/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220908.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 174
Headlines
1350 S DIXIE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Suit Alleges
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 31
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ephraim Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Suarez Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
ADVANCE FUNDS: Sprouse Files Damasco Bid for Class Certification
ADVANCED CALL: Hopkins Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
ALDI INC: Henriquez Sues Over Mislabeled Tuna Can Products
APPLE INC: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Cohen Class Suit
APRIO LLP: Lechter, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
ARTESANOS DESIGN: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSESSOR OF LYNBROOK: Girisankar Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AZURE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 31
BEAUTY HOLDINGS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BENTON COUNTY, AR: Judge's Attorneys Ask For Stay in Criminal Case
BG GALLERY: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLOOMBERG LP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
BOBIT BUSINESS: Emral Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
BOSTON PRIVATE: Court Allows Bid to Dismiss Savoy Securities Suit
BROADWAY ELECTRIC: Case Management Order Entered in Beauregard
CAREFIRST: Attias, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
CARILLON TOWER/CHICAGO: Yao Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
CBE GROUP: Wollman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CHARTER OAK: Settlement in Discrimination, Breach Claims Discussed
CHECKER NOTIONS: Class Settlement in Gresky Suit Has Final Approval
CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Eato Suit Alleges
CONDUENT INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
DANGDANG HOLDING: 2nd Cir. Flips Dismissal of Fasano Class Suit
ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Faces New Inaccuracy Suit Even After Settlement
ESCONDIDO MEDICAL: Guiniling Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
EXELON CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
EXOTIC COUNTERTOP: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Escano Suit Alleges
FIRST OF LONG ISLAND: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST STUDENT: Ct. Tosses Galvan Bid for Class Certification
GEISINGER CLINIC: Court Dismisses Finkbeiner's Third Amended Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses First Amended Ambrose Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Napoli-Bosse
GOLDEN BEAR INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRANT & WEBER: Ali Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
GRAVETIME INC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
HAWAII MEDICAL: Nitta Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Maxton Files Suit in C.D. California
IMPRESSIONS ONLINE: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INNOVATE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Mardis, et al Seek., to Certify Class Action
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Settlement Deal
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Class Suit Over Narcolepsy Meds Patent
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Over Narcolepsy Meds Patent
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws
JAZZ PHARMA: Sued for Violating Antitrust Laws
JO-ANN STORES: Court Terminates Bid to Dismiss Rath Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Australian Women Win Vaginal Mesh Class Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Junks Securities Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court
LATCH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 31
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Faces Fudge Suit Over Info Data Breach
LL FLOORING: Settlement Deal in Mason Suit Wins Final Nod
LL FLOORING: Settles Labor Suit in California Court
MDL 2873: Harber Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Marangio Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Montgomery Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Reeves Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Sellers Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MERCEDES BENZ: Parties Stipulates Class Certification Briefing
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Extension of Time to File Response Sought
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Parties in Sawyer Suit Seek More Response Time
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Parties Seek Time Extension to File Response
NEW GENERATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cortez Suit Alleges
NIO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 24
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sargent Appeals Prelim. Injuction Bid Denial
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dental Floss Contains PFAS, Dalewitz Alleges
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Buffington Wins Class Certification Bid
RAINBOW ROADSIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fox Suit Alleges
RPM DINING LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ehde Suit Alleges
SCHWABE NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christoph Alleges
SESAME PLACE: $25M Lawsuit Alleges Rampant Racial Discrimination
SHEARER'S FOODS: Moore, et al., Seek Leave to File Instanter
TERRAFORM LABS: Albright Sues Over Drop in Cryptocurrency Price
TESLA INC: Toledo Sues Over Defective Brakes in Motor Vehicles
TEVRA BRANDS: Scheduling Order Entered in Fontanez Suit
TTEC SERVICES: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Carimbocas Alleges
TWITTER INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Business Info
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $63-M
UNITED STATES: Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Doster Suit
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Court Affirms Dismissal of RICO Suit
URATA AND SONS CONCRETE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VABSSS CORP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VALBELLA AT THE PARK: Zivkovic Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
VALVE CORPORATION: Court Enters Case Schedule Order in Wolfire
VANGUARD GROUP INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
1350 S DIXIE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAHEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1350 S DIXIE LLC d/b/a THESIS HOTEL MIAMI;
NRI REAL TOKEN TENANT, LLC d/b/a THESIS HOTEL MIAMI; BRENT
REYNOLDS; LINK SERVICES CC CORP; and NASSIM N. CHAURIYE, SR.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22727-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as housekeeper.
1350 S DIXIE LLC d/b/a THESIS HOTEL MIAMI owns and operates a hotel
in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: julisse@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) between February 19,
2021 and June 8, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 31, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Abbott 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 Abbott class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8453 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 October 31, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) according to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), Abbott had "egregiously unsanitary"
conditions at its Sturgis, Michigan facility which produced nearing
half of Abbott's various forms of infant formula under the brands
Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare; (2) as a result, Abbott's infant
formula business was in dire jeopardy given the flagrant violations
of federal and state health and safety regulations; (3) based on
inspections by the FDA between 2019 and 2022, Abbott failed to
establish process controls "designed to ensure that infant formula
does not become adulterated due to the presence of microorganisms
in the formula or in the processing environment" and Abbott also
failed to "ensure that all surfaces that contacted infant formula
were maintained to protect infant formula from being contaminated
by any source"; (4) the unhygienic conditions of the Sturgis
facility resulted in the recall of Abbott's infant formula and
closure of the Sturgis facility; and (5) as a result, defendants'
public statements about Abbott's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Abbott class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8453 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]
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ephraim Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISRAEL EPHRAIM and ZELDA BERGER, individually, and
as legal guardian of T.B., a minor child, and ISRAEL EPHRAIM and
ZELDA BERGER on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20516,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on August 17, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04159 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged numerous unfair and
deceptive acts and practices designed to mislead the public in
connection with their promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging,
labeling, distribution and/or sale of Similac Infant Formula.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unfairly and deceptively
promoted the product during the relevant time period as containing
ingredients safe for infant consumption and being safe for use,
when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections and gastrointestinal
illnesses such as Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella, diarrhea,
gastrointestinal illnesses, and other serious health problems.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is an American multinational medical
devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
David Silverman, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 320-9507
E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
jonathan@Schlesingerlawoffices.com
dsilverman@schlesingerlaw.com
jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter W. Homer, Esq.
HOMERBONNER
1200 Four Seasons Tower
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-5139
E-mail: phomer@homerbonner.com
- and -
Gregory J. Trask, Esq.
HOMER BONNER JACOBS, P.A.
1441 Brickell Avenue
Four Seasons Tower, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-5100
Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
E-mail: gtrask@homerbonner.com
- and -
James F. Hurst, Esq.
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60601-9703
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
E-mail: james.hurst@kirkland.com
- and -
Michael A. Glick, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
E-mail: michael.glick@kirkland.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Suarez Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as LUIS ALFREDO SUAREZ, individually and as legal
guardian of A.S., a minor child, and LUIS ALFREDO SUAREZ on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20506, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
August 17, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04158 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's numerous unfair and deceptive
acts and practices designed to mislead the public in connection
with their promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling,
distribution and/or sale of Similac Infant Formula.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unfairly and deceptively
promoted the product during the relevant time period as containing
ingredients safe for infant consumption and being safe for use,
when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections and gastrointestinal
illnesses such as Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella, diarrhea,
gastrointestinal illnesses, and other serious health problems.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is an American multinational medical
devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Alexander Jurney, Esq.
Rafael Thomas De La Grana, Esq.
JURNEY & DE LA GRANA, P.A.
782 NW 42 Ave., Suite 428
Miami, FL 33126
Telephone: (305) 859-3030
E-mail: rjurney@jdlawmiami.com
rdelagrana@jdlawmiami.com
- and -
B. Kristian W. Rasmussen, Esq.
CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 271-7111
E-mail: krasmussen@cwcd.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter W. Homer, Esq.
HOMERBONNER
1200 Four Seasons Tower
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-5139
E-mail: phomer@homerbonner.com
- and -
Gregory J. Trask, Esq.
HOMER BONNER JACOBS, P.A.
1441 Brickell Avenue
Four Seasons Tower, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-5100
Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
E-mail: gtrask@homerbonner.com
- and -
James F. Hurst, Esq.
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60601-9703
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
E-mail: james.hurst@kirkland.com
- and -
Michael A. Glick, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
E-mail: michael.glick@kirkland.com
ADVANCE FUNDS: Sprouse Files Damasco Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAKIA SPROUSE,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, v. ADVANCE FUNDS NETWORK LLC, a New
York limited liability company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00247-PPS-JPK
(N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff files "Damasco" motion for class
certification and requests for status conference.
The Plaintiff submits its Motion for Class Certification pursuant
to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)
(holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the class at the same time
that they file their complaint" and "[t]he pendency of that motion
protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named
plaintiffs"), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc.,
796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco "to the
extent it holds that a defendant’s offer of full compensation
moots the litigation or otherwise ends the Article III case or
controversy" but not commenting on effect of a "placeholder" motion
if plaintiff’s individual claim becomes moot for some other
reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20,
2016) (holding "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment
does not moot a plaintiff’s case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted").
The Plaintiff proposes the following class definitions:
-- Do Not Call Registry ("DNC") Class
"All persons whose telephone numbers were listed on the Do
Not Call Registry, and to whom, during the four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present,
received more than one text message, in any 12-month
period, promoting the sale of the Defendant’s goods or
services sent by or on behalf of Defendant, more than 30
days after registering their telephone number on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry;" and
-- Failure to STOP Class
"All persons who during the four years prior to the filing
of this Complaint to the present, received one or more
text message(s) promoting the sale of Defendant’s goods or
service sent by or on behalf of Defendant, after having
previously responded "STOP" to one or more such text
message(s)."
The Defendant sent Plaintiff and others unsolicited text messages
without prior express written consent. The Plaintiff anticipates
that the proposed class definitions will change after discovery
defines the precise contours of the class and the text message
advertisements that were sent.
The Plaintiff requests leave to submit a brief and other evidence
in support of this motion after discovery about the class elements
has been completed.
Advanced Funds provides business loans. The Company offers merchant
cash advance, credit line, secured business loans, and working
capital.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q7uY6l at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
ADVANCED CALL: Hopkins Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY HOPKINS, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; CHRISTOPHER DEBBAS; JOSEPH LEMBO, and JOHN DOES
1 to 10, Case No. 2:20-cv-06733-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the
class settlement and related relief as specified in the proposed
form of Order.
ACT provides contact center and back office support services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3emKuyg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel. & Fax (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
pstern@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander Rabinowitz, Esq.
Barry G. Margolis, Esq.
Telephone: (212) 201-1174
ABRAMS GARFINKEL MARGOLIS BERGSON, LLP
1430 Broadway Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10018
E-mail: arabinowitz@agmblaw.com
bmargolis@agmblaw.com
ALDI INC: Henriquez Sues Over Mislabeled Tuna Can Products
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-06060 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
falsely and deceptively advertises and labels its tuna products,
including its Northern Catch Chunk Light Tuna in Water and Northern
Catch Solid White Tuna Albacore in Water, as "DOLPHIN SAFE" (the
"Products").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's false
advertising scheme deceives millions of consumers into believing
the Products are "DOLPHIN SAFE," meaning they are manufactured
using fishing methods that neither kill nor harm dolphins. However,
the grim reality is that the Products are sourced using fishing
methods that seriously injure and kill thousands of dolphins and
other marine life each year, says the suit.
The Defendant knowingly and intentionally labels and advertises its
Products as "DOLPHIN SAFE," to increase profits at the expense of
sustainability concerned consumers and innocent marine life, while
gaining an unfair economic advantage over their law-abiding
competitors that sell truly "DOLPHIN SAFE" tuna products, the suit
added.
ALDI INC. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries,
meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
cmirzaie@clarksonlawfirm.com
APPLE INC: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Cohen Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW COHEN; TIMOTHY HORNICK; KALEAH C. ALLEN;
KIMBERLY BENJAMIN; MARK CISCHKE; WEILER; MATT KOPPIN; SCOTT PAUL
COLETTI; KRYSTLE FAERYN; RODOLFO CABRERA; BRANDY DAVIS; WILLIAM
ZIDE; DAVID HEDICKER; NANCY MAEKAWA; CATHERIN GOODWIN; KATHLEEN
BOGGS; MARK KUNZE; ARIANA RYAN; BECKY WELLINGTON; M. GAIL SUNDELL;
VICTOR PERLMAN; ZACHARY GOMOLEKOFF; GLENN JACOBS; JUNE A. HALL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee, and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-17307 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's entry of summary judgment for Apple.
Cell phones emit radiofrequency ("RF") radiation in the course of
their ordinary operation. Pursuant to the Communications Act of
1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("twin Communications
Acts"), the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has
promulgated regulations establishing RF radiation standards for
cell phones.
Plaintiffs-appellants Cohen and other individuals are users of
iPhones manufactured by Apple. Defendant-appellee Apple is a
California corporation. It designs, manufactures, and sells
consumer electronic products, including the iPhone.
The Plaintiffs brought suit against Apple in the district court,
alleging that Apple breached state tort and consumer-fraud laws by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose the amount of RF radiation
emitted by iPhones.
In August 2019, the Chicago Tribune reported results of its
independent investigation of RF radiation levels of popular cell
phones sold in the United States. According to the report, RF
radiation exposure from Apple's iPhone 7 "measured over the legal
safety limit and more than double" what Apple found from its own
testing.
Two days after publication of the Tribune's report, the Plaintiffs
filed a putative class action in the district court seeking to
represent all iPhone users in the United States. Within a few
weeks, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the district court
on behalf of different named plaintiffs. The district court
consolidated the two actions, and the Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.
The complaint alleged that RF radiation emitted by iPhones
regularly exceeded the federal exposure limit. The complaint relied
heavily on the Tribune's testing of the RF radiation emitted by
iPhones, citing the Tribune's report of data showing that RF
radiation exposure to iPhone 7 models averaged 2.59 W/kg and 3.225
W/kg in two tests, both of which exceeded the federal exposure
limit of 1.6 W/kg. The Plaintiffs' counsel also conducted their own
testing, using the same lab the Tribune had used. They tested
additional iPhone models, and they tested at a zero-millimeter
distance to replicate use of the iPhone against the skin. According
to their testing, RF radiation emitted by iPhone 7 models reached
3.6 W/kg at a 5-millimeter separation distance. Based on data
obtained from this testing, the complaint alleged that Apple
engaged in "deceptive and misleading" marketing by advertising
iPhones as safe when used against the body.
