/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220712.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 132
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Eccleston Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
ALDRIDGE HAMMAR: Rael Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Mexico
ALLIANCE COAL: McBride's Deposition Entry Struck in Branson Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces CWA Suit Over Use of Third-Party Seller Data
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Underpays Mechanical Inspectors, Vandiver Says
APEX HUMAN: Bid to Dismiss Lincoln Suit Over Unpaid Wages Denied
BENJAMIN JOFFE: Virginia AG Asks SCOTUS to Hear Privacy Suit
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Deloss Class Suit Over Mislabeled Products
BEYOND MEAT: Products Not Equal to "Real Meat", Yoon Suit Alleges
BHP GROUP: English Court Gives Greenlight for $8.8-Bil. Class Suit
BOFI HOLDINGS: Deadline to Join $14.1-Mil. Settlement Set on Nov. 7
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
BROOKLYN'S CONST: Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
CENLAR FSB: Benes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CF BANK: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Tomasone Class Suit Says
COLONIAL CARE: Amador Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Civil Penalties
COOK GROUP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Mateya Class Suit Alleges
DAILY HARVEST: Crumbles Caused Illness, Peni Class Action Suit Says
FIRST GUARANTY: Jackson Alleges WARN Violations Over Mass Layoff
FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extended in Azimihashemi
FORD MOTOR: Anda Files Suit in C.D. California
GILL LOGISTICS: Slinkard Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers Under FLSA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Faces Jolly Suit Over Mislabeled Products
GREYHOUND LINES: Reiskin Denied Leave to File Amended Class Suit
HERSHEY CANADA: Class Action Alleging Child Slave Labour Certified
INFINITI FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Deem Suit, Court Says
INNOVATIVE FACILITY: Aires Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
IONQ INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of August 1 Deadline
JACARANDA CLUB: Faces O'Sullivan Suit Over Sexual Harassment
JAJ INC: Crawford Seeks Delivery Drivers' Minimum & OT Wages
JMS TRUCKING: Violates Truth-in-Leasing Act, Sanderson Suit Alleges
JOYCE CAMPBELL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 3
K AND G: Violates Federal Wage & Hour Laws, Rodriguez Suit Alleges
KELLOGG CO: Faces Fleming ERISA Suit Over Excessive Recording Fees
KENDO HOLDINGS: Faces Saintigene Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
MAMA SHNITZEL: Muratov Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
MDL 2903: Alfaro Appeals Cert. Denial in Unsafe Sleeper Suit
MEDRANO USA: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
MERCK & CO: 400 More Women Join $250M Equal-Pay Lawsuit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Menschach Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MINT MUSEUM OF ART: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
MOTIVATE LLC: Faces Diaz Class Suit Over Late Wage Payments
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Pierson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
NEW ASIA: Li Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, MFLSA & MPWA
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Prunella Suit Says
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Lohr Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
O'NEIL INSURANCE: Parties File Bid for Extension of Time
OKTA INC: Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Securities Suit Set on July 19
OKTA INC: Portnoy Law Firm Notes of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
OUTSET MEDICAL: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action Suit
PREMIUM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Manual Workers Weekly, Conley Alleges
REALREAL INC: Dougal Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
REFUAH HEALTH CENTER: Esposito Suit Removed to S.D. New York
REFUAH HEALTH CENTER: Krandle Suit Removed to S.D. New York
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Court Authorizes Notice of Collective Action
REX VENTURE: Writ of Garnishment v. ETrade in Orso Suit Granted
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Faces Class Action Over "Recycling" Bags
SDS RESTAURANT: Messier Seeks Delivery Drivers' Minimum & OT Wages
SERVICEMASTER OF CHATTANOOGA: Ketchums Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SHARP HOLDING: Fails to Pay Tipped Employees' Minimum Wages & OT
SOHO MASONS: Faces Chima Class Suit Over Time Shaving Violations
SOLANA FOUNDATION: Hit With Class Action Over SOL Tokens
STONE PERFECTION: Rodriguez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclass
TENERGY CORPORATION: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Mejia Says
THIS OLD HOUSE: Fotis Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
UNITED PROPANE: Has Until July 15 to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Lompoc Prison COVID-19 Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Smith Suit Alleges
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Audi Reaches Transmission Defect Settlement
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled "Coffee Creamer"
WEST CORPORATION: Rampey Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
*********
3M COMPANY: Eccleston Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Eccleston III, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
fka MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-01904-RMG (D.S.C., June 15, 2022), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.
This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that
were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds.
AFFF compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly
known as "PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"),
and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with
PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade
organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as
fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds
are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create
a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.
AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming
substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with
fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an
aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The
manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to
have used fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include
PFOS and PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as
"PFC"' are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to
break down in PFOS and PFOA).
Plaintiff joined the USMC in 1975 and was subsequently assigned to
MCB 29 Palms, CA (1976). At all times relevant, Plaintiff
lived/worked on 29 Palms using and drinking the water. On
information and belief, 29 Palms has a PFAS environmental
contamination level of 440 ppt (EPA max of 70ppt | California.
Response max 10-40ppt). In 2017, Eccleston was diagnosed with
kidney cancer and commenced ongoing medical treatment. As known by
Defendants, kidney cancer is a disease linked to PFAS
contamination. Eccleston did not discover that PFAS was a cause of
the harm until Summer 2020, when he saw internet information, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, who during his
service was stationed at, inter alia, MCB 29 Palms, a military
installation identified as being contaminated through use of the
toxic chemicals which are the subject of this action and suffers
from kidney cancer, inclusive of undergoing medical monitoring
every 6 months.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (760) 479-5404
Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Phone: (978) 458-0507
Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (800) 934-2921
Email: kon@kyroslaw.com
ALDRIDGE HAMMAR: Rael Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldridge, Hammar &
Wexler, P.A. The case is styled as Shirley Rael, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aldridge, Hammar &
Wexler, P.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00446-GJF-KK (D.N.M., June 13,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Aldridge, Hammar & Wexler, P.A. -- https://abqlawnm.com/ -- offers
a diverse range of legal services, emphasizing business,
professional, corporate, and real estate law..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake J. Dugger, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM OAKEY
714 Tijeras Ave. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Phone: (505) 433-4953
Fax: (505) 212-0886
Email: blakejdugger@gmail.com
ALLIANCE COAL: McBride's Deposition Entry Struck in Branson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDY BRANSON, DANIEL CUNNINGHAM, and ALTON JOSEPH
NEWBERRY, On Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly-Situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC; WEBSTER COUNTY COAL, LLC;
ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, LP; ALLIANCE RESOURCE OPERATING
PARTNERS, LP; WARRIOR COAL, LLC; and RIVER VIEW COAL, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00155-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky.),
Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, grants
the Defendants' motion to strike the first entry on opt-in
Plaintiff Dwight Scott McBride's deposition errata sheet.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs allege that three coal mines in western Kentucky
systemically underpaid their employees for several years. Employees
of these coal mines brought the collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a class action under the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") to recover unpaid wages and overtime.
On Feb. 18, 2022, the Defendants deposed Mr. McBride. On April 19,
2022, the Plaintiffs served the Defendants with an errata sheet for
the deposition transcript. In that errata sheet McBride made three
entries. The Defendants claim that two of these entries correct
typographical errors, but the third makes substantive changes to
his testimony. The deposition testimony in question appears at page
18, lines 3-4; page 51, lines 2-3; and page 108, line 17.
In regard to this testimony, Mr. McBride's errata sheet sets forth
the following change:
Add: The claims alleged in this litigation include
Defendants' failure to fully pay for both pre-shift and post-shift
work by the miners, as well as Defendants' failure to property to
calculate and pay for overtime and bonuses, among other things. The
operative Complaint speaks for itself.
The reason for the change was stated as "Misunderstood
question/clarify response."
The Defendants assert that, while Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1) permits
a deponent to review a deposition and sign a statement listing any
changes in form or substance along with a reason for making them,
decisions from the Sixth Circuit and District Courts within the
circuit consistently prohibit using an errata sheet to make
substantive changes to deposition testimony. In the present case,
the Defendants contend that Mr. McBride testified that he sought
compensation from Warrior Mine for 15 minutes preceding the
beginning of his shifts and Plaintiffs seek to use the errata sheet
to add entirely new testimony to each response that both expands
upon and contradicts the testimony. They also argue that there was
no indication that Mr. McBride did not understand the question in
that he did not express any confusion or ask that the question be
repeated. To the contrary, they observe that he "fully answered
each of Defendants' counsel's questions without qualification."
In responding to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiffs contend the
questions which elicited the testimony were improper because they
sought legal conclusions from a lay witness. Next, they argue that
ruling on the errata sheet changes should be deferred until the
case arrives at the summary judgment motion phase, so the issue can
be addressed as part of determining the factual record. The
Plaintiff's third argument is that the errata sheet does not
contradict Mr. McBride's testimony; rather, it only supplements his
testimony and the original answer will remain as part of the record
subject to use both pre-trial and at trial. Finally, they contend
that Mr. McBride cannot waive his claims under FLSA and, as such,
the Defendants should not be permitted lure him into testifying to
that effect
II. Discussion
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1) provides that "on request by the deponent
or a party before the deposition is completed, the deponent must be
allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the
transcript or recording is available in which: (A) to review the
transcript or recording; and (B) if there are changes in form or
substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons
for making them." The Rule does not define what constitutes a
change in "form or substance."
In Trout v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 339 F. App'x 560, 566
(6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit has indicated that Rule 30(e)(1)
does not permit changes to what was said under oath. Otherwise, "if
that were the case, one could merely answer the questions with no
thought at all, then return home and plan artful responses.
Depositions differ from interrogatories in that regard. A
deposition is not a take home examination."
Contrary to the Plaintiffs' contention that ruling on the motion
should be deferred until the summary judgment phase, it is
appropriate to resolve a challenge to an errata sheet before the
court moves on to dispositive rulings. The Defendants assert that
the questions which elicited the testimony are objectionable.
Indeed, the counsel voiced an objection to each question on the
record. An errata sheet, however, is not a means by which to
further contest a question by changing the answer, nor does an
errata sheet provide the opportunity to challenge the legal
sufficiency of a question or the legal import of an answer.
In the present case, Judge Brennenstuhl finds no contention that
the court reporter incorrectly recorded the response. While the
reason for the errata addition was stated as "misunderstood
question/clarify response," there is no indication that Mr. McBride
did not understand the question. Indeed, he was asked the same
question three different times and gave the same response each
time. More accurately, he simply did not give the response his
counsel would have preferred. The proffered addition in the errata
sheet substantively changes that testimony to the preferred
version. Where an errata sheet does more than attempt to correct
typographical errors and substantively changes answers that were
provided at a deposition, the errata sheet is subject to being
stricken.
III. Order
Judge Brennenstuhl grants the Defendants' motion. He strikes the
first entry on Mr. McBride's deposition errata sheet.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ebvz89xa from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces CWA Suit Over Use of Third-Party Seller Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
CWA LOCAL 1180 MEMBERS' ANNUITY FUND AND CWA LOCAL 1180
ADMINISTRATIVE BENEFITS FUND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY,
JEFFREY P. BEZOS, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, DAVID A. ZAPOLSKY, and NATE
SUTTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00907 (W.D. Wash., June 28, 2022) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Amazon
common stock between February 1, 2019 and April 28, 2022,
inclusive, against the Defendants for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, while Amazon is most known for being an
online retailer, Amazon actually is a "big data" company. On
Amazon.com, Amazon acts as a merchant and retailer for third-party
merchandise and its own line of Amazon-branded products, while
collecting data the entire time. As the owner and operator of
Amazon.com, Amazon collects and analyzes the data of its sales,
customers, spending habits, and seller information. As Amazon
collects data, it learns which items are best sellers, and how to
outcompete its own third-party sellers.
On April 6, 2022, news outlets reported that Amazon was under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
regarding its use of third-party seller data for its own
private-label business.
On this news, Amazon's stock fell 2% from $161.65 at open to
$158.76 on close Beyond Amazon's anticompetitive misuse of
third-party seller data, throughout much of 2020 and the remainder
of the Class Period, Amazon was engaged in a spending spree on
warehouse and fulfillment space. At the end of 2019, Amazon's
distribution, warehouse and data center space covered approximately
192 million square feet. Beginning in 2020, the Company engaged in
a massive expansion spree, expanding its data and fulfillment
centers until they covered approximately 387.1 million square feet
by the end of 2021, doubling its size in two years and resulting in
an excess of space and employees that forced the Company to pivot
into "cost efficiency" mode, says the suit.
On April 28, 2022, Amazon posted its first quarterly loss in seven
years. The loss reflected, in part, $2 billion in "incremental
costs" arising from the Company's doubling of its warehouse,
fulfillment, and data center space, from 192 million square feet in
December 2019 to approximately 387.1 million square feet at the end
of 2021. This over-expansion forced the Company to pivot into "cost
efficiency" mode, halting further expansion and even cancelling
some planned expansion projects.
On this news, Amazon's stock fell 14.05% from $144.59 per share, to
$124.28 per share on close on April 29, 2022.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding Amazon's
business, operations, and policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct, the suit added.
CWA 1180 Funds purchased Amazon securities during the Class Period
and allegedly suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.
Amazon, headquartered in Seattle, Washington and incorporated in
Delaware, is one of the largest technology companies, and is
involved in online retail, cloud computing, data, and streaming,
among other services. Amazon's common stock trades on the NASDAQ
under the "AMZN" ticker symbol.
Jeffrey P. Bezos is the Founder and Executive Chair, was Chief
Executive Officer until July 2021, and has been a director of the
Company at all relevant times.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: 206-682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
jbarrack@barrack.com
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Underpays Mechanical Inspectors, Vandiver Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY VANDIVER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-02079 (S.D. Tex., June 27, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages
from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Anadarko as a mechanical inspector from
approximately February 2019 to June 2020. He alleges that he and
other similarly situated inspectors were paid a flat amount for
each day worked for Anadarko and did not receive overtime
compensation for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours
each week in violation of the FLSA.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation operates as an oil and gas
exploration company headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
APEX HUMAN: Bid to Dismiss Lincoln Suit Over Unpaid Wages Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SECRET LINCOLN v. APEX HUMAN SERVICES LLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 22-341 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
I. Background
Plaintiff Lincoln has sued Defendants Apex and Mohamed Sesay, the
CEO and administrator of Apex, in this collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq. The Plaintiff, a former employee of Apex, also brings state
law claims and a putative class action pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWPCL"), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Sections 260.1 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43
Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 333.101 ("PMWA").
Apex provides home health care and skilled nursing services. It
contracts with over 100 registered nurses ("RNs") and licensed
practical nurses ("LPNs") to provide these services.
Apex sends its nurses to visit its clients and provide nursing
care. The nurses report their time to Apex. Clients pay Apex
directly. The nurses do not have tax withheld from their wages but
rather must submit their own self-employment tax. They also must
purchase their own malpractice and liability insurance.
The Plaintiff began working as an RN for Apex in March 2019. She
signed an "independent contractor agreement" with Apex on Jan. 15,
2019 as a skilled nurse to be paid $32.50 an hour. Sesay signed the
agreement on behalf of Apex. In December 2019 Lincoln became an RN
supervisor. She held this position until she left Apex on March 31,
2020.
