/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220831.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 31, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 168
Headlines
1GLOBE CAPITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 17
9W HALO WESTERN: Butt Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Faces Federal Class Suits Over Data Breach
AMERICA'S TEST: Adams Privacy Suit Removed to D. Mass.
AMERICAN SENIOR: Washington Hits Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Settles Class Action Over False Advertising
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Seizure Meds
ARC STEEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hurtado et al. Claim
ARMSTRONG GARDEN: Faces Esquivel Suit for Unlawful Labor Practices
ASPEN GROUP: Faces Consumer Suit Over Nursing Program
BIMBO BAKERIES: Botonis Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
BROADSPIRE INSURANCE: Dameron Sues Over Illegal Business Practices
C. PEPPER: Bourque FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
CAPITAL ONE: Faces 75 Suits Over Cybersecurity Issue
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Securities Suit Over Information Security
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement in Class Suit Wins Final Nod
CBOE GLOBAL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tomasulo Suit
CINTAS CORP: Seeks More Time to File Certiorari Bid in Hawkins
CIRCA 1886: Faces Littlefield Suit Over Illegal Retention of Tips
CLAYTON MYRICK: Lachman Appeals Altered Judgment in Piccinetti Case
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Employees' Suit Over Retirement Plan
DALLAS BASKETBALL: Robertson Sues Over Crypto Investment Service
DIRECT FUNDING: Abramson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suit Over Credit Scores' Misrepresentations
EVERYWHERE CAR: Hayes Sues Over Car Dispatchers' Unpaid Wages
EVOLUS INC: Holding Company Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit
FAST SPONSOR: Spritzer Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
FAT BRANDS: Parties Stipulate to Stay Matthews Class Suit
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Hernandez Says
FREDDIE MAC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Class Suit
GANNETT CO: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
GEICO: Woolfolk Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Gonzales Sues Over Unfair Oversized Packaging
GLASSES USA: New Vision Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lense Prices
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Burgardt
GOLDEN NUGGET: Gustafson Files Suit Over DraftKings Merger Deal
HARTWIG TRANSIT: Chenault Sues Over Failure to Pay Dispatchers' OT
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Settlement of Rodgers Suit for Court Approval
HONEST COMPANY: Sida Files Mislabeling Suit Over Plant-Based Wipes
HUMANA INC: Settle Data Breach Class Suit Affecting 65,000 Members
INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits Over Data Security Pending
INTEL CORP: Oregon Court Dismisses all Claims in Consolidated Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Securities Suit in New Jersey Court Stayed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Contact Lens
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Antitrust Suit
KENT SECURITY: Sparks Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
KGB USA: Underpays CSRs' Overtime Wages, Mitchell Suit Claims
KIA AMERICA: Faces Slovak Suit Over Unsafe, Easy to Steal Vehicles
KOHL'S INC: Faces Coss Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
LACTALIS AMERICAN: Gallagher Hits Deceptive Feta Cheese Labels
LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
LOTTERY.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
LOWER LLC: Fails to Protect Customers' Private Info, Wolff Says
MARS INC: Skittles Contain Harmful Toxin, Mignin Says
MART SUPERMARKETS: Lieff Cabraser Files ERISA Class Action
MCKESSON CORP: Saut Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
MDL 2873: Almaguer Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Boyce Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Brock Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Hill Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Jewell Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Mejorado Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Nygren Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Pacentrilli Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
META PLATFORMS: Illegally Collects Patients' Health Info, Doe Says
MIDDLESEX WATER CO: Faces Two Water Contamination Suits
MIMEDX GROUP: Carpenters' Fund Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit
MOBIS ALABAMA: Aquino Sues for Racial Discrimination in Workplace
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Suit in DE Over Retirement Fund
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Suit in Georgia
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 12
MOSAIC COMPANY: Seeks Dismissal of Radiation Related Class Suit
NATIONAL GRID USA: Calle Sues Over Unfair Trade Practices
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
NESPRESSO USA: Shaughnessy Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
NETWORK TRAVEL: Giancaspro Sues Over WARN Act Breach, Unpaid Wages
NEW KELLY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Castulo Suit Claims
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: De Leon Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Jarden Merger
NEXT SOLUTIONS: Owes Cable Installers Unpaid Wages, Pfeiffer Says
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Goldberger Suit Says
NYS OPWDD: Guild Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of 6694 Boulevard Suit
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Lockett Suit Removed to C.D. California
OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Hemodialysis System
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Under Appeal
P A M TRANSPORT: Vasquez Seeks to Certify Truck Drivers Class
PEABODY, MA: Gym Teacher Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Abuse
PENNSYLVANIA CVS: Naglak Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PIVOTAL RETAIL: Fails to Pay Installers Proper Wages, Ward Says
PROFESSIONAL DEBT: Dunn Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Martinez Files Suit in D. Colorado
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: McGarrigle Files Suit in D. Colorado
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Wheat Files Suit in D. Colorado
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
QFS TRANSPORTATION: Hundal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit
RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
RB HEALTH: Robles Files Mislabeling Suit Over Honey Lemon Lozenges
REAL ESTATE SKILLS: Ingram Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
RUBY HOLLOW: McGowan Alleges Joint Venture Funds' Misappropriation
SANTA CRUZ: Garrett Suit Alleges WARN Act Breach Over Mass Layoff
SEADRILL AMERICAS: Scarvaglieri Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation
SHOWS CALI: Calogero Appeals Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Helly Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SOLANA LABS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 6
SPROUT MORTGAGE: Sawyer Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
STARBUCKS CORP: Spencer Files Suit Over Non-refundable Gift Cards
STYLEWORKS DESIGN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SUNWISE ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SUPER 8 BY WYNDAM: Revels Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Weaver Securities Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Faces Mitcham Securities Suit
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Faces Modrak Securities Suit
TAX ADVOCATE: Faces Connor Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY: Appeal Pending in Contract Breach Case
TEXAS: Dismissal Bid Over 1st Amendment Mandatory Bar Suit Granted
TIFFANY & BOSCO: Thomas Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
TOYOTA MOTOR: RAV4 Class Action Filed Over Adaptive Headlights
TRAEGER PELLET: Allowed to Leave to File Class Cert Opposition
TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Tio Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
TRUGREEN INC: Adam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TUYA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 11
TWITTER INC: Fights Class Action, Says Ads Can't Be Used as Injury
TZUMI INNOVATIONS: Proskin Sues Over Deceptively Advertised Product
U.S. BANCORP: Fong Sues Over Refusal to Return Valuables
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Boston Fund Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
UNITED COLLECTION: Maher FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
UNITED STATES: Class Action Status Granted on COVID Vaccine Mandate
UNITED STATES: McCutchen Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Suit Removed to C.D. California
VENUS LABORATORIES: Lizama Sues Over Deceptive Cleaning Product Ads
VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Dismiss Cantinieri Suit Pending in NY
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Williams Suit Over Violation of Privacy Act
WALMART INC: Chateauneuf Files Suit in D. Colorado
WALTER D. AMARAL: Assad Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WELDWAY STEEL: Gamez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WILLIAMS MECHANICAL: Staley Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WOLF & SHEPHERD: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WOODWARD INC: Banks Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
YAR INVESTMENTS: Flanders Sues Over Deceptive Practices
ZENDESK INC: Anderson Class Suit Dismissed
ZENDESK INC: Faces Roe Stockholder Suit in California Court
*********
1GLOBE CAPITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Sinovac Biotech Ltd. SVA. The Sinovac class action lawsuit seeks to
represent holders of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. SVA stock who sold their
shares between April 11, 2016 and February 22, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until
October 17, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in
this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/sinovac-biotech-1globe-sva
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The Sinovac class action lawsuit thus alleges that defendants
caused the class substantial harm by making them lose their ability
to collect at least millions of shares that they would have
otherwise been entitled to under the Rights Agreement that Sinovac
adopted on March 28, 2016. The Sinovac class action lawsuit further
alleges that defendants' actions also caused harm because of their
misrepresentations and omissions concerning 1Globe's and Li's true
ownership of Sinovac stock, and their efforts to take control of
Sinovac, artificially suppressed the price of Sinovac stock.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Sinovac class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Sinovac class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
9W HALO WESTERN: Butt Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WAQAS N. BUTT, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 9W HALO
WESTERN OPCO, L.P., a Delaware limited liability company doing
business as ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2022-00320489-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Aug. 15, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01446-WBS-AC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) failure
to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime owed; (3) failure
to provide lawful meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit
rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment;
(6) failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment; (7) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (8)
knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage
statement provisions; and (9) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.
9W HALO WESTERN OPCO, L.P. was founded in 2016. The company's line
of business includes supplying linen to commercial establishments
and household users.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
William T. Okamoto, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
wokamoto@fisherphillips.com
ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Faces Federal Class Suits Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
wthr.com reports that a Muncie business is facing two federal class
action lawsuits over a data breach.
The lawsuits against Accutech Systems Corp., obtained by 13News,
were filed in California and Indiana. They claim a data breach
August 2021 exposed personal and financial information for nearly
40,000 people.
The information allegedly exposed includes: full names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account information,
payment card numbers, and account access information. Those
affected used the company's banking and financial software.
One of the lawsuits claims hackers got in through an employee's
email account. Those filing the suits allege Accutech waited months
to notify affected customers of the breach.
13News reached out to Accutech Systems Corp for a statement on the
data breach and/or the class action lawsuits and is waiting on a
response.
FBI warns against not reporting cyberattacks
The FBI is urging Indiana businesses to report cybercrimes instead
of handling attacks internally. Ten percent of the bureau's
Indianapolis field office is dedicated solely to cracking down on
cybersecurity issues.
"It's a little bit of a silent threat that goes under the radar,
but still has great potential to impact our national security and
our economy," said Special Agent in Charge Herbert Stapleton.
Stapleton said the bureau doesn't know how many businesses, schools
and organizations don't report these crimes, but they know it's
happening and allows hackers to operate with impunity.
Hesitancy is mostly due to two main concerns – fear of publicity
and getting in trouble. Stapleton said the bureau has strict rules
to protect victims and keep cases under wraps. Not reporting
sometimes still results in publicity, as agents report sometimes
learning of a breach in news reports."
To groups worried about getting in trouble, Stapleton said that's
not an agent's goal or focus.
"What we want to find out is, 'Who did this? Why? How and how can
we protect the next incident from happening?'" he said. "That's
what's really critical. That's what goes back to the 'cybersecurity
is national security' kind of idea."
Notifying the FBI increases chances a hacker can be tracked down
and prosecuted even if they're abroad. The law enforcement agency
said it has international offices in 70 countries.
Reporting an attack quickly can also help businesses better protect
time and money. For example, in a ransomware attack, sometimes
agents can decrypt blocked information, so the business doesn't
lose anything. Occasionally, agents can even get ransom money back
by communicating with banks, but they have to be notified within 72
hours to utilize the Financial Fraud Kill Chain program.
To report a crime, groups and individuals can either call their
local field office or file a complaint on the Internet Crime
Complaint Center website.
Stapleton said many hackers try to operate in countries that won't
cooperate with the United States including Russia, Iran, North
Korea to name a few. However, he says cyber criminals operate all
over the globe.
Currently, most attacks are the result of phishing emails and known
vulnerable spots in a system that a business hasn't gotten around
to fixing.[GN]
AMERICA'S TEST: Adams Privacy Suit Removed to D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANCA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2284-cv-01624-BLS2, was removed from the
Superior Court Division of the Trial Court for Suffolk County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Aug. 15, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-11309 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.
America's Test Kitchen, Inc. is an independent media company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by
Patrick T. Roath, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199-3600
Telephone: (617) 951-7000
E-mail: Patrick.Roath@ropesgray.com
- and -
Edward R. McNicholas, Esq.
Fran Faircloth, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-6807
Telephone: (202) 508-4600
E-mail: Edward.McNicholas@ropesgray.com
Fran.Faircloth@ropesgray.com
AMERICAN SENIOR: Washington Hits Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE WASHINGTON and STACY BAKER, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees or former employees of AMERICAN SENIOR ASSISTED
PROGRAMS, INC., d/b/a ASAP, similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v.
AMERICAN SENIOR ASSISTED PROGRAMS, INC. d/b/a ASAP, INC. CHANDA
CRUTCHER, and STORMY SANDERSON, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-01027-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Aug. 11, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 per week and Defendants' retaliatory conduct against
Plaintiffs for opposing employment practices that they believe to
be unlawful.
Ms. Washington began working for ASAP as the Vice President of
Finance and Development from May 5, 2020, until her termination on
March 18, 2022.
Ms. Baker began working for ASAP as a scheduler in or around July
2021 until her termination on December 17, 2021.
American Senior Assisted Programs, Inc. is engaged in the health
care business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Washington St., Suite 302
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
E-mail: teri@mastandoartrip.com
artrip@mastandoartrip.com
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Settles Class Action Over False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed
against Defendant Anheuser-Busch, LLC regarding Lime-A-Rita(R) and
other Ritas(TM) Branded Drinks for alleged violations of false
advertising laws for allegedly implying that that Ritas(TM) Brand
Products contain certain distilled spirits (such as tequila) and/or
wine when they do not. The Defendant denies all allegations and has
settled this lawsuit to avoid further litigation. The Court has not
decided who is right. If you purchased one or more Ritas(TM) Brand
Products for personal consumption, and not for resale, from January
1, 2018 through July 19, 2022 you are included in the Settlement
and may be eligible to receive a partial refund of up to $9.75
without proof of purchase, or $21.75 if you do have proof of your
purchases. However, if you want to receive a payment from the
Settlement, you must file a claim. To see a list of the Ritas(TM)
Brand Products, or to file a claim, please visit
www.RitasSettlement.com.
The deadline to file a claim is December 16, 2022. You can also
download a paper claim from the website or by calling the phone
number below. If you do not want to be bound by the Settlement you
must exclude yourself by November 11, 2022. If you do not exclude
yourself, you may object to the Settlement by November 11, 2022.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on December 2, 2022,
to determine whether to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate.
This notice is only a short summary of the lawsuit and your rights.
Detailed information about the claims in the lawsuit, the
Defendants' reply and all of your rights if you are a Class Member
is available at www.RitasSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-888-905-0657.
Source: United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
Western Division
URL: www.RitasSettlement.com [GN]
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Seizure Meds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that on March 1, 2021, a
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court of the District of New Jersey alleging that the
company and certain of its officers engaged in violations of the
federal securities laws relating to public statements made by the
Company regarding the FDA approval of its drug "Libervant."
Following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on June 25, 2021. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2021, which became fully
briefed as of November 1, 2021. There is no date set for a hearing
on the motion to dismiss and no trial date has yet been set.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
New Jersey.
ARC STEEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hurtado et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO DAVID BERMEO HURTADO and NELSON DE JESUS PINEDA MIRANDA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ARC STEEL SUPPLY INC. and AHRON SHARIR, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04857 (E.D.N.Y., August
17, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants to recover damages for its alleged egregious violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Hurtado was employed by the Defendants as a metal
fabricator and installer, general laborer and forklift operator
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants
from in or around August 2009 until in or around April 2022.
Plaintiff Miranda has also worked for the Defendants from in or
around June 2010 until in or around June 2022 as an excavator,
general laborer, and forklift operator while also performing
related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.
Although the Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In
addition, the Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff Hurtado for
his last 2.5 weeks of employment and Plaintiff Miranda for his last
week of employment. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment; willfully
failed to keep payroll records; and willfully failed to provide the
Plaintiffs with any wage statements upon each payment of their
wags, and with a written notice of their applicable regular rate of
pay, regular pay day, and all such information as required by NYLL,
says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
Arc Steel Supply Inc. manufactures fabricated steel products. Ahron
Sharir is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
ARMSTRONG GARDEN: Faces Esquivel Suit for Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER ANGEL ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTERS, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV26133
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 12, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants'
deliberate unfair competition.
The complaint alleges that Defendants have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a)
failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime
wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest
breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to
reimburse necessary business-related costs; (e) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to pay wages timely
during employment; and (g) failing to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee throughout California.
Armstrong Garden Centers, Inc. retails garden products. The Company
offers trees, shrubs, plants, seeds, bulbs, gardening classes, and
other garden supplies. Armstrong Garden Centers serves customers in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
ASPEN GROUP: Faces Consumer Suit Over Nursing Program
-----------------------------------------------------
Aspen Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2022, that on April 6, 2022, Aspen was
served with a class action claim in Arizona Superior Court,
alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and Unjust
Enrichment, based on the class representative's claims that Aspen
misstated the quality of its pre-licensure nursing program.
Aspen Group, Inc. is an education technology holding company based
in New York.
BIMBO BAKERIES: Botonis Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIM BOTONIS, LIAM PATRICK MEIKLE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIMBO
BAKERIES USA, INC.; and DOES ONE through TEN, Defendants, Case No.
34-2022-319624, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Aug. 16, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01453-TLN-DB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges the following putative class and
representative action claims based on violations of the California
Labor Code: (1) failure to reimburse business expenses; (2) failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (3) failure to pay
wages upon termination/severance of employment; (4) unfair
competition and unfair business practices; and (5) representative
complaint for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General
Act, Labor Code section 2699 et seq.
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is the American corporate
north-of-the-border arm of the Mexican multinational bakery product
manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo.[BN]
Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is represented by:
Max Fischer, Esq.
Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
max.fischer@morganlewis.com
- and -
Miranda M. Rowley, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: miranda.rowley@morganlewis.com
BROADSPIRE INSURANCE: Dameron Sues Over Illegal Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a California Non-Profit Association,
Plaintiff v. BROADSPIRE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a New York
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UBT-2022-0007205 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Aug. 16,
2022) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful business practices in violation of the California Business
and Professions Code and the Hospital Lien Act (HLA).
According to the complaint, all of the hospital services and
patient accounts at issue in this case arise from, and occurred in
conjunction with emergency room and ongoing medical care that
Dameron Hospital Association provided to injury victims, regardless
of their ability to pay, as mandated by Health and Safety Code
section 1317.
In instances where Dameron has rendered emergency and on-going care
to patients who have been injured by a responsible party, Dameron
has served HLA Notices on each defendant, under Civil Code section
3045.3, in the amount of Dameron's reasonable and necessary charges
for which the defendant is responsible under the HLA. However, each
defendant allegedly violated the HLA by paying a settlement and/or
judgment to the injured patient referenced on the HLA Notice (or to
the injured patient's attorney or other legal representative)
without at the same time paying Dameron's HLA claim, as required by
the HLA. Dameron's HLA claims remain unpaid, says the suit.
Further, each defendant also violated the assignment of benefits,
after notice, in order to avoid an obligation to directly pay
Dameron money due for hospital services provided to patients the
Defendant was responsible to pay for, which hospital services were
covered under a policy of third-party insurance or was otherwise
the responsibility of a third-party, the suit asserts.
Broadspire Insurance Services, Inc. provides customized claim and
medical management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur R. Petrie, II, Esq.
John A. McMahon, Esq.
Daniel E. Heck, Esq.
HATTON, PETRIE & STACKLER APC
12 Journey, Suite 255
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 474-4222
E-mail: j_mcmahon@hattonpetrie.com
C. PEPPER: Bourque FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as CHARLES R. BOURQUE, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated v. C. PEPPER LOGISTICS, LLC, INDEPENDENT
SERVICE PROVIDER, LLC, and JAMES L. PEPPER, Case No. 4:22-cv-00668,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on August 12, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-00698-SDJ to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
breach of contract claim under Louisiana state law.
C. Pepper Logistics, LLC is a logistics company, doing business in
Louisiana.
Independent Service Provider, LLC is an express overnight pickup
and delivery service provider, doing business in Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian P. Sanford, Esq.
THE SANFORD FIRM
1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 15400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 422-9777
Facsimile: (972) 422-9733
E-mail: bsanford@sanfordfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore J Messina, III, Esq.
THE MESSINA LAW FIRM PC
5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1599
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 420-7333
Facsimile: (214) 206-9593
E-mail: jmessina@messinalegal.com
CAPITAL ONE: Faces 75 Suits Over Cybersecurity Issue
----------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that the
company was named as a defendant in approximately 75 putative
consumer class action cases (primarily in U.S. courts with cases
also in Canadian courts) alleging harm from the Cybersecurity
Incident and seeking various remedies, including monetary and
injunctive relief.
The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.
The U.S. consumer class actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a multi-district litigation (MDL) panel in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division.
