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com NUMRICH GUN PARTS: Koeller Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Numrich Gun Parts Corporation. The case is styled as Edward Koeller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Numrich Gun Parts Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00675-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Numrich Gun Parts Corporation -- https://www.gunpartscorp.com/ -- is America's leading supplier of current and obsolete gun parts, accessories, and military surplus since 1950.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.-NEW YORK OFFICE 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com OLLIE'S BARGAIN: 3rd Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Allen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IRMA ALLEN; BARTLEY MICHAEL MULLEN, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Appellant, Case No. 21-2121 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacates the district court's order certifying the proposed class. I. Introduction Irma Allen and Bartley Mullen are disabled and need wheelchairs to move about. Hoping to find "Good Stuff Cheap," they went shopping at two different bargain stores owned by Ollie's. But once inside Ollie's, they encountered an obstacle course: Pillars, clothing racks, and boxes blocked their way. Dissatisfied with their shopping experiences, they filed a putative class action against Ollie's under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). They seek permission to sue on behalf of every similarly disabled individual who shops at any Ollie's store in the United States and has or will encounter interior access barriers. The District Court certified the proposed class. The Third Circuit finds that the District Court abused its discretion by certifying an overly broad class based on inadequate evidence of numerosity and commonality. II. Background Ollie's owns and operates over four hundred retail stores across twenty-nine states. Allen and Mullen visited two different Ollie's stores in Monaca and New Castle, Pennsylvania. There, they encountered obstacles blocking their path of travel, including inventory on the floor, clothing racks placed too close together, boxes, pallets, and structural pillars. Pictures taken later at these stores show aisles similarly narrowed by inventory carts, pallets, columns, boxes, or goods on the floor. Suspecting a pattern, Allen and Mullen's lawyers hired investigators to take photographs and measure aisle width at several Ollie's stores in Pennsylvania. After this preliminary investigation, Allen and Mullen sued Ollie's under Title III of the ADA. The Plaintiffs' "core contention" is that "Ollie's deliberately directs the placement of merchandise within aisles," causing a corporate-wide failure to maintain accessible aisles. Under their theory, retail stores fail to maintain accessible aisles "in operable working condition" if they intentionally and recurringly block them with movable objects, a position supported by Ninth Circuit precedent. The Plaintiffs claim that Ollie's failure to modify its corporate policies to prevent this alleged merchandising practice is discriminatory, and they also suggest that some or all merchandising goods count as "architectural" barriers that must be removed. After completing targeted discovery, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have attempted, or will attempt, to access the interior of any store owned or operated by Ollie's within the United States and have, or will have, experienced access barriers in interior paths of travel. The District Court certified the proposed class. It agreed with the Plaintiffs that joinder of all class members would be impracticable. Adding Allen and Mullen, the 12 customer emails, and the 16 individuals observed in two stores over seven days, the District Court concluded that the Plaintiffs "have concretely shown that thirty people with potential mobility disabilities are customers of Ollie's stores." In the District Court's judgment, the circumstantial evidence of 30 potentially disabled patrons, together with the community survey estimates, was enough. As the District Court put it, "the statistical evidence presented already indicates that there is a good chance that the proposed class is numerous, and any speculation accompanying the statistical data alone is overcome by the addition of the concrete, case-specific evidence of written complaints and video footage." Ollie's objected to the use of the customer complaints as inadmissible hearsay, but the District Court overruled the objection, holding that non-expert evidence like the customer complaints need not be admissible to certify a class. The District Court also held the proposed class presented common questions. It relied on a syllogism. First, "Ollie's policies are uniform and company-wide." Second, "if Ollie's policies and procedures do, in fact, cause access barriers to unlawfully restrict individuals with disabilities from obtaining their desired goods, then proposed members who endured violations have suffered the same injury, the resolution of which will resolve a central issue in one fell stroke." "As a result," the District Court held, the "Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class." After finding the remaining requirements of Rule 23(a) were met, the District Court held that the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(2) because "an injunction requiring the removal of the existing access barriers, and the modification of Ollie's policies to prevent the use of access barriers restricting disabled individuals' use and enjoyment of Ollie's goods would provide appropriate relief to the proposed class." The appeal followed. III. Discussion The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Third Circuit has appellate