The Plaintiff claims unpaid wages including overtime that she was
owed. She seeks compensatory and liquidated damages.
Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Sesay, joined by
Defendant Apex, to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Discussion
The FLSA prohibits an employer from employing any of its employees
"for a workweek longer than 40 hours unless such employee receives
compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above
specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which he is employed." To recover on an overtime
compensation claim, a plaintiff "must sufficiently allege 40 hours
of work in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in
excess of the 40 hours, " citing Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765
F.3d 236, 241-42 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lundy v. Catholic Health
Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2013)). This
requires pleading at least one "workweek in which he or she worked
at least forty hours and also worked uncompensated time in excess
of forty hours." This standard, however, does not require that a
plaintiff identify the exact dates and time that he or she worked
overtime.
Initially, the Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint
based on the alleged failure of the Plaintiff to meet this pleading
standard set forth in Davis. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensation for overtime hours worked and alleges that Apex does
not compensate its RNs and LPNs at one and one-half times their
regular pay rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
given workweek. Specifically, she pleads that she "worked in excess
of 40 hours per week for Apex regularly" and that she was "not
compensated at a rate of one-and-a-half times her normal hourly
rate for overtime hours worked in excess of 40 per week."
These allegations, according to Judge Bartle, meet the standard
explained in Davis to state a claim for overtime compensation under
the FLSA.
Next, the Defendants move to dismiss based on the Plaintiff's
purported failure to file within the statute of limitations. The
FLSA permits an action to enforce unpaid overtime compensation
"within two years after the cause of action accrued" unless that
cause of action arises "out of a willful violation" in which case
it "may be commenced within three years after the cause of action
accrued."
The Plaintiff pleads that she ended her work with Apex on March 31,
2020. She filed the complaint in this matter on Jan. 27, 2022.
Accepting for present purposes the March 31, 2020 date, she has
filed the action within two years after the claims accrued.
Therefore, her complaint is timely.
The Plaintiff, however, also alleges that the Defendants'
violations of the FLSA were willful which, if true, would extend
the time for recovery on her claim of overtime compensation back to
Jan. 27, 2019. The Supreme Court has explained that in enacting a
two-tiered statute of limitations "Congress intended to draw a
significant distinction between ordinary violations and willful
violations," citing McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128,
132 (1988). Willful means more than negligent and instead requires
that an employer "either knew or showed reckless disregard for the
matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute."
Judge Bartle holds that the Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient
facts to support her claim that the Defendants' alleged violations
of the FLSA were willful. She merely avers that the Defendants were
fully aware of state and federal law but failed to classify her and
others properly as employees, instead classifying all of them as
independent contractors. She makes conclusory statements that the
Defendants willfully violated the FLSA. This is not enough to make
plausible the claim that the Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that their actions violated the FLSA. Negligence is not
sufficient. Thus, the Plaintiff's claims, according to Judge
Bartle, do not qualify for the three-year statute of limitations
under the FLSA. Her claims before Jan. 27, 2020 are time-barred.
The Defendants also argue that dismissal is proper because the
Plaintiff is not similarly situated to others in the collective
action, and she has not identified other potential class members.
The Plaintiff, however, need not plead such detailed information.
The Plaintiff has sufficiently identified that Apex similarly
treated its other RNs and LPNs to proceed. The Court will determine
at a later date whether the Plaintiff is similarly situated to
those who intend to join the action.
As to the Plaintiff's state law claims, "when the PMWA
substantially parallels the federal FLSA, Pennsylvania courts look
to federal courts' interpretation of the parallel FLSA provision
for guidance." Since the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a claim
under the FLSA, her PMWA claim remains as well.
To state a claim under the PWPCL, a plaintiff must allege that she
was "contractually entitled to compensation from wages and that she
was not paid." The Plaintiff attaches to the amended complaint and
incorporates by reference the "independent contractor agreement"
she signed and which Sesay signed on behalf of Apex in January
2019. This agreement states that she will be compensated at $32.50
an hour. She claims that she was not paid one and one-half this
amount for overtime hours worked in violation of the FLSA. Thus,
her claim is properly pleaded under the PWPCL.
Finally, the Defendants argue that judicial estoppel applies to the
matter since the Plaintiff previously asserted in a separate action
in the Court against them under Title VII that she was an employee
rather than an independent contractor. Judicial estoppel "seeks to
prevent a litigant from asserting a position inconsistent with one
that she has previously asserted in the same or in a previous
proceeding." As in the earlier action, the Plaintiff alleges that
she is an employee of Apex but has been misclassified as an
independent contractor and therefore is entitled to compensation
for overtime hours worked as an employee of Apex. This is not
inconsistent with alleging that she is an employee under Title VII.
In both instances, the Plaintiff claims to have been an employee of
Apex.
III. Order
As the Plaintiff has properly pleaded a claim under the FLSA and
under state law, Judge Bartle denies the motion of the Defendants
to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5ynxksyy from Leagle.com.
BENJAMIN JOFFE: Virginia AG Asks SCOTUS to Hear Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Delaney Murray, writing for WRIC ABC 8News reports that Virginia
Attorney General Jason Miyares, in a group of 20 state attorneys
general, is urging the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
to hear a case that will reexamine the rights of consumers in class
action lawsuits.
Attorney General Miyares and other state attorneys general have
filed an amicus brief urging the SCOTUS to hear Lowery v. Joffe.
Lowery v. Joffe is a recent case that stems from a 2010 Google
class action lawsuit. In the original lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged
that Google's Street View cars collected millions of consumers'
private data, including emails, passwords, and usernames, on their
WiFi networks without consumers' knowledge.
The parties settled, creating a $13 million cash fund to pay
attorneys and organizations dealing with consumer protection and
education. However, the harmed consumers received nothing from the
fund. This is known as a "cy pres-only" settlement, where class
members receive no direct benefit from a court settlement. Lowery
v. Joffe was filed to determine if such settlements are fair.
"Cy-pres-only settlements like these typically benefit corporate
giants and trial lawyers. They rarely deliver justice to the
victims harmed by large corporations," Attorney General Miyares
said. "All too often, they are a way for big business to escape
justice for injuries they inflicted on consumers. I hope the
Supreme Court takes this case and reins in the abuse of this sort
of settlement."
The full brief for Lowery v. Joffe is available at
https://files.constantcontact.com/d3e83e11901/2af16c16-8712-4473-8522-14f33c85336a.pdf?rdr=true[GN]
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Deloss Class Suit Over Mislabeled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD DELOSS AND STAN ZAKINOV, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-04405 (C.D. Cal., June 28, 2022) is a class action
complaint against Beyond Meat for its negligent, reckless, and/or
intentional practice of misrepresenting the content, quality, and
benefits of Beyond Meat products and omitting the presence of
synthetic ingredients on the labels, packaging, and advertising of
these Products sold throughout the United States.
According to the complaint, Beyond Meat had a duty to ensure that
the Products lived up to its representations about their content of
protein. As such, Beyond Meat knew or should have known that the
Products had substantially less protein, both in raw amounts and as
%DV than was advertised on the Products' labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs served on Beyond Meat a California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act letter on June 22, 2022, and currently bring this
action on behalf of the proposed Class and Subclasses solely for
injunctive relief under the CLRA, restitution under California
Unfair Competition Law, and for damages and equitable remedies 19
for the remainder of the claims for themselves(s) and members of
the Class.
Plaintiff DeLoss purchased Beyond Meat Products including Beyond
Burger Plant-Based Patties and Cookout Classic Plant-Based Burger
Patties. Plaintiff DeLoss purchased the Products from the grocery
stores Jewel, Whole Foods, and Target in Highland Park, Illinois
during the Class Period.
Plaintiff Stan Zakinov is a resident of Cypress, Texas. While
residing in San Diego, California, he purchased Beyond Burger,
Meatballs, and Ground Beef from Smart and Final, Vons, and Sprouts
between January 2019 and November 2021 in California.
Beyond Meat manufactures and sells meat substitute products. These
Products are made primarily of plant proteins derived from peas,
mung beans, fava beans, and brown rice, plant-based fats such as
cocoa butter, carbohydrates such as potato starch, and other
ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
- and -
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Anthony J. Stauber, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
600 B Street, 17th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3299
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
csmith@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
tstauber@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
kae@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
550 West B Street, 4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3993
E-mail: leo@moka.law
- and -
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
STEPHENS & STEPHENS, LLP
518 E. Main St.
Santa Maria, CA 93454
Telephone: (805) 922-1951
Facsimile: (805) 922-8013
E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com
BEYOND MEAT: Products Not Equal to "Real Meat", Yoon Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY YOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:22-cv-01032 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a putative class action
brought by the Plaintiff against Beyond Meat claiming that its
products provide "equal or superior protein" as compared to real
meat, but that is false, in violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.
Beyond Meat manufactures, advertises, and sells plant-based meat
substitute products, such as the plant-based ground beef, sausages,
meatballs, and hamburger patties.
Two different U.S. laboratories have independently and separately
conducted testing on a wide range of Beyond Meat products. The test
results were consistent with each other: the results of both tests
show that Beyond Meat products contain significantly less protein
than what is stated on the product packaging, says the suit. As
such, the Defendant has allegedly engaged in widespread false and
deceptive conduct by overstating the amount of protein in its
products.
Beyond Meat is a Los Angeles -- based producer of plant-based meat
substitutes founded in 2009 by Ethan Brown. The company's initial
products were launched in the United States in 2012. The company
offers plant-based options in the beef, pork and poultry
categories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: jsmith@bursor.com
fklorczyk@bursor.com
BHP GROUP: English Court Gives Greenlight for $8.8-Bil. Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans van Leeuwen of Financial Review reports that an English
appeals court has given 200,000-plus Brazilian litigants the green
light to pursue their GBP5 billion ($8.8 billion) class action
against BHP over the 2015 Samarco dam disaster.
The long-running courtroom saga can now go to a full trial, after
class action law firm PGMBM on Friday succeeded in getting the
Court of Appeal to overturn BHP's initial victory in March last
year.
The collapse of the Fundao dam in 2015 killed 19 and poured roughly
40 million cubic metres of mining waste into communities. AP
In November 2020, a lower court vetoed the lawsuit, ruling that the
huge class action would be too complex and costly, and might
duplicate litigation efforts in Brazil. The claimants then lost an
appeal against that decision last March - which seemed to kill off
the case.
But last month they won an "exceptional appeal" hearing to
reconsider that verdict. The ruling in their favour was handed down
on Friday.
The judges said the court case should proceed because the remedies
on offer in Brazil were "not so obviously inadequate that it can be
said to be pointless and wasteful to pursue proceedings" in
England.
"There is a realistic prospect of a trial yielding a real and
legitimate advantage for the claimants such as to outweigh the
disadvantages for the parties in terms of expense and the wider
public interest in terms of court resources," the ruling said.
In a statement, PGMBM said: "BHP will now finally face their day of
reckoning in the English courts . . . [and] will have to account
for their role in the 2015 disaster."
Claims of slow and inadequate redress
The collapse of the Fundao iron-ore tailings dam in 2015 killed 19
people and left hundreds homeless, as well as wreaking
environmental and infrastructure damage that extended across two
states.
Within weeks, a Brazilian class action was launched that ultimately
won a settlement of 20 billion Brazilian reals.
In response, BHP and its joint venture partner Vale set up the
Renova Foundation to remediate damage and compensate affected
individuals, which has so far spent more than 10 billion reals
($2.8 billion).
The litigants say they have had to turn to the English legal system
because they are getting only slow and inadequate redress through
the Brazilian courts - where a second, 155 billion-real lawsuit is
under way - and from the Renova Foundation.
BHP still has the option to try to prevent the trial by appealing
against Friday's decision to the Supreme Court. A spokesman said
the company was considering its response.
"We will continue to defend the action, which we believe remains
unnecessary as it duplicates matters already covered by the
existing and ongoing work of the Renova Foundation under the
supervision of the Brazilian courts, and legal proceedings in
Brazil," the spokesman said.
PGMBM's clients in the case include Brazilian businesses, churches,
municipalities, utility companies and individuals. The firm's
chairman, Harris Pogust, said the river remained contaminated and
people were still homeless.
He labelled BHP's publication of social-value targets last week as
"the best example of greenwashing I have ever seen".
"These social and environmental commitments are not worth the paper
they are written on until real justice is provided to the victims
of the Mariana Dam disaster," Mr Pogust said.
The BHP spokesman said that between the Renova Foundation and
Brazilian court settlements, about 30 billion reals would have been
spent on reparation and compensation by the end of this year.
The claimants counter that Renova has struggled to keep its 42
projects on track, and allege its real purpose is to limit BHP's
and Vale's liability, rather than deliver effective remedies.
The case has been running in England since 2018, but has yet to get
beyond the argument as to whether it can proceed. If BHP appeals to
the Supreme Court, another year could well elapse on this phase.
If the case goes to trial, it will be several years at least before
any judgment on BHP's liability or claimants' entitlements. [GN]
BOFI HOLDINGS: Deadline to Join $14.1-Mil. Settlement Set on Nov. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is for all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the publicly traded common stock of BofI Holding, Inc.
(now known as Axos Financial, Inc.), as well as purchasers of BofI
call options and sellers of BofI put options, between September 4,
2013 through and including October 13, 2015. Certain persons and
entities are excluded from the Class as set forth in detail in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 13, 2022
("Stipulation") and the Notice described below.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California ("Court"), that the parties
to the above-captioned action ("Action") have reached a proposed
settlement for $14,100,000 in cash ("Settlement") that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on October 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 2D, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA
92101, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the
Notice described below) should be entered; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and Lead
Plaintiff's application for a service award, should be approved.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary
of the information contained in the detailed Notice of (I) Proposed
Class Action Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses and Lead Plaintiff's Service Award ("Notice"). You may
obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the
website for the Settlement, www.BofISecuritiesLitigation.com. You
may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting
the Claims Administrator at In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities
Litigation Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91425, Seattle, WA 98111; 1-888-921-1538;
info@BofISecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than November 7, 2022, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases,
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than August 8, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any releases,
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will
not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement.
Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part
of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of
the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by
the Settlement. Please note, however, if you decide to exclude
yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the
claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose.
If you are a member of the Class and previously requested
exclusion, you now have the opportunity to opt-back into the Class
and participate in the Settlement. If you elect to opt-back into
the Class, you will be able to submit a Claim Form and be eligible
to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement.
If you elect to opt-back into the Class, you will be bound by any
releases, judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action,
regardless of whether or not you submit a Claim Form.