The Tribune's story prompted the FCC to conduct further testing of
iPhones. In December 2019, the FCC published the results of its own
testing. The FCC's further testing measured RF radiation exposure
from iPhones as well within the safety limits. The testing revealed
no evidence of violation of the FCC's technical standards.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleged eight claims against Apple under
state tort and consumer-fraud laws: (1) Apple intentionally
misrepresented the safety of iPhones despite knowing that their RF
radiation exceeded federal limits; (2) Apple failed to exercise
reasonable care in not warning the Plaintiffs about unsafe RF
radiation emitted by iPhones; (3) Apple violated California's
Unfair Competition Law by failing to disclose that iPhones emitted
RF radiation at unsafe levels or levels exceeding the federal
limit; (4) Apple violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
by failing to disclose that iPhones emitted RF radiation at unsafe
levels or levels exceeding the federal limit; (5) Apple violated
California's false advertising law by failing to disclose that
iPhones emitted RF radiation at unsafe levels or levels exceeding
the federal limit; (6) Apple violated various states' consumer
protection acts due to its dissemination of deceptive and
misleading advertising materials; (7) Apple was unjustly enriched
because plaintiffs did not receive products as marketed by Apple;
and (8) Apple breached its implied warranty that iPhones were safe
for ordinary use. The complaint sought class certification, a
finding of liability against Apple, the establishment of a medical
monitoring fund under claims (1) and (2), money damages,
appropriate injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
On Jan. 2, 2020, Apple moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.
Apple argued, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing and, assuming standing, that federal law preempted their
claims. Following a hearing, the district court found that Apple
had presented matters outside of the pleadings. It converted
Apple's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
The district court invited the FCC to participate as amicus curiae.
The FCC filed a statement of interest on April 13, 2020. In its
statement of interest, the FCC asserted that Apple's iPhone
(including the iPhone 7, the iPhone X, and the iPhone XS) complied
with federal RF radiation guidelines. It stated that it had tested
each iPhone model for the specific bands of operations investigated
by the Chicago Tribune, and had found that the tested phones
produced maximum measured exposure of 0.946 W/kg for the iPhone 7,
0.799 W/kg for the iPhone X, and 1.35 W/kg for the iPhone XS -- all
well under the FCC's permitted maximum of 1.6 W/kg.
In October 2020, the district court entered summary judgment for
Apple. It held that the FCC promulgated substantive RF radiation
regulations under the 1934 Act rather than under NEPA. The district
court found that the 1996 Act's general savings clause, 47 U.S.C.
Section 253, and Section 601(c) of the 1996 Act did not change the
normal operation of conflict-preemption analysis or limit the FCC's
statutory authority to regulate RF radiation. The district court
concluded that the FCC's regulation of RF radiation, as part of its
equipment-authorization regime, preempted the Plaintiffs' claims.
In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on Farina v.
Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 133-34 (3d Cir. 2010), in which the Third
Circuit held that the FCC's regulations preempted similar claims
under state law.
The Plaintiffs timely appealed. On appeal, they concede that RF
radiation emissions from Apple's iPhone are at levels below the
maximum permitted by FCC regulations. Their primary arguments on
appeal are that (1) neither the 1934 Act, 1996 Act, nor NEPA gives
the FCC authority to preempt state law concerning cell-phone
radiofrequency radiation, and (2) the FCC's RF radiation
regulations do not preempt state-law causes of action that are
premised on maximum levels of RF radiation below the maximum level
set by the FCC.
First, Apple argues that the Hobbs Act broadly grants exclusive
jurisdiction to courts of appeals over private suits that implicate
the substance of agency determinations. Citing two of the Ninth
Circuit's cases, Wilson v. A.H. Belo Corp., 87 F.3d 393, 399-400
(9th Cir. 1996) and Pub. Watchdogs v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 984 F.3d
744, 765 (9th Cir. 2020) (Nuclear Regulatory Commission order), it
argues that "the Hobbs Act divests district courts of jurisdiction
to pass on any issue that would require them to decide whether they
'agreed' or 'disagreed' with a determination made in an FCC final
order," and that the district court therefore did not have
jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It opines that neither case cited by
Apple goes so far. The Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of
any of the FCC's final orders, either directly or indirectly. The
issue is whether the FCC's concededly valid orders have preemptive
effect. A holding that the FCC orders do, or do not, preempt the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims has no effect on their validity. The
Ninth Circuit therefore holds that the Hobbs Act does not deprive
the district court of jurisdiction, and it reaches the merits of
the appeal.
Second, the Plaintiffs argue on two grounds that their state-law
claims are not preempted. First, they argue that the FCC
promulgated its RF Orders under NEPA. They argue that because NEPA
is a purely procedural statute with no preemptive force,
regulations promulgated under NEPA do not preempt their state-law
causes of action. Second, they argue that even if the FCC's RF
Orders were promulgated under either, or both, of the twin
Communications Acts, the savings clauses in those Acts preserve
their state-law causes of action.
The Ninth Circuit disagrees with both grounds. It opines that NEPA
grants no affirmative regulatory powers over wireless
communications. The Plaintiffs' argument that the FCC's RF Orders
were promulgated under NEPA if therefore rejected. The FCC's
regulations under the 1934 Act, setting upper limits on the levels
of permitted RF radiation, also preempts state laws that impose
liability premised on levels of radiation below the limits set by
the FCC. And, because Section 332(c)(7)(A) applies only to
"facilities," and Section 601(c)(1) applies only to the 1996 Act,
the preemption provisions of the 1996 Act do not affect the
preemptive scope of the FCC's RF radiation regulations under the
1934 Act.
The Ninth Circuit concludes the Hobbs Act does not deprive the
district court of jurisdiction in the case. It holds, further, that
the FCC's regulations of the RF radiation of cell phones,
promulgated under the 1934 Act, preempts the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims as they are presented to it on appeal. Accordingly, it
affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3zhe5vdw from Leagle.com.
Matthew W.H. Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- (argued) and
Linnet Davis-Stermitz -- linnet@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler
PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth A. Fegan -- beth@feganscott.com
-- and Jessica H. Meeder , Fegan Scott LLC, in Chicago, Illinois,
for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- (argued) and Adam L.
Sorensen -- asorensen@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Washington, D.C.; William F. Tarantino -- wtarantino@mofo.com --
and James R. Sigel -- jsigel@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
in San Francisco, California, for the Defendant-Appellee.
Leah M. Nicholls, Public Justice P.C., in Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Curiae Public Justice.
Scott L. Nelson -- litigation@citizen.org -- and Allison M. Zieve,
Public Citizen Litigation Group, in Washington, D.C., for Amicus
Curiae Public Citizen.
Joshua S. Turner -- jturner@wiley.law -- Megan L. Brown --
mbrown@wiley.law -- and William K. Lane III -- wlane@wiley.law --
Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C.; Paul V. Lettow and Stephanie A.
Maloney, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, in Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Terrence J. Dee -- tdee@winston.com -- and Jessica J. Thomas --
jjthomas@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, for Amicus Curiae CTIA-The Wireless Association.
APRIO LLP: Lechter, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER, et al., v.
APRIO, LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE, LLP, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs Andrew Lechter, Sylvia
Thompson, Lawson F. Thompson, Russell Dalba, and Kathryn Dalba move
the Court to certify class action.
Aprio is a financial consulting and CPA firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qqcxu1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David R. Deary, Esq.
W. Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
Jeven Sloan, Esq.
Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq.
John McKenzie, Esq.
Donna Lee, Esq.
Tyler M. Simpson, Esq.
LOEWINSOHN DEARY SIMON RAY LLP
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (214) 572-1700
Facsimile: (214) 572-1717
E-mail: davidd@ldsrlaw.com
ralphc@ldsrlaw.com
jevens@ldsrlaw.com
wilsonw@ldsrlaw.com
johnm@ldsrlaw.com
tylers@ldsrlaw.com
donnal@ldsrlaw.com
- and -
Edward J. Rappaport, Esq.
THE SAYLOR LAW FIRM LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street
Suite 3220
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 892-4400
E-mail: erappaport@saylorlaw.com
ARTESANOS DESIGN: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artesanos Design
Collection, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Artesanos
Design Collection, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07419 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Artesanos Design Collection -- https://www.artesanosdesign.com/ --
has been selling eclectic & handcrafted home furnishings, and the
home decor to accompany them, from around the world since
1991.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
ASSESSOR OF LYNBROOK: Girisankar Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Lynbrook, et al. The case is styled as Bodh Girisankar,
Indira Girisankar, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Lynbrook, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Lynbrook, Respondents,
Case No. 611470/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Aug. 30, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Lynbrook -- https://www.lynbrookvillage.net/ -- is a village in the
Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long
Island, in New York.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
AZURE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of Azure Power Global Limited (NYSE: AZRE) securities
between June 15, 2021 and August 26, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period") have until October 31, 2022 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. The Azure Power class action lawsuit
- captioned Gilbert v. Azure Power Global Limited, No. 22-cv-07432
(S.D.N.Y.) - charges Azure Power and certain of its current and
former top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Azure Power class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here:
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Azure Power sells renewable power in India on
long-term fixed price contracts.
The Azure Power class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed
to disclose that: (i) there were procedural irregularities,
including deviations from safety and quality standards, at one of
Azure Power's plants; (ii) certain project data was manipulated;
(iii) as a result, Azure Power's internal controls and procedures
were not effective; and (iv) Azure Power had received a credible
whistleblower report alleging such misconduct.
On August 29, 2022, Azure Power announced the resignation of its
CEO, less than two months after his appointment. Azure Power also
disclosed that it had "received a whistleblower complaint in May
2022 alleging potential procedural irregularities and misconduct by
certain employees at a plant belonging to one of its subsidiaries."
During Azure Power's review of these allegations, Azure Power
"discovered deviations from safety and quality norms" and "also
identified evidence of manipulation of project data and information
by certain employees." On this news, Azure Power's stock price fell
by approximately 44%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Azure Power securities during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Azure Power class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Azure
Power class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff of the Azure Power class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. [GN]
BEAUTY HOLDINGS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Beauty Holdings, LLC., Case No.
1:22-cv-05185 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beauty Holdings LLC is a limited liability company located in
Huntington Station, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BENTON COUNTY, AR: Judge's Attorneys Ask For Stay in Criminal Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Wood at arkansasonline.com reports that lawyers for a judge in
Benton County who is being sued over not appointing lawyers to
represent indigent defendants filed a motion asking the federal
judge hearing the case to stop further action until he rules on
their pending motion to dismiss the complaint.
The federal lawsuit filed in July claims not appointing a lawyer to
represent people who can't afford to hire one in the earliest
stages of a criminal case is a violation of their constitutional
rights. The case was filed in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville
by Doug Norwood and Alison Lee on behalf of Abigail Farella and
Logan Murphy. The lawsuit seeks class action certification.
The case names Benton County District Court, Division 4, and
District Judge A.J. Anglin specifically, in his official capacity,
but says the practice of not appointing attorneys for indigent
defendants in the initial phases of their cases is the same in all
four district courts in Benton County.
The lawsuit argues Farella and Murphy were both arrested on felony
charges and given bail hearings before Anglin. Both were found to
be indigent but didn't have attorneys appointed to represent them
at their bail hearings.
Indigent means a person can't afford a lawyer for defense in a
criminal case. If the court finds a person indigent, it must
appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent him. At
dispute is when in the process the defender must be appointed.
The motion to dismiss, filed in July, argues judges have sovereign
immunity from being sued, defendants have no constitutional right
to a lawyer at that point in the proceedings and the plaintiffs
have failed to state a valid claim. Anglin is represented by
lawyers from the Arkansas attorney general's office.
The motion filed requests all deadlines in the case be stayed until
the parties receive notice of the court's ruling on defendants'
pending motion to dismiss. A stay is a court order preventing
further action until a future event occurs, or the order is
lifted.
The brief argues granting the motion to dismiss will prevent
unnecessary expense and burden and will further the interest of
judicial economy and efficiency.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs do not oppose the stay, according to the
motion. [GN]
BG GALLERY: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BG Gallery, LLC. The
case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. BG Gallery, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07431 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BG Gallery -- https://bggalleryshop.com/ -- is an Art gallery in
Santa Monica, California specializing in accomplished artists who
have crossed traditionally contentious art ideologies including
expressive-conceptual, insider-outsider, high-low and
figurative-abstract.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
BLOOMBERG LP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-07251 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.
Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendant as installation
coordinator.
BLOOMBERG L.P. is a financial, software, data, and media company.
The Company provides financial software tools such as an analytics
and equity trading platform, data services, and news to financial
companies and organizations. Bloomberg serves customers worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
Email: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
BOBIT BUSINESS: Emral Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bobit Business Media
Inc. The case is styled as William Emral, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bobit Business Media
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00741-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., Aug. 15, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Bobit Business Media -- https://www.bobitbusinessmedia.com/ -- is a
Southern California-based national leader in niche B2B
publishing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W University Dr., Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: (248) 841-2200
Email: gam@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
epm@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSON & FISHER, P.A. (NY)
888 Seventh Ave.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
BOSTON PRIVATE: Court Allows Bid to Dismiss Savoy Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD SAVOY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON PRIVATE FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-11537-PBS
(D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts allows the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
The Plaintiff brings a putative class action on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated former public shareholders of Boston
Private against Boston Private, its former CEO Anthony DeChellis,
and former members of its Board of Directors for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78n(a) and 78t(a), and United States Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.12a-9. Count
I alleges that Boston Private's proxy solicitations regarding
approval of its merger with SVB Financial Group, Inc., contain
false or misleading statements, omissions, and half-truths. Count
II alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Boston Private was a publicly traded Massachusetts corporation
offering banking and wealth management services. In October 2020,
the Company stated in a press release that it believed it was "well
positioned for long-term success." Its CEO, DeChellis, also stated
in an earnings call that he "remained optimistic about Boston
Private's momentum."