In the third quarter of 2020, the MDL court denied in part and
granted in part Capital One's motion to dismiss and permitted
pretrial discovery to continue. In the fourth quarter of 2021, the
parties agreed to a settlement of the U.S. consumer class action
cases for an amount within existing reserves.
The parties are in the process of seeking the required court
approval of the class settlement. In the second quarter of 2022, a
trial court in British Columbia preliminarily certified a class of
all impacted Canadian consumers except those in Quebec, which under
Canadian law would allow the case to proceed with discovery on a
classwide basis. The preliminary certification decision has been
appealed.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a financial services holding
company based in Virginia.
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Securities Suit Over Information Security
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that the
Company and certain officers have also been named as defendants in
a putative class action pending in the MDL alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws in connection with statements and
alleged omissions in securities filings relating to its information
security standards and practices.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from July
23, 2015 to July 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
costs and other relief. The Company's motion to dismiss the case is
pending.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a financial services holding
company based in Virginia.
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement in Class Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that a settlement of a
putative class action was granted final approval by the court in
July 2022.
On May 19, 2021, a putative class action against the company and
several of its subsidiaries was filed. The plaintiff, a former
employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees. The
plaintiff claims that the company failed to, among other things,
pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, pay overtime,
provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse employees
for business expenses, and provide wages when due.
On January 5, 2022, the parties to the litigation engaged in and
executed a Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement in the
amount of $1.0 million. The parties subsequently executed a Class
Settlement Agreement, and the court granted preliminary approval of
the Class Settlement Agreement on March 29, 2022.
The court granted Final Approval on July 26, 2022, and the company
will fund the final settlement in the amount of $1.2 million within
15 days of the court's order.
Carriage Services, Inc. is a provider of funeral and cemetery
services and merchandise based in Texas.
CBOE GLOBAL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tomasulo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
CBOE Global Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period Ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that on June 2022 the
dismissal of all counts against the company was affirmed by the 7th
Circuit.
On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
"Tomasulo v. CBOE Exchange, Inc., et al.," Case No. 18-cv-02025 was
filed in federal district court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging that the Company intentionally designed its
products, operated its platforms, and formulated the method for
calculating VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the
special VIX value designed by the Company and calculated on the
settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of
trading), in a manner that could be collusively manipulated by a
group of entities named as John Doe defendants.
A number of similar putative class actions, some of which did not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products. On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the putative class actions
in the federal district court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois. The claims asserted
against the Company consisted of a Securities Exchange Act fraud
claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law
negligence claim.
Plaintiffs requested a judgment awarding class damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an
unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other relief as
the court may deem just and proper.
On November 19, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the company.
The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the
other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On
August 28, 2019, the company filed its second motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response
on October 8, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the federal district court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's second
motion to dismiss and all counts against the company were dismissed
with prejudice. On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate
appeal.
On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (7th Circuit), seeking to appeal
the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final
judgment and both orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss
entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th
Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief
with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc.,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association
filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the
Commodity Exchange Act's bad faith standard with the 7th Circuit
and on October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with
the 7th Circuit.
Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020. On July 27,
2022, as amended on July 28, 2022, the 7th Circuit issued its
decision affirming the dismissal of all counts against the company
by the federal district court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
CBOE Global Markets, Inc. is a provider of market infrastructure
and tradable products based in Illinois.
CINTAS CORP: Seeks More Time to File Certiorari Bid in Hawkins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United
States an application for an extension of time within which to file
a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Cintas
Corporation et al., Applicants v. Raymond Hawkins and Robert Lung,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondents, Case No. 22A37.
The said application to extend the time to file a petition is set
from July 26, 2022, to September 9, 2022.
The judgment for which review is sought is the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Hawkins v.
Cintas Corp., No. 21-3156.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sixth Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of Cintas' motion to compel
arbitration.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Raymond Hawkins and Robin Lung alleged that
their former employer, Appellant Cintas, breached the fiduciary
duties it owed to the company's retirement plan. They brought a
putative class action pursuant to Section 502(a)(2) of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). But
the Plaintiffs had each signed employment agreements that contained
arbitration provisions. Cintas moved to compel arbitration, arguing
that the Plaintiffs were bringing individual claims covered by
those provisions.
Cintas contended that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all
"rights and claims" relating to their employment, including the
ERISA claims at issue. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and the
"right" to assert them "belong," it argued, to the Plaintiffs
alone, and therefore this case belongs in arbitration. The
Plaintiffs respond, and the district court agreed, that although
they are bringing a putative class action, the claims belong to the
Plan itself. It is irrelevant, according to the Plaintiffs, that
they may have agreed to arbitrate certain claims, since the Plan
has not likewise consented to arbitration.
The Sixth Circuit agreed that the Plaintiffs' employment agreements
do not force the case into arbitration. It opined that the
Plaintiffs are seeking Plan-wide relief through a statutory
mechanism that is designed for representative actions on behalf of
the Plan. The weight of authority suggests that these claims should
be thought of as Plan claims, not the Plaintiffs' claims. And
because the arbitration provisions only establish the Plaintiffs'
consent to arbitration, the employment agreements do not subject
these claims to arbitration.
The Sixth Circuit opined that even assuming arguendo that the
claims are the Plaintiffs' claims, or that it is the Plaintiffs'
right to bring the claim and that "right" is covered by the
arbitration provision, compelling arbitration would still be
improper absent Plan consent. In the absence of a sufficient
manifestation of the Plan's consent to arbitrate these claims, the
Sixth Circuit held that the Plan has not consented to arbitration.
There is, therefore, no basis for the Plaintiffs' claims to be
arbitrated, says the judgment.[BN]
Defendants-Applicants Cintas Corporation, et al., are represented
by:
Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
Mark B. Blocker, Esq.
Caroline A. Wong, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com
CIRCA 1886: Faces Littlefield Suit Over Illegal Retention of Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TANYA LITTLEFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCA 1886, LLC d/b/a CIRCA 1886;
1886, LLC; MICHELLE WOODHULL, individually; & MARK SEVERS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02716-BHH (D.S.C.,
August 17, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bartender from
approximately June 22, 2018 through 2020 and as a server from
approximately June 22, 2018 through May 3, 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that when working as a server, the Defendants
paid her wage less than the statutory minimum wage by taking the
"Tip Credit," and as a bartender, her wage is greater than the
statutory minimum wage. In addition, the Defendants allegedly
employed a policy requiring the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated tipped employees to share a portion of their tips to their
manager. The law, however, expressly prohibits the Defendants or
any employer from retaining any portion of tips received by its
employees since the money received by employees as tips were
"wages," as defined by the SCPWA. Moreover, the Defendants failed
to give them notice that they were being paid with the Tip Credit,
and failed to give them notice that they could keep all of their
tips, except for the Tip Pool, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover actual damages in the amount due under SCPWA, as well as
treble damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, injunctive
relief ordering the Defendants to amend their wage and hour
policies to comply with applicable federal and state laws, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants operate a restaurant. The Individual
Defendants are co-owners of the Corporate Defendants and both
exercise operational control over the restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Tel: (843) 579-7373
Fax: (843) 614-6417
E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
CLAYTON MYRICK: Lachman Appeals Altered Judgment in Piccinetti Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE LACHMAN is taking an appeal from a court order granting
Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Brian
Piccinetti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clayton Myrick McClanahan & Coulter PLLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3-16-cv-04032, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants for
alleged misleading debt collection practices in violation of the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
modify the allegations contained in Count III and remove Count IV
of the original complaint and also to add Theodore Lachman, an
employee of Internal Credit Systems, Inc. (ICS), as a defendant.
On November 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of
judgment which the court granted through an Order entered by
Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on November 24, 2021. The
court awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $23,361 in
Plaintiff's favor against Mr. Lachman.
On December 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
judgment entered against Mr. Lachman to include the additional
attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff incurred in connection with
getting the entry of judgment against Mr. Lachman. Mr. Lachman
opposed Plaintiff's motion on January 5, 2022. The court granted
the Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment through an Order entered
by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on June 30, 2022.
Accordingly, judgment was amended to include an additional grant of
$25,550 in attorneys' fees. A total amount of $48,911 was,
therefore, awarded in Plaintiff's favor against Mr. Lachman.
The appellate case is captioned as Brian Piccinetti v. Clayton
Myrick McClanahan & Coulter PLLC, et al., Case No. 22-2385, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on
August 1, 2022.
Plaintiff-Appellee BRIAN A. PICCINETTI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Defendants-Appellees CLAYTON MYRICK MCCLANAHAN & COULTER PLLC, et
al., are represented by:
Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
550 Broad Street, Suite 810
Newark, NJ 07102
Defendant-Appellant Theodore Lachman, is represented by:
Theodore Lachman, Esq.
P.O. Box 52088
Durham, NC 27717
Telephone: (919) 401-1900
- and -
Monica M. Littman, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK
1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Four Penn Center, Suite 1030
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 501-7002
- and -
Richard J. Perr, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK
1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Four Penn Center, Suite 1030
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 501-7024
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Employees' Suit Over Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that it is facing a putative
class action filed in June 2016 claiming that residual annuity
payments made to certain participants in the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the Plan,
the Company and certain individuals in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. This action was
certified as a class action in July 2017. In July 2020, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the Company Defendants' motion
for summary judgment and dismiss certain claims on consent of the
parties.
In August 2020, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on the remaining claims. In September 2020, the
company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. The appeal is currently pending.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is into perfumes, cosmetics and other
toilet preparations based in New York.
DALLAS BASKETBALL: Robertson Sues Over Crypto Investment Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Robertson, Rachel Gold, Sanford Gold, Rahil Sayed,
Christopher Ehrentraut, Todd Manganiello, Dan Newsom, William Ayer,
Anthony Dorn, Dameco Gates, Marshall Peters, and Edwin Garrison, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Mark Cuban, Dallas Basketball Limited, d/b/a Dallas Mavericks,
and Stephen Ehrlich, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 10, 2022) arises from the Defendants' engagement in and/or
participation in an illegal offering and sale of unregistered
securities and, in connection with the offering, engaged in
fraudulent conduct and made material misstatements designed to
deceive investors like Plaintiffs.
The case alleges that Voyager Platform, a multi-billion-dollar
mobile application cryptocurrency investment service owned and
operated by Voyager Digital Ltd. and Voyager Digital LLC, was an
unregulated and unsustainable fraud, similar to other Ponzi
schemes. It asserts how Defendants Mark Cuban and Stephen Ehrlich
were key players who personally reached out to investors including
Plaintiffs, individually and through the Dallas Mavericks, to
induce them to invest in the Voyager Platform.
The Voyager Platform is allegedly deceptive because it is based
upon false pretenses, false representations, and is specifically
designed to take advantage of investors that utilize mobile apps to
make their investments, in an unfair and unsavory manner. Put
differently, the Deceptive Voyager Platform was a massive Ponzi
scheme, and it relied on Cuban's and the Dallas Maverick's vocal
support and Cuban's monetary investment in order to continue to
sustain itself until its implosion and Voyager's subsequent
bankruptcy, says the suit.
Mr. Ehrlich also misrepresented Voyager's FDIC insured status,
repeatedly stating that assets held in the Voyager Platform are as
"safe" as if they were in a bank, misleading customers and
prospective customers with the false impression that any
cryptocurrency assets held on the Voyager Platform were FDIC
insured. Ehrlich even misrepresented the extent of the FDIC
insurance on USD holdings, misleading customers with the false
impression that each Voyager customer could hold up to $250,000 in
their individual Voyager account wallets and avail themselves of
that important federal protection in the event Voyager failed, the
suit alleges.
Further, the Defendants' representations regarding the "100%
Commission-Free" Voyager Platform are false, deceptive, and are
objectively very likely to deceive average consumers acting
reasonably under the circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants'
conduct violates multiple consumer and securities statutes,
including those in Florida, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, or Louisiana, asserts the
complaint.
Dallas Basketball Limited, d/b/a Dallas Mavericks, is an American
professional basketball team based in Dallas, Texas owned by Mark
Cuban.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
DIRECT FUNDING: Abramson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT
FUNDING NOW LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01183-CCW (W.D. Penn.,
August 17, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received at least one
pre-recorded call on his telephone line 412-XXX-0916 from the
Defendant on August 11, 2022. In an attempt to promote its products
and to solicit new clients, the Defendant allegedly engages in
telemarketing efforts that include the use of automated calls to
send prerecorded messages.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited pre-recorded calls, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed
in form of invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, the
use of their telephone power and network bandwidth, and the
intrusion on their telephone that occupied it from receiving
legitimate communications, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant
from calling residential telephone numbers advertising their goods
and services using a pre-recorded message in the future. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Direct Funding Now LLC provides funding services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
BROWER LAW ASOCIATES, PLLC
403 S. Allen ST., Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Tel: (814) 234-2626
E-mail: jjackson@bower-law.com
- and –
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (617) 485-0018
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action to which the
lead plaintiff filed an opposition in July 2022.
On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
current and former senior officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These complaints were filed by
Palm Tran, Inc. - Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension
Plan, Alan I. Roth and Stephen M. Weiss, respectively.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about its manufacturing
capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance.
These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the
caption "In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation,"
Case No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG.
The Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated matter are Nova Scotia
Health Employees' Pension Plan and The City of Fort Lauderdale
Police & Firefighters' Retirement System. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on May 19, 2022 and the Lead Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on July 19, 2022.
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is a global life sciences company
focused on providing innovative preparedness and response solutions
based in Maryland.
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suit Over Credit Scores' Misrepresentations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a group of
borrowers have hit Equifax with a class action lawsuit, accusing
the credit bureau of misrepresenting their credit scores to lenders
through a "glitch" in their system, resulting in loan denials and
other problems for credit applicants.
On Aug. 16, attorneys with the firms of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane
Conway & Wise, of Chicago, and Weitz & Luxenburg, of New York,
filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Equifax.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs Evan Ineichen
and Quachee Parson, identified only as residents of Illinois.
The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include potentially
millions of Americans who may have been denied loans or suffered
other adverse credit actions this spring.
Equifax is one of the three major credit bureaus. Like the other
two bureaus, Transunion and Experian, Equifax calculates credit
scores for consumers that are used, in part, by banks and a host of
other industries to determine whether consumers can qualify for
home mortgages, construction loans, credit cards, home leases,
mobile phone contracts, and other loans, products and services.
The lawsuit centers on claims that from mid-March to early April
2022, an error in Equifax's computer systems may have resulted in
the bureau miscalculating consumer credit scores. According to the
complaint, the miscalculations may have resulted in consumers being
docked as much as 130 points off their credit score.
The complaint points to public reports indicating the credit score
miscalculations resulted in consumers facing higher interest rates
for their loans and credit cards, or having "their applications . .
. rejected altogether."
The complaint noted Equifax acknowledged the miscalculations in a
statement issued in May. At that time, the credit bureau blamed the
errors on a "coding issue within a program slated for replacement."
According to a report published at
NationalMortgageProfessional.com, the error occurred when Equifax
was conducting a "technology change to its legacy online model
platform."
The report estimated the error may have affected as much as 12% of
consumer credit scores.
In May, Equifax said it had corrected the problem and said they
believed "the impact is going to be quite small."
However, the complaint said the credit score miscalculation still
allegedly harmed potentially millions of Americans.
The complaint noted the two named plaintiffs allege they were
harmed by the "glitch." According to the complaint, Ineichen was
denied a home construction loan for which "he thought had been
approved," while Parson allegedly "experienced an otherwise
inexplicable 51-point drop in credit score in 2022."
The complaint asserts such alleged injuries "cannot be rectified by
merely updating the affected credit reports."
The plaintiffs argue the full scope of the impact of Equifax's
alleged errors is not yet known.
The plaintiffs claim the errors amounted to violations of Equifax's
obligations under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, because
the credit bureau allegedly "willfully" shared incorrect credit
information with lenders.
They are asking a court to award unspecified statutory damages,
compensatory damages, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees.
Further, they are asking the court to order Equifax to repay "all .
. . profits that were derived, in whole or in part, from Equifax's
furnishment of inaccurate consumer reports" and to "disgorge
revenues and profits wrongfully obtained."
Plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Brandon M.
Wise and Adam Florek, of the Peiffer Wolf firm, and James
Bilsborrow, of Weitz & Luxenburg. [GN]
EVERYWHERE CAR: Hayes Sues Over Car Dispatchers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Hayes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in this proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Everywhere
Car Service, Inc., Frunny Vrma, and Pal Winder Singh, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04832 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2022) seeks injunctive
and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid overtime wages,
unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Hayes was employed as a car dispatcher at Defendants' car
service in New York from May 2016 through and including March
2022.
Everywhere Car Service, Inc. is a New York based transportation and
car service provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
EVOLUS INC: Holding Company Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Evolus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 2, 2022, that its holding company Alphaeon
Corporation served its motion to dismiss an amended class action
complaint.
On October 16 and 28, 2020, two putative securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by Evolus shareholders Armin Malakouti and
Clinton Cox, respectively, naming the company and certain of its
officers as defendants.
The complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
related to the company's acquisition of the right to sell
"Jeuveau," the complaint against the company filed by Allergan and
"Medytox" in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) related
to Jeuveau and risks related to the ITC Action.
The complaints assert a putative class period of February 1, 2019
to July 6, 2020. The court consolidated the actions on November 13,
2020, under the caption "In re Evolus Inc. Securities Litigation,"
No. 1:20-cv-08647 (PGG). On September 17, 2021, the court appointed
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On November 17, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint against the company, three of its officers, and
Alphaeon Corporation, the company's former majority shareholder. On
January 18, 2022, the company and the officer defendants served
their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 10,
2022, Alphaeon Corporation served its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Both motions were fully briefed on June 16, 2022.
Evolus, Inc. is a performance beauty company based in California.
FAST SPONSOR: Spritzer Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE A. SPRITZER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM DOUGLAS JACOB, SANDY
BEALL, KEVIN REDDY, MICHAEL LASTORIA, RAMIN ARANI, ALICE ELLIOT,
SANJAY CHADDA, STEVE KASSIN, FAST SPONSOR, LLC, and FAST
ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0706 (Del. Ch., Aug.
11, 2022) seeks restitution from the Defendants for their wrongful
conduct, fiduciary breaches, and consequent unjust enrichment in
violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
In the Form 10-Q quarterly report that FAST filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, the Company
disclosed that certain funds, which FAST had received as a
termination fee in connection with a de-special purpose acquisition
corporations (SPACs) transaction that had fallen through, would
"not be part of any distributions with respect to" FAST's public
stockholders.
According to the complaint, FAST had told stockholders including
Plaintiff that, if the Company did not proceed with a business
combination, its insiders would receive nothing in return for their
initial investment - as is customary for a SPAC. Now, however, the
insiders intend to pay themselves a handsome return on their
investment, avoiding all of the risk they had assumed while
arrogating for themselves the entire return that was supposed to
run to FAST's public investors, asserts the complaint.
This attempt by FAST's insiders to take for themselves what rightly
belongs to the public stockholders is a violation of the duty of
loyalty that the former owe the latter, the complaint says.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to prevent FAST from
conducting an unfair distribution of the corporation's assets.
FAST Sponsor, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that was
created by William Douglas Jacob for the purpose of operating FAST
Acquisition Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq.
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
FAT BRANDS: Parties Stipulate to Stay Matthews Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2022, that a consolidated amended complaint
was filed by the plaintiffs and parties entered into a stipulation
to stay the litigation in July 2022.
On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Robert J. Matthews, a putative
investor in the company, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger
and Ken Kuick, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the 1934 Act),
alleging that the defendants are responsible for false and
misleading statements and omitted material facts in the Company's
reports filed with the SEC under the 1934 Act related to the LA
Times story published on February 19, 2022 about the company and
its management.
The plaintiff alleges that the company's public statements
wrongfully inflated the trading price of the Company's common
stock, preferred stock and warrants. The plaintiff is seeking to
certify the complaint as a class action and is seeking compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
On April 25, 2022, Kerry Chipman, a putative investor in the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick in the
United States District Court for the Central Division of
California, asserting substantially the same claims as those made
by Matthews in the above-referenced lawsuit.
On May 2, 2022, the Court entered an order consolidating the
actions filed by Matthews and Chipman under the caption In re FAT
Brands Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 13, 2022, the Court
appointed plaintiff Robert Matthews as lead plaintiff and The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., as lead counsel in the consolidated action.
Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 27,
2022. On July 19, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation to
stay the litigation so that they can engage in mediation, which is
scheduled to occur in August 2022.
FAT Brands Inc. is a multi-brand restaurant franchising company
based in California.
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Hernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC., and
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-11887-SJM-APP
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class action brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and the class of consumers who had their personal
identifiable information, including but not limited to, names and
Social Security numbers, disclosed to unauthorized third persons as
a result of a data breach.
On June 17, 2022, Flagstar disclosed, for the first time, a
cyber-attack that occurred between December 3 and 4, 2021, in which
unauthorized individuals accessed the personal identifiable
information of approximately 1,547,169 consumers.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose when
it learned of the data breach and has failed to explain why it took
more than six months for it to begin notifying affected consumers.
The Defendant and its employees failed to properly monitor the
computer networking systems on which it housed the PII and, had
they done so, would have discovered the intrusion sooner, and would
not have permitted cyber thieves to freely access Flagstar's IT
network for a substantial period of time, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals who are Class Members, and
further seeks remedies that include, but are not limited to,
compensatory damages, nominal damages and reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, as well as injunctive and equitable relief to
prevent future injury on behalf of himself and the putative class.
The Plaintiff, a resident of the state of Florida, obtained a
mortgage through Flagstar Bank, FSB. He provided PII, including his
name and Social Security Number, as well as additional information,
to Flagstar Bank FSB.
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a savings and loan holding company, is
publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the FBC ticker
symbol and is headquartered in Troy, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
E-mail: Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, 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
- and -
John Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
FREDDIE MAC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association (Freddie Mac) disclosed in
its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022,
that claims of a consolidated class action lawsuit were dismissed
except for the plaintiffs' claims for breach of an implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing in 2018 and in March 2022, Freddie
Mac filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining
claim.
A consolidated class action "In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations" and a
non-class action lawsuit, "Fairholme Funds v. FHFA," filed by
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders against the company, FHFA
as its conservator, and Freddie Mac are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, with trials scheduled
to begin on October 17, 2022. The lawsuits challenge the August
2012 amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase
agreement with Treasury.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits filed amended complaints on November
1, 2017 alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of
the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the
August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the shareholders'
rights, particularly the right to receive dividends.
Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in the class
action represent a class of Fannie Mae preferred shareholders and
classes of Freddie Mac common and preferred shareholders.
On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims except for their claims for breach of an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. On March 21, 2022, FHFA and Freddie
Mac filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining
claim and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
Federal National Mortgage Association is a sponsored credit agency
based in Washington DC.
GANNETT CO: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Gannett
deceptively and unlawfully automatically renews the newspaper
subscriptions of consumers who have already canceled their
subscriptions, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Nichole Anderson claims Gannett acts in a "fraudulent"
and "unconscionable" manner by allegedly continuing to charge
consumers for their subscriptions even if they are canceled before
they are set to renew.
Anderson argues that Gannett breaches its contract with consumers
by allegedly continuing to charge for newspaper subscriptions that
have been canceled.
"Defendant routinely fails to honor consumers' requests to stop
their newspaper subscriptions from automatically renewing and
instead, continues to charge them subscription fees without their
authorization in breach of the express terms of its contract," the
Gannett class action states.
Gannett class action alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment
Anderson's subscription to the Courier News was automatically
renewed despite her canceling the subscription and receiving
confirmation that it was done, the Gannett class action states.
"As a result of Defendant's fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff paid
nearly $10.00 in unauthorized charges from Defendant," according to
the Gannett newspaper renewal lawsuit.
Anderson claims Gannett is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach
of contract and in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.
She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive
relief along with an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages for herself and all class members.
Anderson wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
continued to be charged for a Gannett-owned newspaper subscription
despite already having canceled their subscription to that
newspaper.
Additionally, she wants to represent a subclass of consumers who
purchased a subscription to the Courier News and who were continued
to be charged after they canceled their subscription.
In related news, last month, a judge ruled that a $6.7 million
class action settlement between The Washington Post and consumers
who say their subscriptions were unlawfully automatically renewed
could move forward.
The plaintiff is represented by Rachel Edelsberg of Dapeer Law,
P.A., and Sophia G. Gold and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Kaliel Gold PLLC.
The Gannett class action lawsuit is Anderson v. Gannett Co., Inc.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05088, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. [GN]
GEICO: Woolfolk Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher J. Woolfolk, on behalf of other
similarly situated people v. GEICO, Case No. 2022CV2571 was removed
from the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on July 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00181-MJN-PBS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
The Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) --
https://www.geico.com/ -- is a private American auto insurance
company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Lah, Esq.
ATTKISSON LAW FIRM
3033 Kettering Blvd., Suite219
Dayton, OH 45439
Phone: (937) 276-9700
Fax: (937) 276-9701
Email: jack@attkissonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher Charles Wager, Esq.
MACMURRAY & SHUSTER LLP
6525 West Campus Oval, Suite 210
New Albany, OH 43054
Phone: (614) 939-9955
Fax: (614) 939-9954
Email: cwager@mslawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander P Fuchs, Esq.
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 389-5000
Email: alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com
kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Gonzales Sues Over Unfair Oversized Packaging
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE NUTRITION
(MANUFACTURING), INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV22913 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant for their false, fraudulent, unfair,
deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices by deceptively
selling its "Optimum Nutrition Essential Energy" products in
oversized packaging.
To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair
competition, Defendant deceptively sells its products in oversized
packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are
nearly half empty. The Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to all
sizes and varieties of its "Optimum Nutrition Essential Energy"
products sold in opaque containers. The Defendant dupes
unsuspecting consumers across America to pay premium prices for
empty space.
The Defendant markets the Product in a systematically misleading
manner by representing it as adequately filled when, in fact, it
contain an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack-fill."
Defendant underfills the Product for no lawful reason. The front of
the Product's packaging does not include any information that would
reasonably apprise Plaintiffs of the quantity of product relative
to the size of the container, such as a fill line. The Defendant
underfills the Product to save money (by not filling the
containers) and to deceive consumers into purchasing the Product
over its competitors' products. The Defendant's slack-fill scheme
not only harms consumers, but it also harms its competitors who
have implemented labeling changes designed to alert consumers to
the true amount of product in each container, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Optimum Nutrition Essential
Energy Product for personal use during the Class Period.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition Inc. manufactures and sells a popular
line of powder nutrition/supplement products throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
GLASSES USA: New Vision Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lense Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Vision Unlimited, LLC d/b/a Vision Unlimited, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glasses
USA, Inc., GlassesUSA Fulfillment Center Inc., GlassesUSA Retail,
Inc., Lens.com, Inc., Web Eye Care, Inc. and Contact Lens King,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22534-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 10,
2022) arises from the Defendants' use of deceptive, false, or
misleading descriptions in connection with contact lenses and the
online sale of contact lenses in violation of the Lanham Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sell corrective contact
lenses online. They distribute online ads on Google and other
search engines prominently advertising low prices. The prices they
advertise are far lower than the prices that Plaintiff and other
honest contact lens retailers advertise. Consumers click on
Defendants' ads and are redirected to Defendants' websites.
Consumers fill out details about their prescriptions. They upload a
copy of that prescription. They provide the address and contact
information for their doctor, so the prescription can be verified.
They enter their name, their shipping address, and their billing
address. Often, they create an account with the Defendant they are
purchasing from. And they provide their credit card or other
payment information. Late in the checkout process, Defendants add a
supposed "processing fee" to the order. With the fee added,
Defendants' prices are about twice as much as advertised. And they
are about the same as the prices honest retailers such as Plaintiff
advertise, because that is the true market price, says the suit.
The Defendants should not be allowed to continue to profit from
deception. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this case, on behalf of
himself and other honest retailers like him, to finally put an end
to the alleged conduct.[BN]
The Plaintiff are represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT: Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Burgardt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Golden 1 Credit Union filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled THE
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, Applicant v. DWAINE BURGARDT, Respondents,
Case No. 22A25.
Response is due on September 8, 2022.
On September 3, 2019, Burgardt filed a putative class action
complaint against Golden 1. Burgardt alleged he brought this action
for himself and others similarly situated with Golden 1 checking
accounts to remedy Golden 1's "unlawful assessment and collection
of multiple insufficient fund fees for the same debit transaction .
. . ." Burgardt alleged he used his debit card to pay a Sprint
charge of $67.78. Golden 1 determined that his account did not have
sufficient funds and charged him an insufficient funds fee of
$27.50. Five days later, Golden 1 charged another $27.50 for the
same item. Burgardt alleged claims for breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair
competition, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment, and money had and received.
On January 10, 2020, Golden 1 moved to compel arbitration and stay
the action pending arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Golden 1 contended that Burgardt "agreed to the Golden 1
arbitration agreement when he had notice of and an opportunity to
review and opt out of the arbitration agreement, did not opt out,
and continued to maintain his Golden 1 account and to use Golden
1's services."
The Sacramento Superior Court denied Golden 1's motion to compel
arbitration, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. Rather
than analyze the specific notice provided under ordinary state law
contract law principles, the California Court of Appeal broadly
held that an arbitration clause may never be added by providing
notice and an opt out procedure unless the original contract
contemplated the addition of an arbitration provision.
The Defendant petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
Order of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
in the case titled DWAINE BURGARDT, Plaintiff and Respondent v. THE
GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
C092637.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner The Golden 1 Credit Union is
represented by:
E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 506-5380
E-mail: jrosenkranz@orrick.com
GOLDEN NUGGET: Gustafson Files Suit Over DraftKings Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
JON GUSTAFSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN NUGGET ONLINE GAMING, INC.,
DRAFTKINGS INC., FERTITTA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., NEW DUKE HOLDCO,
INC., DUKE MERGER SUB, INC., JEFFERIES LLC, TILMAN JOSEPH FERTITTA,
JASON ROBINS, RICHARD H. LIEM, STEVEN L. SCHEINTHAL, MICHAEL S.
CHADWICK, G. MICHAEL STEVENS, SCOTT KELLY, THOMAS WINTER, and
MICHAEL HARWELL, Defendants, Case No. A-22-856870-B (D. Nev., Aug.
12, 2022) is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated minority
stockholders of Golden Nugget Online Gaming against GNOG's Board of
Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with GNOG's
merger with DraftKings Inc., and certain related side deals between
DraftKings and Fertitta-controlled entities, and against the other
named Defendants for aiding and abetting such breaches of fiduciary
duty.
According to the complaint, DraftKings announced that it had
entered into a merger agreement with GNOG pursuant to which the
companies would combine in a stock-for-stock merger on August 2,
2021. At that time, Defendant Tilman Joseph Fertitta and his
affiliated entities collectively controlled approximately 79.9%
voting power of GNOG, and indicated that they alone would approve
the Merger through a written consent. Accordingly, GNOG's minority
stockholders would not be given an opportunity to vote on the
Merger.
The complaint asserts that the Merger was substantively and
procedurally unfair to GNOG's minority shareholders, but greatly
benefitted Mr. Fertitta. The Merger provided numerous non-ratable
benefits to Fertitta and FEI through, among other things, the
Commercial Agreement, the License Agreement, and other related side
agreements that are not going to be shared with GNOG's minority
stockholders. Moreover, GNOG has not disclosed all the provisions
of these side agreements and related amendments (for example, the
License Agreement). Additionally, the consideration paid to GNOG's
stockholders (in the form of a new DraftKings stock and an exchange
ratio) was unfair, says the suit.
Allegedly, Fertitta has engaged in a continuing course of conduct
to the harm and detriment of GNOG's minority stockholders. Fertitta
has used at least some of the proceeds he received in the Merger to
purchase a parcel of land in Las Vegas in June 2022 for $250
million, which Fertitta intends to use to build a casino. The Court
should order an accounting of all the monies, benefits, and
payments received by Fertitta and his related entities, and
Fertitta's unlawful proceeds should be held in constructive trust
for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class, to whom Fertitta owes
fiduciary duties, the complaint asserts.
Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. is a conglomerate and holding
company that holds companies and investments owned by Defendant
Tilman Joseph Fertitta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don Springmeyer, Esq.
Michael Gayan, Esq.
KEMP JONES, LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 385-6000
Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
E-mail: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com
m.gayan@kempjones.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
HARTWIG TRANSIT: Chenault Sues Over Failure to Pay Dispatchers' OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ESTHER CHENAULT, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARTWIG TRANSIT, INC. and MCCORMICK
TRUCKING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00637 (M.D. Tenn.,
August 17, 2022) is brought against the Defendant as a collective
action to seek for appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable
relief based on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated dispatchers pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a dispatcher from
January 2020 through November 2020 and again from November 8, 2021
to April 14, 2022.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees received their compensation via paychecks from
Defendant Hartwig Transit Inc. However, their paychecks show that
they were not properly compensated for all hours they have worked.
The Plaintiff claims that he has worked 91.8 hours during the pay
period starting January 29, 2022 and ending February 11, 2022, but
was not paid an overtime of at least 11.8 hours at the applicable
overtime rate. Instead, the Defendant paid him a flat daily rate
for all hours he has worked. In addition, the Defendants
automatically deducted 30 minutes from their hours worked each day
to account for a lunch break although they were not able to take a
bona fide break of 30 minutes because of the workload. Moreover,
despite the Plaintiff's complaint about the propriety of her pay,
the Defendants have continued its illegal payroll practice, says
the suit.
Hartwig Transit, Inc. and McCormick Trucking, Inc. provide trucking
and transfer services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
Clint J. Coleman, Esq.
NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
10263 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN 37922
Tel: (865) 383-1053
E-mail: jesse@nlgattorneys.com
clint@NLGattorneys.com
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Settlement of Rodgers Suit for Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that the settlement of the
class action lawsuit captioned "Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd.,
et al." is subject to preliminary and final approval, its hearing
is set for August 2022.
On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled "Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al." and
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes, unjust enrichment, and
negligent misrepresentation.
On August 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida issued an order transferring the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as to
four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering the remaining
four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating the Company
defendants from the Florida action. The plaintiffs seek damages in
an unspecified amount.
The Company and the plaintiffs have reached a settlement. Under the
principal terms of the settlement, the Company would pay $12.5
million into a fund to be distributed to qualified claimants. As of
June 30, 2022, this amount has been adequately reserved for within
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.
The settlement is subject to the preliminary and final approval of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
preliminary approval hearing is set for August 15, 2022.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. is a nutrition company that sells weight
management; targeted nutrition; energy, sports, and fitness; and
outer nutrition products.
HONEST COMPANY: Sida Files Mislabeling Suit Over Plant-Based Wipes
------------------------------------------------------------------
CATRICE SIDA and KRIS YERBY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HONEST COMPANY, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-04602-SVK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely and misleadingly
labels certain of its Honest(R) brand wipe products with the
following claims: "PLANT-BASED WIPES" and "plant-based wipes" in an
effort to increase profits and to obtain an unfair advantage over
its lawfully acting competitors, deliberately leading reasonable
consumers, including Plaintiffs, to incorrectly believe that the
products are composed of only water and plant-ingredients, which
are ingredients that come from plants and have not undergone
substantial processing that materially alters the ingredient's
original plant composition, referred here as "Plant-Based
Representations" and/or "Challenged Representations," says the
suit.
However, contrary to the labeling, the products contain numerous
ingredients that do not come from plants whatsoever, including
artificial or synthetic ingredients. In addition, the products
contain ingredients that, although they may have been originally
derived from raw plant materials, were subjected to substantial
processing, such as chemical modification or processing, that
materially altered their original plant composition, says the
suit.
The Plaintiffs seek a monetary recovery of the price premium they
and other consumers overpaid for products that should, but fail to,
comport with the Challenged Representations as well as injunctive
relief to stop Defendant's unlawful manufacture, marketing, and
sale of the products with the said representations.
The Honest Company, Inc. is an American digital-first consumer
goods company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Olivia M. Treister, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
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
otreister@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
Chad Saunders, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
chad@crosnerlegal.com
HUMANA INC: Settle Data Breach Class Suit Affecting 65,000 Members
------------------------------------------------------------------
databreaches.net reports that Humana and Cotiviti agreed to a class
action settlement to resolve claims they jeopardized consumer data
in a 2020 data breach.
The settlement benefits consumers who received notification from
Humana that their personal and health information was compromised
in a data breach occurring between Oct. 12 and Dec. 16, 2020.
Humana is a health insurance company that suffered a large data
breach in 2020. Between Oct. 12 and Dec. 16, 2020, Humana's
analytics partner Cotiviti allegedly disclosed personal identifying
and health information to a subcontractor which, in turn, disclosed
this information to unauthorized third parties.
Read more about the settlement at Top Class Actions. Cotiviti
appears to be paying for the brunt of the settlement and costs.
The case is Steven K. Farmer v. Humana Inc. and Cotiviti, Inc.,
Case No. 8:21-cv-1478- MSS-SPF, in the District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The official lawsuit
settlement website for details and procedures is at
DataBreachClassActionSettlement.com [GN]
INTEL CORP: Consumer Suits Over Data Security Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that as of July 27, 2022,
consumer class action lawsuits relating to the class of security
vulnerabilities publicly disclosed since 2018 were pending in the
United States, Canada, Israel, and Argentina.
The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of the company's products, generally claim to have been
harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the
security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.
Intel Corporation is a semiconductor company based in California.
INTEL CORP: Oregon Court Dismisses all Claims in Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that in the United States,
numerous individual class action suits filed in various
jurisdictions were consolidated in April 2018 for all pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon.
In January 2022, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims
relating to Intel's alleged conduct before September 1, 2017, and
in July 2022 dismissed with prejudice all remaining claims.
Intel Corporation is a semiconductor company based in California.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces ERISA Suit in New Jersey Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, in January 2019, two Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action lawsuits were
filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against
Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain
named officers in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson &
Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do
so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination
in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S Baby Powder.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. In September
2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the
Court granted Defendants' motion but granted leave to amend. In
June 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in July 2020,
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. As of October
2020, briefing on Defendants' motion was complete.
In February 2021, the court granted Defendants' motion, and granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend. In April 2021, Plaintiffs informed the
Court that they did not intend to file an amended complaint, and
the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
In May 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third
Circuit. In July 2021, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the
Third Circuit and in September 2021, Defendants filed their
response brief, and in October 2021, Plaintiffs filed their reply
brief. In January 2022, the Third Circuit heard oral argument.
Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Securities Suit in New Jersey Court Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that the court entered an
order staying the securities class action in May 2022.
In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S Baby Powder, and that
purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a
result.
Plaintiff is seeking damages. In April 2019, the company moved to
dismiss the complaint and briefing on the motion was complete as of
August 2019. In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the
motion to dismiss. In March 2020, the Company answered the
complaint.
In April 2021, briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was completed. In July 2021, the company filed a
notice of supplemental authority in opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, and Plaintiff filed a response.
In December 2021, the company filed a motion to supplement the
class certification record, and in January 2022, Plaintiff
responded. In March 2022, LTL asked the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court
to stay the securities class action. In April 2022, Defendants
filed a second motion to supplement the class certification record.
In May 2022, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court entered an order
staying the securities class action, and Plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal regarding the Bankruptcy Court's order.
Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Contact Lens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that several class action
complaints were filed against the company and was settled in March
2022.
In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the
manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain
distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some
contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November
2015. This case was settled in March 2022, subject to Court
approval.
Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that beginning in September
2017, multiple purported class actions were filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of Remicade against Johnson & Johnson and
Janssen Biotech, Inc. alleging that Janssen has violated federal
antitrust laws through its contracting strategies for REMICADE.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes as "In re
REMICADE Antitrust Litigation" in United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was settled in
February 2022, subject to Court approval.
Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
KENT SECURITY: Sparks Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SPARKS, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and in his representative capacity pursuant to
California's Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. KENT
SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a corporation; KENT SECURITY OF PALM
BEACH, INC., a corporation; KENT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 22CV016185
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 15, 2022) is a class action
arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay proper
minimum and overtime wages; pay penalties for noncompliant rest and
meal periods; reimburse necessary expenditures; provide accurate
wage statements; pay all wages owed; and provide personnel file
within 30 days of the employee making a written request.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in
the position of a security guard between January 2022 through May
11, 2022.
Kent Security of California, Inc. is a security guard service
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George S. Azadian, Esq.
Ani Azadian, Esq.
AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
707 Foothill Blvd., Suite 200
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011
Telephone: (626) 449-4944
Facsimile: (626) 628-1722
E-mail: George@azadianlawgroup.com
KGB USA: Underpays CSRs' Overtime Wages, Mitchell Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWAYLA MTCHELL, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KGB USA, INC. and CONDUIT
GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-03283-JLS (E.D. Penn.,
August 17, 2022) files this collective action complaint against the
Defendant to recover unpaid overtime, and other relief as a result
of its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a Customer
Service Representative (CSR), alleges that the Defendants fails to
properly compensate her for all hours she has worked. Despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants
underpaid her overtime compensation because it failed to include
her shift differential wages in the calculation of her regular rate
of pay, says the Plaintiff.
KGB USA, Inc. and Conduit Global, Inc. provide "Call Center as a
Service" (CCaaS) infrastructure and agent support to its clients.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
KIA AMERICA: Faces Slovak Suit Over Unsafe, Easy to Steal Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Taylor Slovak, Daniel Newman, and Erin Davies, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA
America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Kia America
Technical Center, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01432-JGC
(N.D. Ohio, Aug. 11, 2022) is a class action brought against the
Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty,
breach of express warranty, negligence, strict liability, design
defect, and for violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants sold the defective
vehicles to Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers without
disclosing the fact that these vehicles had a defect which made
them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than they should be, if
they did not have the defect. The Defendants did not disclose this
defect, which is a material fact, and a fact that a reasonable
person would rely on when purchasing a vehicle, says the suit.
KIA America, Inc. designs, markets, and sells automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa Payne, Esq.
PAYNE LAW LLC
26600 Detroit Road, Suite 250
Westlake, Ohio 44145
Telephone: (757) 768-9029
Facsimile: (216) 294-4839
E-mail: Melissa@VincentEsq.com
- and -
Laurence Harrington, Esq.
THE HARRINGTON FIRM
508 Glen Echo Rd.
Philadelphia, PA 19119
Telephone: (484) 469-0468
KOHL'S INC: Faces Coss Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN COSS, MARIBEL OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all
other Illinois citizens similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KOHL'S
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04274 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2022)
asserts that Defendant has violated the privacy rights of the
Plaintiff and class members as codified by the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant's surveillance technology has
acquired or otherwise captured the unique "biometric identifiers"
and "biometric information" of Plaintiffs, their Minor Children,
and putative class members. The Defendant has violated Section
15(b) of BIPA because it collected Plaintiffs' biometric
information without first obtaining informed written consent from
the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have also failed to properly
disclose to Plaintiffs and putative class members that Defendants
were collecting the biometrics of Plaintiffs and putative class
members and transmitting their biometrics to a third-party vendor,
says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and their minor children have visited one or more of
Defendant's stores located in the Chicagoland area to purchase
items.
Kohl's Inc. operates retail stores in the State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave. Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 581-5456
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
LACTALIS AMERICAN: Gallagher Hits Deceptive Feta Cheese Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Gallagher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lactalis American Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00614 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the State Consumer Fraud Acts, the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act due to misleading representations of its
feta cheese under the President brand.
According to the complaint, relevant front label representations of
the Defendant's product include "Europe's Leading Cheese Expert," a
gold olive branch wreath, and "feta" stylized in ancient-Greek
font. The labeling gives consumers the impression the product was
made in Greece, or at the very least in another European country.
However, the representations are misleading because the product was
not made in Greece or Europe but in the United States. The small
print on the bottom of the container discloses that President has
"over 80 years of French heritage," and no connection to Greece,
says the suit.
Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it,
the suit asserts.
Lactalis American Group, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, offers range of cheeses such as
mozzarella, ricotta, provolone, feta, snack, and gourmet spreadable
cheeses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22C-0234, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Kings, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 12,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-at-00615 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code.
Leprino Foods Company is an American company with headquarters in
Denver, Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and
sweet whey.[BN]
Defendant Leprino Foods Company is represented by:
Sandra L. Rappaport, Esq.
Lisa M. Pooley, Esq.
Rachel J. Vinson, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 777-3200
Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
E-mail: srappaport@hansonbridgett.com
lpooley@hansonbridgett.com
rvinson@hansonbridgett.com
LOTTERY.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Lottery.com,
Inc. ("Lottery.com" or the "Company") LTRY between November 15,
2021 and July 29, 2022 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that Lottery.com and members of senior
management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the proposed Class. You need not seek to become
a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery.
If you suffered losses, would like to discuss Berger Montague's
lawsuit, or have questions concerning your rights or interests,
please contact attorneys Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or
(215) 875-3015, or Michael Dell'Angelo at mdellangelo@bm.net or
(215) 875-3080 or visit: https://www.lotterydotcomclassaction.com/
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material information. A series of disclosures beginning on
July 6, 2022 revealed that Lottery.com and its senior management
failed to disclosure that, inter alia: (i) the Company lacked
adequate internal accounting controls; (ii) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting, including but
not limited to those pertaining to revenue recognition and the
reporting of cash; (iii) the Company was not in compliance with
state and federal laws governing the sale of lottery tickets; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Finally, on July 29, 2022, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC,
Defendants informed the market that it did not have "sufficient
financial resources to fund its operations or pay certain existing
obligations," and that it therefore intended to furlough certain
employees effective July 29, 2022. Moreover, because Lottery.com's
resources were not sufficient to fund its operations for a
twelve-month period, "there is substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern," and the Company
may be forced to wind down its operations or pursue liquidation of
the Company's assets.
In reaction to this news, shares of Lottery.com lost 64% of their
value in a single trading day, falling $0.52 per share, from a
closing price of $0.81 per share on July 28, 2022 to a close of
$0.29 per share on July 29, 2022.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for over
five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the
United States. [GN]
LOWER LLC: Fails to Protect Customers' Private Info, Wolff Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Wolff, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lower, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02003-JKB (D. Md., Aug. 11, 2022) is a class action for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
negligence per se, invasion of privacy by intrusion, and breach of
fiduciary duty arising from a 2021 data breach that was perpetrated
against the Defendant.
In an undated notice of data breach letter that Plaintiff Wolff
received on August 8, 2022, Lower indicated that it first learned
of a data breach on December 14, 2021, and after investigating,
realized that the "suspicious activity" occurred between September
2, 2021 and December 16, 2021.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and thousands of Class
Members, suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack as a result of Lower's data breach. In addition,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information --
which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the data breach, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' private information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party
and precisely what specific type of information was accessed, the
suit alleges.
Plaintiff Wolff applied to Lower LLC to refinance his residence in
mid-2021. As a condition of Plaintiff's loan application, he was
required to provide his personal identifiable information to the
Defendant.
Lower, LLC is a direct mortgage lender.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
MARS INC: Skittles Contain Harmful Toxin, Mignin Says
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MIGNIN, III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04243 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 11, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent omission or
concealment, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's candies sold under the
brand name "Skittles(R)" are unfit for human consumption because
they contain titanium dioxide (TiO2), a known toxin. The Defendant
has long known of the health problems posed by TiO2. In fact, in
February 2016, Defendant publicly committed to phasing out TiO2.
The Defendant has flouted its own promise to consumers. However,
more than six years later, Defendant continues to sell the Products
with TiO2, says the suit.
Based on Defendant's omissions, a reasonable consumer would expect
that the products can be safely purchased and consumed as marketed
and sold. However, the products are not safe and pose a significant
health risk to unsuspecting consumers. Yet, neither before nor at
the time of purchase does Defendant notify consumers like Plaintiff
that the products are unsafe to consumers, contain heightened
levels of titanium dioxide, and should otherwise be approached with
caution, the suit alleges.
Mars, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturer of
confectionery, pet food, and other food products and a provider of
animal care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bret K. Pufahl, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
Peter L. Currie, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-7450
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: bkp@fmcolaw.com
ecc@fmcolaw.com
kcc@fmcolaw.com
plc@fmcolaw.com
MART SUPERMARKETS: Lieff Cabraser Files ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
lieffcabraser.com reports that Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel Bolt
Keenley Kim filed a class action lawsuit against Save Mart
Supermarkets in the Northern District of California on behalf of a
class of workers who claim the grocery chain denied them promised
retiree medical benefits. As the largest regional grocer in
California, Save Mart operates over two-hundred Save Mart, Lucky,
and FoodMaxx stores, employs tens of thousands of people and
generates billions of dollars in annual revenue.
The lawsuit alleges Save Mart misrepresented to its employees that
if they worked long enough to become eligible for retirement, they
would receive retiree medical benefits for the rest of their lives.
However, in 2022, the company decided to terminate the medical
benefit, depriving hundreds or thousands of retirees of their
medical benefits.
This action by Save Mart was exceptionally brutal, as most class
members had worked at its stores for at least thirty years in
exchange for the understanding that they'd be taken care of in
retirement. In eliminating the medical benefit, Save Mart broke
faith with its most dedicated workers.
Contact an Employment Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Today
If you work at or have worked at Save Mart or one of its affiliated
stores and were denied retiree medical benefits, please use the
form on this page to contact an employment law advocate at Lieff
Cabraser today. All information will be held strictly confidential
and there is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.
You can also call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358. [GN]
MCKESSON CORP: Saut Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SOVATANA SAUT and JOHN HISATO NAKATANI,
individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV20831, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 12,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05707 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' (1) failure to pay minimum
wages; (2) failure to pay overtime owed; (3) failure to provide
lawful meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest
periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6)
failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment;
(7) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (8) knowing and
intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement
provisions; and (9) unfair competition.
McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing
pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology,
medical supplies, and care management tools.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Nicky Jatana, Esq.
Buck N. Haddix, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com
MDL 2873: Almaguer Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLD ALMAGUER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02736-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 16, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The
Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate
in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have
also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to
the proper handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.
The Almaguer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Boyce Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------
ROGER BOYCE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02688-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The
Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate
in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have
also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to
the proper handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.
The Boyce case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Brock Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARY BROCK and CRYSTAL BROCK, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC,; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC,.; CHEMGUARD, INC,; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC,; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC,;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02721-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Plaintiff, Gary Brock, was diagnosed with squamous cell
carcinoma as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit alleges.
The Brock case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
MDL 2873: Hill Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HILL, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02734-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The
Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate
in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have
also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to
the proper handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.
The Hill case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Jewell Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALICE JEWELL, Plaintiff 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; Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02663-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
This action involves 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 AFFF that were designed, manufactured and
sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes PFAS
which are manmade organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly
referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants).
In or about 2021, Jewell was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via a partial nephrectomy. As known by Defendants,
kidney cancer is a disease linked to PFAS contamination, says the
suit.
The Jewell case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
MDL 2873: Mejorado Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MEJORADO and SANDRA A. MEJORADO, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC,; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC,.; CHEMGUARD, INC,;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC,; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC,;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02725-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Plaintiff, Timothy Mejorado, was diagnosed with
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and/or other medical conditions as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The Mejorado case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
MDL 2873: Nygren Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL NYGREN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02687-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF
products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF
products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood
and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to
warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.
The Nygren case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
MDL 2873: Pacentrilli Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY PACENTRILLI, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02686-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF
products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF
products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood
and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to
warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.
The Pacentrilli case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue
South Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
META PLATFORMS: Illegally Collects Patients' Health Info, Doe Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04680
(N.D. Ca., Aug. 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion,
quantum meruit to recover sums had by unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Federal
Wiretap Act, the Comprehensive Computer Access and Fraud Act, and
the California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, Facebook has been widely criticized for
a business model that appropriates the data provided in user
profiles and user pages, surveils users while they are on the
Facebook platform, and even engages in efforts to manipulate users'
emotions on small and large scales. Less well known, however, is
that for more than a decade, Facebook has used a tracking pixel --
known as the Meta Pixel -- to track Facebook users off the Facebook
Platform. The Meta Pixel tracks what actions Facebook users take on
websites that have installed the Meta Pixel and sends that
information to Facebook, says the suit.
Facebook's actions also breached its contract with users, including
Plaintiff, as it promised users that Facebook "require[s]" other
websites to have the "lawful rights to collect, use, and share your
data before providing any to us" through the Meta Pixel. Yet,
Facebook failed to require that hospitals and healthcare providers
gain the necessary patient authorizations required by Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act before sharing patient
protected health information with Facebook, the suit asserts.
Meta Platforms, Inc., f/k/a, Facebook, Inc., is a social media
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Eric Kafka, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Joseph P. Brent, Esq.
Michael Kipp Mueller, Esq.
BRENT & FIOL, LLP
117 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 465
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (626) 240-4850
Facsimile: (415) 373-4420
E-mail: jbrent@brentfiol.com
kmueller@brentfiol.com
MIDDLESEX WATER CO: Faces Two Water Contamination Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Middlesex Water Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that in November 2021, the
company was served with two Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)-related
class action lawsuits seeking restitution for medical, water
replacement and other claimed related costs.
Middlesex Water Company is the parent company and sole shareholder
of Tidewater Utilities, Inc., Pinelands Water Company, and
Pinelands Wastewater Company, Utility Service Affiliates, Inc.
(USA), and Utility Service Affiliates (Perth Amboy) Inc. (USA-PA)
based in New Jersey.
MIMEDX GROUP: Carpenters' Fund Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIMEDX Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that Carpenters Pension Fund
of Illinois filed a Notice of Appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals for the dismissal of its securities suit.
On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two
purported securities class actions, namely "MacPhee v. MiMedx
Group, Inc., et al." filed February 23, 2018 and "Kline v. MiMedx
Group, Inc., et al." filed February 26, 2018).
The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois (CPFI)
as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, CPFI filed a consolidated
amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J.
Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman
and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP.
The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018.
Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various
defendants, CPFI was granted leave to file an amended complaint.
CPFI filed its amended complaint against the company, Michael J.
Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert &
Holland on March 30, 2020.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020. On March
25, 2021, the Court granted defendants' respective motions to
dismiss, finding that CPFI lacked standing to bring the underlying
claims and also could not establish loss causation because it sold
all of its shares in MIMEDX prior to any corrective disclosures,
and dismissed the case.
On April 22, 2021, CPFI filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal and for leave to amend to add a new plaintiff to attempt
to cure the standing and loss causation issues.
On January 28, 2022, the Court denied CPFI's motion to reconsider
and motion to substitute class representative. On February 25,
2022, CPFI filed a Notice of Appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals, Case No. 22-10633-CC, and the issues are currently being
briefed by the parties.
MIMEDX is a transformational placental biologics company based in
Georgia.
MOBIS ALABAMA: Aquino Sues for Racial Discrimination in Workplace
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE OSWALDO AQUINO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC d/b/a
HYUNDAI MOBIS, GB2G, INC. d/b/a ALLSWELL, and SPJ CONNECT,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00145-TCB-RGV (N.D. Ga., Aug. 11, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's unlawful policies, patterns, and
practices in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico and a Hispanic person of
Mexican ancestry and national origin. He brought this complaint,
individually and on behalf of a putative class of other employees
employed by Defendants. He asserts that he was induced to move to
the United States by Defendants Allswell and SPJ Connect with false
promises of a skilled job working for Defendant Hyundai Mobis as an
engineer or "technologist." However, upon arriving in the U.S. and
beginning his job at the Kia Motors facility located in West Point,
Georgia, he was relegated to performing assembly-line work,
subjected to six 12-hour workdays per week with mandatory overtime
while American-born workers were not, and paid half of what
American-born workers earned for the same job in the same
location.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a class action
on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees who were not
born in the U.S., and seeks, for himself and on behalf of the
class, all lost wages and other economic benefits of employment,
compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, and other
relief available at law or in equity.
Mobis Alabama, LLC is an auto body parts supplier in Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
Brian J. Sutherland, Esq.
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: rachel@hallandlampros.com
brian@hallandlampros.com
chall@hallandlampros.com
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Suit in DE Over Retirement Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that the Company and certain
of its present and former executive officers were named as
defendants in a putative state securities class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on January 30,
2020.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint is filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the company's common stock in
Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019. On
March 27, 2020, the court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a floor manufacturer based in Georgia.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that a class action lawsuit
was filed against the company alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019.
On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities
Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on
the same claims and the same Class Period. The amended complaint
alleges that the company engaged in fabricating revenues by
attempting delivery to customers that were closed and recognizing
these attempts as sales, over-produced product to report higher
operating margins and maintained significant inventory that was not
salable and valued certain inventory improperly or improperly
delivered inventory with knowledge that it was defective and
customers would return it.
On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 29, 2021, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on November 12,
2021, and fact discovery is ongoing. On January 26, 2022, Lead
Plaintiff moved for class certification, to appoint itself as class
representative, and for appointment of class counsel.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a floor manufacturer based in Georgia.
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ:
MOLN): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about June 16, 2021 (the "IPO"); and/or (ii)
between June 16, 2021 and April 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important September 12, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Molecular Partners securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Molecular Partners class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=7548 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 12,
2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO documents
were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, the complaint alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the IPO documents and defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than
defendants had led investors to believe; (2) accordingly, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was reasonably likely to
require an additional Phase 3 study of ensovibep before granting
the drug Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"); (3) waning global
rates of COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company's chances of
securing EUA for ensovibep; (4) as a product candidate, MP0310 (AMG
506), in development for the treatment of certain types of cancer,
was less attractive to Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") than defendants had led
investors to believe; (5) accordingly, there was a significant
likelihood that Amgen would return global rights of MP0310 to
Molecular Partners; (6) as a result of all the foregoing, the
clinical and commercial prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were
overstated; and (7) as a result, the IPO documents and defendants'
public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Molecular Partners class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=7548 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. [GN]
MOSAIC COMPANY: Seeks Dismissal of Radiation Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that the company filed a
motion to dismiss an amended complaint to which the plaintiffs
opposed in December 2021.
On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Hillsborough County, Florida against the company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated
co-defendants.
The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly
due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring
decades ago.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.
On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to
dismiss that Mosaic filed late in 2020, with leave for the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in
response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with
prejudice on November 15, 2021. On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs
opposed that motion and Mosaic replied to that opposition on
January 26, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the court heard arguments on
the motions to dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other
co-defendant.
The Mosaic Company produces and markets concentrated phosphate and
potash crop nutrients based in Florida.
NATIONAL GRID USA: Calle Sues Over Unfair Trade Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Nelly Calle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 714271/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., July 11, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for unfair and deceptive trade practices by allegedly
failing to timely schedule an inspection of a gas meter.
National Grid charged and misappropriated said $100 from the
Plaintiff's account because she happened to have autopay with
National Grid. Plaintiff never authorized National Grid to debit
her account for the alleged $100 fine. Further, the gas meter at
issue is not located in the Plaintiff's apartment but is located in
the basement of her building and she does not have access to said
basement.
In November 2021, National Grid promised to refund the Plaintiff
the $100 fine but never refunded her any money. The Plaintiff's
counsel has discovered that thousands of other National Grid
customers may have been improperly charged fines by National Grid
for allegedly failing to timely schedule an inspection of a gas
meter.
The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages fully compensating all
individuals and entities for all fines charged to customers for
allegedly failing to timely schedule an appointment to inspect a
gas meter; injunctive relief requiring National Grid to stop
issuing fines for the allegedly failure to timely schedule an
inspection of a gas meter; attorney's fees and costs for the
prosecution of this action; and such other relief as the Court
deems necessary and appropriate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is only a tenant in the multi-family property where
the National Grid gas meter at issue is located.
National Grid provides New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts
with natural gas and electricity for homes and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Kelly, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY
244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-920-5042
Email: jkeny@jckeUylaw.com
- and -
Mark Anthony Panzavecchia, Esq.
PANZAVECCHIA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1000 Franklin Ave., Suite 204
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: 516-965-2854
Email: mark@panzavecchialaw.com
- and -
Anthony J. Russo, Jr., P.A., Esq.
D/B/A THE RUSSO FIRM
301 West Atlantic Avenue, Suite 0-2
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Phone: 844-847-8300
Email: anthony@therussofirm.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV24136
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 26, 2022), is brought against the Defendant
for its illegal wiretapping of their electronic communications with
the Defendant's website, https://www.nationwide.com.
Unbeknownst to visitors to the Website, the Defendant has secretly
deployed "keystroke monitoring" software that Defendant uses to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
(including keystrokes and mouse clicks) of all visitors to its
Website. The Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their
express or implied consent prior to this wiretapping. The Defendant
has violated and continues to violate the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"), entitling the Plaintiff and Class Members to
relief pursuant thereto, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website within the past year.