Class Counsel will apply to the Court to be paid from the
Settlement Fund, and any payment will be made only in the amount
that is approved by the Court. Class Counsel will ask the Court for
an award of attorneys' fees of no more than 25% of the Settlement
Fund (i.e., no more than $3,525,000). In addition, Class Counsel
will ask the Court to reimburse them out of the Settlement Fund for
the expenses they reasonably incurred and will incur in litigating
this case on behalf of Class Members, in an amount not to exceed
$1,400,000. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to approve a
Service Award of up to $15,000 for the Class Representative as an
award for its service to the Class as Plaintiff and Class
Representative out of the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel will also
request authorization to pay the Claims Administrator, directly
from the Settlement Fund, all Notice and Administration Costs
actually incurred and paid or payable up to $350,000, which Class
Counsel and the Claims Administrator estimate to be the maximum
amount likely to be required. Any amount in excess of that would be
payable from the Settlement Fund only upon further approval of the
Court. The amount of the Settlement Fund that remains after the
payment of all Court-approved attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses, Service Award, and Notice and Administration Costs will
be distributed to Class Members who have submitted valid claims for
compensation and have not timely excluded themselves from the
Settlement in a manner approved by the Court.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and Lead Plaintiff's requested Service
Award, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
August 8, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
The issuance of this Notice is not an expression of any opinion by
the Court concerning the merits of any claim in the Action, and the
Court still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. The
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing asserted in this
Action, and deny any liability whatsoever to any member of the
Class.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims
Administrator:
In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91425
Seattle, WA 98111
888-921-1538
info@BofISecuritiesLitigation.com
www.BofISecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may
be made to Class Counsel:
Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq.
Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 956-1000
BofISettlement@lchb.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of California [GN]
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSCOE EVANS is taking an appeal from a court memorandum decision
and order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Roscoe Evans, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. Brigham Young University,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-00100-TS-CMR, in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chase Hiatt
filed the lawsuit styled Chase Hiatt, Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Brigham Young
University, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-CV-00085-DN, on August 5,
2020. The case was refiled with this Case No. 1:20-CV-00100-TS-CMR
on August 6, 2020 because it was incorrectly opened as a Southern
Region case instead of a Northern Division case. The lawsuit brings
claims against Brigham Young University (BYU) for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of all people who paid
tuition and/or fees to attend in-person classes at BYU during the
Winter 2020 semester.
On February 19, 2021, an amended complaint was filed in the court
to add Roscoe Evans as New Plaintiff and remove Chase Hiatt as
Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that BYU failed to provide proper
tuition and/or fee refunds after it transitioned from in-person to
online instruction.
On August 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the
court to issue a certification order under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (i) certifying the claims in this action
as a class action; (ii) confirming Plaintiff as class
representative; (iii) appointing Plaintiff's counsel Watton Law
Group, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., the Sultzer Law Group, P.C. and
Carson Lynch, as Class Counsel; and, (iv) ordering the parties'
counsel to meet and confer to develop appropriate notice to Class
members.
Judge Ted Stewart denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification
on February 28, 2022. The court concluded that the Plaintiff's
proposed class definition is unascertainable and class
certification is inappropriate in this case pursuant to Rule
23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since to determine
whether a person paid tuition and/or fees to attend in-person
classes, it would require the court to individually inquire of
every BYU student enrolled during the Winter 2020 semester.
This determination rendered the parties' remaining arguments moot,
ruled Judge Stewart.
The appellate case is captioned as Roscoe Evans v. Brigham Young
University, Case No. 22-4050, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 16, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement and transcript order form were due on
June 30, 2022 for Roscoe Evans; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on June 30, 2022 for Brigham
Young University and Roscoe Evans. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROSCOE EVANS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Edward C. Ciolko, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel. (412) 322-9243
E-mail: eciolko@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael J. Watton, Esq.
WATTON LAW GROUP
311 South State Street, Suite 280
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 363-0130
E-mail: mwatton@wattongroup.com
Defendant-Appellee BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY is represented by:
David M. Andersen, Esq.
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
A-360 ASB
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-6102
E-mail: david_andersen@byu.edu
- and -
Christopher A. Bauer, Esq.
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
A-360 ASB
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-4722
E-mail: chris_bauer@byu.edu
- and -
James S. Jardine, Esq.
Samuel C. Straight, Esq.
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
36 South State Street, Suite 1400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-1500
E-mail: jjardine@rqn.com
sstraight@rqn.com
BROOKLYN'S CONST: Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DE MELO FERREIRA, FELIX FLORENTINO, MARVIN YOVANY OSWALDO,
ALEXIS ARANDA PAZ and JERONIMO ORELLANA OLIVARES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROOKLYN'S
CONSTRUCTIONS & DESINGS INC., BROOKLYN'S CONSTRUCTIONS &
RENOVATIONS CORP., GIRON CONSTRUCTION INC., and FRANSICO GIRON, as
an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-03796 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a
wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage, to which
Plaintiffs were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA. The
employees similarly situated are the collective class:
"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
tapers, painters, construction assistants, concrete workers,
demolition workers and carpenters or other similarly titled
personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay
provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for
the Defendants, other than the executive and management
positions, who have been subject to Defendants’ common
practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans
including willfully failing and refusing to pay required
overtime wage compensation."
The Defendants engage in civil and commercial construction
projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
CENLAR FSB: Benes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bradley Benes, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CENLAR FSB, Case No. 2022MR000267
was removed from the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit-DuPage County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on June 16, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-03177 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Cenlar FSB -- https://www.cenlar.com/ -- operates as a mortgage
subservicing company..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas D. O'Conner, Esq.
Ryan Aaron Sawyerv, Esq.
Thomas Justin Cunningham, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 443-0494
Email: noconner@lockelord.com
ryan.sawyer@lockelord.com
tcunningham@lockelord.com
CF BANK: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Tomasone Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELO TOMASONE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CF BANK, national association, TIM O'DELL,
individually, and DAVID HAND, individually, Case No.
2:22-cv-02602-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2022) alleges that
Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay minimum wage and overtime compensation:
In April 2020, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a
non-exempt Senior Mortgage Consultant on a commission basis.
From at least April 2020 and continuing through May 2022, the
Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for which the
Plaintiff was not compensated at the statutory rate of one and
one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, the suit asserts.
CFBank provides commercial loans and equipment leases, commercial
and residential real estate loans and treasury management
depository services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
333 W. Vine St. Suite 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: casay@forthepeople.com
AFrisch@forthepeople.com
COLONIAL CARE: Amador Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Civil Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA AMADOR on behalf of herself, the State of California, and
others similarly situated and aggrieved v. COLONIAL CARE CENTER,
INC., a California Corporation; LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT CORP., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV21067 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 28, 2022) is a
representative action filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself,
other similarly Aggrieved Employees and the State of California
against the Defendants, pursuant to California's Private Attorney
General Act, Labor Code, to recover civil penalties (75% payable to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to
Aggrieved Employees) for the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code.
The "Aggrieved Employees" include:
"All current and former non-exempt employees that were employed
by Defendants in California at any time from one year plus 65
days from filing of the initial Complaint through the present
("PAGA").
On January 28, 2022, the Plaintiff, through her counsel, gave
written notice by online filing with the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency informing it that Defendants failed to
comply with California’s labor laws with regard to the
allegations alleged in this Complaint. The PAGA Letter outlined
Plaintiff's claims for violations of the California Labor Code and
the applicable wage orders on behalf of herself, the State of
California and other Aggrieved Employees.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt certified
nursing assistant and restorative nurse assistant at Defendants'
Colonial Care Center facility located at 1913 East 5th Street, Long
Beach, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerl egal. com
zach@crosnerlegal. com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
COOK GROUP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Mateya Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DREW MATEYA, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons of, and on behalf of, the Cook Group
401(k) Plan v. COOK GROUP INCORPORATED, COOK GROUP INC. PROFIT
SHARING PLAN, COOK GROUP PROFIT SHARING PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
JOHN R. KAMSTRA, ROBERT L. SANTA, GREGORY S. SMITH, and TEDD GREEN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01271-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind., June 27, 2022) is a
class action under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) & (3) on behalf of
the retirement plan against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duties.
According to the complaint, 401(k) defined-contribution plans, in
which the employees' retirement assets are at risk of high fees and
underperformance, have become America's primary retirement system,
departing from traditional defined-benefit (pension) plans where
the employer assumes the risk. The marketplace for 401(k)
retirement plan services is established and competitive.
Billion-dollar defined-contribution plans, like the Plan, have
tremendous bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and
investment management services.
As fiduciaries to the Plan, Defendants are obligated to act for the
exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries and ensure that
Plan expenses are reasonable. These duties are the "highest known
to the law" and must be performed with "an eye single to the
interests of the participants and beneficiaries," says the suit.
As of September 30, 2021, the Plan had more than $1.19 billion in
total assets and approximately 12,300 participants.
Cook Group is an American privately held company based in
Bloomington, Indiana, and primarily involved in manufacturing of
medical devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy F. Devereux, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Gibson, Esq.
WAGNER REESE, LLP
11939 N. Meridian St., Ste. 100
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone: (317) 569-0000
Facsimile: (317) 569-8088
E-mail: TDevereux@WagnerReese.com
JGibson@WagnerReese.com
- and -
Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
Colin E. Flora, Esq.
PAVLACK LAW , LLC
50 E. 91st St., Ste. 305
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Telephone: (317) 251-1100
Facsimile: (317) 252-0352
E-mail: Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com
Colin@PavlackLawFirm.com
DAILY HARVEST: Crumbles Caused Illness, Peni Class Action Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BREEANNE BUCKLEY PENI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DAILY HARVEST, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-05443-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022) is class action lawsuit
against Daily Harvest for personal injuries arising out of an
outbreak of gastrointestinal illness related to a certain food
product that was prepared, marketed, sold and distributed by
defendant known as "French Lentil + Leek Crumbles."
Daily Harvest is one of the largest direct-to-customer food brands
in the United States. The company, which markets and sells its
products online through weekly and monthly subscription-based
meals, reported revenue of $250 million in 2020. Daily Harvest
markets its food as being organic, clean, healthy, easy to prepare,
and ready in minutes, while staying earth friendly.
The Plaintiff purchased and consumed French Lentil + Leek Crumbles
that were prepared, marketed, sold and distributed by the Daily
Harvest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Peluso, Esq.
DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP
75 Columbia Street
Albany, NY 12210
Telephone: (518) 463-7784
E-mail: jpeluso@dblawny.com
- and -
Joseph E. O'Connor, Esq.
O'CONNOR & PARTNERS, PLLC
255 Wall Street, Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 303-8777
E-mail: joconnor@onplaw.com
FIRST GUARANTY: Jackson Alleges WARN Violations Over Mass Layoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER JACKSON on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION and PACIFIC
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00545-ALM
(E.D. Tex., June 29, 2022) is a class action for the recovery by
the Plaintiff and Other Similarly Situated Employees of the
Defendants, as a single employer, of damages in the amount of 60
days' pay and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
benefits by reason of Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988.
Although the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees
were nominally employed by Defendant, First Guaranty Mortgage
Corporation ("FGMC"), pursuant to the WARN Act's single employer
rule, Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC ("PIMCO"), was
also the Plaintiff's and the Other Similarly Situated Employees
"Employer" until they were terminated as part of, or as a result of
a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by the Defendants on or
about June 24, 2022.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the WARN Act by
failing to give the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated
Employees of the Defendants at least 60 days' advance written
notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. As a
consequence, the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated
Employees of the Defendants are entitled under the WARN Act to
recover from the Defendants their wages and ERISA benefits for 60
days, none of which has been paid, says the suit.
GMC employed approximately 100 employees who worked at the Facility
as well as approximately 400 employees who "work[ed] outside any of
the employer's regular employment sites" and "reported to" or were
"assigned work from" the Facility (the "Remote Employees").
FGMC had its employees use a centralized project management
software system. All employees -- including Remote Employees --
would upload progress on projects on the system which was monitored
at the Facility daily to assess employee performance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason C. Webster, Esq.
THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM
6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 150
Houston, TX 77036
Telephone: (713) 581-3900
Facsimile: (713) 581-3907
E-mail: filing@thewebsterlawfirm.com
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th FL
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM
182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert Briefing Sched Extended in Azimihashemi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSOUD AZIMIHASHEMI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. FIRST TRANSIT SERVICES, INC., an unknown
business entity; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., an unknown business entity;
FIRST GROUP AMERICA, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-00780-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting stipulation to
extend class certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification to Jan. 27, 2023
be filed and served by:
-- Opposition to Motion for Class May 3, 2023
Certification to be filed and
served by:
-- Reply to Motion for Class May 31, 2023
Certification to be filed and
served by:
-- Hearing on Motion for Class
Certification is rescheduled for: June 16, 2023
First Transit provides operation, management and consulting for
more than 300 locations in 39 states, Canada and Puerto Rico.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c7JIE3 at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Anda Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hugo De Anda, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.,
Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:22-cv-04064-ODW-MAA (C.D. Cal., June 14,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Ford Motor Company -- https://corporate.ford.com/ -- is an American
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emanuel M Starr, Esq.
Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road No 2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Fax: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
adam@frontierlawcenter.com
- and –
Ari Yale Basser, Esq.
Jordan L Lurie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 432-8492
Email: abasser@pomlaw.com
jllurie@pomlaw.com
- and –
Robert L Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR APC
23901 Calabasas Road Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: robert@starrlaw.com
GILL LOGISTICS: Slinkard Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESS SLINKARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GILL LOGISTICS, LLC, MICHAEL GILL, and AMANDA GILL,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00292-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2022) alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
are misclassified as "independent contractors," in a scheme to
avoid paying overtime wages and other tax obligations. In reality,
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are in all respects
employees under the FLSA and were controlled, monitored and
directed by Defendants as any employee would be, the suit says.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' misclassification
resulted in a loss of substantial overtime wages otherwise payable
to him and all others similarly situated pursuant to the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. section 207.
The Plaintiff and members of the putative class are Drivers who
provided delivery, messenger, courier, and distribution service.
Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff contends that he regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week, and he has worked six and seven
days a week. The Plaintiff has not received any overtime pay for
the work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the suit
added.
Gill Logistics is in the business of providing delivery and
distribution services and operates from nine offices located in
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave, No. 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Faces Jolly Suit Over Mislabeled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY JOLLY, GABRIELLE BARDEQUEZ; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS (US) LLC; PFIZER INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-05555 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 29, 2022) alleges that the Defendants falsely and misleadingly
label certain of their ChapStick products with the following claims
in an effort to increase profits and to gain an unfair advantage
over their lawfully acting competitors:
"100% Natural," "Natural," "Naturally Sourced Ingredients,"
and/or "100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients", "Challenged
Representations," and/or "False Advertising Claims").
Contrary to the Products' Natural Representations, the Products
actually contain numerous non-natural, synthetic, artificial,
and/or highly processed ingredients. Through falsely, misleadingly,
and deceptively labeling the Products, says the suit.
The Defendants sought to take advantage of consumers' desire for
truly natural products. Yet the Defendants have done so at the
expense of unwitting consumers, as well as Defendants' lawfully
acting competitors, over whom Defendants maintain an unfair
competitive advantage. Fair and accurate exemplars of the Products'
front labels, added the suit.
Defendant Pfizer has been one of the owners, manufacturers, and
distributors of the Products, and one of the companies that
created, approved, authorized, and/or ratified the alleged false,
misleading, and deceptive labeling for the Products, including the
False Advertising Claims.