On Jan. 4, 2021, after a negotiation between SVB and the Board of
Directors, Boston Private and SVB announced they had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger pursuant to which Boston Private
would merge into SVB, with SVB continuing as the surviving
corporate entity. The proposed merger would award each Boston
Private shareholder with $2.10 in cash and.0228 shares of SVB
common stock as consideration for each Boston Private share,
together worth $10.94 as of Dec. 31, 2020.
The next day, HoldCo Asset Management, LP, the Company's fourth
largest shareholder, issued two public letters and press releases
outlining its concerns with the proposed merger. This set off a
pitched proxy battle. In essence, HoldCo contended that Boston
Private did not "conduc a competitive process to maximize value for
shareholders" and worried "the Board may have cut a deal that was
optimal for management but suboptimal for shareholders." It
contended that DeChellis had a conflict of interest. As disclosed
in the proxy, DeChellis had been offered a position as co-head of
SVB's wealth management division, with a significant pay increase.
On May 4, 2021, the merger was approved by approximately 89% of
voting shares present. The merger closed on July 1, 2021.
The Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.
The Plaintiff alleges the proxy statements contain half-truths and
material omissions. "To prevail on a claim under Section 14(a) and
Rule 14a-9, the plaintiff must prove a "misstatement or omission
was material" and "the proxy solicitation itself was an essential
link in the accomplishment of the transaction" that caused
plaintiff's injury.
As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether HoldCo's proxy
solicitations can be considered part of the "total mix" of
information for the materiality analysis. The total mix of
information available to shareholders includes information outside
the proxy solicitations that was widely known in the market.
The dispute involves a contentious proxy battle in which HoldCo and
Boston Private were publicly engaged in debate. HoldCo's
communications were referenced in the Boston Private solicitations,
were filed with the SEC, and were readily available to shareholders
through the EDGAR system on the SEC's website. A shareholder would
be putting on blinders to not consider the readily available
information on the website that were at the heart of the proxy
fight. In this setting, under the case law, the publicly available
communications from HoldCo are part of the total mix of information
available to the reasonable investor.
First, the Plaintiff accuses eight statements of being materially
false and misleading, three as to the interest of other parties,
including that DeChellis and Boston Private had closed the door on
incoming interest from the CEO of First Foundation Wealth
Management, because Boston Private had previously determined that
such a transaction would not be financially attractive or create
meaningful value for Boston Private shareholders, and that this
company was not a strong financial, cultural, or strategic fit for
Boston Private and that accordingly there was no reason to engage
in further discussions.
In essence, he argues that these statements omit the continued
outreach from First Foundation Wealth Management ("FFWM"); omit
that FFWM was interested in a merger, not just an acquisition; and
mislead as to why there were no proposals, given that DeChellis
impeded such proposals by refusing to seriously engage with other
interested institutions.
Judge Saris holds that the Plaintiff is unpersuasive in arguing
that these disclosures, or lack thereof, misleadingly painted the
three parties as unserious in their offers. The total mix of
information available to shareholders, largely through Boston
Private's own proxy solicitations, was sufficient to allow
shareholders to reach their own conclusions. "Fair accuracy, not
perfection, is the appropriate standard."
Second, the Plaintiff accuses two statements of being materially
false and misleading as to the third-party proxy advisor
recommendation: (i) That the independent proxy advisory company
Institutional Shareholder Services had recommended that Boston
Private shareholders support the recommendation of Boston Private's
Board and vote in favor of the merger with SVB Financial; and (ii)
that Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)'s report underscored
that the transaction with SVB Financial was financially and
strategically compelling and provided the best path for maximizing
value for Boston Private shareholders.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's nondisclosure of ISS'
negative observations was unlawful. He argues that once the
Defendants touted the positive recommendation, they were required
to disclose the negative observations within the recommendation.
Judge Saris finds that the claim that Boston Private's description
of the ISS recommendation was a half-truth is plausible. However,
HoldCo made the negative observations available to shareholders,
and they were part of the total mix of information available to
shareholders during the proxy battle.
Finally, the Plaintiff accuses three statements of being materially
false and misleading as to the fair value of the merger, including
that the Board negotiated to increase the value of the merger
consideration from approximately $7.60 per Boston Private share to
$10.94 per Boston Private share at the date of announcement of the
transaction. He argues that these statements mislead by focusing on
the nominal value and omitting the fact that the implied exchange
ratio decreased over the course of negotiations. In his view, the
exchange ratio was not fair because Boston Private and SVB stocks
were under- and over-valued, respectively.
Judge Saris holds that additional disclosure would not have altered
the total mix of information available to shareholders. The facts
underlying HoldCo's opinions, released to shareholders, were
already reasonably likely to be considered by shareholders. There
was no material omission or misrepresentation as to the sixth and
seventh statements. The Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim
that the Board or DeChellis did not sincerely believe the SVB deal
was the best option available to Boston Private -- the evidence it
cites does not plausibly belie the sincerity of the belief.
After hearing, for the reasons he stated, Judge Saris the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/dxhuz22s from Leagle.com.
BROADWAY ELECTRIC: Case Management Order Entered in Beauregard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN BEAUREGARD, v.
BROADWAY ELECTRIC SERVICE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-01600-WSS
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management order as
follows:
-- Discovery shall commence: August 23, 2022
-- The parties shall exchange September 9, 2022
initial disclosures, as required
by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, by:
-- The Plaintiff's expert reports January 20, 2023
as to class certification are
to be served by:
-- The Defendant's expert reports February 17, 2023
as to class certification are
to be served by:
-- Class certification discovery January 20, 2023
shall close on:
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 March 17, 2023
Class Certification, brief in
support, and all supporting
evidence is due by:
-- Defendant's brief in opposition April 14, 2023
is due by:
-- Any reply brief is due by: April 28, 2023
Broadway Electric operates as an electrical contractor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rc33Ul at no extra charge.[CC]
CAREFIRST: Attias, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al., v.
CAREFIRST, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the case to
proceed as a class action on behalf of the following Classes:
-- The Contract Class
"All persons who reside in the District of Columbia, the
State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia and
have purchased and/or possessed health insurance from
Carefirst, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical
Services, Inc., Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., and/or
Carefirst BlueChoice and whose personally identifiable
information, personal health information, sensitive
personal information, and/or financial information was
breached as a result of the data breach announced on or
about May 20, 2015;"
-- The Maryland Consumer Class:
"All persons who reside in the State of Maryland, and have
purchased and/or possessed health insurance from
Carefirst, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical
Services, Inc., Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., and/or
Carefirst BlueChoice and whose personally identifiable
information, personal health information, sensitive
personal information, and/or financial information was
breached as a result of the data breach announced on or
about May 20, 2015;" and
-- The Virginia Consumer Class
"All persons who reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and have purchased and/or possessed health insurance from
Carefirst, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical
Services, Inc., Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., and/or
Carefirst BlueChoice and whose personally identifiable
information, personal health information, sensitive
personal information, and/or financial information was
breached as a result of the data breach
announced on or about May 20, 2015."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants' officers,
directors, agents, employees and members of their
immediate families; and the judicial officers to whom this
case is assigned, their staff, and the members of their
immediate families.
In April 2014, a single employee of CareFirst's Information
Technology team downloaded a backdoor that granted data thieves
access to the class members' sensitive information. This CareFirst
employee downloaded this backdoor after being instructed the email
was a malicious attempt to steal information, essentially opening
the front door to the home after being notified thieves were
attempting to pick the lock.
The IT security team then failed for months to notice ongoing
"lateral movement" through their system so that the thief moved
freely through the "home" stealing information while Defendants
failed to recognize the ongoing theft of over a million consumers'
personal, sensitive information. This was both a breach of the
contractual duties to the implied terms of the contract that
Defendants and Plaintiffs mutually assented, and also to promises
made in Defendants' Notice of Privacy Policy.
All Named Plaintiffs bring this action under Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a
class consisting of each person who paid money to Defendants in
exchange for health insurance, which included either express or
implied promises to:
(1) protect Plaintiffs' information;
(2) encrypt all confidential information given to Defendants,
in accordance with Defendants' Internet Privacy Policy;
(3) comply with all HIPAA standards and ensure that
Plaintiffs' Personal Identifying Information (PII),
Sensitive Information (SI) and Confidential Information
(CI) remain protected and confidential; and
(4) safeguard Plaintiffs' Confidential Information and SI
from being accessed, copied, and transferred by third
parties.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wQSuO5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.
NIDEL & NACE, PLLC
One Church Street, Suite 802
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (202) 780-5153
Facsimile: (301) 963-8135
E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com
- and -
Troy N. Giatras Esq.
Matthew W. Stonestreet, Esq.
THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
Charleston, WV. 25301
Telephone: (304) 343-2900
Facsimile: (304) 343-2942
E-mail: troy@thewvlawfirm.com
matt@thewvlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 810
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: 202-463-1999
Facsimile: 202-223-6824
E-mail: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com
CARILLON TOWER/CHICAGO: Yao Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Annabelle Yao, Lina Dou, Xiuqin Xing, Geli Shi,
Lihong Zhan, Emmy Go, Tingyang Shao, Shiyang Xiao, Yixuan Tao,
Yanming Wang, Ying Yao, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Carillon Tower/Chicago LP, Forefront EB-5
Fund (ICT) LLC, Tizi LLC doing business as: Local Government
Regional Center of Illinois, TD Bank N.A., Symmetry Property
Development II LLC, Fordham Real Estate LLC, Jeffrey L Laytin, Case
No. 1:18-cv-07865 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of New York on Aug. 12, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-mc-02488-UAD to the
proceeding.
The Carillon Tower is a chapel in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Eliot Litowitz, Esq.
413 Locust Place
Deerfield, IL 60015
Phone: (312) 622-2848
- and -
Glen Joseph Dunn, Esq.
GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES
1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 546-5056
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel G. Hildebrand, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 456-1088
Fax: (312) 701-7711
- and -
Christopher M Busey, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5234
- and -
Leon Rodriguez, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
975 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (292) 828-3572
- and -
Edward M Moss, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 728-5671
- and -
Kevin Buckley Duff, Esq.
Michael Rachlis, Esq.
RACHLIS DUFF & PEEL, LLC
542 South Dearborn Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (312) 733-3950
- and -
Nathaniel Owen Asher, Esq.
O'MELVANEY & MYERS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 326-2271
Fax: (212) 326-2061
Email: nasher@omm.com
- and -
James Joseph Sipchen, Esq.
Matthew J Ligda, Esq.
PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHTD.
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606-4673
Phone: (312) 578-7422
CBE GROUP: Wollman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Bruce Wollman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No.
7:22-cv-07426 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practicaes Act.
The CBE Group, Inc. -- https://www.paycbegroup.com/ -- provides
debt recovery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
CHARTER OAK: Settlement in Discrimination, Breach Claims Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Spigolon at covnews.com reports that two commissioners said
they were ready to testify in court about being not guilty of
discriminating against two former appointed officials despite the
county's insurance carrier making a "business decision" to settle
the claims for more than $1 million.
Also, the same former officials, Lloyd Kerr and Megan Martin,
agreed not to take part in any class action lawsuits and not seek
employment again with the county government as part of settlements
of their discrimination and breach of contract claims.
Copies of the signed agreements showed Kerr, the former county
manager, was awarded $575,000 and Martin, the former county
attorney, was awarded $500,000 in the settlements reached Aug. 10
and Aug. 11.
The county's liability insurer, Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co.,
will pay the settlements and the county admits no liability in
connection with the claims, according to the agreements The
Covington News received through an open records request.
Both had filed ante litem notices with the Newton County government
through federal court in January. An ante litem notice detailing
specific claims against a government agency is required to be sent
to the agency before a lawsuit is filed.
Kerr's $575,000 settlement will give Kerr $373,745.36 and
$201,254.64 to Kerr's attorney, Ed Buckley.
The payment to Kerr represents $93,436.34 in back pay and
$280,309.02 in compensatory damages, the settlement stated.
"In addition, Chairman (Marcello) Banes will provide a letter of
reference for Mr. Kerr," it stated.
Martin's $500,000 settlement amount gives her $325,000 - $81,250 in
back pay and $243,750 in compensatory damages - and her attorney
$175,000, according to the report. Buckley also represented
Martin.
The Newton County Board of Commissioners did not renew Kerr's
contract at the end of 2021 after almost six years in the position.
It hired Jarvis Sims as interim county manager earlier this year.
Kerr claimed breach of contract for the county not conducting a
salary study of other counties before setting his salary.
Both Kerr and Martin also claimed employment discrimination by the
Newton County Board of Commissioners.
Martin was part of the Cumming-based Jarrard & Davis law firm under
contract with the county government and was assigned to represent
it for six years before she was not hired for a newly created
position of in-house county attorney in 2021.
She parted ways with the law firm soon afterward, and among her
allegations in her claim was that Sanders contacted the firm about
Martin's application for the position in an attempt to have the
firm fire her.
The in-house position has never been filled and Jarrard & Davis
still represents the county in legal matters.
Both also made individual claims of racial discrimination by the
Board's three Black commissioners, including J.C. Henderson, Demond
Mason and Alana Sanders, and alleged each had made statements
publicly and on social media about their desires to hire Black
employees for the two positions.
However, the insurance company ended up paying the settlement
despite none of the claims being part of a formal lawsuit or proven
in court.
Martin filed her ante litem notice with the U.S. District Court in
early January stating she intended to sue the Board of
Commissioners - claiming Henderson, Mason and Sanders discriminated
against her on the basis of age and race and Sanders illegally
intervened in her employment contract.
Buckley stated in the ante litem notice letter sent to the Board on
Jan. 5 that Martin filed the same charges of age and racial
discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Jan. 4.
Martin, who is white, stated in the notice that she applied for the
in-house attorney position with the assurance from all
commissioners except Alana Sanders that the job was "created for
Ms. Martin, and that she should have the position if she wanted
it."
"Ultimately, the choice for the Commission was between Ms. Martin
and an African-American female candidate over 40 who specialized in
real estate sales and had no relevant experience. Ms. Martin was
undoubtedly more qualified given her six years of experience
serving Newton County," the notice stated.
"Nevertheless, the county offered Ms. Martin the job for a
six-month contract only. The offer was designed to be rejected
since the county knew that Ms. Martin would have to leave a stable,
permanent job with a law firm for the uncertainty of a six-month
appointment," it stated.