The Defendant is a Ohio corporation and does business and affects
commerce within the state of California and with California
residents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
NESPRESSO USA: Shaughnessy Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABIGAIL SHAUGHNESSY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESPRESSO USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06815 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, as well as for unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission,
and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged conduct of marketing,
manufacturing, and/or selling consumer products, the warranties of
which include statements that condition the continued validity of
the warranties on the use of only an authorized repair service
and/or authorized replacement parts, also known as a "tying
arrangement" or "unlawful repair restriction."
In addition to unlawful restrictions against third-party parts and
repair services, the products' warranty states and/or implies that
consumers need to purchase Nespresso Vertuo branded Coffee Capsules
from Nespresso, at inflated prices, to keep their warranty
coverage. Had Plaintiff - or other reasonable class members - been
aware that the tying arrangement was unlawful, she would not have
purchased the product, or she would have paid significantly less
for it, says the suit.
Nespresso USA, Inc. markets and distributes the products throughout
the United States. The Company sells its products to consumers on
websites and retail stores across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Neal Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
NETWORK TRAVEL: Giancaspro Sues Over WARN Act Breach, Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO GIANCASPRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETWORK TRAVEL EXPERIENCES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; STREETTEAM SOFTWARE, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-05745 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class action arising
from the Defendants' failure to pay earned wages and reimburse
expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and failure to provide
mandatory advanced notice of layoffs under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act or the California counterpart,
California Labor Code.
Mr. Giancaspro and hundreds of other full-time employees worked for
NTE and StreetTeam in California and elsewhere in the United
States.
According to the complaint, beginning in or about early 2022, and
despite raising abundant investor capital, Pollen and its U.S.
subsidiaries began facing financial difficulties. They repeatedly
missed payroll to their U.S. workforce, blaming their payroll
processor and "human error." Employees' pay and reimbursements were
persistently late. In April and May 2022, NTE began laying off
employees without advanced notice or plausible explanation.
Giancaspro is informed and believes that they laid off
approximately 200 employees during this period, says the suit.
On August 10, 2022, NTE notified its hundreds of employees,
including Plaintiff, that they were terminated, effective
immediately. It did not give them 60 days' notice as required by
the federal and state labor laws, the suit asserts.
Network Travel Experiences, Inc. and Streetteam Software, LLC are
U.S. subsidiaries of international music and travel startup
Pollen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Affeld, Esq.
Damion D. D. Robinson, Esq.
AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 979-8700
E-mail: dwa@agzlaw.com
dr@agzlaw.com
NEW KELLY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Castulo Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRAVO CASTULO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW KELLY INC., and JIMMY XIONG XU, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04854-HG (E.D.N.Y., August
17, 2022) brings this collective action complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker
and warehouse worker while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants, from in or around June 2015 through the
present.
The Plaintiff claims that although he regularly worked more than 40
hours per week, approximately 66 hours or more hours each week from
in or around August 2016 until in or around December 2021 and
approximately 55 hours or more hours each week from in or around
January 2022 through the present, he was paid a flat weekly rate of
approximately $600.00 per hours for all hours he has worked during
the relevant statutory period. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants denied him of his lawfully earned overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants willfully failed
to post notices of the minimum and overtime wage requirements, to
keep payroll records, to provide with any wage statements upon each
payment of his wages, and to provide with a written notice of his
applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such
information as required by the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary and proper.
New Kelly Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Brooklyn,
New York. Jimmy Xiong Xu is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: De Leon Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelcy Mabel Garcia De Leon filed an appeal from a court ruling
denying class certification in the lawsuit entitled NELCY MABEL
GARCIA DE LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-5005, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On June 7, 2021, De Leon, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint bringing the putative class
action against Defendant New York University ("NYU" or the
"University") alleging breach of its contractual obligations to
provide in-person instruction and access to campus facilities and
activities in connection with the University's decision to modify,
curtail, and cancel its activities for the spring 2020 semester in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff brought claims for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for certain violations
of the New York General Business Laws ("NYGBL") seeking a pro-rata
refund of tuition and fees.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 5, 2022, Judge
Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York denied the
Plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed putative class and to
appoint her as the Lead Plaintiff and the Anastopoulo Law Firm,
LLC, as the Class Counsel.
Judge McMahon held that the Plaintiff is not an adequate
representative of the proposed class, and that her attorneys should
not be allowed to serve as the class counsel. First, he said, the
Plaintiff's claim for a refund has nothing in common with the claim
for a refund that might be asserted by a student in the Law School,
or the Stern School, or the undergraduate school. Second, nothing
in the record gives the Court "absolute confidence" in either the
Plaintiff's competence or her loyalty to the proposed class. She is
demonstrably not an adequate class representative. Third, the
counsel for the Plaintiff flouted their discovery obligations and
evidenced a clear disregard for their responsibilities to the
proposed putative class. The Proposed class counsel is no more
adequate than is the Plaintiff to represent the proposed class.
That alone dooms the motion for certification, says the order.
Additionally, Judge McMahon found that the Plaintiff's personal
claims are not typical of those of the proposed class members, and
individual questions with respect to each class member predominate
over any common issue that might exist (which is, in the opinion of
the Court, doubtful). The Plaintiff has not demonstrated, and
cannot demonstrate, that she suffered the same injury as every
other NYU student. She offered no evidence to support her base
assertion that any other students, let alone "all students," were
"uniformly impacted" by the shutdown and lack of fee refund that
she claims to have experienced. The putative class members in the
case have little in common except that they were enrolled in the
university in 2020 and paid some type of fee to some entity within
NYU for some purpose, ruled the Court.
The appellate case is captioned as Garcia De Leon v. New York
University, Case No. 22-1635, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on July 22, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Nelcy Mabel Garcia De Leon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street, 3rd Floor
Charleston, SC 29403
Defendant-Appellee New York University is represented by:
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 335-4500
NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Jarden Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors have been named as
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of all
persons who acquired company common stock pursuant or traceable to
the S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the April 2016 acquisition of Jarden Corporation.
The action was filed on September 6, 2018 and is captioned
"Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al.," Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The
operative complaint alleges certain violations of the securities
laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made
certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
the Registration Statement regarding the company's financial
results, trends, and metrics. The plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief.
Newell Brands is a global consumer goods company based in Georgia.
NEXT SOLUTIONS: Owes Cable Installers Unpaid Wages, Pfeiffer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PFEIFFER Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action;
Plaintiff v. NEXT SOLUTIONS, LLC, A Tennessee Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01839-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., Aug.
11, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure or refusal to
compensate Plaintiff and members of the class for lawfully
compensable working time in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Statutes.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant as an internet and
cable installer, and worked in and around Pinellas, Pasco, and
Hillsborough County, Florida.
Next Solutions, LLC is a national limited liability company that
provides cable, internet, and phone installation to residential and
commercial customers across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq.
BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A.
2023 Constitution Boulevard
Sarasota, FL 34231
Telephone: (941) 923-7700
Facsimile: (941) 923-7736
E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Goldberger Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL GOLDBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 523744/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Aug. 16, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt
collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
On September 3, 2021, Defendant Northstar sent Plaintiff a
collection Letter on behalf of Discover Bank regarding an alleged
debt. The Discover Bank obligation arose out of an alleged debt for
transactions primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,
specifically a personal credit card.
According to the complaint, the letter is confusing and deceptive
as it fails to state whether or not the debt will be considered as
paid in full. Specifically, the letter implies that in exchange for
50% of the balance the consumer will achieve some form of final
resolution as to the allegedly delinquent debt, when in actuality
it is unclear what form of settlement the letter is offering, says
the suit.
The Defendant's collection efforts with respect to this alleged
debt from Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to suffer concrete and
particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides
Plaintiff with the legally protected right to not be misled or
treated unfairly with respect to any action for the collection of
any consumer debt, the suit asserts.
Northstar Location Services, LLC is a credit counseling service
based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christofer Merritt, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com
NYS OPWDD: Guild Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYS OPWDD. The case
is styled as The Guild For Exceptional Children, Inc., Jeanne
Bezerra, Robert Chan, Yesenia Echevarria, Jessica Noerling, Tina
Tate, And Lucille Trout, individually and individuals on behalf of
similarly situated v. New York State Office for People With
Developmental Disabilities (NYS OPWDD), Case No. 905277/2022 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Albany Cty., July 12, 2022).
The case type is stated as "ARTICLE 78."
The New York State Office for People With Developmental
Disabilities (NYS OPWDD) -- https://opwdd.ny.gov/ -- is an
executive agency in the state of New York, whose mission is to
provide services and conduct research for those with intellectual
disabilities and developmental disabilities (I/DD).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Schonfeld, Esq.
400 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 873-2000
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of 6694 Boulevard Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that a motion to dismiss the
class action complaint captioned "6694 Dawson Blvd, LLC,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., James Wallace Woods, Michael J. Mooney,
Britt Wright, William V. Conn, Jr., Conn & Co. Tax Practice, LLC,
Conn & Company Consulting, LLC and Kathleen Lloyd," was filed by
the company and an oral argument of the motion was heard in June
2022.
On August 31, 2021, a complaint in a class action entitled "6694
Dawson Blvd, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., James Wallace
Woods, Michael J. Mooney, Britt Wright, William V. Conn, Jr., Conn
& Co. Tax Practice, LLC, Conn & Company Consulting, LLC and
Kathleen Lloyd," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.
Plaintiff purports to represent a class of investors in Horizon
Private Equity, III, LLC (Horizon). Horizon is alleged to be a
fraudulent scheme and plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages
sounding in violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute, breach of fiduciary duty,
procurement of breach of fiduciary duty, negligent
misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff does not allege Oppenheimer received any of the funds
invested in Horizon, but rather that Oppenheimer's purported
failure to properly supervise its employees allowed the alleged
scheme to occur and continue. On November 22, 2021, Oppenheimer
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. The
motion to dismiss was fully briefed on January 17, 2022, and the
Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 21, 2022.
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. is an investment company based in New
York.
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Lockett Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nikol Lockett, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. OTO Development, LLC, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV17405 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 11, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04730-MEMF-MAR
to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.
OTO Development -- https://www.otodevelopment.com/ -- is a business
management consultant in Spartanburg, South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq.
MOON AND YANG APC
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
mariam.ghazaryan@moonyanglaw.com
- and -
Min Kyung Kim, Esq.
David L Cheng, Esq.
FORD HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 237-2400
Fax: (213) 237-2401
Email: mkim@fordharrison.com
dcheng@fordharrison.com
OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Hemodialysis System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Outset Medical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that on July 8, 2022, a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the
company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and
former Chief Financial Officer as defendants.
The complaint alleges that between September 15, 2020 and June 13,
2022, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making false or misleading
statements regarding the company's regulatory studies of the Tablo
Hemodialysis System for at home use and the company's prospects
related to the sale of the system for at home use.
Outset Medical, Inc. is a medical technology company based in
California.
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.Com, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that the plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit have appealed the dismissal of their class
action.
On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former Chief Executive
Officer and former Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the company and the above-referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were
consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019.
The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead
plaintiff in January 2020. In March 2020, an amended consolidated
complaint was filed against the company, its President, its former
Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer.
The company filed a motion to dismiss and, on September 28, 2020,
the court granted its motion and entered judgment in the company's
favor.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on October
23, 2020 and filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2020. The
United States District Court of Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion
to amend their complaint on January 6, 2021 and the Tenth Circuit
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on January 8, 2021.
The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 11, 2021.
The company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended
complaint, and on September 20, 2021, the court granted its motion
and entered judgment in its favor. On October 18, 2021, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the ruling of the
district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
The plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the Tenth Circuit on
January 26, 2022. The company filed a responsive appellate brief on
March 30, 2022. The plaintiffs' reply appellate brief was filed on
April 20, 2022. The Tenth Circuit has scheduled oral argument on
the plaintiffs' appeal for September 28, 2022.
Overstock.com Inc. provides furniture and home furnishings based in
Utah.
P A M TRANSPORT: Vasquez Seeks to Certify Truck Drivers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE VASQUEZ, et al., v.
P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-05143-PKH (W.D.
Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Provisionally certifying a proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
class consisting of:
"all over-the-road truck drivers employed by PAM from
January 1, 2020 through July 31, 2022;"
2. Granting preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement
with respect to the proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class;
3. Granting preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement
with respect to the FLSA collective action;
4. Appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC as Class Counsel for the
Class;
5. Approving the proposed Settlement Notice and notice
procedures;
6. Preliminarily approving Class Counsel's requested and
reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs;
7. Preliminarily approving the requested Service Award for
the Named Plaintiff;
8. Directing Plaintiff to file a motion for final approval of
the Settlement, and any related relief, no later than 14
days before the Final Approval Hearing; and
9. Scheduling a Final Approval hearing no sooner than 100
days following the date the Court enter an order granting
this motion.
P.A.M. Transport provides trucking transportation services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AKvqmO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
PEABODY, MA: Gym Teacher Faces Class Suit Over Sexual Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin McKinley Becker at nbcboston.com reports that thirteen
Massachusetts men allege in a class action lawsuit that they were
sexually abused as children by a former Peabody gym teacher, and
lawyers representing the group believe there could be hundreds of
other victims out there.
John Does 1001-1013, as they're listed in the lawsuit, were
students at either Higgins Middle School or the John F. Kennedy
Junior High School when they were allegedly abused by the teacher
over the course of more than three decades.
The City of Peabody is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit.
One of the attorneys representing the men, Boston attorney Carmen
Durso, said during a Zoom conference call that the action is being
brought against Peabody for its "negligence in failing to properly
train, supervise and discipline" the teacher "over a period of 34
years during which time [he] sexually abused in excess of 13 minor
students in Massachusetts."
The plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts
Superior Court, claim the teacher sexually abused, assaulted and
battered them. The filing contains graphic and disturbing
allegations of the abuse the men say they suffered as children,
including rape, choking, spanking, fondling, molestation and
kicking.
The teacher allegedly watched the boys in the shower and provided
them with alcohol and drugs, which he encouraged them to use during
sex acts, the lawsuit states. According to Durso, the boys were
between the ages of 11-16 when the abuse happened, between 1969 and
1996.
"They were young," he said. "Some had just reached puberty."
The teacher didn't reply to requests for comment from The Boston
Globe and WGBH, they reported. A lawyer for the City of Peabody
said the city would respond after it was served a copy of the
complaint, according to the Globe.
The attorneys said no formal notice was sent to Peabody officials.
The lawsuit claims the men have all suffered extreme physical and
emotional distress and have incurred costs and damages associated
with the abuse. The suit alleges the abuse interfered with the
boys' education by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating
and sexually offensive school environment.
"My frequent nightmares pale in comparison to the daydreams of him
watching us shower, of his assault and abuse of me, days that I
have relived countless times since with the very real, almost
debilitating, flood of emotions from utter helplessness to acute
terror, and then seesawing to sheer rage," one of the men said in a
statement, read by his wife on Zoom call.
He shared that in his life he has made poor choices as he tried to
mask the pain of these events, writing, "I live with untold
invisible scars from voyeurism, sexual violation and the physical
assault I suffered at the hands of my gym teacher and coach. I
tried to bury it but it changed the course of my life and it has
had a subluminal influence on me from that day forward."
Another man, identified as John Doe 1011, said that, even after all
these years, he finds it difficult to talk about what happened to
him.
"He assaulted me by putting Bengay in my underwear. When I went
into his office to tell him about the burning sensation I was
having, he then took me to a remote janitor's closet on the other
side of the building, separated from the locker room, where he
sexually molested me," the man shared. "He was my gym teacher at
the time. When this abuse occurred, I felt alone. I was afraid. I
told very few people. I was a shy, awkward kid like many of us are
at that age."
The man said when he got home from school that day he was ready to
tell his parents what had happened, but he alleges the teacher had
already preemptively called them and told them a concocted story
about discussing personal hygiene with him after gym class that
day.
"They believed his ruse at the time," the man said of his parents
reaction, adding that he wonders if there's more he should have
done back then to bring his story to light.
Durso and his co-counsel Michael Heineman say sexual abuse in
schools is a major problem, noting it has been for many years.
"Sexual abuse in education is the clergy abuse crisis of this
decade," Durso added. "It is clearly the area in which most of the
institutional sex abuse is occurring in the United States and in
[Massachusetts]." [GN]
PENNSYLVANIA CVS: Naglak Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE NAGLAK, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA CVS PHARMACY, L.L.C.,
individually and d/b/a CVS/Pharmacy, Defendant, Case No. 220801640
(Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 15, 2022) is a class action
arising from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals all wages owed, whether minimum wages or
overtime wages, and for unpaid post-shift bag checks, in violation
of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff, Michele Naglak, is an adult individual, citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a former employee of CVS out of
its Danville and Miffleburg stores.
PENNSYLVANIA CVS PHARMACY, L.L.C. is a community/retail
pharmacy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Breen, Esq.
Craig Ackermann, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
- and -
Steven Arenson, Esq.
ARENSON DITTMAR & KARBAN
200 Park Avenue Suite 1700
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 490-3600
Facsimile: (212) 682-0278
E-mail: steve@adklawfirm.com
PIVOTAL RETAIL: Fails to Pay Installers Proper Wages, Ward Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYKIESHA WARD and JARVIS STEWART, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PIVOTAL RETAIL
GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03182-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug.
11, 2022) is a class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act seeking declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including a reasonable
attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs
and other hourly employees proper minimum and overtime wages within
the applicable statutory limitations period.
Plaintiffs Ward and Stewart worked for the Defendant as hourly
traveling merchandise installers from November 2021 until April
2022 and from November 2021 until May 2022, respectively.
Pivotal Retail Group, LLC is a retail company offering project
management and merchandising services based in Marietta,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK
& BENJAMIN
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3150
E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
- and -
Joanie Harp, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: joanie@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PROFESSIONAL DEBT: Dunn Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Debt
Mediation Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ryan Dunn,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Professional Debt Mediation Inc., Mehrnaz Asghari doing business
as: Lenox Corner Apartments, Case No. 1:22-cv-00160-AW-HTC (N.D.
Fla., July 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Professional Debt Mediation Inc. -- http://www.pdminc.net/-- are a
nationwide collection agency specializing in the multi-family
industry as well as medical and utilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max Story, Esq.
328 2nd Avenue North
Jacksonville, FL 32250
Phone: (904) 372-4109
Email: max@storylawgroup.com
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Martinez Files Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Finance
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Martinez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Finance
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01689-NRN (D. Colo., July 7,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
Professional Finance Company (PFC) -- https://www.pfcusa.com/ -- is
one of the nation's leading accounts receivable management
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Michael Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (847) 208-4585
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: McGarrigle Files Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Finance
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Ryan McGarrigle, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Professional Finance
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01808-SKC (D. Colo., July 21,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Professional Finance Company (PFC) -- https://www.pfcusa.com/ -- is
one of the nation's leading accounts receivable management
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh Nicole Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: jdennett@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Wheat Files Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Finance
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Wheat, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Finance
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01723-NRN (D. Colo., July 12,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. -- https://www.pfcusa.com/ -- is
a financial institution in Greeley, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Fax: (513) 721-1178
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA M. PARMENTER is challenging a court ruling dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Barbara M. Parmenter, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America, Tufts University and Does 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-10079, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 27, 2022, the
lawsuit seeks to recover all losses to plan profits, equitable or
remedial relief and redress for breaches of fiduciary duties and
prohibited transactions under Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Tufts University was Parmenter's employer at the time she enrolled
in the group long-term care insurance plan insured by Prudential.
Prudential sold group long term insurance plans nationwide
allegedly representing that premium rates could only be increased
if approved by the state of issuance's "Commissioner of Insurance"
despite the fact that the Commissioner of Insurance has no rate
approval authority over group long term care insurance rates.
On May 12, 2022, Tufts University filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On May 27, 2022, Prudential Insurance Company also filed a motion
for dismiss for failure to state a claim.
On July 12, 2022, Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order
granting Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's first
amended complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as Parmenter v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America, et al., Case No. 22-1614, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Aug.
10, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BARBARA M. PARMENTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
184 High St
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
- and -
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
184 High St
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
- and -
Ex Kano Shirden Sams, II, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park E Ste 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Defendants-Appellees PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and
TUFTS UNIVERSITY are represented by:
Amanda S. Amert, Esq.