GSKhas substantial contacts with, and receives substantial benefits
and income from, the State of New York. Since approximately
mid-2019, GSK has been one of the owners, manufacturers, and
distributors of the Products, and one of the companies that
created, approved, authorized, and/or ratified the alleged false,
misleading, and deceptive labeling for the Products, including the
False Advertising Claims.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
228 Hamilton Ave., 3 rd Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (619) 915-9432
Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
GREYHOUND LINES: Reiskin Denied Leave to File Amended Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIE REISKIN, and COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY
COALITION, Plaintiffs v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 20-cv-2605-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies
Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin and Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition's
Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Action Complaint and Join
Party.
I. Background
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Greyhound has
historically operated its bus services with inadequate wheelchair
lifts, inadequate maintenance of those lifts, and inadequate
employee training and corporate policies about how to address lift
failures. They allege that Plaintiff Reiskin was subjected to all
of these deficiencies on Aug. 28, 2018, when, due to poor training
and an inoperable wheelchair lift on one of Greyhound's buses, she
was left stranded for hours at a bus stop in Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff brought three claims for
violations of: (1) Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12181-12189; (2) Sections 504 and 505
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sections 794-794a; and
(3) Parts 6 and 8 of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"),
Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 24-34-601-605, 801-805.
On Nov. 10, 2020, Judge Neureiter issued a Scheduling Order that
set the deadline to join parties or amend pleadings for Dec. 28,
2020. The Plaintiffs filed several motions to modify the Scheduling
Order. The Court granted the first three motions, but in granting
the third the Court warned the parties that "no further extensions
of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances."
The Plaintiffs filed a fourth motion to extend deadlines, but after
a hearing, the Court denied the Plaintiff's request. Importantly,
the Plaintiffs did not seek to extend joinder and amendment
deadlines in any of their four motions to amend the Scheduling
Order.
On Sept. 10, 2021, one month before the discovery cut-off, the
Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend, in which they proposed to
add Desmond West as a party and to convert their original complaint
into a class action. Mr. West, a resident of North Carolina,
alleges that a wheelchair lift malfunction disrupted his Greyhound
bus trip from New Bern, North Carolina, to Atlanta, Georgia in May
of 2021.
On May 10, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter
recommended that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend be denied. On Nov.
30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Objection, which is before the
Court now.
II. Analysis
Judge Neureiter recommended that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend be
denied because under Rule 15, amendment would be unduly prejudicial
to Greyhound and the court system itself. He explained that at the
time he made his Recommendation, discovery had been going for more
than a year and the deadline for dispositive motions was imminent.
He found that the Plaintiffs' new allegations involved
substantially different facts because Mr. West's claims arise out
of events that occurred in a different part of the country and
three years after the events at issue in the case. Further, he
reasoned that allowing the Plaintiffs to add nationwide class
action allegations or join additional parties would involve months,
if not years, of additional discovery. Thus, he concluded that if
the Motion to Amend were granted, Greyhound would be unduly
prejudiced because discovery would have to be reopened and expanded
to encompass entirely different factual allegations and all of
Greyhound's efforts in preparing a summary judgment motion would be
made moot.
The Plaintiffs raise several arguments in their Objection: (1)
Judge Neureiter does not specify which "significant new factual
issues are raised" by the new allegations; (2) joinder is
appropriate because some questions of law and fact are common since
the new allegations involved the same subject matter; and (3) Judge
Neureiter should not have considered the dispositive motion
deadline as part of his analysis.
Judge Martinez finds no merit in the Plaintiffs' objections to the
Recommendation, and reviewing the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend de
novo, he finds that joinder of Mr. West would unduly prejudice
Greyhound, and the addition of nationwide class action claims would
be even more prejudicial. Greyhound has been preparing its defense
in the case against claims arising from a single incident on Aug.
28, 2018 in Colorado, in which Plaintiff Reiskin alleges she was
discriminated against. The proposed amended complaint involves
allegations from another time and place, which would require new
fact witnesses and even new corporate witnesses.
Therefore, Judge Martinez finds that granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend would be unduly prejudicial to the Defendant
because the additional claims "raise significant new factual
issues," and the proposed amendments do not "track the factual
situations set forth in the original claims."
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, Judge Martinez overruled the Plaintiffs'
Objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
He denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amended.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5h7pk8mm from Leagle.com.
HERSHEY CANADA: Class Action Alleging Child Slave Labour Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.com reports that Hershey Canada and the Hershey
Company were unable to convince a justice to dismiss a class action
lawsuit claiming they use child slave labour in their supply chain.
The justice overseeing the complaint made by plaintiff Scott Leaf
in the British Columbia Supreme Court certified the class action
lawsuit late last month.
Leaf claims the Hershey companies misrepresented through their
advertising, marketing and packaging that they "did not rely on and
benefit from child slavery and trafficked children in their supply
chains."
Leaf filed the class action lawsuit against the companies in March
2020, at which time he claimed that their alleged use of child
labour and slavery was "abhorrent."
The Hershey companies, in their attempt to get the class action
lawsuit thrown out, argued that Leaf had not established that he
had personally received or relied on the alleged misrepresentations
and that the complaint did not expressly state that they do
business in B.C.
Hershey's class action says companies deny using child labour
The companies have maintained that they do not use child labour in
their supply chains and oppose the use of it, according to the
Hershey's class action.
Justice Jasmin Ahmad, meanwhile, ruled against the Hershey
companies, allowing Leaf's complaint to move ahead.
"Mr. Leaf alleges that contrary to those representations, 'child
labour and slavery' are present in the defendants' supply chain. He
asserts claims against the defendants in misrepresentation at
common law and under the Competition Act," Ahmad wrote in her
decision.
A separate consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against
Hershey Canada in 2020 also claiming the company uses child labour
while arguing that they would not have purchased Hershey's
chocolate products had they known.
Have you purchased Hershey's chocolate products? What do you think
of the slave labour allegations? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by A. Tanel and N. Gondek.
The Hershey's child labour class action lawsuit is Leaf v. Hershey
Canada Inc., et al., Case No. S202785, in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia. [GN]
INFINITI FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Deem Suit, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL DEEM, Plaintiff v. INFINITI FINANCIAL
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-20105 (MAS) (DEA)
(D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants the Nissan Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration and to Stay or Dismiss the Proceedings.
The Nissan Defendants are Infiniti Financial Services, Nissan Motor
Acceptance Co. LLC, Nissan-Infiniti LT, Nissan-Infiniti Financial
Services, and Circle Infiniti.
I. Background
Mr. Deem brings the putative class action on behalf of himself and
all other consumers arising out of vehicle leases they entered into
with Nissan and Infiniti dealers in New Jersey. Deem entered into
an agreement to lease a Nissan/Infiniti vehicle. He alleges that
the Nissan Defendants failed to disclose certain fees and taxes
under the Lease Agreement in violation of state and federal law.
On Oct. 8, 2021, Deem commenced the action in New Jersey Superior
Court on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who
entered into lease agreements with Nissan and Infiniti dealerships
throughout New Jersey. He alleges five-counts against the Nissan
Defendants, including claims for (1) consumer fraud, (2) violation
of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, (3)
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4)
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and (5)
violation of 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq.
In response, the Nissan Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, requesting that the Court stay or dismiss the action
pending arbitration proceedings. Specifically, they assert that
Deem's claims arise out of the Lease Agreement, which contains a
valid arbitration clause permitting arbitration of not only all
claims relating to the Lease Agreement but also disputes over the
arbitrability of those claims.
II. Discussion
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") dictates that written
arbitration agreements entered into in connection with a contract
evidencing a transaction involving commerce will be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. When a party
seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement, it may request from the
court "an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in
accordance with the terms of the agreement." Accordingly, the FAA
grants courts the power to compel arbitration and to stay or
dismiss claims subject to a valid arbitration agreement.
The Plaintiff explicitly relies on the Lease Agreement in the
Complaint, and therefore, Judge Shipp says, the Court may consider
it in evaluating the Nissan Defendants' Motion. The Court,
therefore, is well-equipped to determine the applicability of the
dispute resolution clause, and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
appropriate.
Having decided that a Rule 12(b)(6) standard is appropriate, Judge
Shipp addresses whether the Lease Agreement's arbitration clause is
valid and enforceable. Next, he determines whether the Lease
Agreement's arbitration clause properly delegates the issue of
arbitrability to the arbitrator.
A. The Parties Do Not Dispute that the Lease Agreement's
Arbitration Clause is Valid and Enforceable.
Mr. Deem readily admits that the Lease Agreement is a valid
contract. On review, Judge Shipp finds that the Lease Agreement
contains a valid and enforceable arbitration clause by its clear
terms. To be sure, Deem does not contend that the Lease Agreement
itself is unconscionable or void, nor does the Court find a reason
to determine that it is. The only dispute Deem raises is whether
his claims fall within the scope of the Lease Agreement's
arbitration clause. Before the Court reaches that dispute, however,
it must determine whether the issue of arbitrability is properly
decided in the Court or before the arbitrator.
B. The Delegation Clause Requires that an Arbitrator Resolve the
Question of the Arbitrability of Plaintiff's Claims.
The parties dispute whether the Court should compel arbitration as
to Deem's claims, including whether the question of the
arbitrability of those claims is itself reserved for arbitration.
The Nissan Defendants contend that an arbitrator, rather than the
judiciary, must decide the arbitrability of these claims.
In opposition, Deem contends that the question of arbitrability
must be judicially determined for two reasons. First, Deem believes
the delegation clause is invalid, claiming it is insufficiently
specific to defeat the presumption of judicial determination of
questions of arbitrability. Second, he argues that since the claims
are "collection or payment" disputes, they fall within an exception
to the arbitration agreement and are thus not subject to any of its
provisions.
Judge Shipp finds that the delegation clause is "clear, precise,
and entirely unequivocal, free from ambiguity or multiple
interpretations" and defeats the presumption of judicial
determination. He says, the delegation clause states that "any
claim or dispute (including the interpretation and scope of this
clause and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute), between you
and us will be resolved by arbitration." This broad language
constitutes "clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties
agreed to delegate arbitrability." In fact, another district court
in Battle v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. dealt with the exact
same arbitration clause and similarly found that the delegation
clause was enforceable.
As the Battle court concluded, this clause clearly and unmistakably
indicates that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of
arbitrability. Frankly, Judge Shippt finds it difficult to imagine
language more clearly delegating the authority to resolve
arbitrability questions to an arbitrator than "including the
arbitrability of the claim or dispute." He, therefore, concludes
that the arbitration provision valid and the scope of that
provision an issue for the arbitrator to review.
C. Deem's Contention that His Claims are an Exception to Lease
Agreement's Arbitration Clause is Also a "Question of
Arbitrability" that Must be Resolved by Arbitration.
Mr. Deem argues that his claims fall within the scope of an
explicit exception to the arbitration agreement for disputes over
"collection and payment." The argued-for exception states in
relevant part: "This Arbitration Clause does not apply to any claim
or dispute relating to excessive wear and use, including collection
or payment disputes."
In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524,
529 (2019), the power of a valid delegation clause is absolute.
Therefore, courts must at all times enforce a valid delegation
clause and refrain from engaging in its own analysis as to whether
the claims in question fall within the purview of the arbitration
agreement.
In the case, Judge Shipp finds that Deem's argument defies the
clear mandate of the Supreme Court. Indeed, Deem's contention that
his claims are exempted from the agreement is, at bottom, an issue
of arbitrability. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in Henry Schein,
Inc., even if it were completely obvious that Deem's claims
amounted to an exception, such arbitrability issues nevertheless
must be reserved for arbitration in accord with the valid
delegation clause between the parties.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Shipp grants the Nissan Defendants' Motion
to Compel Arbitration, as the arbitrator alone has the power to
determine the arbitrability of Deem's claims. The Court will issue
an order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8m2prm from Leagle.com.
INNOVATIVE FACILITY: Aires Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Irene Aires, on behalf of himself and all others aggrieved, v.
INNOVATIVE FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV399238 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 15, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code by failing
to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and
the other class members for all overtime hours worked. The
Plaintiff and the other class members were required to work more
than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee.
INNOVATIVE FACILITY SERVICES, LLC is a limited liability company
doing business in Santa Clara, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Alexander D. Wallin, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310)300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeffrey@tomorrowlaw.com
alex@tomorrowlaw.com
IONQ INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of August 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE: IONQ) between March 30,
2021 and May 2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
IonQ claims to "develop quantum computers designed to solve the
world's most complex problems." On or about September 30, 2021,
IonQ became a public entity via a business combination with dMY
Technology Group, Inc. III ("DTG"), a special purpose acquisition
company.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that IonQ had not yet
developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) that the Company's
11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates,
rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's quantum computer is not
sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being
available through major cloud providers; and (4) that a significant
portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper roundtripping
transactions with related parties.
On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report
alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony
statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and
business." It further claimed that the Company' reported
"[f]ictitious 'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party
round-tripping."
On this news, the Company's stock fell 9% to close at $7.15 per
share on May 3, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 1, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or acquired IONQ securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit IonQ, Inc.
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
JACARANDA CLUB: Faces O'Sullivan Suit Over Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET O'SULLIVAN and STEPHANIE KRAUEL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. JACARANDA CLUB, LLC, CLUB AT
39TH, LLC, CLUB ON BROADWAY, LLC, JACARANDA HOLDINGS, LLC, CLUB AT
60 TH ST., INC. JG CLUB HOLDINGS, LLC AND NIGHTCLUB HOLDINGS, LLC
collectively doing business as SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, JAMES
MARK TALLA, DAVID MICHAEL TALLA, MATTHEW GATES, JEFFREY WASSERMAN,
GLEN PETER BERNARDI, PETER FEINSTEIN, RUDY GUERRINO, AND JOHN AND
JANE DOE(S) 1 through 10 individually and in their capacity as
stakeholders of sapphire gentlemen's club; and any other related
entities, Case No. 155369/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., June 27, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants coerced to engage in illegal acts of
prostitution by subjecting employees to unwelcomed acts of sexual
harassment and sexual assault.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully retaliated
against and/or aided and abetted in committing retaliation, through
threats, intimidation and physical assault, as well as through
policies and/or practices that reduced the income of employees who
refused to engage in prostitution, from September 17, 2018, to the
present.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated based upon Defendants' systematic
violations of anti-discrimination provisions of the
New York State Human Rights law.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jon Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
JAJ INC: Crawford Seeks Delivery Drivers' Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. J.A.J. INC., and JEFF JACOBS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00592
(W.D. Mich., June 28, 2022) is a class action lawsuit as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to himself and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from November 2020 to
August 2021 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store
located in Grand Haven, MI, within this District.