In addition, after Martin initially applied for the position, she
said Sanders and Newton resident Denise Barnes contacted Jarrard &
Davis "and disparaged (Martin) to her former employer," the notice
stated.
Meanwhile, another commissioner, Demond Mason, expressly stated he
wanted a younger person to fill the new legal department position -
rather than Martin who is 42 - in violation of federal age
discrimination laws, the notice claimed.
It also stated Sanders and Mason "have a history of publicly
advocating for all positions of leadership within the county to be
held by African-Americans, which is an unlawful, racially
discriminatory hiring practice."
"Both commissioners have posted videos on social media taking that
position, making clear they harbored racial animus in opposing
hiring Ms. Martin, the most qualified candidate who applied for the
county attorney position, on the basis of her race."
Kerr, who is white, stated in a complaint to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission that Sanders and Mason had "posted videos on
social media . . . making clear they harbored racial animus in
opposing my holding the position of county manager and voting to
non-renew my employment."
"Commissioner Sanders even made a recording where she specifically
addressed the county manager position, noting she wanted to do a
national search for a county manager with the intention of
reflecting the changing demographics of the county," Kerr's ante
litem notice stated.
Kerr was hired as interim county manager in early 2016 and promoted
to the permanent position later that year. The Board in 2019
unanimously voted to renew his contract in 2019 for three years.
Buckley said the action not to renew his contract based on race
violated part of the federal Civil Rights Act.
"Mr. Kerr served as the county manager for Newton County for nearly
six years. Despite Mr. Kerr's excellent performance and dedication
to his job, on Nov. 2, 2021, the Board voted not to renew his
contract for an additional term. Accordingly, Mr. Kerr's contract
expired on Jan. 1, 2022.
"Ultimately, the decision not to renew Mr. Kerr's contract is
merely an extension of the unlawful racially discriminatory
policies and practices that the Board of Commissioners has
fostered."
Newton County also did not increase Kerr's salary to the level
other area county managers make as required in his contract, the
notice stated.
Kerr's contract required an increase in pay from $137,500 because
it was below the market rate for county managers based on a study
showing five area county managers earn between $175,000 and
$200,500. The notice stated the county breached Kerr's contract
because it did not raise his pay.
"The county never proffered any reason for breaching Mr. Kerr's
contract, leaving the only conceivable explanation to be aligned
with the reason for his nonrenewal: race discrimination and
retaliation," the notice stated.
Mason said in a statement he had "always denied, and will continue
to adamantly deny, the false and malicious allegations raised
against me by Mr. Kerr and Ms. Martin."
"The insurance company representing Newton County has decided to
settle the employment discrimination claims raised earlier this
year by Lloyd Kerr and Megan Martin. I have always denied, and will
continue to adamantly deny, the false and malicious allegations
raised against me by Mr. Kerr and Ms. Martin.
"The settlement of these matters was not approved by me nor the
Board of Commissioners and our approval was not needed because the
County's insurance company is bearing the entire cost of both
settlements. Newton County's taxpayers' dollars WILL NOT be funding
any of these settlements.
"My understanding is that the insurance company made this decision
in order to avoid potential legal expenses and that insurance
companies are reluctant to carry suits to trial, even when they
believe in their clients' side of cases, because lawsuits are
lengthy and expensive.
"I do not agree at all with the insurance company's decision and
looked forward to having the opportunity to disprove these
allegations at trial," Mason said.
Sanders also mentioned the insurance company's involvement in a
statement she issued recently on her official Facebook page.
She said she continued "to deny the false allegations lodged
against me by Mrs. Martin and Mr. Kerr."
"The settlement of their claims merely reflects a business decision
by the county's insurance company and is by no means an admission
of any wrongdoing on my part," Sanders wrote to her Facebook
followers Aug. 18.
"Per the ante litem, I was accused of posting videos on social
media regarding discrimination, which have not been produced. As a
Christian, mother, and a person that the people put in place to
serve this county, I would have preferred to prove my innocence to
the people of Newton County in court.
"The insurance company exercised its authority to settle the claims
without my consent because it is funding 100% of the settlement
funds. I do not agree with the insurance company's decision, for it
does not allow all parties to publicly provide the facts.
"Because this is out of the Board of Commissioners' hands, I have
to accept the decision of the insurance company, and I do not have
the authority to override it," Sanders wrote.
Others named in the notices did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. [GN]
CHECKER NOTIONS: Class Settlement in Gresky Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rhonda Gresky, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Checker Notions Company Inc.,
d/b/a Checkers Distributors, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01203
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, grants the
Joint Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class and Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
On June 17, 2021, Named Plaintiff Gresky filed her Collective and
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19; the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), O.R.C. Sections 4111.01, 4111.03, and
4111.10; and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), O.R.C. Section
4113.15 and the Ohio Acts. In the Complaint, she alleges that she
and other similarly situated hourly employees regularly worked more
than 40 hours per workweek but were not paid all overtime wages
owed under the FLSA and applicable Ohio Acts. She maintains that,
in addition to their respective base hourly wage, the Defendant
paid her and over 100 other hourly employees production bonuses
("Additional Remuneration") as an incentive to encourage them to
work more steadily, rapidly, and efficiently and/or to encourage
them to remain with the company given its importance to the overall
operation of the Defendant's business.
As such, the Named Plaintiff alleges that the Additional
Remuneration was non-discretionary and should have been included in
the regular rate of pay for those who worked over 40 hours and
received Additional Remuneration in one or more workweek(s). During
workweeks when she and similarly situated others worked overtime
and received Additional Remuneration, they allege that they are
owed unpaid overtime compensation and other compensation as a
result of the Defendant's failure to include the Additional
Remuneration into their regular rates of pay for purpose of
calculating their correct overtime rates.
While the Defendant admits that it pays Additional Remuneration, it
denies the Named Plaintiff's allegations, denies that it willfully
violated the FLSA, states that it complied with the FLSA and
applicable state laws at all times in good faith, and maintains
that it had reasonable grounds to believe that its act or omission
did not violate the FLSA or applicable Ohio law. The Defendant also
denies that the Named Plaintiff's claims were subject to class
action certification or collective action certification. It also
raised several affirmative defenses.
Based on the Named Plaintiff's allegations set forth in the
Complaint, the Named Plaintiff and the Defendant stipulated to
conditional certification, and Judge Helmick conditionally
certified the lawsuit as a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) on Sept. 29, 2021. The Parties also stayed the case
deadlines, including issuing notice to potential FLSA Collective
Members, pending a due diligence exchange of relevant payroll and
time records so that the Parties could thoroughly engage in
settlement communications.
As noted in the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval, in advance
of making her demand, the Named Plaintiff obtained a damages
analysis from her expert who analyzed the time and payroll records
of her and all 120 putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
class members. On Nov. 29, 2021, she served the Defendant with her
demand. The Defendant sent its response to her demand on Dec. 7,
2021. Over the course of the following months, the Parties
discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their positions as well
as alleged damages and traded counterdemands and counteroffers. On
Feb. 14, 2022, they reached an agreement on the terms of a
resolution of the matter.
The parties reached a settlement upon stated terms and conditions,
which are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release), that resolves all wage and hour claims that were or could
have been asserted in the lawsuit. Based on their extensive
investigation, the Class Counsel is of the opinion that the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the class in light of the
risk of significant delay, costs, and uncertainty associated with
litigation, including the Defendant's defense(s). In addition, the
Parties represent in the fully executed release agreement that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest
of the Named Plaintiff, the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23
class members in light of all known facts and circumstances,
including the risk of significant delay, the risk of loss or
limited recovery, and the defense(s) asserted by the Defendant.
The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendant will pay a
total of $96,377.58 to resolve the lawsuit.
The parties agree that a settlement class should be certified as a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class, defined as follows: All
persons who since June 17, 2019 until July 11, 2021 (Calculation
Period) when Defendant implemented a change in pay practice: (1)
were employed by defendant in an hourly, non-exempt role; (2)
worked over 40 hours in any workweek during the Calculation Period;
and (3) were included in the data provided by the Defendant (the
Class Members).
The Total Settlement Amount will provide the Class Members with
their calculated damages resulting from the Named Plaintiff's
claims based on the number of workweeks wherein they worked over 40
hours during the applicable Calculation Period.
Under the first option, any individual who timely returned a
consent form and did not opt out of the lawsuit will receive 100%
of their alleged damages as calculated by the Defendant and the
Class Counsel's analyst, an amount equal to their alleged overtime
damages, a second amount equal to the same, and an additional
payment of $200 as liquidated damages under the OPPA. A total of 58
Class Members timely returned their Consent Forms. Judge Helmick
notes that receiving all of their alleged damages plus an
additional $200 is an exceptional result for the Class.
Under the second option, any individual who does not timely return
a Consent Form will still receive 100% of their alleged unpaid
overtime damages and $200 as liquidated damages under the OPPA. To
receive this money, the Class Members do not need to take any
action other than to cash a check that will be mailed to them.
The Total Settlement Amount also provides for the following
distributions: a modest service award in the amount of $5,000 to
the Named Plaintiff, attorneys' fees in the negotiated lodestar
amount of $37,500 to the Class Counsel, and costs and expenses
associated with prosecuting the matter in the amount of $1,952. The
Defendant has also agreed to pay the costs associated with
administering the Settlement separate and apart from the payment
for attorneys' fees and costs.
In exchange for their individual settlement payments, the Named
Plaintiff, the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the Class Members will
release their wage and hour claims asserted and be mailed their
calculated alleged damages from the Total Settlement Amount by
Analytics Consulting, LLC.
On March 24, 2022, Judge Helmick entered an Order granting
provisional certification of the Rule 23 class, granting
preliminary approval of the Settlement and authorizing notice to
the provisionally certified class members. Thus, he preliminarily
(1) approved of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) granted certification of a settlement class consisting of the
Class Members; (3) appointed Attorneys Matthew J.P. Coffman of
Coffman Legal, LLC and Daniel I. Bryant of Bryant Legal, LLC as the
Class Counsel; (4) appointed Rhonda Gresky as the class
representative; (5) approved Analytics as the Settlement
Administrator; and (6) approved of the settlement procedure and
timeline as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.
On April 21, 2022, Analytics commenced the issuance of notice in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement and Judge Helmick's
Order preliminarily approving the Settlement. Under the
Court-approved Notice, the opt-out forms and written objections to
the Settlement had to be received or postmarked by Aug. 14, 2022,
which is 10 days prior to the fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2022.
In addition, the deadline to return an opt-in form to receive
additional compensation was May 9, 2022.33 Eight (8) Notices were
returned to Analytics as undeliverable, so Analytics conducted a
skip trace in an attempt to ascertain valid addresses for the
affected Class Members. As a result of those efforts, four new
addresses were identified, and Analytics re-mailed the Notice to
each of the new addresses. In other words, 116 out of 120
provisionally certified Class Members received Notice, which is
equivalent to 96.7%.
Judge Helmick grants the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), he finds,
after a hearing and based on the parties' submissions, that the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In reaching
this conclusion, he considered the record in its entirety and the
arguments of counsel for the Parties.
The terms and provisions of the Settlement are the product of
thorough, arms'-length negotiations among experienced and competent
counsel. Approval of the Settlement will result in substantial
savings of time, money, and effort to the Court and the Parties and
will further the interests of justice.
All Class Members are bound by the Judgment and the terms of the
Settlement.
Nothing in the Settlement Agreement, the Judgment, or the fact of
the Settlement constitutes any admission by any of the Parties of
any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of law; damages or lack
thereof; or of the validity or invalidity of any claim or defense
asserted in the Action.
The Class Counsel has made application for an award of $37,500 in
attorneys' fees and $1,952 in expenses incurred in the prosecution
of the action on behalf of itself and the Class Members. Judge
Helmick finds that the amounts requested for fees and expenses to
be fair, reasonable, and adequate under the circumstances. He
awards $39,452 as attorneys' fees and expenses to the Class
Counsel. Analytics will also be paid $6,105 for its services in
administering the Settlement. Further, the Named Plaintiff is
entitled to a fair, reasonable, and justified service award of
$5,000 pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and to be paid from the
Settlement fund.
The case is dismissed with prejudice.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court reserves
jurisdiction over the enforcement of the Judgment and the
Settlement Agreement and all matters ancillary thereto.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckarkwx from Leagle.com.
CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Eato Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW EATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHIPOTLE SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-07293 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Eato was employed by the Defendant as manual worker.
CHIPOTLE SERVICES LLC is engaged in the sale of food and beverage
under the tradename "Chipotle Mexican Grill". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
Email: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
CONDUENT INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Conduent Incorporated 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 8, 2019, a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain
federal securities laws in connection with the company's statements
and alleged omissions regarding its financial guidance and business
and operations was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired its securities from February 21,
2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Conduent moved to dismiss the
class action complaint in its entirety. In June 2020, the court
denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the claims to proceed. The
Court granted Class Certification on February 28, 2022.
Conduent Incorporated is a provider of business process services
based in New Jersey.
DANGDANG HOLDING: 2nd Cir. Flips Dismissal of Fasano Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE FASANO, ALTIMEO OPTIMUM FUND, ALTIMEO ASSET
MANAGEMENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GUOQING LI, PEGGY YU YU,
DANGDANG HOLDING COMPANY, LTD., E-COMMERCE CHINA DANGDANG INC.,
KEWEN HOLDING CO. LTD., SCIENCE & CULTURE LTD., FIRST PROFIT
MANAGEMENT, LTD., DANQIAN YAO, LIJUN CHEN, and MIN KAN,
Defendants-Appellees, RUBY RONG LU, KE ZHANG, and XIAOLONG LI,
Defendants, Case No. 20-3131 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit issued an order:
a. reversing the district court's dismissal of the action for
forum non conveniens; and
b. vacating the judgment and remanding for consideration of
the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs Fasano, Altimeo Optimum, and Altimeo Asset, suing
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appeal
from an August 2020 judgment of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Katherine Polk Failla, Judge,
dismissing, on the ground of forum non conveniens, their amended
complaint against Defendants Dangdang, its controlling
shareholders, and others, alleging negligent misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Sections 10(b), 13(e),
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules
promulgated thereunder, in connection with Dangdang's 2016
"going-private" merger and the purchase by its controlling
shareholders of its outstanding publicly-traded shares, listed as
American Depositary Shares (or "ADSs") on the New York Stock
Exchange (or "NYSE").