Erica Christine Spilde, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
300 N LaSalle Dr 50th Flr
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 728-9010
- and -
Jonathan Isaac Handler, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP
1 Federal St 29th Flr
Boston, MA 02110-0000
Telephone: (617) 345-4600
- and -
Thomas C. Blatchley, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
21 Custom House St 5th Flr
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (860) 494-7525
QFS TRANSPORTATION: Hundal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QFS Transportation
LC, et al. The case is styled as Amritpal Hundal, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. QFS
Transportation LC, MMG Group d/b/a Greatwide Truck Load Management,
Contractor Management Services LLC d/b/a Openforce, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2022-0005694 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 8,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
QFS Transportation -- https://www.qfstransportation.com/ -- is one
of the best intermodal trucking companies offering intermodal
trucking services throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
Phone: 818-703-8985
Fax: 818-703-8984
Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quantumscape Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that a motion to dismiss
consolidated class action lawsuit against the company was denied by
the court.
Between January 5, 2021 and May 4, 2021, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California by purported purchasers of Company
securities.
The court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff
and counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on June
21, 2021, which alleges a purported class that includes all persons
who purchased or acquired its securities between November 27, 2020
and April 14, 2021.
The consolidated complaint names the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its Chief Technology
Officer as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants purportedly made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects, including information
regarding the company's battery technology.
On January 14, 2022, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was substantially denied and the case continues.
Quantumscape Corporation is a developing next-generation battery
technology based in California.
RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS US,
LLC dba RANDSTAD LIFE SCIENCES, a Delaware limited liability
company; PERKINELMER GENETICS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation;
PERKINELMER, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; PERKINELMER HEALTH
SCIENCES, INC., a Delaware corporation; PERKINELMER INFORMATICS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV21991, was removed from the Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 12, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05744 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action in her complaint
against Defendant including: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to authorize and
permit rest breaks; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to
timely pay wages upon separation of employment; (6) failure to
timely pay wages during employment; (7) failure to provide accurate
wage statements; (8) failure to reimburse necessary business
expenses; and (9) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
Randstad Professionals US, LLC provides employment services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dwhang@seyfartli.com
- and -
Brian P. Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
RB HEALTH: Robles Files Mislabeling Suit Over Honey Lemon Lozenges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Robles, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB Health (US) LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04743-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022) seeks to
challenge Defendant's false and deceptive practices in the
marketing and sale of its Cepacol Extra Strength Sore Throat Honey
Lemon Lozenges in violation of the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the front label of the product - which
is a cough drop meant to soothe the throat - leads reasonable
consumers to believe the product contains honey and lemon.
Specifically, the words "Honey Lemon" appear on the product's front
label without any qualification, as well as an image of a honey
dipper with honey oozing down from the dipper, alongside a cut
lemon wedge. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the product does
not contain honey or lemon, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the product and paid a
premium price based upon their reliance on Defendant's front label
representations about honey and lemon. Had Plaintiff and other
consumers been aware that the product does not contain honey or
lemon, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid
significantly less for it. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members
have been injured by Defendant's deceptive business practices, the
suit alleges.
RB Health (US) LLC manufactures, markets, labels, advertises, and
sells personal care, nutritional, and medicinal products with
principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
REAL ESTATE SKILLS: Ingram Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
---------------------------------------------------------
Warren Ingram, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Real Estate Skills, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 22CV4000203 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., July 11, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to the
Defendants website.
These wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the
Defendant's website, are used by the Defendant to secretly observe,
monitor, and record website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and
other electronic communications. By doing so the defendant is
violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act entitling the
Plaintiff and class members to relief.
The Defendant utilizes a real-time software the website in an
attempt to comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
documenting evidence of consent to receive telemarketing calls. The
recording of these electronic communications begins as soon as a
user interacts with the Defendant's website.
On July 15, 2021, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website.
During that visit the Defendant's website began to record
electronic communications made by the Plaintiff. Nowhere on the
Defendant's website does the Defendant disclose that it employs
such wiretaps. To be sure, the Defendant's privacy policy makes no
mention of this type of wiretapping.
Once a visitor accesses the Defendant's website, the wiretap is
deployed. As such, even if the Defendant did disclose its wiretaps,
visitors of the site would be unable to discover such disclosure
until after their electronic communications we're wiretapped. The
Plaintiff and class members did not consent to being wiretap on the
Defendant's website, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of
California.
The Defendant is a limited liability company withs it principal
place of business and state of incorporation in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
RUBY HOLLOW: McGowan Alleges Joint Venture Funds' Misappropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MCGOWAN, ROBERT W. BRUDERMAN, THE JOHN W. TEMPLE REVOCABLE
TRUST, and THE MORRISON FAMILY TRUST, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEOFF STANLEY, DOUGLAS
MEADOW, RUBY HOLLOW LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 though 10, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06971 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, engaging in a
pattern of mail and wire fraud, and for carrying out a scheme to
defraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In June 2018, the Defendants contracted to acquire: (a) for
$2,500,000 an 83.5% interest in the stock, and (b) for $2,000,000
secured and unsecured debt in the principal amount of $3,552,475,
of Chief Consolidated Mining Company, a publicly owned but
non-reporting Arizona corporation engaged in mining in Utah. The
total combined purchase price was $4,500.000.
According to the complaint, the Defendants claimed to have
successfully completed the acquisition, paying the total combined
purchase price of $4,500,000 to the seller, LeadFX Inc., a Canadian
corporation, where in fact, the Defendants, through a series of
financial manipulations, ultimately paid only a small fraction of
this amount, or perhaps nothing, for their purported interest.
Instead, the Defendants misappropriated the entire, or nearly the
entire, purchase price from Chief itself, to the detriment of the
"minority" shareholders, the more than one thousand other
shareholders who did pay for their interests. The monies and assets
of Chief appropriated by the Defendants were not taken from Chief
for any valid corporate purpose, but rather for the personal
enrichment of the Defendants and to pay the Defendants own
obligations, says the suit.
For such time as the Defendants acted in a fiduciary capacity as
Chief officers and directors, the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duty to the other Chief shareholders, including
Plaintiffs. The acquisition by the Defendants of the stock and debt
of Chief, a deregistered publicly held company, was done as part of
a scheme to defraud, the suit asserts.
Ruby Hollow LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a
principal place of business in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
A. M. Richardson, III, Esq.
SOLOMON BLUM HEYMANN LLP
40 Wall Street, 35th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 267-7600
E-mail: arichardson@solblum.com
SANTA CRUZ: Garrett Suit Alleges WARN Act Breach Over Mass Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Garrett, an individual on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Santa Cruz Valley Regional
Hospital, LLC d/b/a Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital, a Delaware
registered limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00358-JR (D. Ariz., Aug. 11, 2022) seeks to recover from
Defendant 60 days' wages and benefits, pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the unpaid wages
they were promised under the Arizona Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a registered nurse for Defendant at its
facility located in Green Valley, Arizona until her termination on
July 22, 2022.
According to the complaint, on July 22, 2022, the Defendant ordered
a mass layoff and/or plant closing at the facility. The mass layoff
or plant closing at the facility resulted in an "employment loss,"
as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. Section 2101(a)(2) for at
least 50 of Defendant's employees as well as 33% of Defendant's
workforce at the facility.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and each of the
Class Members their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,
accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following
their respective terminations, and failed to make the pension and
401(k) contributions and provide employee benefits under COBRA for
60 days from and after the dates of their respective terminations,
says the suit.
Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Santa Cruz Valley
Regional Hospital, was a full-service acute care facility that
provided medical and healthcare services in Green Valley,
Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kasey C. Nye, Esq.
WATERFALL ECONOMIDIS CALDWELL HANSHAW
& VILLAMANA, P.C.
5210 E. Williams Circle, Suite 800
Tucson, AZ 85711
Telephone: (520) 790-5828
Facsimile: (520) 745-1279
E-mail: knye@waterfallattorneys.com
- and -
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
SEADRILL AMERICAS: Scarvaglieri Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GIUSEPPE SCARVAGLIERI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEADRILL AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-02688 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 10, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 and the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Mr. Scarvaglieri was employed by the Defendant as a dynamic
positioning operator from December 10, 2014, to August 4, 2020.
According to the complaint, Seadrill violated GINA by (1)
discriminating against its employees, including Scarvaglieri, based
on genetic information; (2) requesting, requiring and/or purchasing
its employees' genetic information, including Scarvaglieri's
genetic information; (3) disclosing its employees' genetic
information; and (4) retaliating against its employees, including
Scarvaglieri, based on GINA-protected activity.
Seadrill also violated the ADA by (1) requiring its employees,
including Scarvaglieri, to submit to medical examinations and by
making disability-related inquiries (for example, asking about an
employees' genetic information) that were neither job-related nor
consistent with business necessity and (2) retaliating against its
employees, including Scarvaglieri, based on ADA-protected activity,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and/or former employees, seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, back pay (including interest on back pay), front
pay and attorney's fees under GINA and the ADA.
Seadrill is an oilfield services company that provides, among other
things, offshore drilling services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street | Suite 1110
Houston, TX 77002-1055
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
SHOWS CALI: Calogero Appeals Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iris Calogero, et al., are taking an appeal from a court ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in the lawsuit
entitled IRIS CALOGERO, v. SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP, et al.,
SECTION M(3), Case No. 2:18-CV-6709, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.
The case, filed on July 16, 2018, arises from alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act stemming from the
Defendants' attempt to collect repayment of grant funds the
Plaintiffs received from the Louisiana Road Home program following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In the ensuing years, the Louisiana Office of Community Development
discovered numerous errors in the distribution of the grants:
thousands of recipients had received overpayments. For example,
during the grant application process, the Plaintiffs allegedly
failed to report payments received from their insurers and FEMA and
so, because the monies were not deducted in calculating their
grants, the grants received were greater than they should have
been. Accordingly, the state hired the Defendants to assist with
efforts to recover the amount of unreported funds that resulted in
grant overpayments.
On Aug. 3, 2017, the Defendants sent Randolph a collection letter
seeking to recover $2,500 in allegedly overpaid grant funds. On
Feb. 9, 2018, the Defendants sent a similar letter to Calogero
seeking to recover $4,598.89. Both letters charged the Plaintiffs
with breach of their Road Home grant obligations.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' efforts to seek
repayment of the grant funds violated multiple provisions of the
FDCPA, specifically, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1962f, because
the Defendants: (1) misrepresented the amount, character, and
nature of the debt by failing to itemize the debts; (2) improperly
attempted to collect a time-barred debt; (3) improperly attempted
to collect attorney's fees; and (4) improperly required persons to
sign a promissory note.
On December 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class.
On February 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to their first claim for relief regarding
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by failing to itemize alleged
debts.
On February 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to their second claim for relief regarding
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by threatening to take legal
action on time-barred debts.
On January 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to their third claim for relief regarding
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by threatening to assess
attorney's fees.
On February 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment as to their fourth claim for relief regarding
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by inducing debtors to make
payment or take other action to revive time-barred debts.
On March 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike
references and other unsubstantiated allegations in Defendants'
memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 22, 2022, Judge
Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons:
a. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
as to their first claim for relief regarding the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by failing to itemize alleged debts;
b. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
as to their second claim for relief regarding the
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by threatening to take
legal action on time-barred debts;
c. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
as to their third claim for relief regarding the
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by threatening to assess
attorney's fees;
d. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
as to their fourth claim for relief regarding the
Defendants' violation of the FDCPA by inducing debtors to
make payment or take other action to revive time-barred
debts;
e. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to strike references
to Exhibit 1 and other unsubstantiated allegations in the
Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion for
summary judgment;
f. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
g. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
The appellate case is captioned as Calogero v. Shows, Cali & Walsh,
Case No. 22-30487, in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on Aug. 10, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Iris Calogero, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented
by:
Jennifer C. Deasy, Esq.
1100 Poydras Street
Energy Centre
New Orleans, LA 70163
- and -
Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
GESUND & PAILET, L.L.C.
3421 N. Causeway Boulevard
Metairie, LA 70002
- and -
Margaret E. Woodward, Esq.
1229 N. Tonti Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Defendants-Appellees Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., a Louisiana
limited liability partnership, et al., are represented by:
David Scranton Daly, Esq.
FRILOT, L.L.C.
1100 Poydras Street, Energy Centre
New Orleans, LA 70163-3600
Telephone: (504) 599-8329
SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Helly Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Crichlow Helly, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH, INC., Case No.
CACE-22-008252 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on July 8, 2022, and assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-61270-WPD.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendant sent telephonic sales
calls to the Plaintiff and putative class members in purported
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon T. White, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 374-8500
Facsimile: (305) 789-7799
Email: brandon.white@hklaw.com
SOLANA LABS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 6
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of SOL tokens ("SOL securities") between March 24, 2020
and the present, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important
September 6, 202 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action lawsuit against Solana Labs, Inc., the Solana Foundation,
Anatoly Yakovenko, Multicoin Capital Management LLC, Kyle Samani,
and FalconX LLC (together, "Defendants").
SO WHAT: If you purchased SOL securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SOL class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7539 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Solana issues
securities that are required to be, but are not, registered with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Throughout the Class
Period, defendants promoted SOL securities (SOL tokens) and sold
them to investors, who has suffered losses from purchasing SOL
securities.
To join the SOL class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7539 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
SPROUT MORTGAGE: Sawyer Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Sawyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and all aggrieved employees v. SPROUT MORTGAGE, LLC,
RECOVCO MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT LLC, MICHAEL STRAUSS, SHEA PALLANTE,
and DOES 1 through 25, Case No. 30-2022-01271017-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty., July 20, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and to
recover from the Defendants all remedies available under California
law, including damages, wages, penalties, restitution, injunctive
and declaratory relief, costs, and attorney fees.
The Plaintiffs and other California employees were subject to the
Defendants' common employment policies and practices during their
employment, including timekeeping practices, wage calculation and
payment practices, wage statement practices, commission calculation
and payment practices, termination-related practices, and written
agreement and waiver practices.
The Defendants' violations of California law include, but are not
limited to: failure to pay minimum, overtime, premium, and
commission wages; willful failure to timely pay final wages upon
termination; failure to pay waiting time penalties; knowing and
intentional failure to provide timely, accurate, and complete wage
statements; failure to provide proper notice in connection with
mass layoffs; failure to give fully signed copies of written
commission plans and obtain fully signed receipts; and imposing
unlawful written terms and conditions of employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in California from October 2021
until July 2022 and was assigned to Defendants' Irvine office.
Sprout Mortgage, LLC is a company doing business in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
SODERSTROM LAW PC
1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 667-4700
Fax: (949) 424-8091
Email: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com
- and -
Shirin Forootan, Esq.
FOROOTAN LAW
3334 East Coast Highway, No. 307
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Phone: (949) 610-9878
Email: shirin@forootanlaw.com
STARBUCKS CORP: Spencer Files Suit Over Non-refundable Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01123 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 11, 2022) seeks redress for the
Defendant's practice of misrepresenting the value of reloadable
gift cards in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws
Annotated.
According to the complaint, the Defendant provides reloadable gift
cards intended for use in Defendant's coffee shops. The gift cards
state that they "Cannot be redeemed for cash unless required by
law." However, Defendant does not reveal that despite this
affirmation, Defendant's policy is that the gift cards are
completely non-refundable and in fact have no mechanism in
Massachusetts to refund the value of the gift cards even in
situations where state law requires it. The remaining balances are,
thus, unavailable to gift card users and function as a hidden fee
that is not disclosed to users. When gift card holders attempt to
redeem their gift card balances for cash, they are confronted with
the fact that Defendant has no method which allows holders to
redeem the gift card balances, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a gift card holder who asserts claims on behalf of
himself and similarly situated gift card holders for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
Starbucks Coffee Company operates coffee shops throughout
Massachusetts, and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 837-4717
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
STYLEWORKS DESIGN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STYLEWORKS DESIGN GROUP, INC., and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04720-TSH (N.D. Cal., August 17,
2022) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff claims that he received a text message from the
Defendants on his cellular telephone number ending in -6991 on May
5, 2021. Based on the content and format of the text message the
Plaintiff received, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS) and/or an SMS Blasting platform, which are
man-made humanly contrived programs that allow companies to blast
out such messages via non-spontaneous methods. Unfortunately, using
an ATDS is prohibited by 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (b)(1)(A). Since the
Plaintiff was never a customer of the Defendant and never provided
his cellular telephone number to the Defendant for any reason
whatsoever, he also claims that the Defendant did not obtain his
prior express written consent to be contacted on his cellular phone
using an ATDS.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unsolicited text messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed
by causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or
reduce cellular telephone time for which they previously paid, and
by invading their privacy. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive
relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful conduct in the future,
as well as statutory damages for each and every violation, and any
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Styleworks Design Group, Inc. is a multi-brand DTC e-commerce
company, that sells consumer products across multiple digital
channels and platforms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
- and –
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel: (855) 976-9228
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
SUNWISE ENERGY: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunwise Energy LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sunwise Energy LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-02824-MSG (E.D. Pa., July 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
SunWise Energy -- https://sunwiseusa.com/ -- offers the most
competitive pricing for solar arrays, special offers, and
nationwide leading financing partners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy C Jackson, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
SUPER 8 BY WYNDAM: Revels Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Marie Revels and Cherie Revels, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated as class representative under
Illinois Law and/or as members of the collective as permitted under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiffs v. Super 8 by Wyndam and
AMMA Motel Inc., and M & M Motel, Inc., and Kalpesh S. Patel and
Vidyut Patel, as an individual under the FLSA and Illinois Wage
Laws, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-50284 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 16, 2022)
is a class action brought against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act to recover unpaid wages
for overtime pay and/or minimum wage pay due to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals.
Plaintiffs Felicia Marie Revels and Cherie Revels were former
employees of the Defendants.
Super 8 by Wyndam operates motels in Rockford, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Weaver Securities Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACK WEAVER, derivatively on behalf of TACTILE
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff v. BRENT MOEN, WILLIAM BURKE,
PETER SODERBERG, RAYMOND O. HUGGENBERGER, RICHARD NIGON, KEVIN H.
ROCHE, LYNN BLAKE, GERALD R. MATTYS, ROBERT FOLKES, and BRYAN F.
RISHE, Defendants, and TACTILE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-01403, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware on Aug. 12, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-01063 to the proceeding.
This class suit is a shareholder derivative action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a), 29(b), 21(d), 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, during May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020
(the Class Period), the Defendants made false and misleading proxy
statements soliciting shareholder votes for their election as
directors which earned them excessive compensation. The Defendants
also made and/or signed materially false and misleading statements
to investors including in reports on Forms 10-Qs and 10-Ks filed
during the Class Period that exposed Tactile to liability and
inflated Tactile's stock price thus allowing insiders to enjoy
illegal insider trading profits.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. is a medical technology company
focused on developing medical devices for the treatment of chronic
diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
- and -
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
- and -
Fletcher Moore, Esq.
Justin Kuehn, Esq.
MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 709-8245
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Faces Mitcham Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------
Talis Biomedical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that a consolidated
class action lawsuit was filed against the company and its officers
in July 2022.
On February 18, 2022, Karen Mitcham filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc.,
Piper Sandler & Co., and BTIG, LLC, underwriters of its February
2021 initial public offering (IPO), captioned as "Mitcham v. Talis
Biomedical Corp., et al.", No. 3:22-cv-01039-JD, against the
company and its officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that its registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with its IPO was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts related to
the comparator assay used in its primary study, its emergency use
application for its Talis One COVID-19 Test System, and associated
regulatory approval and commercialization. The complaints seek
unspecified damages under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and reasonable attorneys' and expert
witnesses' fees and other costs.
Said cases has been consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs have been
appointed as mandated by the applicable federal securities laws. On
July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.
The consolidated complaint does not assert claims against the
above-referenced underwriters. In addition to the claims previously
alleged, the consolidated complaint sets forth a second set of
claims against us and certain of its current and former officers
based on public statements made after the IPO under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and covers stock
acquisitions made between March 30, 2021 and March 15, 2022. The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs.
Talis Biomedical Corporation is a molecular diagnostic company
based in California.
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Faces Modrak Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Talis Biomedical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that a consolidated
class action lawsuit was filed against the company and its officers
in July 2022.