Defendant, J.A.J. Inc. is a corporation that operates stores within
Defendant, Jeff Jacobs, is individually liable because, during the
relevant times, he was an owner of substantial interests in
defendant, served as officer of the entity, and held managerial
responsibilities and substantial control over terms and conditions
of drivers' work as they held the power to hire and fire,
supervised and controlled work schedules and/or conditions of
employment, determined rates and methods of pay and/or expense
reimbursements, and maintained employment records and/or held
control over employment records.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
JMS TRUCKING: Violates Truth-in-Leasing Act, Sanderson Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Sanderson, Isaiah Hughes & Sons Trucking, LLC, Final
Destination Trucking, LLC, Conway Transport, LLC, and Brandon
Souder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. JMS Trucking, Inc. and JMS Transportation Co., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00059 (N.D. Iowa, June 24, 2022) is a class action case
brought against the Defendants for damages under the
Truth-in-Leasing Act, for breach of contract, for fraud, for breach
of fiduciary duty, an accounting, and, in the alternative, for
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and the
following proposed class:
"All persons, except any affiliate of the JMS Defendants and
their immediate family members, who entered into an independent
contractor relationship with either or both of the JMS
the Defendants for the provision of driving services."
The Plaintiffs and Class members entered into valid and enforceable
contracts with the JMS Defendants in the form of the Leases --
i.e., the Operating Agreement and the CBA, containing materially
identical provisions. Pursuant to the Leases, the JMS Defendants
were required to pay the Plaintiffs and Class members an amount
equal to a set percentage of gross revenue received from the JMS
Defendants' customer(s), as well as 100% of any fuel surcharge that
was charged to the customer for the loads that the Plaintiffs and
Class members drove.
According to the complaint, in breach of their Leases with the
Plaintiffs and Class members, the JMS Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and Class members the amounts due and owing under their
Leases, including, without limitation, those amounts equal to 100%
of the billed fuel surcharge for the loads that the Plaintiffs and
Class members drove.
JMS Trucking is a transportation/trucking/railroad company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kirk W. Schuler, Esq.
Michael Stinson, Esq.
Charles J. Pults, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
801 Grand Ave., Ste. 4100
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone: (515) 283-1000
Facsimile: (515) 283-1060
E-mail: schuler.kirk@dorsey.com
JOYCE CAMPBELL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 3
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSELM CADDELL, et al., v.
JOYCE A. CAMPBELL, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00091-DRC-SKB (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Stephanie K. Bowman entered an amended
calendar order as follows:
1. The Deadline for filing any motion Oct. 3, 2022
for class certification:
2. Hearing on Motion for Class To be set on the
Certification: calendar of Judge
Cole
3. Discovery deadline: June 1, 2023
4. Deadline for Plaintiffs to March 1, 2023
identify experts and provide
reports:
5. Deadline for Defendants to May 1, 2023
identify experts and provide
reports:
6. Dispositive motion deadline: August 1, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c6Qj1y at no extra charge.[CC]
K AND G: Violates Federal Wage & Hour Laws, Rodriguez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN ALBERTO AVILES RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. K AND G FLOOR SERVICE CORP., KADIL
ALARCON and GIOVANI ALARCON, as individuals, Case No. 2:22-cv-03758
(E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022) seeks to to recover damages for the
Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with the
Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked a
schedule of shifts beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m. each
workday and regularly ended at approximately 7:00 p.m., or later,
seven days per week from in or around June 2021 until in or around
February 2022. Thus, the Plaintiff was regularly required to work
70 hours or more hours from in or around June 2021 until in or
around February 2022. The Plaintiff was paid by Defendants a flat
daily rate of approximately $250.00 per day for all hours worked
from in or around June 2021 until in or around February 2022, says
the suit.
The employees similarly situated are hereafter, the "Collective
Class."
"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
construction workers, sheetrock workers, drywall workers or any
other similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same
sort of functions for Defendants, other than the executive and
management positions, who have been subject to Defendants'
common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and
plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required
overtime wages."
K AND G FLOOR SERVICE CORP. provides services including floor
installation, floor repair, floor replacement, wood flooring,
laminate flooring, vinyl flooring, carpet installation, carpet
repair, floor restoration, laminate tile installation, ceramic tile
installation, and tile installation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
KELLOGG CO: Faces Fleming ERISA Suit Over Excessive Recording Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY H. FLEMING, individually, and as Representative of a Class
of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Kellogg Company Savings
and Investment Plan v. KELLOGG COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
KELLOGG COMPANY and ERISA FINANCE COMMITTEE OF KELLOGG COMPANY and
ERISA ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF KELLOGG COMPANY, Case No.
1:22-cv-00593 (W.D. Mich., June 28, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by causing the
Plan participants to pay excessive recording and managed account
fees.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unreasonably failed to
leverage the size of the Plan to pay reasonable fees for Plan
record-keeping and managed account services.
These breaches of fiduciary duty caused Plaintiff and Class Members
millions of dollars of harm in the form of lower retirement account
balances than they otherwise should have had in the absence of
these unreasonable Plan fees and expenses, says the suit.
Kellogg Company, doing business as Kellogg's, is an American
multinational food manufacturing company headquartered in Battle
Creek, Michigan, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
E-Mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Troy W. Haney, Esq.
HANEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
330 E. Fulton
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 235-2300
Facsimile: (616) 459-0137
E-Mail: thaney@troyhaneylaw.com
KENDO HOLDINGS: Faces Saintigene Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANICHA SAINTIGENE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KENDO HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. CACE-22-009314
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 27, 2022) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's texts were transmitted
to the Plaintiffs cellular telephone, beginning at least in June,
2021, with subsequent texts almost on a weekly basis throughout
2021, and 2022 up to present day. The Plaintiff was in Florida when
she received the above text message calls, and Defendant's
violative conduct occurred in substantial part in Florida. At the
time Plaintiff received the text messages, she was the sole user of
the cellular telephone that received the messages, says the suit.
The Defendant's calls and/or texts constitute telemarketing because
they were solely made to encourage the future purchase or
investment in property, goods, or services, the suit asserts.
Kendo Holdings was founded in 2010. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of combined lines of gifts and novelty
merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Office (866) 954-6673
Facsimile (954) 916-8499
E-mail: Spam-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
MAMA SHNITZEL: Muratov Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniella Muratov, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Mama Shnitzel
Inc., Mamas Grill Inc., and Mike Mirzacandov (a/k/a Mike Mirz),
Case No. 1:22-cv-03785 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022) is a class action
lawsuit seeking recovery, for herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, against the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the
New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.
Plaintiff Dewitt was employed as a cashier and general worker at
the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control the restaurant, located
at 100-22 67th Ave. Rego Park, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
MDL 2903: Alfaro Appeals Cert. Denial in Unsafe Sleeper Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ALFARO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, is taking an appeal from an order denying certification
of a proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re:
FisherPrice Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:19-md-2903-GWC, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
(Buffalo).
This lawsuit was brought over alleged violations of the New York
General Business Law (GBL) when Defendants were forced to recall
their Sleeper after being served with a pre-suit notice letter, and
consumer reports published a devastating article exposing that
numerous infants suffocated to death while in the product.
Plaintiffs filed 16 class action lawsuits in federal courts across
13 states. On August 1, 2019, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the litigation into an MDL
proceeding and assigned the case to the Western District of New
York. On October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint alleging Defendants' marketing of
the Sleeper was dangerously false, misleading, deceptive, and
unfair. The Plaintiffs who purchased Sleepers alleged that they
would have paid less, or would not have purchased the Sleeper at
all, had they known it was unsafe for infant sleep or could lead to
infant death or injury. The Plaintiffs further alleged that
Defendants were able to charge a higher price for their Sleepers as
a result of Defendants deceptively marketing them as safe and
omitting the product's dangers in their packaging and advertising
materials. As such, the complaint sought monetary damages for
purchasers in the form of full or partial refunds for the purchase
prices of the Sleepers.
On February 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers
under nine states' consumer protection statutes--including GBL
Section 349--pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff Alfaro was
proposed as the Class Representative for the class of New York
purchasers.
In its Order dated June 2, 2022, the district court held that each
of Rule 23(a)'s requirements--numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy--were satisfied by Plaintiff Alfaro and the proposed
class of Sleeper purchasers in New York. However, the district
court denied certification of the GBL Section 349 claim under Rule
23(b)(3), holding that determining loss causation required
individualized proof that defeated predominance, in part, because
"this is not a "price premium" case in which all consumers overpaid
as a result of a false claim about the product." The district court
reasoned that, unlike other price premium cases in which the
products were “marketed through value-enhancing statements that
they are 'natural' or 'flushable' or otherwise superior to the
competition, the market for child products is not stratified into
products that are safe and those that are unsafe but sold at a
lower price."
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION;
ELIZABETH ALFARO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL,
INC., Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 22-1319, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 16,
2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner Elizabeth Alfaro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Demet Basar, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
218 Commerce Street
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Defendants-Respondents Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel Inc. are
represented by:
Matthew P. Kanny, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
520 Broadway, Suite 500
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (424) 252-6400
- and -
Samantha Jill Katze, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 790-4500
MEDRANO USA: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan Pablo Garcia Vasquez,
et al., v. Medrano USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00975-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) defined
as:
"Current and former hourly employees of Kalamazoo Pallet,
Inc., who worked in excess of 40 hours during a workweek
at any time after November 17, 2018;"
2. Compelling the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the
names, all known addresses, email addresses and cell phone
numbers of the potential Collective members;
3. Authorizing the notice to the Collective members with a
120 day opt-in period; and
4. Appointing Avanti Law Group, PLLC as interim class
counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 28, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ItiaVC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
900 Michigan Ave.
Wyoming, MI 49509
Telephone: (616) 257-6807
E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
- and -
Stephen H. Dodd, Esq.
STEVEDODD LAW
600 28th St. SW
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 223-1300
E-mail: sdodd@stevedoddlaw.com
MERCK & CO: 400 More Women Join $250M Equal-Pay Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Staton, writing for Fierce Pharma, reports that the $250
million gender bias suit against Merck & Co. just picked up more
steam. Conditionally certified as a class action in May, the
lawsuit has picked up more than 400 women to bolster allegations
that the company underpaid female sales reps.
Filed under the Equal Pay Act, the complaint alleges that Merck
paid female reps less than male salespeople and thwarted women's
attempts to rise up the company ladder. Women who were pregnant or
had children were often pushed to leave the company, and sexual
harassment created a hostile work environment, the suit says.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp said in April that four former
reps had delivered a "modest factual showing" that Merck's policies
affected them and other women across the company, qualifying the
suit for potential class-action status. A single plaintiff, former
rep Kelli Smith, filed the case back in 2013.
Merck maintains that the gender bias claims are weak. "We remain
confident that this case lacks merit and will not proceed as a
class action," the company said in a Thursday statement, citing its
family-friendly HR policies and official avenues for women to speak
up about any unfair treatment. "The company will continue to
vigorously defend itself, and remains fully committed to providing
equal employment opportunities for all employees."
The plaintiffs' co-lead lawyer, David Sanford of Sanford Heisler,
said the women also aim to win class action status for related
gender discrimination claims. "The message sent by these women is
clear: Many women across the country believe that they suffered pay
discrimination while working at Merck," Sanford said in a Thursday
statement.
The women say that Merck was a "boys club" where men were seen as
"breadwinners" who needed to advance to support their families,
while women really should "stay at home" with their children.
Pregnant women were often demoted upon return to work after
maternity leave, the reps claim.
The Merck reps' complaints mirror those in discrimination lawsuits
against Daiichi Sankyo, Forest Laboratories, Bayer, and Novartis.
The Swiss drugmaker lost its case at trial in 2010, and ended up
settling with the plaintiffs for $175 million.
But Merck itself prevailed in another gender discrimination suit.
Last year, a jury sided with the company, finding that a former
employee failed to prove she was discriminated against. Kerri
Colicchio claimed that she was passed over for a promotion to vice
president because she was preparing to take maternity leave. When
she returned to work after her son's birth, Colicchio claimed, the
new VP bullied and harassed her, and she was fired several months
later.
In its statement, Merck said it has "a strong anti-discrimination
policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of
characteristics, such as gender, pregnancy, race, age, disability
and sexual orientation" and pointed out that at this stage of the
legal process, the plaintiffs in the putative class action haven't
proven that any women were treated unfairly. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Menschach Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Ruby R. Menschach,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-02330-EGS (E.D.
Pa., June 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is
an American debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in
San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Howard Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael P Trainor, Esq.
Jonathan F Ball, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 569-5685
Email: mtrainor@blankrome.com
jonathan.ball@blankrome.com
MINT MUSEUM OF ART: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mint Museum of Art.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mint
Museum of Art, Case No. 3:22-cv-00269-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., June 16,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Mint Museum -- https://mintmuseum.org/ -- also referred to as
The Mint Museums, is a cultural institution comprising two museums,
located in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC
2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200
Matthews, NC 28105
Phone: (704) 814-0729
Fax: (704) 814-0730
Email: srg@gohillaw.com
MOTIVATE LLC: Faces Diaz Class Suit Over Late Wage Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Motivate LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05482 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022)
alleges that the Defendant's bi-weekly payment of the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated manual workers is in violation of New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff and the proposed class work and have worked in a
variety of roles including, but not limited to Bike Mechanics,
Service Delivery Drivers, On Call Valet Attendants, Depot Battery
Chargers, Battery Swap Drivers, Operations Associates, Mobile Bike
Shop Technicians, Assembly Technician, Station Service Technicians,
Seasonal Scooter Driver, Mobile Bike Shop Technician, Battery Swap
and Charging Driver, Scooter Drivers, and Delivery Drivers, in the
State of New York, performing physical labor, and being paid
bi-weekly.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's late wage payments
resulted in Plaintiff missing approximately ten credit card
payments, resulting in late fees, interest charges, and negatively
impacting his credit score. The Defendant's conduct also deprived
Plaintiff of the time-value of his earned wages, impairing his
ability to save, invest, and utilize his wages in a timely manner
as well as disrupting the payment of monthly expenses, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Diaz has worked for Defendant from April 5, 2022 to the
present.
Motivate LLC operates customized bicycle, electric bicycle,
"e-moped scooter," electric tricycle, and delivery trailer fleets
meeting customers' environmentally friendly transportation needs
while maintaining servicing, charging and distribution depots and
other related facilities in the New York City metropolitan area as
well as the Chicago, Washington DC, Boston, San Francisco,
Minneapolis, Columbus Ohio, and Portland Oregon metropolitan
areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Pierson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DALE PIERSON, JR., Individually, and on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated current and former employees v.
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:22-cv-00485 (M.D. Tenn., June 27, 2022) alleges violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act including collective claims for unpaid
overtime and individual claims for retaliation against National
HealthCare.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours
worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and
one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the
FLSA.
Plaintiff Pierson was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
non-exempt food and beverage worker in a Nashville area assisted
living facility, located within this district at all times material
to this collective action.
The Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of himself
and the following similarly situated persons as a class:
"All current and former hourly-paid non-exempt food and
beverage
workers of Defendant National HealthCare Corporation who worked
for at least "full-time" week during the applicable limitation's
period (i.e., two (2) years for FLSA violations and three (3)
years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date
of final judgment in this matter including the Named Plaintiff
and those who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the
FLSA."
The Defendant is a medical and non-medical service provider to
elderly adults and various third parties that serve elderly adults.
