/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 ***