On or about January 7, 2022, John Modrak filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc.,
Piper Sandler & Co., and BTIG, LLC, underwriters of its February
2021 initial public offering (IPO), captioned as "Modrak v. Talis
Biomedical Corp., et al.", No. 3:22-cv-00105, purportedly on behalf
of shareholders who purchased shares of our stock that were
registered in its initial public offering (IPO).
The complaint alleges that its registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with its IPO was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts related to
the comparator assay used in its primary study, its emergency use
application for its Talis One COVID-19 Test System, and associated
regulatory approval and commercialization. The complaints seek
unspecified damages under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and reasonable attorneys' and expert
witnesses' fees and other costs.
Said cases has been consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs have been
appointed as mandated by the applicable federal securities laws. On
July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.
The consolidated complaint does not assert claims against the
above-referenced underwriters. In addition to the claims previously
alleged, the consolidated complaint sets forth a second set of
claims against us and certain of its current and former officers
based on public statements made after the IPO under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and covers stock
acquisitions made between March 30, 2021 and March 15, 2022. The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs.
Talis Biomedical Corporation is a molecular diagnostic company
based in California.
TAX ADVOCATE: Faces Connor Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Connor, Plaintiff v. Tax Advocate Group, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2022CP1003673 (S.C. Com. Pl., Aug. 11, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act.
Mr. Connor alleges that Tax Advocate Group, LLC sent his cellular
telephone and those of other individuals pre-recorded calls.
Because these calls were transmitted using technology capable of
generating thousands of similar calls per day, Planitff sues on
behalf of a proposed class of other persons who received similar
calls.
The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction, which the SC Telephone
Privacy Protection Act explicitly permits, preventing the Defendant
from calling a South Carolina number on the National Do Not Call
Registry and requiring that they identify themselves at the outset
of the call.
Tax Advocate Group, LLC is a tax consultant based in Studio City,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
P.O. Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 509-6800
Facsimile: (855) 299-1656
E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY: Appeal Pending in Contract Breach Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that in the
class action lawsuit filed by an LPC customer against TVA in
Virginia court, an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs to the Court
of Appeals and an oral argument was held in January 2022.
On June 9, 2020, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed against
TVA and one of its LPCs, Bristol Virginia Utilities Authority
(BVUA), in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, by a LPC customer, asserting claims for
breach of contract and violation of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
The lawsuit alleges that the customers of TVA's local power company
customers are third-party beneficiaries under TVA's wholesale power
contracts with its LPCs and that TVA's rate changes dating back to
2010 violate Section 11 of the TVA Act. Section 11 of the TVA Act
establishes the broad policy that TVA power projects shall be
considered primarily for the benefit of the people of the Tennessee
Valley and that service to industry is a secondary purpose to be
used principally to secure a sufficiently high load factor and
revenue returns to permit domestic and rural use at the lowest
possible rates.
The remedies requested include an injunction prohibiting TVA rate
changes that violate Section 11, monetary damages, and repayment of
rates charged in violation of Section 11. TVA and BVUA filed
motions to dismiss the case on November 9, 2020, and filed
supplemental motions to dismiss on December 21, 2020, in response
to an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff.
Oral argument on the motions was held on February 18, 2021, and on
March 19, 2021, the court granted TVA's and BVUA's motions to
dismiss. The plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on April 15, 2021.
The parties filed their briefs with the Fourth Circuit, and oral
argument was held on January 27, 2022.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a corporate agency and
instrumentality based in Tennessee.
TEXAS: Dismissal Bid Over 1st Amendment Mandatory Bar Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
velaw.com reports that on August 30, 2021, three attorneys brought
a proposed class action suit against the State Bar, claiming the
Bar should reimburse members up to $60 million in dues following
the Fifth Circuit ruling in McDonald v. Longley (the bar challenge
suit) that enjoined it from collecting certain dues on
constitutional grounds. In that appeal, the Fifth Circuit panel
rejected Plaintiffs' challenges to the constitutionality of the
mandatory Bar and to the vast majority of the Bar's activities,
including diversity initiatives, CLE and annual meeting
programming, and access to justice initiatives. The panel found
that only a portion of the Bar's and the Access to Justice
Commission's legislative activities were non-germane to the goals
of regulating the profession and improving the quality of legal
services. The panel further found that the Bar's procedures for
lodging objections to Bar expenditures were inadequate. In light of
the Panel's decision, the State Bar adopted certain new policies
and the Texas Supreme Court amended certain State Bar Rules before
the McDonald court entered final judgment on remand from the Fifth
Circuit.
In the follow-on case, we argued that, as a government agency, the
Bar qualifies for sovereign immunity. The Court had no subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims.
The V&E team was led by Tom Leatherbury and Pat Mizell and included
former counsel Josh Johnson and former associate Morgan Kelley.
Brooke Noble and Ryan Sun recently joined the team representing the
State Bar of Texas.
About Vinson & Elkins
For more than a century, Vinson & Elkins has provided outstanding
client service across important industries that drive the global
economy. Built on a strong culture of collaboration across 12
offices worldwide, V&E lawyers are committed to excellence,
offering clients decades of legal experience in handling
transactions, investments, projects and disputes across the globe.
Learn more by visiting www.velaw.com or follow us on Twitter
@VinsonandElkins or connect with us on LinkedIn. [GN]
TIFFANY & BOSCO: Thomas Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Milton Clive Thomas, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Tiffany & Bosco P.A., Case No.
CACE-22-007936 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
July 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-61281-RKA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Tiffany & Bosco PA -- https://www.tblaw.com/ -- is a law firm in
Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
2150 South Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 523-4357
Fax: (954) 581-2786
Email: matis@fight13.com
- and -
Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS
3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
Phone: (954) 523-4357
Email: matthew@fight13.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alyssa Nicole Weiss, Esq.
One East Broward Boulevard, Ste. 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 356-2509
Email: aweiss@mcglinchey.com
- and -
Joseph Andrew Apatov, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
1 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 356-2501
Fax: (954) 252-3808
Email: japatov@mcglinchey.com
- and -
Shaun Kevin Ramey, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC
424 Church Street, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 259-1024
Fax: (615) 259-1470
Email: sramey@mcglinchey.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: RAV4 Class Action Filed Over Adaptive Headlights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Toyota RAV4 class action lawsuit says the SUVs were marketed with
optional adaptive headlights, but the RAV4s aren't equipped with
those headlights even for customers who choose and want the
option.
The class action lawsuit alleges the Monroney stickers, or window
labels, say the RAV4 SUVs are equipped with, "Adaptive Front
Headlight System - LED Projector Headlights w/ Auto Level Control &
Auto On/Off Feature."
The RAV4 class action alleges these vehicles are missing the
adaptive headlights.
2022 Toyota RAV4 Prime
2022 Toyota RAV4 SE Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 XSE
2022 Toyota RAV4 XSE Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE Premium
2022 Toyota RAV4 XLE Premium Hybrid
2022 Toyota RAV4 Adventure
2022 Toyota RAV4 TRD Off-Road
2022 Toyota RAV4 Limited
2022 Toyota RAV4 Limited Hybrid
Adaptive headlights help drivers see better at night as sensors
cause the headlights to automatically adjust the angle of the
lighting when the driver turns the steering wheel.
"The auto level feature of the Adaptive Headlights automatically
adjusts the vertical angle of the beam in response to sensors that
detect changes in ride height caused by changes in the number of
passengers or luggage volume." -- Toyota RAV4 class action lawsuit
California plaintiff Sharlene Shu purchased a 2022 Toyota RAV4
Prime XSE AWD SUV in January 2022. The lawsuit says the RAV4 she
purchased had a window sticker that said the RAV4 had "optional"
equipment, including adaptive headlights.
The plaintiff claims Toyota waited eight months to tell her the
RAV4 was not equipped with adaptive headlights but no refund or
repair would occur.
The class action lawsuit alleges Toyota's advertisements are false
and misleading and meant to cause consumers to overpay for the RAV4
SUVs.
The Toyota RAV4 class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California: Sharlene Shu, v.
Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Gutride Safier LLP. [GN]
TRAEGER PELLET: Allowed to Leave to File Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
NORMAN L. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the Hon.
Judge Bruce S. Jenkins entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion for leave to file overlength opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
Traeger Pellet retails cooking equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pA2ZkM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julianne P. Blanch, Esq.
Juliette P. White, Esq.
PARSONS BERLE & LATIMER
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2218
Telephone: (801) 532-1234
Facsimile: (801) 536-6111
E-mail: JBlanch@parsonsbehle.com
JWhite@parsonsbehle.com
- and -
James F. Speyer, Esq.
E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
Telephone: (213) 243-4000
Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
E-mail: james.speyer@amoldporter.com
alex.beroukhim@amoldporter.com
TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Tio Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
--------------------------------------------------------
Irwande Tio, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Transdev Alternative Service
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 22CV400827 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., July 19,
2022), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
Plaintiff regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal
and/or rest breaks in violation on California law
The Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed
to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks. The Plaintiff worked over 8 hours in a day and
40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants.
The Defendants engage in a pattern and practice of wage abuse
against their hourly paid or non-exempt employees in the state of
California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing
to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for
missed meal and/or rest breaks in violation on California law. The
Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff were
entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and
that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all
overtime hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from February 2021 to October 2021.
The Defendants were employers engaged throughout the State of
California, including the County of Santa Clara.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
TRUGREEN INC: Adam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trugreen, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Loera Adam, Diaz Miguel, Rick Zurlo,
Sudipa Bista, individually, on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v.
Trugreen, Inc., Trugreen Limited Partnership, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2022-0005745 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July
11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
TruGreen -- https://www.trugreen.com/ -- provides households and
businesses with green and healthy lawns and landscapes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
TUYA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 11
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Tuya, Inc. ("Tuya" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TUYA) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Tuya American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to the Company's March
2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tuya.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
The Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Registration Statement.
The defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts that
existed at the time of the IPO: (1) a material portion of Tuya's
China-based customers were engaged in the widespread and systematic
manipulation of reviews and product offerings in violation of
Amazon.com's terms of use; (2) prior to the IPO, a consumer
investigation and data breach had exposed an illicit fake review
scheme being perpetrated by many of Tuya's clients, among others,
which included, among other things, the exposure of 13 million
records of organized fake review scams linked to over 200,000
Amazon account profiles; (3) as a result, there was a substantial
risk that a material portion of Tuya's significant customers would
be barred from using Amazon.com's platform, negatively impacting
Tuya's business, revenue, earnings, and prospects; and (4) as such,
the Registration Statement's representations regarding Tuya's
historical financial and operational metrics and purported market
opportunities and expected growth did not accurately reflect the
actual business, operations, financial results, and trajectory of
the Company at the time of the IPO.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tuya or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his law clerk and client relations manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Tuya you have until October 11, 2022, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
TWITTER INC: Fights Class Action, Says Ads Can't Be Used as Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that the woman suing Twitter
over the sale of her information should have known that it would
happen, the company is claiming.
Twitter took aim on Aug. 15 at Lauren Price's class action lawsuit,
filing a motion to dismiss that says she knew what she was signing
up for when she submitted her contact information.
"Her only allegation is that Twitter provided ads by matching
contact information that she voluntarily provided to Twitter with
the same contact information that third-party advertisers were
already using for marketing purposes," the motion says. ". . .
Twitter expressly disclosed in its Privacy Policy that contact
information would be used for both security and for advertising."
The lawsuit, filed May 31 in California federal court, came nine
days after Twitter reached a settlement of allegations it peddled
phone numbers and email addresses to advertisers with the Federal
Trade Commission worth $150 million. Price is represented by Morgan
& Morgan Complex Litigation Group.
Though the phone numbers and email addresses were collected "under
the guise" they would be used for security-related reasons, Twitter
instead used them to allow advertisers to target specific groups of
users, the suit says.
"Twitter's relationship with its users is governed by the Twitter
Terms of Service and the Twitter Privacy Policy," the suit says.
"The Twitter Privacy Policy repeatedly promises Plaintiff and Class
members that Twitter respects their information and discloses such
information only with users' consent."
Twitter, though, says it was a mistake that it voluntarily
corrected, and the FTC waited more than two years to file its
lawsuit. It says the new class action largely mirrors the FTC
suit.
However, Twitter argues, Price can't point to an actual injury that
would give her standing to pursue the lawsuit.
"The only concrete result of that alleged conduct is that Plaintiff
may have viewed more relevant advertisements (if she did not opt
out of interest-based advertising), because she had also provided
her contact information to a third-party advertiser for advertising
purposes," the motion says.
"Plaintiff does not even try to suggest that receiving an
interest-based ad from Twitter is itself an injury. Indeed,
Plaintiff fails to allege that any interest-based ad she received
is traceable to information she provided Twitter only through a
security feature, rather than through the account creation process
or at another time."[GN]
TZUMI INNOVATIONS: Proskin Sues Over Deceptively Advertised Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Proskin, on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated
v. TZUMI INNOVATIONS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05919-JSR (S.D.N.Y.,
July 12, 2022), is brought on behalf of consumers harmed by the
Defendant's Wipe Out! Wipes, Wipe Out! Multi-Surface Wipes, and
Wipe Out! Multi-Surface Decontaminant Spray (collectively, the
"Products") predatorially marketed to low income consumers in the
height of an unprecedented pandemic and deceptively advertised as
safe and effective antibacterial products.
During the COVID-19 public health crisis, the Defendant engaged in
unfair and/or deceptive business practices by intentionally
deceiving consumers into thinking that its Products were approved
pesticide products that had been found by the EPA to be safe and
effective without submitting them to the EPA for registration.
Without submitting the Products for registration, a mandatory
process that allows the EPA to assess the safety and effectiveness
of the Products, Defendant sold pesticide products without
regulatory approval. Even worse, Defendant expressly stated that it
intended the Wipe Out! Wipes to be sold to "lower income level
customers". In short, the Defendant sold illegal pesticides to
Plaintiff and Class Members that were not safe and effective for
use as an antimicrobial agent on surfaces in homes.
The Defendant makes numerous false and misleading claims and
omissions on the labels of the Products that make the purchaser
believe they were safe and effective for use as an antimicrobial
agent on surfaces in homes. These false and misleading claims
include, but are not limited to, "Wipe Out Antibacterial Wipes",
"KILLS GERMS FAST", "Cleans and sanitizes", "KILLS 99.9% OF GERMS",
"Escherichia Coli (E. coli), Staphylococcus Aureus (Staph), Candida
Albicans", and "Use it Anytime, Anywhere." Those claims were made
without receiving EPA approval and render the Products illegal. The
Plaintiff and each of the Class Members accordingly suffered an
injury in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive,
and misleading practices set forth herein, and seek compensatory
damages and injunctive relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is domiciled in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Berkshire
County and purchased the Product from the Defendant.
The Defendant designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, and
sold the Products throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (630) 796-0903
Email: rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, Tennessee 37929
Phone: 865-247-0080
Email: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (308) 870-7804
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
Zoe T. Aaron, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (630) 796-0903
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
zaaron@milberg.com
- and -
Joel Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Email: jsmith@bursor.com
U.S. BANCORP: Fong Sues Over Refusal to Return Valuables
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter Fong, Sut Fong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. BANCORP, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-01291-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal., July 21,
2022), is brought to seek answers, to recover their and the
putative class members' property, as well as restitution, damages
as a result of the Defendants' shameful conduct and refusal to
return the Plaintiffs' valuables, and the fact that Defendants
engaged in the same conduct for countless of their other customers
with "safe deposit boxes" at the Defendants' California locations.
"Safe Deposit Boxes" are supposed to be safe. And in reliance on
the Defendants' representations that they provide "safe deposit
boxes," the Plaintiffs dutifully paid for a safe deposit box at a
USB branch in Sacramento for decades to store and keep safe
precious family heirlooms and other valuables that generations of
their family painstakingly acquired over decades of hard work.
But unbeknownst to them, USB embarked on a cost-cutting measure and
sought to "consolidate" the number of bank branches that still hold
"safe deposit boxes." Without warning to the Plaintiffs (and
countless others), US Bank "drilled" into the "safe deposit boxes"
without the Plaintiffs present, and left the items unsecured. When
the Plaintiffs were finally notified by the police of the Bank's
actions, the Plaintiffs raced to the Bank to find that their
valuables were gone; the envelopes and pouches that once held the
valuables, empty. The Plaintiffs pressed USB for their property and
for answers, and the Bank purportedly conducted an internal
investigation. But then the Bank clammed up, and told the
Plaintiffs to seek relief in court, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs Peter and Sut Fong are brothers and first generation
U.S. citizens.
U.S. Bancorp provides a full range of financial services, including
depository services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Toji Calabro, Esq.
CALABRO | LAW OFFICE
Two Pershing Square
2300 Main Street, 9th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (888) 585-1247
Email: tojicalabro@calabro-law.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Boston Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et
al., v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-06361-RS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.
The putative class action, filed on October 4, 2019, alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in relation to Uber's May
2019 initial public offering ("IPO"). The Court appointed Boston
Retirement Service as Lead Plaintiff in January 2020, pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). The
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and the court
denied that motion in August 2020. Boston Retirement Service
initially filed a motion for class certification, seeking
appointment as the sole lead plaintiff and class representative for
the proposed class, in September 2020.
On May 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs in the action filed their Second
Amended Complaint. The complaint included four of the named
"Messinger" plaintiffs as new proposed class representatives: David
Messinger, Ellie Marie Toronto ESA, Joseph Cianci, and Irving S.
and Judith Braun.
On October 29, 2021, Boston Retirement filed the motion for class
certification. It seeks certification of the following proposed
class: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Uber's publicly traded common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents for Uber's IPO, and who were
damaged thereby. BRS and four of the named plaintiffs added to the
Second Amended Complaint -- David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto, and
Irving S. and Judith Braun -- seek appointment as Class
Representatives.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 5, 2022, Judge
Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Judge Seeborg held that the Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements to
relate the New Plaintiffs' claims back to the original complaint,
and China Agritech has no bearing on the outcome of the motion. He
explained that at issue in this motion is the addition of new
plaintiffs to an existing class action, not the filing of a new
class action.
The Defendants are taking an appeal from this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Boston Retirement System, et al.
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-80076, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug.
10, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Agnes Dunogue, Esq.
Dennis Kitt, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6069
Telephone: (212) 848-4000
- and -
Daniel Laguardia, Esq.
Alexander Sanyshyn, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP
535 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 646-1100
- and -
Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP
787 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 728-8677
Plaintiffs-Respondents BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., are
represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
- and -
Marco Antonio Duenas, Esq.
Alfred L. Fatale, III, Esq.
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
- and -
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
600 W Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
- and -
Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
156 South Main Street
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
UNDER ARMOUR: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV24206 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for its
illegal wiretapping of their electronic communications with the
Defendant's website, www.underarmour.com.
Unbeknownst to visitors to the Website, the Defendant has secretly
deployed "keystroke monitoring" software that Defendant uses to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
(including keystrokes and mouse clicks) of all visitors to its
Website. The Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their
express or implied consent prior to this wiretapping. The Defendant
has violated and continues to violate the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"), entitling the Plaintiff and Class Members to
relief pursuant thereto, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website within the past year.
The Defendant is a Maryland corporation and does business and
affects commerce within the state of California and with California
residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Maher FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ramon Jacqueline M. Maher, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.,
John Does 1 to 10, Case No. HUD-L-001993-22 was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on July 21, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04669-CCC-JRA to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
United Collection Bureau (UCB) -- https://ucbinc.com/ -- is one of
the largest contingency collection agencies in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eileen L. Linarducci, Esq.
Ronald Ira Levine, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RONALD I. LEVINE
210 River Street, Suite 11
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 489-7900
Email: elinarducci@ronlevinelaw.com
ronlevinelawfirm@gmail.com
- and -
Philip D Stern, Esq.
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 273-7117
Fax: (201) 273-7117
Email: pstern@kimlf.com
ykim@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel Wesley Meehan, Esq.
Peter George Siachos, Esq.
GORDON & REES
18 Columbia Turnpike, Ste. 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Phone: (973) 549-2500
Email: psiachos@grsm.com
UNITED STATES: Class Action Status Granted on COVID Vaccine Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Blankley at ersquare.com reports that U.S District Court
Judge Steven Merryday issued a blistering rebuke of the Department
of Defense and Marine Corps for refusing to grant religious
accommodation requests to service members.