The Defendant operates various senior assisted living facilities,
and others similar operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
NEW ASIA: Li Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, MFLSA & MPWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Changshan Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Asia Chinese Restaurant Wan Da Inc. d/b/a New Asia
d/b/a New Asia Chinese Restaurant d/b/a New Asia Express Restaurant
d/b/a New Asia Express, Hong Sheng Lin, and Rong Lin, Case No.
0:22-cv-01665-WMW-BRT (d. Minn., June 27, 2022) challenges the
Defendants' minimum wage and overtime violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as the wage, hour, labor, and other
applicable laws of the States of Minnesota, including the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.
As manual laborers, Plaintiff and the putative Class and Collective
Members were and are non-exempt employees under federal and state
wage and hour laws and should receive minimum wage and overtime pay
consistent with the requirements of those laws.
However, the Defendants do not pay their manual laborers minimum
wage and overtime as required by law. Instead, the Defendants
fraudulently misrepresent the actual number of hours worked by
their manual laborers and make improper deductions from wages,
thereby robbing said employees of pay at the applicable minimum
wage and at time-and-a-half for overtime hours worked, says the
suit.
These employees perform substantially the same job duties and
responsibilities and are compensated pursuant to the same company
policies. They are similarly situated under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and the FLSA, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charlie R. Alden, Esq.
GILBERT ALDEN BARBOSA PPLC
2801 Cliff Rd E., Suite 200
Burnsville, MN 55337
E-mail: Charlie@GilbertAlden.com
Telephone: (612) 990-2484
Facsimile: (612) 806-0585
- and -
Jian Hang, Esq.
Ge Qu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Prunella Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH A. PRUNELLA, ADRIAN A. BUTLER, DANIEL D. JARVIS, GERMAN F.
OVIEDO, JEREMIAH P. WHOLEY, ANTHONY F. ALLIA, ROBERTO APONTE,
VICTOR BAPTISTE, SERGEY S. BYCHKOV, DOMINICK M. COSTAGLIOLA, THOMAS
DINARDO, CARLOS M. FERNANDEZ, BRIAN FOGMEG, PHILLIP J. GOODWIN,
JAMES C. LOIACONO, MICHAEL P. MCGRORY, WILLIAM MONTANO, MICHAEL P.
O'CONNOR, CHARLES E. PICCIOTTO, JOSEPH D. PORTER, VERNON O. RAMSAY
JOSEPH A. TLOCZKOWSKI v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Case No.
1:22-cv-03766-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022) is a class action
lawsuit action against the Defendant as a collective action in
accordance of the Fair Labor Standards Act because of the
Defendant's unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' right to overtime
compensation in accordance with the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant,
New York City Transit Authority, also branded as the MTA New York
City Transit Authority, who work or have worked in the position of
"High Pressure Plant Tender."
The Plaintiffs are similarly situated to each other because they
have been subject to the same policies and/or practices that
violate the FLSA whereby the Defendant suffered or permitted
Plaintiffs to perform uncompensated overtime work before and after
their paid shifts. The Plaintiffs are also similarly situated to
each other because they have been subject to the same policies
and/or practices that violate the FLSA whereby the Defendant fails
to properly calculate the regular rate of pay upon which
Plaintiffs' overtime rate is based and fails to pay overtime
compensation in a timely manner, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Sara Faulman, Esq.
John W. Stewart, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
slf@mselaborlaw.com
jws@mselaborlaw.com
- and -
Hope Pordy, Esq.
Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
1040 Avenue of the Americas
20th Floor New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 765-2100
E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
esprotzer@spivaklipton.com
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Lohr Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN SINDOGI are taking an appeal from a court
ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled Tamara Lohr, et al.,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01023-RSM, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this lawsuit,
removed from the Superior Court of Washington, County of King, to
the District Court for the Western District of Washington on June
30, 2016, brings claims for breach of express warranty, breach of
the warranty of merchantability, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Washington State's Consumer
Protection Act by manufacturing and selling Nissan vehicles with
defective panoramic sunroof.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants acted deceptively by
failing to disclose the vehicles' defect to customers.
On December 7, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims.
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted the motion on May 9, 2022.
Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants on May 16, 2022, and
all of Plaintiff Lohr and Plaintiff Sindogi's claims were dismissed
with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Tamara Lohr, et al. v. Nissan
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-35473, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 15,
2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Tamara Lohr and Ravikiran Sindogi Mediation
Questionnaire was due June 22, 2022;
-- Appellants Tamara Lohr and Ravikiran Sindogi opening brief is
due on August 12, 2022;
-- Appellees Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and Nissan North America,
Inc. answering brief is due on September 12, 2022;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN SINDOGI, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (347) 668-8445
- and -
Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq.
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N Wacker, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 261-6193
Defendants-Appellees NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Andrew Chang, Esq.
Amir Nassihi, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
O'NEIL INSURANCE: Parties File Bid for Extension of Time
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY L. CLEMONS, v.
O'NEIL INSURANCE AGENCY INC. and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-00678-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing
schedule related to Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on June 24,
2022, seeking to certify a "National DNC Class," consisting of:
"All persons in the United States who, from four years prior
to the filing of this action: (1) Defendants or an agent
acting on behalf of the Defendants made (2) two or more
telemarketing calls; (3) promoting Defendants' products or
services; (4) to a residential phone number that was listed
on the National Do Not Call registry for at least 31 days
before the first call; and (5) within any twelve-month
period."
If Defendants' request is granted, Plaintiff's Reply would be due
on July 29, 2022. The parties have scheduled a mediation with Jay
Daugherty on July 28, 2022, consistent with this Court's order. In
light of that mediation, the Plaintiff requests an additional seven
days to submit her Reply, making the Reply due on August 5, 2022.
O'Neil Insurance is a full service independent insurance agency.
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated June 28, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yujSli at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick D. Cloud, Esq.
HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, P.C.
105 West Vandalia, Suite 100
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-4646
E-mail: pcloud@heylroyster.com
- and -
James P. Gaughan, Esq.
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
70 West Madison Street, Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 471-8700
Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
E-mail: jgaughan@rshc-law.com
OKTA INC: Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Securities Suit Set on July 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Okta Inc. ("Okta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OKTA) between March 5,
2021 and March 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Okta provides identity solutions and cybersecurity products and
services for enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses,
universities, non-profits, and government agencies in the U.S. and
internationally.
Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity
controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data
breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused
by a hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta
customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and later
downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on
Okta's business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted
screenshots on their Telegram channel showing what they claimed was
Okta's internal company environment. Thereafter, on March 22, 2022,
the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Todd McKinnon,
stated on his Twitter account that "[i]n late January 2022, Okta
detected an attempt to compromise the account of a third party
customer support engineer working for one of our subprocessors";
that "[t]he matter was investigated and contained by the
subprocessor"; that "[w]e believe the screenshots shared online are
connected to this January event"; and that "[b]ased on our
investigation to date, there is no evidence of ongoing malicious
activity beyond the activity detected in January. On this news,
Okta's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to close at
$166.43 per share on March 22, 2022.
On March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, the Company's Chief
Security Officer, Defendant David Bradbury, stated on Okta's
website, inter alia, that "[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the
LAPSUS$] claims, we have concluded that a small percentage of
customers - approximately 2.5% - have potentially been impacted and
whose data may have been viewed or acted upon. "Okta was
subsequently downgraded by Raymond James from "strong buy" to
"market perform," noting, among other things, that "[w]hile
partners were willing to trust Okta's track record, the handling of
its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns. "After
these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $17.88 per share,
or 10.74%, to close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 19, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased OKTA securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Okta Inc. Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com[GN]
OKTA INC: Portnoy Law Firm Notes of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA) that a class
action has been filed on behalf of investors. Okta investors that
lost money on their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and
medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government
agencies in the United States and internationally.
The Okta class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate cybersecurity controls;
(ii) as a result, Okta's systems were vulnerable to data breaches;
(iii) Okta ultimately did experience a data breach caused by a
hacking group, which potentially affected hundreds of Okta
customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose and subsequently
downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on
Okta's business, financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a
result, Okta's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors.
Contact:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com[GN]
OUTSET MEDICAL: Saxena White Files New Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Outset Medical, Inc.
("Outset Medical" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OM) and certain of its
executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased Outset Medical common stock
between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action
filed by Saxena White is captioned: Plymouth County Retirement
Association v. Outset Medical, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-04016 (N.D. Cal.)
Outset Medical is a medical technology company focused on kidney
dialysis, the primary treatment for acute and chronic kidney
failure. The Company's flagship product is the Tablo Hemodialysis
System ("Tablo"), a dialysis machine that purifies tap water and
then artificially purifies and removes toxins from the blood of
patients suffering from kidney failure.
Throughout the Class Period, Outset Medical touted that Tablo can
"serve as a dialysis clinic on wheels" that had been "cleared by
the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration [(the "FDA")] for use in
the hospital, clinic or home setting" under Section 510(k) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA"). Devices used by
non-professionals outside of a clinical setting and that can
present serious health consequences like Tablo are subject to
heightened scrutiny by the FDA, including post-market surveillance
studies pursuant to the FDCA. While performing further regulatory
studies during the Class Period, the Company assured investors that
it was conducting the studies "in accordance with the FDA approved
protocol," which required an appropriate demonstration of
"real-world" human testing given that the device would be used at
home by non-professionals.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) Defendants had
"continuously made improvements and updates to Tablo over time
since its original clearance" that required an additional 510(k)
application; (2) as a result, the Company could not conduct a human
factors study on a cleared device in accordance with FDA protocols;
(3) the Company's inability to conduct the human factors study
subjected the Company to the likelihood of the FDA imposing a
"shipment hold" and marketing suspension, leaving the Company
unable to sell Tablo for home use; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The truth began to emerge on May 5, 2022, when the Company
announced disappointing results for the first quarter of 2022,
which analysts attributed, inter alia, to the untested nature of
Tablo in the home setting. In response to this disclosure, and as
the market digested this news, the price of Outset Medical common
stock declined more than 40% over the three trading days that
followed, from a closing price of $39.94 per share on Wednesday,
May 4, 2022, to a closing price of $23.06 per share on Monday, May
9, 2022.
Then, after the markets closed on June 13, 2022, Outset Medical
announced that the FDA had forced the Company to hold all shipments
of Tablo for use in the home until Tablo received proper regulatory
clearance. During an "FDA Review Call" held that day with analysts,
the Defendants acknowledged the "ship hold" had already been in
place for weeks before investors were provided this material
information, and that as a result of the shipment hold, the Company
was "suspending our prior full-year and long-term guidance." On
this news, the price of Outset Medical stock fell an additional
33%, from a closing price of $20.41 per share on June 13, 2022, to
a closing price of $13.46 per share on June 14, 2022.
If you purchased Outset Medical common stock during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish
to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California no later than September 6, 2022. The lead plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You
do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member.
You may contact Wolfram T. Worms (wworms@saxenawhite.com), an
attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action.
You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the
Class Action.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.
Contact:
Wolfram T. Worms, Esq.
wworms@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: (858) 256-5298
Fax: (858) 369-0096
www.saxenawhite.com[GN]
PREMIUM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Manual Workers Weekly, Conley Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Conley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Premium Retail Services, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03794
(E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022) alleges that the Defendants' failed to
pay Conley and other Manual Workers weekly resulted in the loss of
time value of money, and the inability to keep up with bills and
expenses, resulting in monetary loss and other tangible loss,
including the incurrence of interest payments, late fees and other
such fees, accelerated payment schedules, impaired credit rating,
and the the loss of use of property.
The Plaintiff and the proposed class worked as merchandising
specialists, retail merchandisers, retail merchandising
specialists, merchandising leads and trainers, field technicians,
and pet ambassadors ("Manual Workers") for Premium Retail at retail
stores located throughout the State of New York, performing almost
entirely physical labor, and being paid bi-weekly.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has paid Conley bi-weekly
throughout his employment as a Merchandising Specialist. The
Defendant has maintained control, oversight, and direction over
Plaintiff and all other similar employees, including timekeeping,
payroll, and other employment practices that applied to them, says
the suit.
The Proposed Class is defined as:
"All Employees working for Premium Retail stores in the roles
of
merchandising specialist, retail merchandiser, retail
merchandising specialist, merchandising lead and trainer, field
technician, and pet ambassador in the State of New York between
the date six years preceding the filing of this complaint and
the date a class is certified in this action."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
REALREAL INC: Dougal Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DOUGAL, individually and on behalf of aggrieved
employees, the State of California, and all others similarly
situated v. THE REALREAL, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-22-600390 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 24,
2022) seeks unpaid wages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
TRR who experienced these Labor Code violations firsthand and now
seeks to vindicate the rights of all aggrieved "sales" employees.
The Plaintiff's suit is based on the Defendant's violations of the
California Labor Code.
The Defendant engages in luxury consignment business, committed to
reliability, sustainability, and authenticity. It sells thousands
of high-end items on its website, including designer apparel,
jewelry, watches, home goods, and fine art
In order to obtain these items, the RealReal employs hundreds of
workers to contact consignors, travel to their homes for pick-ups
and appointments, photograph, catalog, and ship consignors' items
to TRR facilities, help deal 11 with lost items and otherwise
manage consignor relationships. This so-called "sales" operation is
the backbone of the company, responsible for obtaining a continuous
supply of goods for TRR to sell, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Xinying Valerian, Esq.
Dominic Valerian, Esq.
Helen Halldorsson, Esq.
VALERIAN LAW, P.C.
1530 Solano Ave.
Albany, CA 94707
Telephone: (510) 567.4630
E-mail: xinying@valerian.law
dominic@valerian.law
helen@valerian.law
REFUAH HEALTH CENTER: Esposito Suit Removed to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dawn Esposito, Paolo Cortazar, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Refuah Health Center,
Inc., Case No. 032451/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court,
County of Rockland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 16, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-05039-KMK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Refuah Health Center -- https://refuahhealth.org/ -- provide
high-quality medical services offers Pediatrics, Women's Health,
Dental, Podiatry, Behavioral Health, etc.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James Patrick Flynn, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
One Gateway Ctr
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 639-8285
Fax: (973) 639-8931
Email: jflynn@ebglaw.com
REFUAH HEALTH CENTER: Krandle Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rebecca Krandle, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Refuah Health Center, Inc., Case
No. 032188/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of
Rockland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on June 14, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-04977-KMK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Refuah Health Center -- https://refuahhealth.org/ -- provide
high-quality medical services offers Pediatrics, Women's Health,
Dental, Podiatry, Behavioral Health, etc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Milton Liskow, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5803
Phone: (212) 899-1761
Email: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James Patrick Flynn, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
One Gateway Ctr
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 639-8285
Fax: (973) 639-8931
Email: jflynn@ebglaw.com
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Court Authorizes Notice of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSIE KARNELL, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. REVELETTE
ENTERPRISES, LLC, REVELETTE HOSPITALITY, LLC, ARJN, LLC, ARJN No.
3, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- GREEN HILLS, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE
– HENDERSONVILLE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- SPRING HILL, LLC,
JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- MURFREESBORO, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE --
PROVIDENCE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -- EAST RIDGE, LLC, JONATHAN'S
GRILLE -- CLIFT FARMS, LLC, THE RUTLEDGE RESTAURANT, LLC, THE
RUTLEDGE -- FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE, LLC, MASON REVELETTE, and
CURTIS REVELETTE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00380 (M.D. Tenn.), the Court
entered an order authorizng notice of this collective action to the
following potential Opt-In Plaintiffs::
"All current and former management employees (including, for
example, general managers, assistant managers, etc.) who have
been paid a shift rate for their work at any Jonathan"s
Grille or The Rutledge restaurant since May 24, 2019."
This group is narrowly defined; it consists of only those employees
subject to the common pay policies and practices alleged by the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff knows this group of individuals was paid
in the same way because: (1) she worked as both an assistant
manager and a general manager and was paid in the same way; (2) she
worked at multiple restaurant locations in these positions and was
paid in the same way; and (3) she oversaw payroll for a period of
time and is aware that other management employees were paid in the
same way. Thus, FLSA notice is therefore warranted.
The suit seeks authorizing notice of this action, pursuant to
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), using the
following methods:
"U.S. Mail, e-mail, posting in a conspicuous location in
Defendants" restaurants, enclosed in the next regularly
scheduled paycheck for currently employed potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs, and a reminder notice half-way through the notice
period."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 28,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IwQSOd
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
REX VENTURE: Writ of Garnishment v. ETrade in Orso Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW ORSO, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO KENNETH D. BELL,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR REX VENTURE GROUP,
LLC, Plaintiff v. LARRY D. ROBERTS, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-mc-96-WWB-DAB (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, grants Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc.'s
Motion for Writ of Garnishment Against E*Trade Financial.
On July 28, 2021, Movant Nationwide, as assignee of Receiver
Matthew Orso, registered a foreign judgment in the Court for
$16,949.11 (with post-judgment interest accruing) against Defendant
Larry D. Roberts. Roberts was one of thousands of Defendants who
participated in a large Ponzi scheme, known as ZeekRewards, that
was the subject of extensive investigation and an enforcement
action by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
After the SEC's enforcement action shut down ZeekRewards, a
Receiver was appointed to "claw back" the ill-gotten profits
received by "Net Winners" -- participants who withdrew money before
the scheme folded -- and redistribute as many of those funds as
possible to the victims. The Receiver filed a defendant class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, who certified a defendant class consisting of all persons
who had "won" more than $1,000 from the ZeekRewards scheme. The
Receiver prevailed on liability and judgments were entered against
numerous "Net Winners," including Defendant Roberts who earned
$16,949.11 from the scheme.
On May 9, 2022, Nationwide filed a Motion for Writ of Garnishment
seeking garnishment of funds belonging to Defendant Roberts in
possession of E*Trade Financial, 250 S. Park Avenue, Winter Park,
Florida. In the Motion, Nationwide represents that $18,485.46,
including the accrued interest, remains unsatisfied. It attached a
proposed writ of garnishment to the Motion.
Judge Bremer explains that a money judgment is enforceable by a
writ of garnishment, and the writ must accord with the law of the
state where the court is located. Under Florida law, she says,
post-judgment writs of garnishment may be issued ex parte and
without notice to the judgment debtor.
In Florida, "every person or entity who has sued to recover a debt
or has recovered judgment in any court against any person or entity
has a right to a writ of garnishment." After judgment has been
entered, but before the writ of garnishment is issued, the party
seeking the writ of garnishment must file a motion stating the
amount of the judgment.
The writ must state the amount owed, which is taken from the motion
for issuance of the writ, and direct the garnishee to do the
following: 1) serve an answer on the movant within 20 days after
service of the writ stating whether the garnishee is indebted to
the debtor at the time of the answer, or was indebted at the time
of service of the writ, or was indebted at any time between such
times; 2) state what sum and what tangible or intangible personal
property of the debtor the garnishee possesses or controls at the
time of the answer, or had at the time of the service of the writ,
or at any time between such times; and 3) whether the garnishee
knows of any other person indebted to the debtor, or who may
possess or control any of the debtor's property.
Nationwide represents that it will make payment of the statutory
$100 fee directly to the garnishee upon demand in compliance with
Florida Statute Section 77.28 (2021) ("Upon issuance of any writ of
garnishment, the party applying for it will pay $100 to the
garnishee on the garnishee's demand at any time after the service
of the writ for the payment or part payment of his or her attorney
fee which the garnishee expends or agrees to expend in obtaining
representation in response to the writ.").
The Motion and the attached writ of garnishment comply with the
applicable Florida Statutes, Judge Bremer holds. Therefore, based
on the papers filed by Nationwide, she says, it is entitled to the
issuance of the Writ of Garnishment directed to E*Trade Financial.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 29, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/7dtjbt5t from Leagle.com.
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Faces Class Action Over "Recycling" Bags
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that in Gudgel v. Reynolds
Consumer Products, Inc. et al., a proposed class action claims that
Hefty-brand "Recycling" bags are not recyclable at solid waste
disposal facilities in Florida and elsewhere.
The 13-page suit against manufacturer Reynolds Consumer Products
specifies that the Hefty "Recycling" bags at issue are made from
low-density polyethylene and thus not recyclable themselves, even
if the contents therein might be. The case alleges Reynolds has
violated Florida law by materially misrepresenting that the 13- and
30-gallon Hefty bags are suitable for recycling.
"Had Plaintiff known that the Hefty Recycle [sic] Trash Bags
product was not as advertised, she would not have purchased the
product," the filing states. "As a result of Defendants' deceptive
and unfair acts, Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged."
When the Hefty bags are delivered by waste haulers to Florida solid
waste disposal facilities, the bags and their recyclable contents
are not taken to a recycling facility but instead treated as
regular solid waste materials, the complaint says. The items within
a Hefty "Recycling" bag -- cardboard, glass, aluminum -- ultimately
end up in landfills or incinerators and are not recycled, the
lawsuit relays.
Per the case, Reynolds prominently emphasizes that the Hefty bags
at issue are "designed to handle all types of recyclables" and
"transparent for quick sorting and curbside identification."
The suit looks to represent all Florida residents who bought Hefty
Recycling Trash Bags through the date of class certification. [GN]
SDS RESTAURANT: Messier Seeks Delivery Drivers' Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY MESSIER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. SDS RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00068-M
(E.D.N.C., June 27, 2022) is a class action lawsuit under the Fair
Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages owed to herself and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by the Defendant at its Pizza Hut stores.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and as as a class
action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 with respect to her claims that
Defendant's failure to properly reimburse drivers for their
vehicles expenses was a de facto deduction and withholding of
wages, in violation of North Carolina General Statute sections
95-25.6 and 95-25.8.
The Defendant operates numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores in North
Carolina and South Carolina. The Defendant employs delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food
items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, the Defendant uses a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses the drivers
incur that their unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says
the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (800) 288-1529
E-mail: 18BLKinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5279
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
SERVICEMASTER OF CHATTANOOGA: Ketchums Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TONY KETCHUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and APRIL KETCHUM v. SERVICEMASTER OF CHATTANOOGA, INC.,
BOBBIE WEST, and TERRY WEST, Case No. 1:22-cv-00177 (E.D. Tenn.,
June 29, 2022) is a class action complaint under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for unpaid wages, including straight time and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, appropriate relief for
unjust enrichment, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of Defendants'
practices and policies of willfully failing to properly pay all
compensation, including straight time and overtime compensation due
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, who work or
worked at Defendants' locations.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as workers in the
cleaning business operated by Defendants. The Defendants allegedly
failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs for all hours worked and
required overtime pay. Defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the FLSA.
Defendant Terry West is the agent for service of process for
ServiceMaster of Chattanooga, Inc. The Defendants employed
Plaintiffs during the three-year period prior to commencement of
this civil action to clean various premises owned or otherwise
occupied by clients of the Defendants. These premises were located
throughout the Chattanooga area.
The proposed class of opt-in Plaintiffs in this case is
preliminarily defined as follows:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Defendants who
cleaned premises owned or occupied by customers of Defendants
during the three-year period prior to commencement of this civil
action."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank P. Pinchak, Esq.
Scott N. Davis, Esq.
BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
711 Cherry Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 266-2121
Facsimile: (423) 266-3324
E-mail: fpinchak@bdplawfirm.com
sdavis@bdplawfirm.com
- and -
Richard C. Wagner, Esq.
WAGNER & WAGNER
701 Market St., Suite 1418
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 266-8816
Facsimile: (423) 267-2997
E-mail: rcw@wagnerinjury.com
SHARP HOLDING: Fails to Pay Tipped Employees' Minimum Wages & OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SHARP HOLDING, INC; ROBERT SHARP; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00728 (E.D. Va., June 29, 2022) is a class and
collective action brought on behalf of "Tipped Employees" who work
or have worked at restaurants operating under the trade name
"International House of Pancakes" or "IHOP" that are or were owned
and operated and/or managed by the Defendants Sharp Holding, Inc.
and Robert Stack and have been subject to alleged unlawful
practices.
The Defendants own and operate approximately 15 IHOP franchise
locations in the States of Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, West
Virginia and the Commonwealths of Virginia and Kentucky combined.
According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically and
willfully deprived Plaintiff and Tipped Employees of minimum wages
and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.
Due to Defendants' unlawful failure to properly inform Tipped
Employees of its intention to utilize a "tip credit", Defendants
have improperly applied a "tip credit" against the wages paid to
Plaintiff and current and former Tipped Employees, thus paying them
less than the mandated minimum wage, says the suit.
Moreover, Defendants' Tipped Employees, including Plaintiff, were
often required to work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Despite
them plainly working overtime, the Defendants often failed to pay
Tipped Employees, including Plaintiff, the proper overtime rate for
all overtime hours, the suit added.
In particular, Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of the
following similarly situated persons:
"All current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for
the
Defendants in the United States within the statutory period
covered by this Complaint and elect to opt-in to this action
pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (the "Collective
Class")."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N. Washington Street, Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (888) 987-9991
E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com
- and -
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
Robert J. Gray, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (610) 822-3700
Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
rgray@cwglaw.com
SOHO MASONS: Faces Chima Class Suit Over Time Shaving Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTO LEONARDO ALVACORA CHIMA, CLAUDIO CRIOLLO, LUIS CRIOLLO, and
MILTON CULALA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. SOHO MASONS CORP., d/b/a SOHO MASONS, JOHN NEVLA,
and VICTOR ROTTENBERG, Case No. 1:22-cv-05511 (S.D.N.Y., June 28,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid wages,
including overtime wages, due to time shaving, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
In April 2020, the Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as
general laborers to work on various construction sites located
throughout New York City. The Plaintiffs' employment with
Defendants ended in or around August 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime
premiums for the five overtime hours they worked each week, and
there was no agreement that their fixed salary would cover overtime
premiums. Based on their personal observations and conversations
with co-workers, other employees of Defendants were also paid on a
fixed salary basis without overtime premiums, the suit says.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SOLANA FOUNDATION: Hit With Class Action Over SOL Tokens
--------------------------------------------------------
Outlook India reports that a Mark Young, a Solana investor, has
filed a class action lawsuit against Solana Foundation, CEO Antoly
Yakovenko, co-founder Kyle Samani, and others alleging that they
have sold Solana (SOL) cryptocurrencies without a security
statement and that they have promoted these cryptocurrencies
despite they being unregistered securities, as per various media
sources.
"Solana Labs had its first public sale of SOL tokens in a 'Dutch
Auction' held in March 2020, which was tantamount to an Initial
Coin Offering (ICO). Since April 2020, funded by the proceeds they
made through their ICO, Defendants have spent vast sums of money
promoting SOL securities throughout the United States. These
promotional efforts took SOL securities from a relatively obscure
crypto-asset to one of the top crypto-assets in the world," read
the suit filing document.
Crypto Industry
Alex Dovbnya of U.TODAY reports that well-known venture capital
firm Multicoin Capital and its CEO Kyle Samani, one of the most
ardent Solana supporters, also appeared among the defendants.
According to U.Today, the lawsuit could have massive implications
for the cryptocurrency industry since Mark Young, the lead
plaintiff, alleges that the SOL token is an unregistered security.
It adds that the defendants spent vast sums of money promoting SOL
securities. The defendant expected to derive profits from investing
in Solana based on the Solana Foundation's marketing efforts.
The SOL token exhibits all the hallmarks of a security under the
Howey test since the success of the project and its potential
returns were dependent on Solana's ability to deliver on its
promise to create the network.
The defendants named in the lawsuit "personally profited" by
soliciting investors to buy the token on several online platforms.
Young claims that they managed to make "enormous" profits with the
help of the cryptocurrency.
The plaintiff also claims that the blockchain is not decentralized
(contrary to the defendants' public representations).
Young wants the court to award him and other class members damages
"in an amount to be proved at trial."
Despite being one of the best-performing tokens of 2021, SOL has
now plunged more than 85% from its record high of $259. [GN]
STONE PERFECTION: Rodriguez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stone Perfection,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julio Rodriguez, Wilfido
Rodriguez, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Stone Perfection, Inc., SPI Stone of Florida, Inc., Miguel
Romay, Case No. 0:22-cv-61144-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Stone Perfection, Inc. -- http://stoneperfectionsc.com/--
specializes in the fabrication and installation of all natural
stones.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 333-3515
Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Cipolla, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS
WOOD, BERNADETTE BLANCHARD, SHIRIN LESSAN, and ANGELA GUERRERO
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC; NEW TEAM LLC, doing business as TEAM
ENTERPRISES, Case No. 3:18-cv-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class and subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
-- Global Class: Current and former promotional
specialists of Defendants who worked at any time in
California from November 13, 2014 through entry of
judgment in this action;
-- Off-the-Clock Theory (Off-the-Clock Subclass):
Defendants maintain a class-wide policy and practice of
requiring promotional specialists to work off-the-clock
without compensation;
-- Meal/Rest Break Theory (Meal/Rest Break Subclass):
Defendants maintain a class-wide policy and practice of
failing to provide meal and rest breaks and failing
to pay meal and rest break premiums for non-compliant
meal and rest breaks;
-- Overtime Theory (Overtime Subclass): The Defendants
maintain a class-side policy and practice of failing to
pay overtime compensation at the premium rate and fail
to calculate the premium rate based in the regular
rate; and
-- Expense Reimbursement Theory (Expense Subclass):
Defendants maintain a policy and practice of failing
reimburse promotional specialists for reasonable and
necessary business expenses;
2. Authorizing notice be sent to all current and former
employees of Team Enterprises, LLC and New Team, LLC in
California with the title "promotional specialist," or the
functional equivalent however titled, who worked at any
time from November 13, 2014 through the present; and
3. Requiring the Defendants to produce a computer readable
data file containing the names, last known residence
address, last known telephone numbers, last known cell
phone numbers, last known email addresses and social
security numbers of all such potential class members so
that notice may be implemented.
A Team Enterprises LLC was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes providing plumbing, heating, air-conditioning,
and similar work.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 28, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2EarA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
George R. Nemiroff, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 461-6400
Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
- and -
Bryan J. McCormack, Esq.