jurisdiction under Rule 23(f) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(e), citing Mielo v. Steak 'n Shake Operations, Inc., 897 F.3d 467, 473-74 (3d Cir. 2018). If the case proceeds to summary judgment or trial, the result may be different, but Allen and Mullen have adequately alleged Article III standing at this stage. The Third Circuit review a class certification order for abuse of discretion, which occurs if the trial court's decision rests on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact. It reviews questions of law, including whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard, de novo. A. Numerosity Under Rule 23, the proposed class must be "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." This "rule prevents putative class representatives and their counsel, when joinder can be easily accomplished, from unnecessarily depriving members of a small class of their right to a day in court to adjudicate their own claims." As with every Rule 23 requirement, plaintiffs must show the class is numerous enough by a preponderance of the evidence. The Third Circuit presumes joinder is impracticable when the potential number of class members exceeds 40. This is a guidepost: Showing the number of class members exceeds 40 is neither necessary nor always sufficient. "The text" of Rule 23(a)(1) is "conspicuously devoid of any numerical minimum required for class certification." But while a class of 41 does not automatically satisfy Rule 23(a)(1), a putative class that size faces a relaxed burden under our precedent. By contrast, the "inquiry into impracticability should be particularly rigorous when the putative class consists of fewer than forty members." In recent opinions, the Third Circuit has given the numerosity requirement "real teeth." When plaintiffs cannot directly identify class members, they "must show sufficient circumstantial evidence specific to the products, problems, parties, and geographic areas actually covered by the class definition to allow a district court to make a factual finding. Only then may the court rely on 'common sense' to forgo precise calculations and exact numbers." And "where a putative class is some subset of a larger pool, the trial court may not infer numerosity from the number in the larger pool alone." In Steak 'n Shake, for example, census data showing "there are between 14.9 million to 20.9 million persons with mobility disabilities who live in the United States" was not enough to show numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1). Applying these principles, the Third Circuit concludes the District Court abused its discretion when it found that the Plaintiffs had met their numerosity burden. First, the Plaintiffs argue that the 2018 American Community Survey estimates of persons with mobility disabilities would alone allow us to affirm the District Court's numerosity finding. But these survey estimates prove little. Extrapolating the relevant number across every region would be hazardous speculation. Trained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data." Generalist Article III judges typically do not. Regional population statistics like the survey are in any event insufficient. Even if that extrapolation is accurate, however, the Third Circuit would still be left with no basis to determine what portion of those one hundred wheelchairbound residents of Monaca are customers of Ollie's, let alone what portion have suffered a common ADA injury. It cannot infer numerosity from this large pool of residents. The "something more" required by Steak 'n Shake is concrete evidence of class members who have patronized a public accommodation and have suffered or will likely suffer common ADA injuries. The Third Circuit rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the community survey estimates alone are enough to carry their burden of proof. The Third Circuit next turns to the other two strands of non-statistical evidence the District Court thought set the case apart from Steak 'n Shake. While this evidence is probative, after examining all the evidence, it is still left with head-scratching speculation, insufficient to support a factual finding. The first strand of non-statistical evidence is the Plaintiffs' declaration stating that over seven days, 16 persons using wheelchairs or scooters were recorded by video at the two Ollie's locations where Allen and Mullen shopped. The Third Circuit agrees that this declaration is "probative of the number of potentially disabled individuals visiting Ollie's stores." But it is not enough to satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden of proof on numerosity, even considered alongside the community survey of disabled residents. For one, the declaration does not allow the Third Circuit to determine what portion of disabled residents shop at Ollie's. Still, even assuming all 16 customers were likely disabled and that none of them were repeat visitors, the Third Circuit has no basis to assume that the rate of wheelchair-using customers observed in the video footage sample is representative of Ollie's stores. The putative class consists of persons with mobility disabilities who encountered or will encounter inaccessible aisles at an Ollie's store. There may well be millions of wheelchair-bound Ollie's customers across all 29 states, but if none of them suffered or will likely suffer similar class injuries, they are not class members and do not support a finding of numerosity. The District Court also relied on what it characterized as "the written complaints of twelve individuals complaining, in one way or another, of various barriers adversely affecting the navigation of individuals who are wheelchair-bound." Unlike the community survey or the video, at least some of these customer complaints support the existence of putative class members