Dangdang is an e-commerce company incorporated in the Cayman
Islands and headquartered in Beijing, China. It is commonly known
as the Amazon.com of China. It is currently a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Defendant Dangdang Holding Co., Ltd. ("DHC"), a
company also incorporated in the Cayman Islands and headquartered
in Beijing.
Dangdang was founded in 2000 by Guoqing Li, who was its CEOand one
of its controlling shareholders, and his wife, Peggy Yu Yu, who was
a shareholder and Dangdang's Executive Chairwoman. The other
individual defendants include Danqian Yao, Lijun Chen, and Min Kan,
who were officers or directors of Dangdang at the time of the
going-private merger. These individual served the Defendants are
all nationals of China.
Defendants Kewen Holding Co. Ltd. and Science & Culture Ltd.
("S&C") are limited companies incorporated in the British Virgin
Islands; they are principally investment holding vehicles
controlled by Li. Li is the sole owner of Kewen and a 60% owner of
S&C. Defendant First Profit Management, Ltd., incorporated in the
British Virgin Islands, is principally an investment holding
vehicle owned by Yao.
The five individuals, along with Dangdang's parent company DHC and
the three British Virgin Island entities, are alleged to have been
Dangdang's "Controlling Group" with respect to Dangdang's
going-private merger. Dangdang and those nine entities are the
Defendants-Appellees on this appeal.
In addition to those 10 entities, the Plaintiffs named as
defendants, but did not serve, three individuals who are not
appellees: Ruby Rong Lu, Ke Zhang, and Xiaolong Li.
The Plaintiffs are former owners or holders of Dangdang ADSs.
Fasano is a resident of New York. Altimeo Optimum and Altimeo
Asset, are, respectively, a French investment fund and its French
investment manager.
Dangdang became a publicly traded company in 2010, with its shares
trading as ADSs on the New York Stock Exchange, covered by a
Deposit Agreement to which Dangdang, The Bank of New York Mellon as
Depositary, and "all Owners and Holders from time to time of
American Depositary Shares issued hereunder" were parties.
Ownership of ADSs was evidenced by American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs").
The initial public offering price of Dangdang shares was $16 per
ADS share. In the following years, Dangdang's shares were trading
at lower prices. In mid-2015, the share price had further declined,
reaching $6.51 per ADS share on July 8, 2015, due to a Chinese
Stock market crash. Li and the Controlling Group exploited
Dangdang's low stock price by making an offer to Dangdang to buy
out its minority stockholders at $7.81 per ADS share before the
United States markets opened on July 9, 2015.
The Controlling Group's offer to Dangdang was coercive because the
Controlling Group, which included the CEO and the Chairwoman, held
83.6% of the company's voting power. The special committee
proceeded to recommend that Dangdang accept the Controlling Group's
$7.81 per share offer for the ADSs despite there being an offer
from a private equity firm at $8.80 per share, and despite the fact
that that firm's offer was an all-cash offer, while the Controlling
Group was to finance its offer in part out of the Dangdang's own
available cash. The special committee also refused to insist that
the proposed going-private merger be subject to approval by a
majority of the minority shareholders. And it agreed to allow the
Controlling Group to reduce its offering price to $6.70 per share.
The going-private merger closed in September 2016.
The Plaintiffs commenced the present putative class action in
November 2016 to challenge the merger, asserting, inter alia,
claims of breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation,
and violation of Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act. The Dangdang
ADRs contained a forum-selection clause embedded in an arbitration
clause.
The present dismissal follows proceedings on remand from the Second
Circuit, which vacated a 2017 forum-non-conveniens dismissal of the
original complaint, for reconsideration in light of a forum
selection clause governing Dangdang ADSs and calling for United
States securities law claims to be litigated in a Manhattan, New
York, court. On remand, the district court, noting that the newly
filed amended complaint alleged essentially the same facts as the
original complaint but added two federal securities claims to which
it sought to link the original common-law claims, held that the
forum selection clause was valid and enforceable against only five
of the 13 named defendants and was applicable to only a narrow
subset of the Plaintiffs' claims, to wit, their federal securities
claims.
The court again dismissed the action for forum non conveniens,
concluding that a forum selection clause that is applicable to so
few claims and so few Defendants did not warrant retention of an
action that is almost entirely between foreign parties and that
arose from a merger executed in a foreign jurisdiction. It denied
as moot an alternative motion by the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
state a claim.
On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue principally that the district court
erred in concluding that the forum selection clause was not
applicable to all of the defendants and to all of plaintiffs'
claims, and in according unwarranted weight to public-interest
factors pointing toward dismissal. They also urge the Second
Circuit, if the case is reinstated, to rule that the Defendants had
waived their right to move for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the
amended complaint.
The Second Circuit concludes that the district court principally
misinterpreted the scope of the forum selection clause, thereby
undercounting the number of the Defendants covered by that clause;
and that it attributed undue weight to a Cayman Islands interest in
deciding the Plaintiffs' claims, given that the controlling
contract requires all common-law claims to be submitted to
arbitration in New York, and that the only claims that could be
adjudicated in the Cayman Islands would be United States federal
securities claims as to which the law is unsettled. It thus
reverses the dismissal for forum non conveniens.
The Second Circuit rejects the Plaintiffs' contention that the
Defendants' right to seek dismissal of the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim was waived for failure to so move with
their original forum-non-conveniens motion. It vacates the judgment
and remands for consideration of the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.
In sum, the Second Circuit has considered all of the Defendants'
arguments in support of the judgment and the Plaintiffs' arguments
for precluding the Defendants from pursuing a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), and has found them to be without merit. The
judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for the district
court to consider the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2psmaftn from Leagle.com.
SAMUEL J. LIEBERMAN -- slieberman@sadis.com -- New York, New York
(Ben Hutman -- bhutman@sadis.com -- Sadis & Goldberg, in New York
City, on the brief), for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
SCOTT MUSOFF -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- New York, New York
(Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, in New York City, on the
brief), for the Defendants-Appellees.
ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Faces New Inaccuracy Suit Even After Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney at fiercehealthcare.com reports that less than 6
months after paying $155 million to settle claims it falsely
obtained certification for its EHR software, eClinicalWorks has
been hit with a class-action lawsuit that claims deficiencies in
the company's software meant patients could not rely on the
accuracy of their medical records.
The complaint (PDF), filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York, was brought by Kristina Tot who
oversees the estate of Stjepan Tot. The suit claims Tot, who died
of cancer, was "unable to determine reliably when his first
symptoms of cancer appeared" because his EHR "failed to accurately
display his medical history on progress notes."
Tot further alleged that because eClinicalWorks' software did not
meet the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT's
certification requirements, "millions of patients have had their
medical records compromised" and "can no longer rely on the
accuracy and veracity" of their EHR. The suit noted that more than
850,000 healthcare providers use eClinicalWorks.
A cover sheet filed (PDF) with the complaint lists a monetary
demand just shy of $1 billion.
The lawsuit points to specific shortcomings within the EHR
software, including a failure to meet federal data portability
requirements, accurately track user actions in an audit log and
reliably record diagnostic image orders. Failure to meet these
certification requirements meant patient information and progress
notes were periodically displayed incorrectly, while inaccurate
audit logs misled physicians over the course of a patient's
treatment.
The class-action suit claims eClinicalWorks breached its fiduciary
duty by failing to maintain the integrity of medical records,
categorizing the company's failure to meet federal certification
requirements as "grossly negligent."
A spokesperson for the company did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
In May, eClinicalWorks paid $155 million to settle claims by
federal prosecutors that the company had knowingly falsified
Meaningful Use certification, triggering fraudulent incentive
payments to providers. The case marked the first time the
Department of Justice pursued an EHR vendor for failing to meet
certification requirements, and some former federal IT officials
hinted that eClincalWorks was not the only vendor that had taken
liberties with ONC's certification criteria.
When the settlement was announced, eClinicalWorks CEO Girish Navani
said the agreement signaled the company had "addressed the issues
raised, and have taken significant measures to promote compliance
and transparency."
Despite that settlement, the company recently posted it's the best
quarter of the year, adding 3,750 new providers and $130 million in
revenue.[GN]
ESCONDIDO MEDICAL: Guiniling Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GLORIA GUINILING, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. ESCONDIDO MEDICAL INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LIFE CARE CENTER
OF ESCONDIDO, a Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37- 2022-00019520-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01208-L-KSC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleged nine causes of action for: (1)
Unfair Business Practices; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3)
failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide required meal
periods; (5) failure to provide required rest periods; (6) failure
to provide accurate itemized statements; (7) failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses; (8) failure to provide wages when
due; and (9) failure to pay sick pay wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Escondido Medical Investors Limited Partnership is a skilled
nursing facility based in California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
Stacey F. Blank, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com
sblank@littler.com
EXELON CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2022, that an oral argument was held on May
17, 2022 after the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
lawsuit filed their reply brief. The Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of their class suit.
Four putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in federal court on behalf of ComEd customers in the third
quarter of 2020 alleging, among other things, civil violations of
federal racketeering laws. In addition, the Citizens Utility Board
(CUB) filed a motion to intervene in these cases on October 22,
2020 which was granted on December 23, 2020.
On December 2, 2020, the court appointed interim lead plaintiffs in
the federal cases which consisted of counsel for three of the four
federal cases. These plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
January 5, 2021. CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd
only on the same day.
The remaining federal case, "Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al,"
differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual
defendants not named in the consolidated complaint. However, the
Potter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint without
prejudice on April 5, 2021.
ComEd and Exelon moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint and CUB's complaint on February 4, 2021 and briefing was
completed on March 22, 2021. On March 25, 2021, the parties agreed,
along with state court plaintiffs, discussed below, to jointly
engage in mediation.
The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but
no settlement was reached. On September 9, 2021, the federal court
granted Exelon's and ComEd's motion to dismiss and dismissed the
plaintiffs' and CUB's federal law claim with prejudice. The federal
court also dismissed the related state law claims made by the
federal plaintiffs and CUB on jurisdictional grounds.
Plaintiffs appealed dismissal of the federal law claim to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs and CUB also refiled
their state law claims in state court and moved to consolidate them
with the already pending consumer state court class action.
Plaintiffs' opening appeal brief in the Seventh Circuit was filed
on January 14, 2022. Exelon and ComEd filed their response brief on
March 7, 2022, and plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 6,
2022. Oral argument was held on May 17, 2022.
Exelon is a utility services holding company based in Illinois.
EXOTIC COUNTERTOP: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Escano Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER ESCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXOTIC COUNTERTOP INC. f/k/a EXOTIC GRANITE
& STONE, CORP. d/b/a EXOTIC GRANITE & STONE, CORP.; and ELLYSON
MEDEIROS, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-61601-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug.
26, 2022) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Escano was employed by the Defendants as construction
worker.
EXOTIC COUNTERTOP INC. is a family owned company as a fabricator
and installer of kitchen countertops, vanities tops, fireplaces,
and tub surrounding. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: julisse@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
FIRST OF LONG ISLAND: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The First of Long
Island Corporation. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The First of
Long Island Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07430 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
First of Long Island Corporation -- https://www.fnbli.com/ -- is a
holding company which provides financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
FIRST STUDENT: Ct. Tosses Galvan Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN, et al., v.
FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification because the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate predominance.
The Court sets a further case management conference for October 11,
2022 at 2:00 p.m. An updated joint case management statement is due
October 4, 2022, the Court says.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendants
for violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code. The Plaintiffs allege that drivers were not paid
for the walk time to/from the dispatch office nor were they paid
for post-trip inspections.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes and
sub-classes:
-- Off-the-Clock Work Class
"All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
drivers by Defendants in California who were not paid for
all hours worked during the period four years before the
filing of the complaint;"
-- Bus Clock-In/Clock-Out Sub-Class
"All Off-the-Clock Work Class members who clocked in/out
at the bus who were not paid for (1) walk time to/from the
dispatch office; and/or (2) post-trip inspections;"
-- Scheduled Shift Sub-Class
"All Off-the-Clock Work Class members who were not paid
based upon their actual punch records, and were paid based
on either their scheduled start and/or end times or some
arbitrary start and/or end times which resulted in them
being not paid all hours reflected by their punch
records;"
-- Split Shift Class
"All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
drivers by Defendants in California and who worked more
than one shift in the same workday separated by more than
an hour between shifts during the period four years before
the filing of the complaint;"
-- Meal Period Class
"All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
drivers by Defendants in California and who worked a shift
in excess of five hours during the period four years
before the filing of the complaint;"
-- Additional Shifts Sub-Class
"All Meal Period Sub-Class members who were either
assigned an additional shift and/or who agreed to take on
an additional shifts during their split shifts."
-- Rest Break Class
"All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
drivers by Defendants in California and who worked a shift
in excess of three and one-half hours during the period
four years before the filing of the complaint;" and
-- Expense Reimbursement Class
"All persons employed as non-exempt, hourly paid bus
drivers by Defendants in California who incurred business
expenses during the period four years before the filing of
the complaint."
The Plaintiff Barbara Galvan worked for First Student as a bus
driver from November 2011 through November 2017. The Plaintiff
Cynthia Provencio worked for Defendants as a bus driver from June
2018 until March 2020.
The Defendants First Student Management, LLC, First Group America,
Inc., and First Transit, Inc. provide transportation services to
school districts and related clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q5Mv4n at no extra charge.[CC]
GEISINGER CLINIC: Court Dismisses Finkbeiner's Third Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE LYNN FINKBEINER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEISINGER CLINIC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-01903 (M.D. Pa.), Judge
Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania dismisses Feinkbeiner's Third Amended Complaint
with prejudice.
In November 2021, unvaccinated employees of various Geisinger
Healthcare affiliates were given a choice: vaccinate, test, or lose
your job. Today's suit involves some 100 that opted for the latter.
Led by Finkbeiner, these former Geisinger employees now argue that
their dismissal was unlawful. Though contorted into six claims,
each begins from the same premise: COVID-19 vaccines and tests are
unsafe and ineffective.