MCCORMACK LAW FIRM
1299 4th Street, Suite 505A
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 925-5161
Facsimile: (415) 651-7837
E-mail: bryan@bmcclaw.com
TENERGY CORPORATION: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Mejia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MEJIA, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-05374-JMF
(S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2022) alleges that Tenergy failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to -- and independently usable by -- the Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software.
The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all
other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the
United States who have attempted to access the Defendant's website
and have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or
services offered on the website during the past three years from
the date of the filing of the complaint.
The Plaintiff is visually-impaired and/or legally blind. Plaintiff
uses the NVDA screen-reader to access websites on the Internet.
During Plaintiff's visits to Defendant's website, the last
occurring in June 2022, Plaintiff encountered multiple access
barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the goods
and/or services offered to (and made available for) the general
public. These access barriers were the reason that Plaintiff was
denied the full enjoyment of the goods and/or services offered on
the website, says the suit.
Tenergy is a total mobile power solution provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Telephone: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
THIS OLD HOUSE: Fotis Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Fotis and Arthur Kroon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THIS OLD HOUSE VENTURES, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00549-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich., June 14, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for its intentional and unlawful disclosure
of its customers' Private Reading Information in violation of
Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the PPPA).
The Defendant rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
detailed information about Plaintiffs' This Old House magazine
subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiffs
have received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting,
exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Plaintiffs' Private Reading
Information during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, TOHV
violated the PPPA. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing
the Private Reading Information of its Michigan-based subscribers
during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, TOHV violated
the PPPA.
While the Defendant profits handsomely from the unauthorized
rental, exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers' Private
Reading Information and other individualized information, it does
so at the expense of its customers' statutory privacy rights
(afforded by the PPPA) because TOHV does not obtain its customers'
written consent prior to disclosing their Private Reading
Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were subscribers to This Old House magazine.
This Old House Ventures, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Stamford,
Connecticut and is the publisher of This Old House.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
William Kalas, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
wk@millerlawpc.com
- and –
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646.837.7150
Fax: 212.989.9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
- and –
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305.357.2107
Fax: 305.200.8801
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
UNITED PROPANE: Has Until July 15 to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL BRUMMETT, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED PROPANE
GAS, INC. and DCC PROPANE, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-37 (TBR), Case No.
5:22-cv-00037-TBR (W.D. Ky.,), the Hon. Judge Thomas B. Russell
entered an order grating the Parties' joint motion to extend
deadlines for Briefing of Plaintiff's Motion for the Issuance of
Court-Supervised Notice and Stipulation on Tolling.
The Defendants shall have until July 15, 2022, to respond to
Plaintiff's Motion, and Plaintiff shall have until July 29, 2022,
to file a Reply in support of her Motion.
United Propane delivers propane gas and heating services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PaobZE at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Lompoc Prison COVID-19 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Minsky of the Santa Maria Times reports that a settlement has
been reached in a class action lawsuit filed by Lompoc federal
inmates against U.S. prison officials who are accused of cruel and
unusual punishment for not doing enough to stop an outbreak of
COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020.
U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall approved the settlement on
June 27, more than two years after five inmates filed the
class-action against Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Carvajal,
and Louis Milsunic, identified as the Lompoc Federal Correctional
Complex warden at the time, Los Angeles federal court records show.
Filings list the current warden as Bryan Birkholz.
Five inmates -- Yonnedil Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Garcia, Andre
Brown and Shawn Fears -- filed the class-action lawsuit May 16,
2020 with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf
of the nearly 2,700 inmates at the prison complex, which includes
the low security Federal Correctional Institution, the medium
security U.S. Penitentiary and satellite camps.
The plaintiffs sought early release and to enforce the March 26,
2020 and April 3, 2020 memoranda issued by then U.S. Attorney
General William Barr, and federal legislation, authorizing home
confinement for inmates vulnerable to the coronavirus.
A Los Angeles federal judge last week appointed a physician and
epidemiologist to inspect a Lompoc federal prison facility at the
center of a class-action lawsuit and massive COVID-19 outbreak that
infected most its inmates.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs and from the BOP did not return emails
seeking comment.
The outbreak at the prison was initially detected at the end of
March 2020, weeks after the pandemic was declared, and infected
about 1,200 inmates, and resulted in five deaths.
Under the terms of the settlement, officials agree to review all
inmates within the settlement class for home confinement pursuant
to Barr's memos, current BOP guidance and in accordance to several
court orders, including the July 14 2020 preliminary injunction
ordering officials to identify and release vulnerable inmates.
Inmates considered vulnerable to the coronavirus included those in
post-conviction, future inmates in custody at Lompoc FCI and USP
Lompoc, and those who have underlying health conditions such as
serious heart conditions, Type 2 diabetes, asthma, obesity, HIV and
other immuno-compromised conditions, according to the settlement.
Additionally, officials were ordered to "continue to make full and
speedy use of their authority" under the CARES Act when evaluating
each inmate's eligibility for home confinement and coronavirus risk
factors.
The settlement also sets conditions of confinement, including
testing of inmates who've had close or direct contact with those
infected with the coronavirus, daily testing of inmates in
quarantine, worker screenings and the provision of monthly updates
to plaintiffs' attorneys.
In addition, medical isolation using the Special Housing Unit must
be "operationally distinct" from disciplinary or administrative
restricted housing and include daily medical visits, access to
mental health services and increased access to telephones "to
maintain health and connection during isolation," according to the
settlement.
Both parties agreed that the settlement isn't considered an
admission of liability or wrongdoing.
The settlement will remain in effect until either Dec. 17, 2022,
the federal coronavirus emergencies are terminated or when the
Attorney General determines that emergency conditions "no longer
materially affect" the BOP functions -- whichever is sooner,
records show. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Smith Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA SMITH, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED MEDICAL
RESOURCES, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICE LLC, and Doe Defendants 1-10,
Case No. 0:22-cv-01658-NEB-TNL (D. Minn., June 24, 2022) is a class
action suit under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
to redress United's violations of its fiduciary duties when it
engages in a systemic policy and practice of effectuating what are
known as "cross-plan offsets."
According to the complaint, United engages in a cross-plan offset
when it unilaterally determines that a benefit payment is due from
a Plan to a participant's health care provider, but then withholds
all or part of the benefit payment to recover an alleged
overpayment United previously made to the provider from a different
Plan on behalf of a different participant. Cross-plan offsets
directly benefit United to the detriment of self-funded Plans,
particularly when self-funded Plan assets are transferred to United
to reimburse United for overpayments it retroactively concludes it
had made from its fully insured Plans.
United administers two types of health plans, those which are
"fully insured" and those which are "self-funded" ("Plans"). In a
"fully insured" Plan, covered healthcare expenses of Plan
participants are paid by United out of its own assets under the
terms of an insurance contract purchased by the Plan.
In a self-funded Plan, covered healthcare expenses of Plan
participants are paid by United from the Plan's assets composed of
contributions from the Plan sponsor and payroll contributions from
participating employees. On behalf of both types of Plans, United
accepts and processes benefit claims, determines if the provider's
services are covered by the Plan, and issues payment to health care
providers for covered claims on behalf of Plan participants and
beneficiaries.
United is the big winner of its cross-plan offset policy, as 40-50%
of the funds recovered annually are taken from the self-funded
Plans and kept by United in order to "offset" overpayments that
United caused its fully insured Plans to make; the remaining
50-60% of the offsets are taken by United and then purportedly
given to the multitude of self-funded Plans United administers,
asserts the suit.
The amount of money taken from self-funded Plans is not negligible;
in 2020, approximately $405 million dollars was recouped by United
for overpayments it asserts it made under its own insurance
policies and in 2019, approximately $599 million was recouped by
United for overpayments it claims to have made from its own funds,
the suit further alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is a participant in a self-funded Plan.
United insures and administers health plans, including group health
plans governed by the ERISA.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
Julie S. Selesnick, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9740
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: khandorf@bm.net
jselesnick@bm.net
- and -
D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue, 10th floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9660
Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
jcowart@zuckerman.com
- and -
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
kgmarttila@locklaw.com
dcwaller@locklaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Audi Reaches Transmission Defect Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.com reports that a new Volkswagen class action
lawsuit settlement resolves claims the automotive company built
certain Audi vehicles with a defective direct-shift gearbox (DSG)
transmission.
The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of
model year 2010, 2011, or 2012 Audi S4 or Audi S5 vehicles.
Audi is a subsidiary of Volkswagen and manufactures numerous luxury
car models. The brand is known for its expensive vehicles, but Audi
and Volkswagen have been subject to numerous recalls in recent
years -- including a new recall for fire risk.
Although 2010 to 2012 Audi S4 and S5 vehicles do not have a fire
risk like current recalls, the vehicles allegedly have defective
transmissions that can cost drivers thousands to repair.
A 2017 class action lawsuit claims the vehicles were built with
defective DSG transmissions. The transmissions allegedly shudder,
judder, rough shift, and unexpectedly enter "limp mode" for
seemingly no reason.
According to the class action lawsuit, drivers were forced to pay
out of pocket to repair these transmissions despite Volkswagen
being aware of the issue.
Volkswagen hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to settle
these transmission claims with a class action settlement.
Under the terms of the Audi transmission settlement, Class Members
can receive reimbursement payments and warranty extensions.
Class Members who had to pay out of pocket for transmission repairs
can be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses, as long as the
repairs occurred within 90,000 miles and nine years of service.
Reimbursement rates will vary depending on the number of miles on
the vehicle and the age of the vehicle at the time of the repairs.
Repairs within four years and 50,000 miles will be 100% reimbursed.
From this point, reimbursement rates drop off based on vehicle age
and mileage.
The lowest reimbursement rate is 20% for vehicles with 80,001 to
90,000 miles and eight to nine years in service.
A full table of reimbursement rates can be found on the Audi
transmission settlement website.
In addition to covering past repairs, the settlement extends Audi
warranties to cover future repairs. Under the extended warranty,
one transmission repair is covered within nine years or 90,000
miles. Repairs are covered if an authorized dealer diagnoses the
vehicle with transmission shuddering, juddering, rough shifting,
and/or "limp mode."
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 25, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the Volkswagen and Audi DSG
transmission class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for
August 18, 2022.
In order to receive reimbursement from the settlement, Class
Members must submit a valid claim form by July 29, 2022.
Claim forms must include documentation of expenses, including
receipts, invoices, and other proof.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of
model year 2010, 2011, or 2012 Audi S4 or Audi S5 vehicles.
Potential Award: Varies
Proof of Purchase: Documentation of expenses, including receipts,
invoices, and other proof.
Claim Form: TO FILE A CLAIM, CLICK
https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.DSGTransmissionSettlement.com/docs/AudiChessGillard_ClaimForm_FINAL_generic.pdf
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline: 07/29/2022
Case Name: Gillard, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-07287-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California
Final Hearing: 08/18/2022
Settlement Website: DSGTransmissionSettlement.com
Claims Administrator:
DSG Transmission Settlement
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@DSGTransmissionSettlement.com
844-957-4280
Class Counsel: MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
Defense Counsel: HERZFELD & RUBIN PC [GN]
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled "Coffee Creamer"
----------------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.com reports that a coffee drinker sued Walmart over
its Great Value brand Chocolate Caramel Coffee Creamer.
The plaintiff says the product is a whitener, not a creamer.
The case was filed in Illinois federal court.
Walmart markets one of its Great Value products as a "coffee
creamer" when it does not contain enough milk product to be a
creamer and is instead a "whitener," a new class action lawsuit
alleges.
Plaintiff Amer Knautz filed the class action lawsuit against
Walmart Inc. on July 1 in an Illinois federal court, alleging
violations of federal and state consumer laws.
Knautz says Walmart Inc.'s Great Value brand Chocolate Caramel
Coffee Creamer is actually a coffee whitener.
According to the lawsuit, the product is marketed as a "coffee
creamer," shown through its packaging and title, and as
pasteurized.
"Consumers are misled to expect the presence of cream from dairy
ingredients," Knautz says.
"By representing the Product with the statements, 'Coffee Creamer'
and 'Ultra Pasteurized,' consumers are misled because it lacks
cream and dairy ingredients beyond a de minimis amount of sodium
caseinate, a milk derivative, shown through the ingredient list,"
the Walmart class action says.
In place of cream, the Great Value creamer substitutes water and
sunflower oil to reduce costs, the lawsuit states.
Walmart class action claims Great Value creamer actually coffee
whitener
Knautz uses multiple dictionary definitions to delineate the
difference between coffee whiteners and coffee creamers.
She adds that non-dairy coffee whiteners were introduced in the
1960s and distinguished themselves from types of cream made from
dairy ingredients.
"First, they were sold under the generic name, 'coffee whiteners,'"
the Walmart class action says. "Second, they were stocked in the
frozen food sections of grocery stores. In contrast, coffee cream
and other dairy products were sold in the refrigerated foods
section in the dairy case."
According to the class action, the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.
Knautz looks to represent an Illinois class of consumer who bought
the product, plus a consumer fraud multistate class made up of
consumers who bought the product in North Dakota, Texas, West
Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Nebraska,
South Carolina, Kansas and Wyoming.
She's suing under Illinois consumer laws and for breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment.
Knautz is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees,
costs and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, another new class action lawsuit alleges French vanilla
coffee creamer manufactured and sold by International Delight is
actually a coffee whitener.
The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates P.C.
The Walmart Great Value creamer class action is Amber Knautz v.
Walmart Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-50236, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. [GN]
WEST CORPORATION: Rampey Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Courtless Rampey and
Bridget Cunningham, individually and as representatives of a class
of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the West Corporation
Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan, No. 1:19-cv-00220-JB-B, v. West
Corporation and Retirement Committee of West Corporation Employee
401(k) Retirement Plan, Case No. 1:19-cv-00220-JB-B (S.D. Ala.),
the Plaintiffs Courtless Rampey and Bridget Cunninghan ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the Settlement;
2. appointing A.B. Data Ltd. as Settlement Administrator;
3. approving the proposed Settlement Notice and authorizing
distribution of the Notice;
4. certifying the proposed Settlement Class and appointing
Briskman & Binion, P.C.; Crueger Dickinson LLC; Jordan
Lewis P.A; Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLP;
and Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP as counsel for the
Settlement Class;
5. scheduling a final approval hearing; and
6. granting such other relief as set forth in the proposed
Preliminary Approval Order.
A copy of the Court's order Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
dated June 28, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nUuhBN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur Stock, Esq.
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Ryan McMillan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail; gcoleman@milberg.com
astock@milberg.com
rmcmillan@milberg.com
- and -
Charles J. Potts, Esq.
BRISKMAN & BINION, P.C.
P.O. Box 43
Mobile, AL 36601
Telephone: (251) 433-7600
Facsimile: (251) 433-4485
E-mail: cpotts@briskman-binion.com
- and -
Charles Crueger, Esq.
Benjamin Kaplan, Esq.
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 N. Oakland Avenue
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
- and -
Jordan Lewis, Esq.
JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
4473 N.E. 11 th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
Telephone: (954) 616-8995
Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com
- and -
Mark Tamblyn, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
333 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 565-7692
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: mjt@wbe-llp.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 ***