with common ADA injuries. But there are far too few complaints, and not all of them support the District Court's finding. In any event, even assuming all eleven remaining customer complaints support a finding that there are at least eleven putative class members, and considering the declaration and the statistical evidence together, as the District Court did, the Third Circuit still finds the evidence far too speculative. In short, after considering the record evidence, the Third Circuit has proof of a class that consists of Allen, Mullen, and at most 11 others. To establish numerosity, the Plaintiffs must do more to prove the existence of actual class members. If they cannot carry the burden on numerosity, Allen and Mullen may always seek relief individually. Lastly, while "the number of class members is the starting point," trial courts should weigh other factors relevant to the practicability of joinder under Rule 23(a)(1), including "judicial economy, the claimants' ability and motivation to litigate as joined plaintiffs, the financial resources of class members, the geographic dispersion of class members, the ability to identify future claimants, and whether the claims are for injunctive relief or for damages." The Plaintiffs argue that factors other than the numerosity of the class also support the District Court's finding that joinder of class members would be impracticable. That may well be. But the District Court never exercised its broad discretion to consider these other Rule 23(a)(1) factors, and the Third Circuit is a court of review, it declines to weigh these factors for the first time on appeal. On remand, however, the District Court remains free to consider the Plaintiffs' arguments and decide whether joinder would be impracticable based on all the relevant factors. The Third Circuit does not decide whether the Plaintiffs may show that joinder would be impracticable on this record. It holds only that the numerosity evidence considered alone is not enough to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1). B. Commonality A class may be certified only if "there are questions of law or fact common to the class." "Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury. This does not mean merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law." Instead, the claims "must depend upon a common contention." "That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution -- which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." This test ensures that the "claims can productively be litigated at once." When deciding whether the class raises a common question, "the court cannot be bashful. It must resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits -- including disputes touching on elements of the cause of action." The Third Circuit holds that the District Court abused its discretion when finding commonality for two reasons. First, it misapplied the relevant standards and certified a geographically overbroad class. The District Court found commonality satisfied for a class consisting of all Ollie's stores in the United States. The Third Circuit's review of the record shows that commonality is not met by a preponderance of the evidence for the nationwide class. It is not enough that Ollie's has corporate policies and that some or all stores in Pennsylvania pay inadequate attention to aisle accessibility. Stitching together a corporate-wide class requires more. There is no proof that the visual standards cause inaccessible aisles across all Ollie's stores nationwide. The District Court abused its discretion by certifying a corporate-wide class on this record. We leave it to the District Court to decide whether a geographically narrower class limited to some or all Ollie's stores in Pennsylvania would satisfy the commonality requirement. Second, as the Third Circuit explained in Steak 'n Shake, a broad term like "access barriers" does not give rise to a common injury under the ADA. The District Court certified a class embracing all persons with qualified mobility disabilities who have "experienced access barriers in interior paths of travel." That class definition conflicts with the Third Circuit's decision in Steak 'n Shake. A class that includes any and all access barriers is overbroad. On appeal, the Plaintiffs focus their argument on movable barriers like merchandising, clothing racks, inventory carts, and the like. The Plaintiffs mainly argue that Ollie's stores violate their obligation to maintain 36-inch-wide accessible aisles by recurringly placing merchandising in the way. But that is not the class the District Court certified. At the Plaintiffs' request, the District Court certified a class that applies to any kind of access barrier in interior paths of travel, not just merchandising wares blocking accessible aisles. The Third Circuit cannot cure the overbreadth of the class definition on appeal. It leaves it to the District Court to decide whether a narrower class limited to particular merchandising wares or particular merchandising display practices blocking interior aisles could satisfy the commonality requirement. IV. Conclusion The Third Circuit concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to clear the first two hurdles of Rule 23(a). It vacates and remands. It need not decide whether the remaining requirements of Rule 23 were satisfied. On remand, however, the District Court should clarify what classwide legal theory or theories of liability the Plaintiffs are pursuing and determine whether each is suitable for classwide proof and common relief. As the Third Circuit has explained, trial courts must include in the certification order or opinion "(1) a readily discernible, clear, and precise statement of the parameters defining the class or classes to be certified, and (2) a readily discernible, clear, and complete list of the