The dispute arose on Nov. 8, 2021, when 73 Geisinger employees
sought an injunction to stop their employer from requiring
unvaccinated employees to be tested twice weekly for COVID-19. The
suit's precipitating event remains Geisinger's August 2021 decision
to require that all employees be vaccinated unless eligible for a
religious or medical exemption. Soon after this policy was
announced, Finkbeiner and the other named members in the suit
requested religious exemptions.
According to her complaint, Finkbeiner's request was conditionally
approved, but weeks later, Geisinger told her that to keep her job
she must take a PCR or Antigen COVID-19 test twice a week. At the
same time, she was also informed that she must quarantine for 14
days if she was exposed to someone who tested positive COVID-19 and
could not take paid time off for this period. Geisinger, however,
later reversed this policy, thus allowing quarantining unvaccinated
employees to take paid time off.
After this announcement, Finkbeiner sought a further religious
exemption. But Geisinger denied Finkbeiner's request, instead
telling her that it would take her refusal as a voluntary
resignation. And so it went. By early December 2021, she was out of
a job.
After allowing the employees to amend their complaint two times and
hearing oral arguments, Judge Brann denied this request. Shortly
thereafter, Geisinger moved for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss the employees' claims for good. But in May 2022, Judge
Brann denied this motion without prejudice, finding that it was
premature, and instead instructed the employees to again amend
their complaint.
They did, filing a Third Amended Complaint, this time with
Christine Finkbeiner as the lead plaintiff for a putative class of
former employees. Geisinger soon responded by moving to dismiss the
case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or strike the
class action allegations under Rule 12(f). Finkbeiner failed to
timely submit a brief in opposition.
Though spanning six counts, Finkbeiner's claims can be boiled down
to three categories. Two allege violations of federal and state
religious antidiscrimination laws. Two others center on
constitutional violations. While still two more allege tortious
infliction of emotional distress.
In Counts I and III, Finkbeiner alleges that Geisinger's testing
requirement violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. She contends that Geisinger
failed to offer her a reasonable accommodation to the vaccine
mandate because PCR and Antigen tests are ineffective,
carcinogenic, only approved for emergency use in the United States,
and thus solely serve to punish her for her religious beliefs.
Judge Brann opines that Finkbeiner's belief that she has a "God
given right to make her own choices" would amount to "a blanket
privilege" and a "limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted
obligations." Though fungible enough to cover anything that
Finkbeiner trains it on, this belief "is an 'isolated moral
teaching' not a comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental
or ultimate matters." Beyond that, her statement only reinforces
that her opposition stems from her medical beliefs. In sum, it
would be a step too far to count everything Finkbeiner believes
about healthy living as a religious practice." Hence, Counts I and
III are therefore dismissed with prejudice.
Like past complaints, the Third Amended Complaint also alleges that
Geisinger's vaccinate-or-test requirement is unconstitutional.
Finkbeiner first contends that by treating vaccinated and
unvaccinated employees differently, Geisinger violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. And in a later count, she
also claims that this same policy violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 3 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution, thus entitling her to a recovery
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Judge Brann holds that both theories have substantial defects. But,
there is no need for analysis past the first step. To make out a
constitutional or Section 1983 claim, Finkbeiner must allege facts
showing that Geisinger is a state actor. And she has not.
Finkbeiner's allegations in no way suggest that healthcare
providers are, or ever have been, prohibited from doing more than
the state-mandated minimum to protect their patients and staff. Her
complaint fails to show that the government was responsible for the
conduct. So, Counts II and VI are therefore dismissed with
prejudice.
Finally, Finkbeiner newly alleges that Geisinger's conduct
constituted intentional or negligent infliction of emotional
distress under Pennsylvania law. She asserts that Geisinger caused
her emotional distress by implementing its policy, though it knew
or should have known that vaccines and tests were unsafe and
ineffective.
But these allegations, even if accepted as true, provide no relief,
Judge Brann opines. Finbeiner's allegations contain no reference to
Geisinger having breached a duty that caused them damages; nor do
they touch on the categories of claims where the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court permits recovery for emotional harm. Across three
paragraphs, she simply repeats the name of the tort, without regard
to its elements. Counts IV and V are therefore also dismissed with
prejudice.
Judge Brann concludes that while cloaked in the language of
religious discrimination, due process, equal protection, and
tortious infliction of emotional distress, Finkbeiner's complaint
makes plain that she's after a modern-day Scopes trial. She
believes that COVID-19 vaccines and tests are a hoax. And she wants
the Court to vindicate her views, overturn Geisinger's policy, and
find that she and her colleagues should have been allowed to work
-- unvaccinated and untested. But courts cannot simply weigh-in on
every issue an employee has with its employer's policy. There must
be a legal hook. And she has not provided one.
An appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/srnspxa9 from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses First Amended Ambrose Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT AMBROSE, SCOTT BARNES, RICHARD CHAPMAN, RYAN
CIRIGNANO, CHRIS FAUSSETT, MILAN GRUJIC, DAVID KELLER, JOHN KOBEL,
DANIEL LAWSON, STEPHEN LUTSK, LORI MAGALLANES, NOAM MEIER, ERIC
OSTRANDER, ROBERT OVERTURF, and MIKE WORONKO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-13449 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean
F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, grants GM's Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Class Action Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations and
dismisses the action.
GM is an automaker headquartered in Michigan that designs,
manufacturers, and sells automobiles throughout the United States
under the brand names Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac. Two of the
automobiles it designs and manufactured are the Chevrolet Colorado
and GMC Canyon.
The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased MY 2015 and 2016
Colorados and Canyons manufactured in the United States before Jan.
6, 2015 or after March 17, 2015. They leased or purchased their
vehicles from "independent third party" authorized dealers.
In this putative class action, 15 named Plaintiffs bring a variety
of statutory and common-law claims against GM arising out of an
alleged safety defect in the power steering assist in model year
("MY") 2015 and 2016 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon trucks. On
Nov. 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs initiated the action. On Oct. 23,
2020, they filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint. As
such, that pleading supersedes the original complaint.
The Amended Complaint is organized by the claims brought on behalf
of the Nationwide Class or alternatively on behalf of the state
sub-classes (Counts 1-3 and Counts 4-7) and those brought on behalf
of the individual state sub-classes: the California Sub-Class
(Counts 4-5 and Counts 8-9), the Connecticut Sub-Class (Count 10),
the Florida Sub-Class (Count 11), the Illinois Sub-Class (Count
12), the Michigan Sub-Class (Count 13), the New Jersey Sub-Class
(Count 14), the New York Sub-Class (Count 15), the South Carolina
Sub-Class (Count 16), the South Dakota Sub-Class (Count 17), and
the Washington Sub-Class (Count 18).
The claims brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class or
alternatively on behalf of the state sub-classes are a violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.)
("MMWA") (Count 1), breach of express warranty (Count 2), breach of
implied warranty (Counts 3), fraudulent concealment (Count 6), and
unjust enrichment (Count 7).
The claims brought on behalf of the California Sub-Class are a
breach of express and implied warranties under California's
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1790-1795.8) (Counts 4-5), violations of the California Legal
Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1785) ("CLRA") (Count
8), violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210) ("UCL") (Count 9).
The claim brought on behalf of (i) the Connecticut Sub-Class is a
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (Conn. Gen.
Stat. Section 42-110a, et seq.) (Count 10); (ii) the Florida
Sub-Class is a violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (Fla. Stat. Section 501.201, et seq.) (Count 11);
(iii) the Illinois Sub-Class is a violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (815 ILCS 505,
et seq.) (Count 12); (iv) the Michigan Sub-Class is a violation of
the Michigan Protection Act (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann., Section
445.903, et seq.) ("MCPA") (Count 13); and (v) the New Jersey
Sub-Class is a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J.
Stat. Section 56:8-1, et seq.) (Count 14).
The claim brought on behalf of (i) the New York Sub-Class is
violations of the New York General Business Law (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
Section 349, et seq.) (Count 15); (ii) the South Carolina Sub-Class
is violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act
(S.C. Code Ann. Section 39-5-10, et seq.) (Count 16); (iii) the
South Dakota Sub-Class is a violation of the South Dakota Deceptive
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (S.D. Codified Laws
Section 37-24-35, et seq.) (Count 17); and (iv) the Washington
Sub-Class is a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
(Wash. Rev. Code 19.86, et seq.) (Count 18).
The Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory, punitive and/or any other
form of damages provided by the statutes cited; restitution,
disgorgement and/or any other declaratory injunctive, or equitable
relief provided by and pursuant to the statutes cited; an order
"requiring GM to adequately disclose and remediate the Power
Steering Assist defect and enjoining GM from incorporating the
defective powertrain into its vehicles in the future; pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorney fees and costs
of the suit.
The Plaintiffs allege that GM knew of the Alleged Defect, and did
not warn consumers, when the Class Vehicles were manufactured based
on: GM's own knowledge about the material, design, and manufacture
of the part, pre-production testing, preproduction design failure
mode analysis, production design failure mode analysis, early
consumer complaints made to Defendant's network of exclusive
dealers, aggregate warranty data compiled from those dealers,
repair order and parts data received from the dealers, feedback,
both directly and through its dealers, from its customers during
repairs, complaints in the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration database, online complaints in web forums and social
media that are monitored by GM, news reports, and prior recalls
including those detailed above relating to electric power steering
parts including the torque sensor.
In the present motion, GM seeks dismissal of all claims for failure
to state a claim. Because the matter comes before the Court on a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, the following allegations
in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are taken as true.
First, Judge Cox examines the claims for the Nationwide Class
(Counts 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7). As an initial matter, GM argues that
the claims brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs do not allege injuries in states
other than where they reside and purchased their vehicles and they
do not plead claims under the laws of all 50 states.
Judge Cox finds that the named Plaintiffs do not allege injuries in
states other than their own or base their claims on the application
of other states' laws. They therefore lack standing to bring claims
on behalf of a nationwide class. GM's motion as to the claims
brought on behalf of the nationwide class is granted and Count 1 is
dismissed.
Unlike Count 1, which is only brought on behalf of a nationwide
class, the Plaintiffs bring Counts 2, 3, 6, and 7 "On Behalf of the
Nationwide class and the State Subclasses." Judge Cox will
therefore address Counts 2, 3, 6, and 7 only as to the state
sub-classes represented by the named Plaintiffs.
In Counts 2 to 5 of the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs
bring state law claims for breach of express and implied warranties
for each of the state sub-classes. Judge Cox holds that the
Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims fail because they do
not allege with sufficient particularity that GM had pre-sale
knowledge of the alleged defect at issue. Consequently, the class'
claim also falls. Therefore, GM's motion as to the express warranty
claims is granted and Counts 2 and 4 are dismissed.
GM's Limited Warranty expressly limits "any implied warranty of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose to the duration
of this Limited Warranty." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs do not state
a valid claim for breach of implied warranty because none of them
met the warranty requirements for both timing and mileage. Because
the Plaintiffs' claims fail, the class' claim also falls. So, GM's
motion as to the implied warranty claims is granted and Counts 3
and 5 are dismissed.
In Count 7 of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that GM
has been unjustly enriched in retaining the "profits, benefits, and
other compensation obtained through its wrongful conduct in
manufacturing, marketing and selling the Vehicles with defective
electronic power steering torque assist sensor to Plaintiffs and
the Classes."
The parties agree that there is an express warranty that governs
the dispute: GM's Limited Warranty. Therefore, the Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed. The Plaintiffs "can
hardly claim that the express warranty does not govern this issue,
when they explicitly allege in the amended complaint that GM's
representations regarding the quality of the class vehicles
constituted a breach of express warranty." Therefore, GM's motion
as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is granted and Count
7 is dismissed.
In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring a claim of
fraudulent concealment (Count 6) as well as claims under various
state consumer protection laws (Counts 8-18). GM argues that each
of these claims should be dismissed because they sound in fraud and
the Plaintiffs fail to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b) and 12(b)(6) pleading requirements for fraud.
As an initial matter, Judge Cox finds that the Plaintiffs'
fraudulent concealment claim and state law claims sound in fraud.
He finds that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly show that GM was
aware of, or received and acknowledged, the complaints. As such,
the Plaintiffs' allegations of consumer complaints on various
websites do not plausibly establish knowledge of a defective
electronic power steering assist torque sensor. The Plaintiffs'
allegations about GM's unspecified testing and analysis of its
parts are not enough to support a plausible inference that GM had
pre-sale knowledge of the alleged defect. Also, their allegations
merely identify the Defect and say that the manufacturer could have
theoretically known about the flaw.
In sum, the Plaintiffs do not meet their Rule 9(b) particularly
requirements, as the allegations made in this case do not support a
plausible inference that GM had pre-sale knowledge of the alleged
defect. Therefore, he grants the Defendant's motion as to the
Plaintiffs' claim for fraudulent concealment and claims under
various state consumer protection laws, and grants GM's motion as
to their fraud-based claims and dismisses Counts 6 and 8 to 18.
For these reasons, Judge Cox grants GM's motion to dismiss and
dismisses the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2tb9f8tp from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Napoli-Bosse
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLAINA A. NAPOLI-BOSSE,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01720-MPS (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order granting GM's motion
for summary judgment and denying Napoli-Bosse's motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiff Marlaina Napoli-Bosse, a resident of Connecticut,
asserts a breach of contract claim against General Motors alleging
that it breached its promises to address a problem with the shifter
of her leased 2017 GMC Acadia that prevented her from reliably
being able to turn off the vehicle.
Napoli-Bosse, along with three other out-of-state plaintiffs, filed
the operative complaint in this case on January 11, 2019, raising
claims of breach of contract, breach of express warranty under
Connecticut law, and breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.
After GM moved to dismiss, the Court dismissed the claims of the
three out-of-state plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction and
dismissed the breach of express warranty and MWWA claims under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) but determined that Napoli-Bosse could proceed
with her breach of contract claim. The parties cross-moved for
summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, and the Court
held oral argument on August 19, 2022 on the motions and on the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B0OLjC at no extra charge.[CC]
GOLDEN BEAR INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Golden Bear, Inc.
The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Golden Bear, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-07421 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Golden Bear -- https://thegoldenbear.com/ -- offers exclusive
handcrafted jewelry designs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
GRANT & WEBER: Ali Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grant & Weber, Inc.