Merryday did so when issuing a 48-page ruling in which he granted
class action status for all active and reserve U.S. Marine Corps
service men and women in a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of
Defense over the department's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
He also issued a classwide preliminary injunction against the
Department of Defense and the U.S. Marine Corps, prohibiting them
"from enforcing against a member of the class any order,
requirement, or rule to accept COVID-19 vaccination; from
separating or discharging from the Marine Corps a member of the
class who declines COVID-19 vaccination; and from retaliating
against a member of the class for the member's asserting statutory
rights under RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]."
The class includes everyone "on active duty or in the ready reserve
who serve under the command of the Marine Corps; who were affirmed
by a chaplain as harboring a sincere religious objection; who
timely submitted an initial request for a religious accommodation;
who were denied the initial request; who timely appealed the denial
of the initial request; and who were denied or will be denied after
appeal."
In his order, Merryday points out that 3,733 Marines had requested
religious accommodations and only 11 were granted to those who'd
already put in for retirement. He then asked, "Is it more likely
than not - in nearly all 3,733 cases - that no reasonable
accommodation was available?
"Because the record reveals the substantial likelihood of a
systemic failure by the Marine Corps to discharge the obligations
established by RFRA," he said.
Merryday said he issued the class wide preliminary injunction "to
preserve the status quo, to permit the full development of the
record without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and to permit both a
trial and a detailed, fact-based resolution of the controlling
issues of fact and law."
He also chastised the Department of Defense and Marine Corps for
refusing to grant religious accommodation requests, adding that it
was the court's responsibility to uphold the law when generals
won't.
"When Congress acts to preserve liberty, especially a liberty
historically and constitutionally fundamental to the United States,
the courts - the intended preserve of liberty - must not evade or
equivocate, must not, so to speak, sacrifice the fundamental right
of thousands of privates to Free Exercise in order to gratify the
preference of a few generals."
Government attorneys have argued the federal court doesn't have
jurisdiction to rule on military decisions. The Marine Corps has
repeatedly asserted that, "The Supreme Court has made clear:
'Judges are not given the task of running the Army,'" citing Orloff
v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 (1953), which was decided 40 years
before RFRA was enacted.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin maintains the mandate is
necessary for military preparedness. He ordered that noncompliance
could result in discharge from service, court martial, other
disciplinary procedures and consequences.
While the court is "certainly not 'given the task of running the
Army,'" Merriday responded, the courts "are entrusted to ensure
that those who run the Marine Corps (and the military in general
and every other component of the federal government) conform their
actions to the governing law, to RFRA, to which the admirals and
the generals and the commandants are unquestionably subordinate . .
.
"To repeat: Yes, Congress and the President, not the courts, govern
the military. But Congress and the President in governing the
military and by enacting RFRA have established - for the narrow
category of Free Exercise - an action and a remedy in the district
court, have specified and placed the burden of proof on the
military, and have allowed for an 'appropriate remedy' to ensure a
service member's Free Exercise. That conclusion is not fairly
contestable, and the military must acquiesce to the command of
Congress and the President in that respect."
He said services member can sue in federal district court over a
RFRA violation and "pursue relief from a systemic deprivation of
Free Exercise, preserved and protected by RFRA." His order and
action, he said, "will proceed accordingly."
Merryday also addressed the fact that Marines had been charged
additional monthly rent for noncompliance and given two days'
notice to be discharged and ordered to leave their military
housing. He said to "resort to two-day warnings of discharge (and,
in the instance of First Lieutenant and undoubtedly others,
suddenly charging daily rent of more than $100 to remain in
military housing while packing one's family and searching for
civilian housing) suggests retribution and retaliation . . . ."
He also spoke to a policy employed by supervisors or chaplains to
deny religious accommodation requests. He said, "Although Marines
of different faiths, different education, and different acumen
might understand or explain this objection differently and with
more or less clarity, many Marines, including Christians and
Muslims, object that the COVID-19 vaccine was developed from cell
lines derived from electively aborted fetuses and that introducing
an mRNA-active substance into their body either desecrates their
body, a temple of the Holy Spirt, or is haram, forbidden. In any
case, neither the military nor the judiciary can judge the validity
of a religious objection (unless the objection is irrational,
delusional, or the like) - but can judge only the sincerity of the
belief, which is demonstrated firmly in the administrative record
by the chaplain's assessment of sincerity."
Of Merriday's ruling, Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty
Counsel, the nonprofit representing the Marine Corps plaintiffs,
said, "Our courageous U.S. Marines finally have relief from these
unlawful COVID shot mandates. The Biden administration and the
Department of Defense are not above the law. These brave service
members have been abused and mistreated because of their faith.
They have faced discharge, court martial, other life-altering
disciplinary procedures, and termination for simply embracing their
religious freedom to choose not the inject a substance into their
bodies. The Department of Defense has relentlessly violated the law
and ignored their religious freedom. Today, that lawlessness
ends."[GN]
UNITED STATES: McCutchen Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Lynn McCutchen, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United
States an application for an extension of time within which to file
a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled ROY LYNN
MCCUTCHEN, PADUCAH SHOOTER'S SUPPLY, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Applicants, v. UNITED
STATES, Respondent, Case No. 22-25.
The said application to extend the time to file a petition is set
from August 8, 2022, to September 7, 2022.
Plaintiffs Roy Lynn McCutchen and Paducah Shooter's Supply Inc. are
former owners of lawfully acquired bump-fire type rifle stocks. On
December 26, 2018, in response to the Las Vegas mass shooting of
October 1, 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) issued a legislative rule that banned bump-stocks
and required anyone who had legally purchased and possessed a
bump-stock prior to the issuance of the rule to surrender the
bump-stock to the federal government or destroy it. The Plaintiffs
complied with the Rule and dispossessed themselves of their
lawfully acquired and possessed bump stocks.
On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs sued the federal government in
the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking just compensation
for the bump-stocks that were dispossessed in compliance with the
Rule. On September 23, 2019, the Claims Court granted the federal
government's motion to dismiss. The court held that the Rule did
not constitute a taking for public use because ATF was acting
"pursuant to its police power." The court went on to conclude that
the Rule did not constitute a physical taking because the term
"take[]" does not encompass a regulation requiring dispossession of
property by destruction or surrender to the government. Finally,
the court rejected Plaintiffs' claim for total elimination of value
because personal property, as opposed to real property, is "subject
to pervasive government regulation," says the suit.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court's dismissal of
Plaintiffs' claims on different grounds. The panel majority held
that Plaintiffs never acquired a property interest in their
bump-stocks because two federal statutes prevented proper
acquisition of title. The Federal Circuit concurred in the result
and would have affirmed the Claims Court's reasoning in full. It
argued that the taking was within the federal government's police
powers and thus did not require just compensation.
The Plaintiffs filed a timely petition for rehearing en banc, which
was denied on February 2, 2022.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are filing this appeal to apply for an
extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[BN]
Petitioners Roy Lynn McCutchen, et al., are represented by:
Patrick Strawbridge, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
Ten Post Office Square 8th Floor South PMB #706
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (703) 243-9423
E-mail: patrick@consovoymccarthy.com
Respondent United States is represented by:
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alejandra Chaisson, Grace Chong, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of
Southern California, Case No. 20STCV27062 was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04923-FMO-KS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The University of Southern California -- https://www.usc.edu/ -- is
a private research university in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER PA
1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER PA
701 Brickell Avenue Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Fax: (305) 676-9006
Email: scott@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Leo P. Norton, Esq.
Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 550-6000
Fax: (858) 550-6420
Email: lnorton@cooley.com
mdoolin@cooley.com
- and -
Peter Jacob Brody, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
1333 2nd Street Suite 400
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 883-6400
Fax: (310) 883-6500
Email: pbrody@cooley.com
VENUS LABORATORIES: Lizama Sues Over Deceptive Cleaning Product Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DELIA DE SANTIAGO LIZAMA, MICHELLE OLSEN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VENUS
LABORATORIES, INC., dba EARTH FRIENDLY PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00841-PLC (E.D. Mo., Aug. 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and for violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, and California's
Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, in an effort to increase profits and to
gain an advantage over its lawfully acting competitors, Earth
Friendly falsely and misleadingly markets and labels its ECOS
household cleaning products as "non-toxic," "safer," "made without
known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,"
"climate positive," "Earth Friendly," and/or "sustainable."
Contrary to these representations, the products are plainly not
"non-toxic," "safer," and environmentally friendly because the
products can cause harm to humans, animals, and/or the environment,
says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Class Members paid a premium for the
products over comparable products that did not purport to be
"non-toxic," "safer," "made without known carcinogens, reproductive
toxins, or endocrine disruptors," "climate positive," "Earth
Friendly," and/or "sustainable." Given that Plaintiffs and Class
Members paid a premium for the products based on Earth Friendly's
representations that they are non-toxic, safe, and environmentally
friendly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered an injury in
the amount of the purchase price and/or the premium paid, the suit
asserts.
Venus Laboratories, Inc. was founded in 1967. The Company line of
business includes the manufacture organic and inorganic chemical
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-5151
Facsimile: (314) 455-7375
E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
Goffstein Law, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-5151
Facsimile: (314) 455-7278
E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com
VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Dismiss Cantinieri Suit Pending in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that a motion to dismiss the
case captioned Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics Inc., et al. is
pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.
On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a
putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services
Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled "Cantinieri v.
Verisk Analytics Inc., et al.," Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911.
The Complaint alleges that Verisk failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of its
databases by unauthorized entities. Plaintiff and class members
allege actual and imminent injuries, including theft of their PII,
fraudulent activity on their financial accounts, lowered credit
scores, and costs associated with detection and prevention of
identity theft and fraud. They seek to recover compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of earnings and
profits, and attorney's fees and costs.
The company filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on April
22, 2022. As of June 15, 2022, the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed but has neither been heard nor decided.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data analytics provider serving
customers in insurance and energy based in New Jersey.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Williams Suit Over Violation of Privacy Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that on June 27, 2022,
Plaintiff Loretta Williams brought a putative class action against
its subsidiary Lead Intelligence, Inc. (d/b/a Jornaya) in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, titled "Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead
Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya," Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 (CIPA) and invaded
Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights when Defendants
purportedly recorded visitors' visits to the scrappyrent2 own.com
website without prior express consent.
It is further alleged that this conduct constitutes a violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section
17200 et seq. and the California Constitution. The Complaint seeks
class certification, injunctive relief, statutory damages in the
amount of $5,000 for each violation, attorneys fees and other
litigation costs.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data analytics provider serving
customers in insurance and energy based in New Jersey.
WALMART INC: Chateauneuf Files Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The
case is styled as Teresa Chateauneuf, and those similarly situated
v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01747-NRN (D. Colo., July 14,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: (970) 214-0562
Fax: (303) 212-3301
Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
WALTER D. AMARAL: Assad Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
George Assad, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
WALTER D. AMARAL, DOUG BEWSHER, SCOTT A. GENEREUX, PATRICIA PARRA
HADDEN, BOB LYONS, DAVID C. PETERSCHMIDT, and EDGIO, INC. f/k/a
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 2022-0624- (Del. Chacery Ct.,
July 18, 2022), is brought on behalf of similarly situated
stockholders of Edgio, Inc. f/k/a Limelight Networks, Inc.
asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against certain members
of Limelight's board of directors (the "Board").
A board of directors that collectively held just 2.6% of a public
company's outstanding stock appointed a chief executive officer
("CEO") whose subsequent performance was unimpressive. The
financial press anticipated stockholder activism, but none actually
emerged. Facing that speculation, the Board negotiated and approved
a significant stock-based acquisition (the "Acquisition") that
would concentrate approximately 35% of the company's stock in the
hands of a new and sophisticated, albeit presumably friendly,
holder. The entrenchment scheme that followed the Acquisition here,
however, cannot be compellingly justified, and fails any test of
reasonableness and proportionality. This litigation thus seeks to
vindicate the stockholder franchise.
Specifically, upon receiving stockholder approval for the stock
issuance to support the Acquisition, the Board executed a
stockholders' agreement (the "Stockholders' Agreement") with the
new 35% holder. The Stockholders' Agreement not only imposed a
fairly typical, three-year standstill, but also prevents the holder
(for so long as it owns a meaningful bloc) from: (a) voting its
shares for any director candidate not nominated by the incumbents;
(b) voting its shares against a Board recommendation on non-routine
matters unless the majority of the other stockholders oppose that
recommendation as well; or (c) selling any of its Company shares to
any of the top 50 activist stockholders in the most recent
"SharkWatch 50" list.
These radical restrictions materially undermine the stockholder
franchise. In substance and effect, a board anticipating
stockholder unrest but which had almost no voting power to win a
voter challenge used the cover of a new stock issuance to
appropriate for itself effective control of their own re-election
and a clear veto on opposing views on other matters.
In sum, through the Acquisition, Limelight's stockholders, none of
whom had publicly launched any opposition or proxy fight despite
the Board's poor performance, saw their option to do so effectively
disappear, as the Board used the Stockholders' Agreement to
misappropriate for itself negative control over the Company's
future elections and other voting decisions. Relief is warranted,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a current stockholder of the Company and has owned
shares.
Limelight provides a network service used for delivery of digital
media content and software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Phone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3601
WELDWAY STEEL: Gamez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weldway Steel
Fabrication, Inc. The case is styled as Jesse Ray Gamez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Weldway Steel Fabrication, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0005696
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 8, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Weldway Inc. -- https://www.weldwayinc.com/ -- is a construction
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
WILLIAMS MECHANICAL: Staley Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AROL STALEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS MECHANICAL, LLC and EVERETT SCOTT
WILLIAMS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00636 (M.D.
Tenn., August 17, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
employee during the 3-year period preceding the filing of this
complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated
hourly-paid employees typically worked 40 or more hours per week.
The Defendants allegedly required them to work off-the-clock
without compensating them for such work, thereby failing to pay
them overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate. As a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees' off-the-clock work, they have
suffered lost wages in terms of lost overtime compensation as well
as other damages, says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation
against the Defendants, as well as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Williams Mechanical, LLC is a construction contractor that
specializes in mechanical and plumbing work. Everett Scott Williams
is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
WOLF & SHEPHERD: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolf & Shepherd, Inc.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Wolf & Shepherd, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06248-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wolf and Shepherd -- https://wolfandshepherd.com/ -- is a men's
dress shoe company. The company designs and sells Italian leather
dress shoes using technology found in running sneakers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
WOODWARD INC: Banks Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Leroy Banks, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Woodward, Inc., Case No.
2022-LA-176 was removed from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on July 29, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-50266 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Woodward -- https://www.woodward.com/home -- is an independent
designer, manufacturer, and service provider of control solutions
for the aerospace and industrial markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
Mara Ann Baltabols, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 861-1800
Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
- and -
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer Ann Riley, Esq.
Tyler Zachary Zmick, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5672
Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
jriley@seyfarth.com
tzmick@seyfarth.com
YAR INVESTMENTS: Flanders Sues Over Deceptive Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Flanders, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. YAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a GURU AUTO SALES, Case No.
CACE-22-010601 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 11, 2022), is bourghgt against
the Defendant as a result of deceptive and unfair trade practices
with regards to Mr. Flanders purchasing of a used 2020 Chevrolet
Malibu bearing the Vehicle Identification Number 1G1ZD5ST1LF032577
(the "Vehicle") from Yar Investments, LLC, d/b/a Guru Auto Sales,
(the "Dealership").
On February 3, 2020, Mr. Flanders and his mother ("Ms. Williams")
went to the Dealership to look at vehicles to potentially purchase.
Mr. Flanders test drove the Vehicle and liked it, but wanted to
ensure his financing was fully approved and, to that end, Mr.
Flanders asked the Dealership if he would receive guaranteed
financing approval. The Dealership specifically and expressly told
Mr. Flanders that they "don't let anyone leave with a financed
vehicle unless they are 100% approved." Based on the Dealership's
representations, Mr. Flanders filled out a credit application. Mr.
Flanders agreed to purchase the Vehicle and, to that end, entered
into a Buyer's Order ("Sales Contract") with the Dealership. In
connection with the Vehicle purchase, Mr. Flanders entered into and
executed a Retail Installment Contract (the "Finance Agreement")
with the Dealership. Pursuant to the terms of the Sales Contract
and Finance Agreement, the Vehicle's purchase price was $22,900.00.
Additionally, the Dealership charged Mr. Flanders $888.00 for
"Dealer Fees".
Pursuant to the terms of the Finance Agreement Mr. Flanders'
monthly payments of $536.61 were to begin March 3, 2020, and he had
10 days after each due date to make his payment without incurring
any late fees. Additionally, the Finance Agreement was assigned to
United Auto Credit without recourse. Mr. Flanders executed the Sale
Agreement and Finance Agreement, paid the $4,500.00 down payment,
and left the Dealership with the Vehicle. Ms. Williams represented
to the Dealership that she was the primary contact with the
Dealership due to Mr. Flanders's work schedule.
On February 11, 2020, the Dealership represented that, though his
financing was approved, United Auto Credit (the "Finance Company")
required Mr. Flanders to bring the Dealership a payroll check to
finalize the agreement. As such, Ms. Williams took the payroll
check to the Dealership later that afternoon. Thereafter, on
February 12, 2020, Ms. Williams called the Finance Company
regarding the status of the loan and was informed that Mr.
Flanders' loan had been denied on February 6, 2020.
When Ms. Williams followed up with the Dealership for correct
payment information, the Dealership represented that Mr. Flanders
was not denied financing, but the Finance Company needed three
months of cancelled payroll checks to be approved. Ms. Williams
contacted the Finance Company to inquire about the three months of
cancelled payroll checks requested and again was informed by the
Financing Company that Mr. Flanders' loan was denied on February 6,
2020.
Mr. Flanders and Ms. Williams attempted to contact the Dealership
multiple times to obtain payment information, but the Dealership
failed to assist Ms. Williams and Mr. Flanders. On March 3, 2020,
Mr. Flanders and Ms. Williams made an appointment with the
Dealership for the evening of March 4, 2020, to discuss the
Vehicle's financing. On March 4, 2020, before the scheduled
appointment, the Dealership repossessed the Vehicle. The Dealership
has since sold the Vehicle to a third party. The Dealership failed
to provide Mr. Flanders with a post-repossession notice.
The Dealership has failed to refund Mr. Flanders any of the money
paid towards the Vehicle. Despite the subsequent sale, the
Dealership failed to remit any surplus proceeds from the
post-repossession sale of the Vehicle to Mr. Flanders. If there
were no surplus proceeds from the post-repossession sale, the
Dealership did not sell the Vehicle in a commercially reasonable
manner. Mr. Flanders never would have agreed to purchase the
Vehicle had he known the Vehicle financing was never completed. Due
to the Dealership 's actions and misrepresentations, Mr. Flanders
has suffered Damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Broward County,
Florida.
Yar Investments, LLC, d/b/a Guru Auto Sales is a Florida limited
liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
Autumn D. Carty, Esq.
ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
551 5th Ave. N.
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (813) 304-2131
Email: rmason@flautolawyer.com
acarty@flautolawyer.com
paralegal@flautolawyer.com
ZENDESK INC: Anderson Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------
Zendesk, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period Ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2022, that a class action against the
company has been dismissed after the plaintiff filed a stipulation
to dismiss which was granted by the court in May 2022.
On June 2, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, entitled "Anderson v. Svane, et
al.," 3:20-cv-03671, against certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors.
The derivative complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against
all defendants, and an insider trading claim and violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants,
purportedly on behalf of the Company itself. The claims were based
upon allegations that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted
material information in certain of our prior public filings.
On July 27, 2020, the court ordered the derivative action related
to the class action, and the derivative action was stayed pending
resolution of the class action. On May 6, 2021, the court approved
a joint stipulation to extend the stay pending the outcome of the
appeal of the class action. On April 18, 2022, following the Ninth
Circuit's affirmation of the dismissal of the class action,
plaintiff filed a stipulation to dismiss the derivative action,
which was granted by the court on May 20, 2022.
Zendesk is a service-first customer relationship management company
based in California.
ZENDESK INC: Faces Roe Stockholder Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zendesk, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period Ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2022, that on May 27, 2022, Zendesk was
named as a defendant in an employment-related putative class action
captioned "Roe, et al. v. Zendesk," No. 22-599855 (Cal. Super.).
The complaint, filed by one current employee and three former
employees, alleges violations of the California Equal Pay Act and
Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of all women who worked for Zendesk in California at any
time during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
Zendesk is a service-first customer relationship management company
based in California.
*********
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 ***