claims, issues or defenses to be treated on a class basis." Trial courts must then "determine what elements plaintiffs would have to prove under that theory to reach a finding of liability and relief, and then assess whether this proof can be made within the parameters of Rule 23." And under Rule 23(b)(2), the provision under which the Plaintiffs seek class certification, trial courts must explain how classwide relief would be appropriate for each legal injury. "Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant." There are significant cohesion concerns with some of the theories of classwide relief advocated by the Plaintiffs, the Third Circuit finds. For example, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek removal of "architectural barriers" in Ollie's existing facilities, liability turns on a variety of individualized factors, including "the nature and cost of" the steps needed to remove each barrier. Common proof and common relief relevant to that theory may prove elusive. On remand, the District Court must address these differing ADA standards and rules to determine whether common proof and common relief would be available for each distinct claim raised by the putative class. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3k7kz9he from Leagle.com. Richard L. Etter -- rick.etter@ogletree.com -- [ARGUED] Ogletree Deakins, One PPG Place, Suite 1900, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222. David L. Schenberg -- david.schenberg@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins, 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650, in St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Counsel for the Appellant. R. Bruce Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Brown, 222 Broad Street, in Sewickley, Pennsylvania 15143. Gary F. Lynch, Elizabeth Pollock-Avery -- eavery@carlsonlynch.com -- Kelly K. Iverson -- kiverson@carlsonlynch.com -- Jamisen A. Etzel [ARGUED] Nicholas Colella, Lynch Carpenter, 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Counsel for the Appellees. ONLY HEARTS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Only Hearts, Ltd. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Only Hearts, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-03756 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Only Hearts -- https://onlyhearts.com/ -- is an apparel & fashion company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com OTTO WILDE GRILLERS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Otto Wilde Grillers Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Otto Wilde Grillers Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05370 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Otto Wilde Grillers -- https://ottowilde.com/ -- is an e-commerce site for kitchen products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PANGEA VENTURES: Mbandi Files Suit in S.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pangea Ventures LLC, et al. The case is styled as Achashverosh Adnah Ammiyhuwd Ngola Mbandi, Malak/King, Chief Ambassador; Von Maxey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pangea Real Estate; Pete Martay, CEO; Scott Larson, Managing Principal; Crystal Ball, Agent; Zljs LLC, Indiana's Finest Wrecker; Walter Culbertson, CEO; Rosalyn Culbertson, Vic-President; John Sluss, Owner; Tamara Mandrell, Agent; Erynn Naylor, Agent; City Of Indianapolis; Randal Taylor, Chief of Police; M. Shields, Officer, Badge D241; B. Castro, Officer, Badge D224; Case No. 1:22-cv-01274-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Pangea Ventures, LLC -- https://www.pangaeaventures.com/ -- provides real estate services.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. PAPER SOURCE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paper Source, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Paper Source, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05407 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paper Source -- https://www.papersource.com/ -- is an American stationery and gift retailer based in Chicago, Illinois.[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 PAUL LABRECQUE SALON: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Labrecque Salon, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Paul Labrecque Salon, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05410 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paul Labrecque -- https://www.paullabrecque.com/ -- is a full service skin spa, hair and color salon located in New York City, Palm Beach, Philadelphia.[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 PEACH SKIN SHEETS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peach Skin Sheets L.L.C. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peach Skin Sheets L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05372 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peach Skin Sheets -- https://www.peachskinsheets.com/ -- offers sheets that are made from a breathable, athletic grade SMART fabric with an ultra soft dual brushed finish.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PENZIM PRODUCE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penzim Produce Corp. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Penzim Produce Corp. d/b/a 3 Guys From Brooklyn, Case No. 1:22-cv-03762 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Penzim Produce Corp. doing business as 3 Guys From Brooklyn -- https://www.3guysfrombrooklyn.com/ -- is a 24-hour open-air produce market, wholesale produce, and grocery store in Brooklyn NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com PEPSICO INC: King Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tyrell King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PepsiCo Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00360 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 24, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-05351-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Denial of Overtime Compensation. PepsiCo, Inc. -- https://www.pepsico.com/ -- is an American multinational food, snack, and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York, in the hamlet of Purchase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 999-5228 Fax: (713) 999-1187 Email: matt@parmet.law PETLAB CO: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PetLab Co. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PetLab Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-05429 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PetLab Co -- https://thepetlabco.com/ -- specializes in cat and dog treats, supplements, and chews.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PHILZ COFFEE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philz Coffee, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philz Coffee, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05393 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Philz Coffee -- https://www.philzcoffee.com/ -- is an American coffee company and coffeehouse chain based in San Francisco, California, and is considered a major player in third wave coffee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PIQUE INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pique, Inc. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Pique, Inc. doing business as: Pique, Case No. 1:22-cv-05356 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pique, Inc. -- https://www.piquelife.com/ -- is a source of beauty from within, radiate with authentic beauty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com PORK BARREL BBQ: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pork Barrel BBQ, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pork Barrel BBQ, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05373 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pork Barrel BBQ -- https://porkbarrelbbq.com/ -- is a national award winning #BBQ sauce company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Strange Seeks to Certify Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN STRANGE, et al., v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Case No. 8:19-cv-02761-DLB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the instant motion and certify a collective action consisting of: "All past or present Prince George's County, Maryland employees who occupied positions classified as General Schedule and non-exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act at any time from January 4, 2018 through [the date the Court decides Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification]." In this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Plaintiffs hereby request that the Court conditionally certify a collective action and issue a notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. After initial discovery, the record shows that Defendant, Prince George's County, systematically violated the FLSA for years by denying employees legally mandated overtime pay. Specifically, the Defendant maintained county-wide policies that: (1) Denied employees any compensation for certain overtime hours worked; and (2) Compensated employees with compensatory time off rather than overtime without the agreement of the employee. The County now concedes that such policies are unlawful—just two months ago, as a result of this lawsuit, it issued a memo to all County agencies instructing them to abstain from the practices targeted by Plaintiffs. But it has yet to properly compensate employees who were not paid FLSA-mandated wages, including Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a collective action comprising similarly situated employees--specifically, employees who were subject to the same unlawful county-wide policies. Following an initial period of discovery, the record suggests that the unlawful policies were applied to all County employees who meet two criteria: (1) they are designated "General Schedule," meaning they are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement; and (2) the County classified them as non-exempt from the FLSA. The proposed class is modest in number and can be effectivity administered. Initial discovery shows that the class would consist of not significantly more than 330 individuals. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to issue a notice to potential plaintiffs informing them of their right to join the suit. They also request that the Court toll the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs, given the extensive delay caused by the County in responding to discovery. The County opposes the relief sought in this motion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 27, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NE60Ku at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq. Michael Ellement, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 496-0500 Facsimile: (202) 496-0555 E-mail: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com mpellement@jamhoff.com S-FER INTERNATIONAL: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S-Fer International, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. S-Fer International, Inc. d/b/a Ferragamo USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03772 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. S-Fer International Inc. doing business as Ferragamo USA, Inc. -- https://www.ferragamo.com/ -- is an apparel & fashion company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SEBASTIAN CRUZ COUTOURE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sebastian Cruz Coutoure, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sebastian Cruz Coutoure, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05440-CM (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sebastian Cruz Couture -- https://www.sebastiancruzcouture.com/ -- is an online retailer of party dresses and formal garments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com STATE FARM: Jama Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff FAYSAL A. JAMA filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANYSA NGETHPHARAT, individually, and JAMES KELLEY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00454-MJP, in the United States District Court for the Western Washington, Seattle. This case challenges State Farm's uniform claims practice of underpaying its insured's total loss claims using computer-generated reports which it licenses from a vender. The Plaintiffs allege that Wash. Admin. Code 284-30-391 does not authorize a deduction for "typical negotiations," that the deduction fails to meet the specific requirements of Section 391 as to what data can be used in calculating the deduction, and that State Farm's use of the reports which contain the deduction violate its obligations under WAC 284-30-380(7) to insure that the deduction being taken accurately reflects the claimed ask-to-sold adjustment which each insured. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26, 2022, the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order granting State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. The Court found out that Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence that they received less than actual cash value and therefore have failed to provide evidence of injury or standing. The Court, therefore, entered summary judgment on May 4, 2022 in State Farm's favor as to the individual claims and vacated certification orders. To this end, it granted Defendant's Motion to decertify that was filed on February 24, 2022. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Faysal Jama, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, Case No. 22-35449, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 8, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Faysal A. Jama Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 15, 2022; -- Transcript shall be ordered by today, July 6, 2022; -- Transcript is due on August 5, 2022; -- Appellant Faysal A. Jama opening brief is due on September 14, 2022; -- Appellees State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company answering brief is due on October 14, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FAYSAL A. JAMA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, is represented by: Mark A. Trivett, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER, PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE Shoreline, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 - and - Daniel Whitmore, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL WHITMORE 6840 Fort Dent Way, Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 329-8400 Defendants-Appellees STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY are represented by: Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2825 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 326-4129 - and - Herbert Matthew Munson, Esq. BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES, P.S. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 292-9988 TESLA INC: Lynch Alleges WARN Violations Over Mass Layoff --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LYNCH and DAXTON HARTSFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00597 (W.D. Tex., June 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by terminating Plaintiffs and Class Members without providing sufficient (or any) advance written notice. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employees of Tesla who have been terminated without cause on their part as a part of mass layoffs beginning in approximately May or June of 2022. According to the complaint, Tesla is required to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with the required 60 days advance written notice of a mass layoff, pursuant to the WARN Act. However, in connection with the recent mass layoffs, Tesla has not provided written notice, or advance notice, to Plaintiffs and the "Class Members" prior to terminating their employment. Instead, Tesla has simply notified the employees that their terminations would be effective immediately. Tesla has also failed to provide a statement of the basis for reducing the notification period to zero days advance notice, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class Members, seek recovery of damages in the amount of 60 days' compensation and benefits for each of them by reason of Tesla's violation of their rights under the WARN Act, adds the suit. Tesla Inc. is an American automotive and clean energy company based in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. Allison H. Luttrell, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com allison@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Zachary Rubin, Esq. Matthew Patton, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com zrubin@llrlaw.com mpatton@llrlaw.com TOKIMEKU INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tokimeku, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tokimeku, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05359 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tokimeku -- https://www.tokimeku.com/ -- is geared towards providing technology-driven, quality solutions to the advanced manufacturing industries in Southeast Asia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TYSON FOODS: All Dates in Final Sched Order Stayed in Freeman ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Freeman v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-05175 (W.D. Ark.,), the Hon. Judge P.K. Holmes III entered an order that all dates and deadlines in the final scheduling order are stayed, pending decision on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling order within 14 days of the Court issuing its order on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation, based in Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry.[CC] UNILEVER PLC: Rosen Reminds of August 15 Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Unilever PLC (NYSE: UL) between September 2, 2020 and July 21, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 15, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Unilever 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 Unilever class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7063 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] 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 15, 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. 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 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 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"). On July 19, 2021, Unilever and its hand-picked Ben & Jerry's CEO, finally "operationalized" the Ben & Jerry's board's resolution to boycott. Ben & Jerry's announced on its website and through its Twitter account that, upon the expiration of the current licensing agreement by which its products had been distributed in Israel for decades, Ben & Jerry's would end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" but Ben & Jerry's would purportedly continue to sell its products in Israel. 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Unilever class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7063 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] 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. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 www.rosenlegal.com[GN] VEGANCUTS INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against VeganCuts Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VeganCuts Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05376 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vegancuts -- https://vegancuts.com/ -- makes it simple to discover the best vegan products through snack and beauty subscription boxes as well as a thriving marketplace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com VITALANT: Jimenez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitalant, et al. The case is styled as Luis Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vitalant, John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-03331 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Vitalant -- http://www.vitalant.org/-- is a nonprofit organization that collects blood from volunteer donors and provides blood, blood products and services across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marwan R. Daher, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com VIVINT INC: Court Denies Cunningham's Bid to Certify 3 Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, ROBERT HOSSFELD and ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIVINT, INC., and DSI DISTRIBUTING, INC. d.b.a DSI SYSTEMS, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00568-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a Memorandum Decision and Order: a. granting Defendant DSI's Motion for Order Denying Class Certification to Plaintiffs; b. granting Defendant Vivint's Motion to Deny Class Certification as to Plaintiffs Cunningham and Perrong; and c. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. I. Background At issue are alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) involving calls and text messages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Perrong's number is on the Do Not Call Registry. He alleges that he received two automated telemarketing calls promoting Vivint products on April 4 and June 5, 2019. Perrong ignored the first call but answered the second. The representative said he was calling from Vivint. He confirmed an appointment with Vivint, and gave his credit card number in order to confirm Vivint's involvement. On June 5, 2019, Perrong informed compliance counsel for Vivint that he was illegally called and did not want to receive any more calls. Yet he received additional text messages on June 12 and 13, 2019. He was sent another text message on Sept. 25, 2019 after filing the lawsuit. Perrong admits that DSI did not text him. Plaintiff Cunningham alleges he received an automated telemarketing call on behalf of Vivint on Feb. 25, 2019. The representative promoted Vivint's products. He confirmed Vivint's involvement the next day when Vivint contacted him directly to confirm an appointment. Cunningham informed Vivint that he was not interested. Yet he later received two text messages promoting Vivint products on July 30, 2019 and Aug. 2, 2019. Cunningham had previously complained to Vivint about telemarketing calls and was informed in November 2018 that his number was added to Vivint's internal Do Not Call List. He responded to the text message that he did not want to be contacted, which Vivint acknowledged. Yet, a little over a month later on Sept. 25, 2019, Cunningham received another text message. Cunningham admits that DSI did not text him. There have been six scheduling orders in the case; class discovery was bifurcated from other deadlines. The Defendants opposed extending the class discovery deadlines on two occasions. On another occasion, the Defendants and the Plaintiffs submitted competing amended scheduling orders. After the various extensions, the time for class discovery ultimately expired on July 14, 2021. Over four months after the close of class discovery, DSI preemptively moved to deny class certification. A few weeks later, Vivint also preemptively moved to deny class certification. Roughly two months after Vivint filed its motion, and almost seven months after the close of class discovery, the Plaintiffs then moved for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek certification and to represent three separate nationwide classes involving (1) persons who received two or more telemarketing calls on behalf of Vivint when their numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry, (2) persons who received telemarketing calls on behalf of Vivint using an automatic telephone dialing system, and (3) persons who received telemarketing calls on behalf of Vivint when Vivint did not maintain any internal procedures to prevent improper calls. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) to "bring Vivint and DSI into compliance with the TCPA, monitor DSI's subvendors' practices of gathering consent, and establishing Do Not Call practices that prevent more of the same unwanted calls that have persisted despite the pendency of this lawsuit." II. Analysis Class actions are "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) allows individuals to litigate on behalf of a class only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. These requirements are known, respectively, as the "numerosity," "commonality," "typicality," and "adequacy" requirements. If the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been met, the party seeking class certification must then show that the proposed class action is maintainable under Rule 23(b). In the case, the Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2).36 Rule 23(b)(2) permits a class action when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." The party seeking class certification "must show 'under a strict burden of proof' that all four Rule 23(a) requirements are clearly met." And the court is required to conduct a "rigorous analysis" to assure that the parties seeking class certification have met their burden. A. Plaintiffs Cannot Represent a Class Against DSI Judge Barlow holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show they can represent a class against DSI. The Plaintiffs complain of violations of the TCPA through calls and texts on behalf of Vivint. However, they have not produced any evidence that DSI called or texted them, let alone any other putative class member. In fact, they admit that DSI did not directly call or text them. Therefore, there is no basis for the court to certify a class against DSI, let alone allow the Plaintiffs to serve as representatives of that class. Because the Plaintiffs have not clearly shown that they are even members of any class against DSI, or that there are numerous putative class members awaiting certification, they cannot serve as representatives for any class against DSI. Therefore, the Court must deny the request to certify any class against DSI. Finally, even if the Plaintiffs had met their burden of identifying record evidence involving DSI, no class could be certified. B. Plaintiffs Have Not Met Their Burden of Showing that They Should Represent a Class Against Vivint The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following three classes: a. National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendants, and/or a third party acting on their behalf, made at least two telephone solicitation calls during a 12-month period; (b) to a residential telephone number; (c) that had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days prior to the first call; (d) promoting the goods or services of the Defendants; (e) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing the Complaint to trial. b. Automated Call Class: All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendants, and/or a third party acting on their behalf, made one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to their cellular telephone number or number that is charged per call; (c) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (d) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of the filing of the Complaint to trial. c. Internal Procedures Class: All natural persons within the United States to whom: (a) Vivint and/or a third party acting on its behalf, made two or more calls in a 12-month period; (b) which constitute telemarketing; (c) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of the filing of the Complaint to trial. The Plaintiffs argue that the Rule 23(a) requirements are met because (1) Vivint sent the class over 180,000 texts, (2) there are five common issues of fact and law, (3) the claims are typical because the Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to a nearly identical course of conduct, (4) the Plaintiffs and the counsel are adequate representatives because there are no conflicts and both have experience litigating TCPA class actions, and (5) injunctive relief is necessary because filing the lawsuit did not end the injuries the class continues to experience. Judge Barlow holds that (i) the numerosity requirement is met because even accepting that the samples that the Defendants rely on show that roughly 55,000 texts might be excluded, that still leaves more than 100,000 other texts not accounted for in the putative class; (ii) the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to make such a showing based on their five proposed common questions; (iii) the Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any support to find that their professional plaintiffs status does not interfere with typicality; and (iv) the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that they and their counsel are adequate for the proposed classes in the case. III. Order For the foregoing reasons, Judge Barlow grants DSI's and Vivint's Motions, and denies the Plaintiffs' Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2022 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4876eukm from Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***