The case is styled as Abdurashid Ali, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Grant & Weber, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-01279-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Grant & Weber -- https://www.grantweber.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
GRAVETIME INC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gravetime, Inc. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Gravetime, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07429 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gravetime, Inc. was established as a domestic business corporation
located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H & M, HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P.; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV27687 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 25, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as staff.
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP retails apparels and cosmetic products. The
Company offers shirts, blouses, pants, shorts, skirts, lingerie,
swim wear, sleep wear, socks, shoes, jackets, coats, blazers,
waistcoats, sweaters, and accessories to teenagers, men, women, and
children. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, SBN 263809
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
-and-
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: garen@majarianlawgroup.com
HAWAII MEDICAL: Nitta Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc., and Frederick A. Nitta,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Hawaii
County Medical Society; Charlene Orcino, Adrian "Scott" Norton;
Robert Egan v. HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION; DOE PERSONS
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; ROE "NON
PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10, AND ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Case
No. 3CCV-22-0000033 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Third
Circuit, State of Hawai'i, to the United States District Court for
the District of Hawai'i on Aug. 12, 2022, and assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-00371-LEK-KJM.
The Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: Tortious
Interference with a Contractual Right--Plaintiffs FNI and HCMS,
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing--Plaintiff FNI; Breach of Contract--Plaintiff Orcino;
Breach of Contract –Plaintiff Norton; Breach of
Contract--Plaintiff Egan; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing – Plaintiffs Orcino, Norton, and Egan; Unfair
Method of Competition--Plaintiffs FNI and HCMS; RICO--Plaintiffs
FNI and HCMS2; Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress--Plaintiffs Unknown; and Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress--Plaintiffs Unknown.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joachim P. Cox, Esq.
Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
Kamala S. Haake, Esq.
COX FRICKE LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 585-9440
Facsimile: (808) 275-3276
Email: jcox@cfhawaii.com
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
khaake@cfhawaii.com
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Maxton Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Worldwide
Holdings Inc. The case is styled as John Maxton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilton Worldwide
Holdings Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-05787-JFW-AS (C.D. Cal., Aug. 16,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. --
https://www.hilton.com/en/corporate/ -- formerly Hilton Hotels
Corporation, is an American multinational hospitality company that
manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and
resorts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq.
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Gil Melili, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: pamela@kazlg.com
ak@kazlg.com
gil@kazlg.com
- and -
Jason A Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
321 N Mall Drive Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: jason@kazlg.com
IMPRESSIONS ONLINE: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Impressions Online
Boutique LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Troche, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Impressions Online
Boutique LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07397 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Impressions Online Boutique LLC -- https://www.shopimpressions.com/
-- is in the Boutiques business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
INNOVATE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
Innovate Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2022, that briefing on the motions to
dismiss a class action was heard on March 29, 2022.
On March 15, 2021, twenty-two DTV stockholders and eight holders of
DTV stock options filed a stockholder class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled
"Bocock, et al., v. HC2 Holdings, Inc. et al.," C.A. No. 2021-0224
(Del. Ch.). Plaintiffs named as defendants INNOVATE Corp. (formerly
HC2 Holdings, Inc.), HC2 Broadcasting Holdings, Inc., HC2
Broadcasting Inc., and Continental General Insurance and certain
current and former officers and directors of the INNOVATE Entities
and DTV, including Philip Falcone, Michael Sena, Wayne Barr, Jr.,
Les Levi, Paul Voigt, Ivan Minkov, and Paul Robinson.
Plaintiffs principally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duty by participating in a "scheme" in which the INNOVATE Entities
acquired majority voting and operating control over DTV, exploited
that control to misappropriate DTV's assets and business
opportunities for the benefit of the INNOVATE Entities and
purchased DTV stock at a discount to fair value and diminished the
value of DTV stock options. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
"prompted" the INNOVATE Entities to purchase more than 100
low-power television (LPTV) broadcast stations originally
identified for potential acquisition by DTV, allowed the INNOVATE
Entities to misappropriate DTV technology, known as "DTV Cast,"
caused DTV to transfer unspecified LPTV broadcasting station
licenses to INNOVATE affiliates "without paying any value," and
(iv) transferred to the INNOVATE Entities unspecified DTV
broadcasting stations that had been "repacked" by the FCC.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 19, 2021. On June
23, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. In the amended
complaint, plaintiffs assert the same claims they asserted in their
initial complaint, added a claim for waste associated with DTV's
purported transfer of licenses and construction permits for less
than fair value, and dropped Paul Robinson as a defendant.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety
on August 25, 2021, and the parties completed briefing on the
motions to dismiss on November 10, 2021. The Court heard argument
on the motions to dismiss on March 29, 2022.
INNOVATE Corp. is a holding company that has subsidiaries in a
variety of operating segments based in New York.
JACKSON HEWITT: Mardis, et al Seek., to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WANDA MARDIS, et al., v.
JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02115-LDW
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
preliminary approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement,
and certifying the case to proceed as a class action.
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is the second largest
tax-preparation service in the United States; responsible for
preparing over 2 million federal, state, and local income-tax
returns each year.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TNJ9Rg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson,
THOMASSON PLLC
350 Springfield Avenue, Suite 200
Summit, NJ 07901
Telephone: (973) 665-2056
- and -
John C. Whitfield, Esq.
Caroline Taylor, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
518 Monroe Street
Nashville, TN 37208
Telephone: (615) 921-6500
E-mail: ctaylor@milberg.com
jwhitfield@milberg.com
- and -
Robert W. "Joe" Bishop, Esq.
John S. Friend, Esq.
BISHOP FRIEND P.S.C.
6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6
Louisville, KY 40222
Telephone: (502) 425-2600
E-mail: Joe@bishoplegal.net
John@bishoplegal.net
- and -
Jesse Wing, Esq.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
1500 Hoge Building
705 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-1604
E-mail: jessew@mhb.com
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited 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 3, 2022, that
from June 2020 to May 2022, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of
purported direct and indirect "Xyrem" purchasers, alleging that the
patent litigation settlement agreements the company entered with
generic drug manufacturers who had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications, or ANDA, violate state and federal antitrust and
consumer protection laws.
In June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California by
the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC, and
Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma
Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals
PLC.
In December 2020, the cases mentioned were centralized and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will
proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In
January 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California issued a Case Management Order that
schedules this case for trial in February 2023.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is a global biopharmaceutical company
based in Ireland.
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Class Suit Over Narcolepsy Meds Patent
----------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited 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 3, 2022, that
from June 2020 to May 2022, lawsuits were filed on behalf of
purported direct and indirect "Xyrem" purchasers, alleging that the
patent litigation settlement agreements the company entered with
generic drug manufacturers who had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications, or ANDA, violate state and federal antitrust and
consumer protection laws.
In July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals
PLC. The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc.,
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Lupin Inc.
In December 2020, said case was centralized and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the
purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In January 2021,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued a Case Management Order that schedules this case
for trial in February 2023.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is a global biopharmaceutical company
based in Ireland.
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Over Narcolepsy Meds Patent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited 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 3, 2022, that
from June 2020 to May 2022, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of
purported direct and indirect "Xyrem" purchasers, alleging that the
patent litigation settlement agreements the company entered with
generic drug manufacturers who had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications, or ANDA, violate state and federal antitrust and
consumer protection laws.
On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBS), against Jazz
Pharmaceuticals PLC, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth
(USA), Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC,
Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
and Lupin Inc..
In July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS lawsuit dismissed
their complaints in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and refiled their respective lawsuits
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
In December 2020, the case was centralized and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the
purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In January 2021,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued a Case Management Order that schedules this case
for trial in February 2023.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is a global biopharmaceutical company
based in Ireland.
JAZZ PHARMA: Faces Securities Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited 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 3, 2022, that
from June 2020 to May 2022, lawsuits were filed on behalf of
purported direct and indirect "Xyrem" purchasers, alleging that the
patent litigation settlement agreements the company entered with
generic drug manufacturers who had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications, or ANDA, violate state and federal antitrust and
consumer protection laws.
On August 14, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants, as well
as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International,
plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin
Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA
LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC (hereinafter referred
to as the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit).
In December 2020, the cases mentioned were centralized and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will
proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In
January 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California issued a Case Management Order that
schedules this case for trial in February 2023.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is a global biopharmaceutical company
based in Ireland.
JAZZ PHARMA: Sued for Violating Antitrust Laws
----------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited 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 3, 2022, that
from June 2020 to May 2022, lawsuits were filed on behalf of
purported direct and indirect "Xyrem" purchasers, alleging that the
patent litigation settlement agreements the company entered with
generic drug manufacturers who had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications, or ANDA, violate state and federal antitrust and
consumer protection laws.
On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two class action
lawsuits were filed against the company, one by the New York State
Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and another
by the Government Employees Health Association Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
In December 2020, the cases mentioned were centralized and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will
proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In
January 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California issued a Case Management Order that
schedules this case for trial in February 2023.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is a global biopharmaceutical company
based in Ireland.
JO-ANN STORES: Court Terminates Bid to Dismiss Rath Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WENDY RATH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON SITUATED, Plaintiff v.
JO-ANN STORES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-791S (W.D.N.Y.),
Judge William M. Skretny of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York terminates the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
In this diversity action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant,
her employer, failed to pay her and its other "manual workers" on a
weekly basis, violating New York Labor Law Section 191(1)(a)(i).
The Plaintiff sues for herself and a class of similar Jo-Ann Stores
employees from the last six years, alleging that the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff and the putative class of manual
workers on a timely basis by paying them biweekly rather than
weekly as required by Labor Law Section 191(1). The Plaintiff seeks
to recover the amount of untimely paid wages as liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Batavia, New
York, store from July 2019 to January 2021 and at its
Williamsville, New York, store from January to June 2021. She
claims that at least a quarter of her job responsibilities included
manual labor (such as cutting fabrics for customers, stocking
inventory, and working on the sales floor and at the cash
register).
The Complaint also alleges a class of all persons who worked as
manual workers for the Defendant in New York for six years before
July 13, 2021 (when the Plaintiff filed her Complaint).
After the Court extended its time to respond to the Complaint, the
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim
and lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff and her putative class
lacked Article III standing. Initially, responses to this Motion
were due by Nov. 29, 2021. The parties' moved to extend the
briefing deadlines which the Court granted; responses then were due
by Dec. 6, 2021, and reply by Dec. 20, 2021. The responses and
replies then were timely and the Court now grants leave to
supplement the authorities cited. As briefed, the Motion is deemed
submitted without oral argument.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff (and her class) lacked
standing under Article III because she does not allege concrete or
particularized harm to satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact
requirement. It also denies that any particularized harm occurred
in the manner of paying salaries because New York Labor Law Section
191(1)(a)(ii) also authorizes the Commissioner of Labor to waive
the weekly pay requirement. Neither party, however, claims that the
Commissioner granted a waiver to Jo-Ann Stores from the weekly
manual pay requirement.
The Plaintiff argues that she (and her class) has standing.
In reply, the Defendant denies that a one-week delay in paying
salary constitutes concrete harm for standing purposes. The New
York State Legislature intended Labor Law Section 191 to address
non-payment of wages rather than a week delay in payment. The
Defendant concludes that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged
"concrete and particularized harm."
The Defendant also denies that Labor Law Section 191(1) established
a private right of action because that section does not provide an
express or implied right of action. Further, it contends that New
York Labor Law Section 198 creates a right of action only for
alleged underpayment of salary, N.Y. Labor Law Section 198(1-a),
but that does not occur when a manual worker is paid biweekly. It
claims the that Plaintiff also has not alleged any actual damages
or lost wages although she now seeks liquidated damages.
The Plaintiff, however, relies upon the First Department's holding
in Vega v. CM & Assocs. Constr. Mgmt., LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144, 107
N.Y.S.3d 286 (1st Dep't 2019), that there is a private right of
action under Labor Law Section 191(1). She contends that late
payment of wages gives rise to this private right of action. She
concludes that the Defendant's delayed payments do not exempt it
from liquidated damages.
Judge Skretny first determines whether the Plaintiff has asserted
Article III standing to proceed. If so, the next issue would be
whether New York Labor Law Section 191 creates a private cause of
action against a non-compliant employer.
As to Article III standing, Judge Skretny finds that the Plaintiff
merely alleges the Defendant's failure to make timely, weekly
payments of her salary (as well as the salaries of the class
members) without alleging the consequence of biweekly pay. Rath
does not explicitly allege, however, any loss in the time value of
those unpaid weekly wages or loss of interest from what she
perceived as late paid salary. She does not claim, for example,
that she would have invested her weekly salary had she been paid in
a proper manner. Thus, what is left unstated is how the Plaintiff
was harmed by the up to one week delay while being paid biweekly.
Rath's present allegation is incomplete to allege harm to satisfy
standing requirements.
Rather than either dismissing the action due to the Plaintiff's
failure to allege sufficiently harm for Article III standing or
deciding whether New York Labor Law Section 191 creates or implies
a right of action for those manual workers like the Plaintiff who
should have been paid weekly, Judge Skretney terminates the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Instead, the Plaintiff ought to have
the opportunity to amend her Complaint to allege whatever harm she
suffered from not being paid on a weekly basis.
Judge Skretny grants Rath the opportunity to amend her Complaint to
allege the harm she (and the class members) suffered by the
Defendant paying her biweekly rather than weekly to establish her
(and the class') standing to sue in federal court as manual
workers. If she files the Amended Complaint and standing is
established, the next issue considered would be whether New York
Labor Law Section 191 creates or implies a right of action.
As for this purported private right of action, Judge Skretny notes
the trend after Vega from other federal and state courts that
recognize the existence of this right of action but there remains a
split in opinions of state trial and appellate courts on its
existence. The New York State Court of Appeals, however, has not
definitively resolved this issue. Whether there exists a private
right of action under Labor Law Section 191 to enforce its terms
need not be decided on this Motion to Dismiss absence resolution of
the Plaintiff's standing. Resolution of this question awaits the
Plaintiff's amended pleading and the Defendant's reaction to the
Amended Complaint.
If the Plaintiff (or her alleged class) fails to allege facts of
harm due to not being paid on a weekly basis or does not seek leave
to amend, she will lack standing and the Court will lack
jurisdiction to hear the case. If she does not seek leave to amend,
the Defendant may move to renew its Motion to Dismiss.
Thus, Judge Skretny directs the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to
allege her standing to sue by alleging whatever harm she (and her
purported class) endured from the Defendant's wage payment policy.
Judge Skretney concludes that the Plaintiff (and the putative class
of her fellow Jo-Ann Stores manual laborers) may have standing to
sue in federal court for violation of New York Labor Law Section
191 provided she sufficiently alleges harm from the violation. The
Plaintiff is given leave to amend the Complaint to assert the harm
she (and other class members) suffered from being paid biweekly
rather than weekly beyond the barebones allegation she made that
she was not paid as required by New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has 28 days from entry of the Decision and Order to
serve and file her Amended Complaint. The Defendant then has 28
days from that service and filing of the amended pleading to answer
or otherwise respond to it. Judge Skretny will not address now
whether the Plaintiff states a private right of action under New
York Labor Law Section 191. That question may be addressed once the
Plaintiff's standing (thus an aspect of the Court's jurisdiction)
is established. If the Plaintiff declines to amend her Complaint,
the Defendant may renew its Motion to Dismiss. Otherwise, the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is terminated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tuzx2auv from Leagle.com.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Australian Women Win Vaginal Mesh Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Arciga at thedailybeast.com reports that hundreds of women
who have experienced debilitating pain from Johnson & Johnson's
transvaginal mesh devices won their class-action lawsuit against
the company, The Guardian reports.
The lawsuit, filed against companies owned by Johnson & Johnson,
was initiated by 700 women who had mesh and tape products implanted
to help treat pelvic prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. The
women claim they were left with chronic pain that interrupted their
daily lives and strained their mental health. The mesh, which was
not properly tested before being released to the market, allegedly
eroded, causing infections and complications in some women. Johnson
& Johnson, along with the other companies named in the suit, are
accused of knowing the risks of releasing the device out into the
market and doing so anyway. The products have since been removed
from the Australian market, and are subject to separate
class-action suits in the U.S. and U.K. [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Court Junks Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 3, 2022, that
beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (Kandi) and certain of
its current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
In June 2020, a putative securities class action was filed against
Kandi and certain of its current and former directors and officers
in California federal court. This action was transferred to the New
York federal court in September 2020, Kandi moved to dismiss in
March 2021, and that motion was granted in October 2021. The
plaintiff in this case subsequently filed an amended complaint,
Kandi moved to dismiss that complaint in January 2022, and the
motion remains pending.
The complaint generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based on Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and sought damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. Kandi moved to
dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New
York federal court, that motion was granted in September 2019, and
the time to appeal has run.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a holding company based in
China.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 3, 2022, that in
December 2020, a putative securities class action was filed against
Kandi and certain of its current officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by
Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
Kandi's securities prior to March 15, 2019. This action remains
pending.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a holding company based in
China.
LATCH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Latch, Inc. (NASDAQ: LTCH, LTCHW) between May 13,
2021 and August 25, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than October 31, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Latch 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 Latch class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8369 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 October 31, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business operations and prospects. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) there were unreported sales arrangements related
to hardware devices; (2) as a result, Latch had improperly
recognized revenue throughout fiscal 2021 and first quarter 2022;
(3) there were material weaknesses in Latch's internal control over
financial reporting related to revenue recognition; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Latch would restate financial statements for
fiscal 2021 and first quarter 2022; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
To join the Latch class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8369 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]
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Faces Fudge Suit Over Info Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
RONALD FUDGE; and LISA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01961 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2022)
alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant failed
to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, medical
information such as information regarding medical treatments,
provider names, dates of service, diagnosis, procedure information,
("personal health information" or "PHI"), account numbers and
record numbers, names, and dates of birth ("personally identifiable
information" or "PII"), say the Plaintiffs.
The Defendant was responsible for the harms it caused and will
continue to cause the Plaintiffs and the countless other similarly
situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack
beginning as early as September 10, 2021 and discovered by
Defendant on September 26, 2021, by which cybercriminals
infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected network servers
and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII and financial information
which was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach"), the suit
alleges.
LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers oxygen, nebulizer, sleep, and
enteral therapy, as well as healthcare services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
-and-
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Washington St., Suite 302
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
tony@mastandoartrip.com
-and-
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358,
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
-and-
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300,
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 772-9960
Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
Telephone: (910) 772-9960
Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
LL FLOORING: Settlement Deal in Mason Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
LL Flooring 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 August 3, 2022, that the court granted
final approval as to the settlement of a class action filed in
August 2017 by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie
Ehigie in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all current and former store managers,
store managers in training, and similarly situated current and
former employees alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) by classifying
the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt (the Mason matter).
The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
In April 2021, the company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with counsel for the lead plaintiffs where, under the
terms of the MOU, the company agreed to pay up to $7.0 million to
settle the claims asserted in the Mason matter.
In the first quarter of 2022, the court gave final approval to the
settlement. As a result of the final approval, the company paid
$7.0 million, plus an additional $0.1 million in taxes, in the
current quarter to a court appointed administrator who handles
distribution to the plaintiffs.
LL Flooring is one of the leading specialty retailers of
hard-surface flooring based in Virginia.
LL FLOORING: Settles Labor Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------
LL Flooring 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 August 3, 2022, that that the court
granted final approval as to the settlement of a class action filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on March 6,
2020, on behalf of all current and former LL Flooring employees
employed as non-exempt employees.
The complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code
including, among other items, failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation within the required time, and engaging in unfair
business practices.
In December 2020, the company began contacting individual
plaintiffs and offered individual settlements in satisfaction of
their claims. In April 2021, the Company entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with counsel for the lead plaintiffs where the
company agreed to pay $0.9 million reduced by a credit of $0.1
million for amounts already paid to the individuals who accepted
the Company's prior settlement offer. In January 2022, the Court
provided final approval of the settlement.
LL Flooring is one of the leading specialty retailers of
hard-surface flooring based in Virginia.
MDL 2873: Harber Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX HARBER and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-02758-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
This suit deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were
designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF
compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as
"PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or
other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and
PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine
compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated
surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed
to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a
firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Florida and formerly a resident of
Hardin County, Kentucky. Mr. Harber, at all times relevant hereto,
was a dependent of a member of the U.S. Army, who during his
father's service was stationed at Fort Knox, a military
installation identified as being contaminated through use of the
toxic chemicals which are the subject of this action. Plaintiff
Harber suffers from thyroid disease, inclusive of undergoing
surgical intervention (thyroidectomy). It was discovered that
Harber has elevated levels of the subject chemicals in his system,
the suit alleges.
The Harber 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: Marangio Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
FLARRY MARANGIO, 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. 17, 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, ordinary 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 colorectal cancer,
alleges the suit.
The Marangio 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: Montgomery Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANETTE MONTGOMERY and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-02759-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
This suit deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were
designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF
compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as
"PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or
other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and
PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine
compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated
surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed
to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a
firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.
The Plaintiff joined the U.S. Army and was subsequently assigned to
Fort Jackson, South Carolina. At all times relevant, Plaintiff
lived/worked on Post at Fort Jackson using and drinking the water.
On information and belief, Fort Jackson is believed to have
elevated PFAS environmental contamination levels.
In 1992, Montgomery was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention. As known by Defendants, ulcerative cancer is a
disease linked to PFAS contamination. Montgomery did not discover
that PFAS was a cause of the harm until approximately late Summer
2020, when she saw internet information, says the suit.
The Montgomery 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: Reeves Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL REEVES, 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-02757-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 17, 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, ordinary 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 Reeves 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: Sellers Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVER SELLERS, 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-02757-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 17, 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, ordinary 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 Sellers 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
MERCEDES BENZ: Parties Stipulates Class Certification Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and
agreed that the deadlines set forth in the current Scheduling Order
with respect to mediation and class certification briefing shall be
as follows:
Description of Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Deadline for mediation Sept. 22, 2022 Nov. 9, 2022
-- Deadline for any motion Oct. 3, 2022 Jan. 30, 2023
for class certification,
and for disclosures and
reports of any experts
Plaintiff intends to rely
on at class certification:
-- Deadline for any opposition Jan. 27, 2023 May 26, 2023
to a motion for class
certification; for
Defendant's disclosures
and reports of any experts
Defendant intends to rely
on at class certification;
and for any motion by MBUSA
to limit or exclude
Plaintiff's class
certification expert
testimony based on Daubert or
any other basis:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff's March 17, 2023 July 25, 2023
reply in support of a motion
for class certification;
deadline for Plaintiff to
respond to MBUSA's class
certification expert
testimony based on
Daubert or any other
basis:
--Hearing on motion for May 4, 2023 Aug. 17, 2023
class certification:
Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RqT6So at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15 th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
475 Sansome Street, 16 th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 954-0200
Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com
eric.knapp@squirepb.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Extension of Time to File Response Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA I. SANTOS, et
al., v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (nka MR. COOPER), et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00103-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs and Defendants
jointly move the Court to extend the time for the Defendants to
respond to the Motion for Class Certification filed on August 9,
2022 by a period of 30 days, up to and including September 23,
2022.
Nationstar offers mortgage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RAEkZD at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd S. Dion, Esq.
15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202
Quincy, MA 02169
Telephone: (401) 965-4131
Facsimile: (401) 270-2022
E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com
The Attorneys for the NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION:
Jeffrey C. Ankrom, Esq.
Joseph A. Farside, Jr., Esq.
Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
E-mail: Jeffrey.ankrom@lockelord.com
Joseph.farside@lockelord.com
Krystle.tadasse@locklord.com
The Attorneys for the FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, are:
Samuel C. Bodurtha,Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
56 Exchange Terrace
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 751-0842
Facsimile: (401) 751-0072
E-mail: sbodurtha@hinshawlaw.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Parties in Sawyer Suit Seek More Response Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL E. SAWYER, et al., v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (nka MR. COOPER), et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00020-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs and Defendants
jointly move the Court to extend the time for the Defendants to
respond to the Motion for Class Certification filed on August 9,
2022 by a period of 30 days, up to and including September 23,
2022.
Nationstar offers mortgage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KIMdK1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd S. Dion, Esq.
15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202
Quincy, MA 02169
Telephone: (401) 965-4131
Facsimile: (401) 270-2022
E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com
The Attorneys for the NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION:
Jeffrey C. Ankrom, Esq.
Joseph A. Farside, Jr., Esq.
Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
E-mail: Jeffrey.ankrom@lockelord.com
Joseph.farside@lockelord.com
Krystle.tadasse@locklord.com
The Attorneys for the FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, are:
Samuel C. Bodurtha,Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
56 Exchange Terrace
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 751-0842
Facsimile: (401) 751-0072
E-mail: sbodurtha@hinshawlaw.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Parties Seek Time Extension to File Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA PARKER, et al., v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC (nka MR. COOPER), et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00060-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs and Defendants
jointly move the Court to extend the time for the Defendants to
respond to the Motion for Class Certification filed on August 9,
2022 by a period of 30 days, up to and including September 23,
2022.
Nationstar offers mortgage services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qa982i at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd S. Dion, Esq.
15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202
Quincy, MA 02169
Telephone: (401) 965-4131
Facsimile: (401) 270-2022
E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com
The Attorneys for the NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION:
Jeffrey C. Ankrom, Esq.
Joseph A. Farside, Jr., Esq.
Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
E-mail: Jeffrey.ankrom@lockelord.com
Joseph.farside@lockelord.com
Krystle.tadasse@locklord.com
The Attorneys for the FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, are:
Samuel C. Bodurtha,Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
56 Exchange Terrace
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 751-0842
Facsimile: (401) 751-0072
E-mail: sbodurtha@hinshawlaw.com
NEW GENERATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cortez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. NEW GENERATION CLEANING SERVICES CORP.; NEW
GENERATIONZ CLEANING SERVICES, LLC; RICHARD MARTINEZ; and RAFAEL
PEREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05107 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2022)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Cortez was employed by the Defendants as cleaner.
NEW GENERATION CLEANING SERVICES CORP. provides cleaning services
to homes, offices and restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
Email: Jason@levinepstein.com
NIO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of NIO Inc. ( NYSE: NIO) securities between
March 1, 2021 and July 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until October 24, 2022 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in Saye v. NIO Inc., No. 22-cv-07252 (S.D.N.Y.). The NIO
class action lawsuit charges NIO and certain of its top executives
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the NIO class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-nio-inc-class-action-lawsuit-nio.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: NIO designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
smart electric vehicles. It purports to differentiate itself
through technological breakthroughs and innovations, such as its
battery swapping technologies (i.e., Battery as a Service) and
proprietary autonomous driving technologies, including Autonomous
Driving as a Service.
The NIO class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) NIO pulled forward revenue by selling batteries
to a related party, which owned the batteries and managed users'
subscriptions; (ii) through the related party, NIO also recognized
enormous depreciation savings; and (iii) as a result, NIO's revenue
and net loss were overstated.
On June 28, 2022, Grizzly Research LLC published a report alleging,
among other things, that NIO inflated its net income by about 95%
through sales to a related party, Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co.
Ltd. On this news, the price of NIO American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") fell approximately 2.5%.
Then, on July 11, 2022, NIO announced that it formed a special
committee to oversee an investigation into the allegations in the
Grizzly Research report. On this news, the price of NIO ADSs fell
by nearly 9%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
NIO securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the NIO class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the NIO class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the NIO
class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. [GN]
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sargent Appeals Prelim. Injuction Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sherice Sargent, et al., are taking an appeal from a court ruling
denying their motion for a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit
entitled Sherice Sargent, et al., v. The School District of
Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01509-CFK, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs allege that in 2021, the Defendant adopted a
"blatantly unconstitutional race-based system for admission to its
criteria-based public schools." According to Plaintiffs, the
changes to the admissions process were enacted "for the illegal and
unconstitutional purpose of achieving racial balancing at the
city's elite [criteria-based] schools[.]"
On June 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, asking the Court to "enjoin the [D]efendants from
implementing their changes to the selection standards for the
city's [criteria-based] schools." In large part, Plaintiffs'
request for a preliminary injunction hinges on their interpretation
of a single sentence from a Philadelphia School District Board of
Education policy document, which Plaintiffs aver is "as close to a
smoking gun as can be imagined."
On August 8, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction after finding that they failed to show a
reasonable probability of eventual success on the merits, which is
a necessary steppingstone on the path toward a preliminary
injunction.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of this Order.
The appellate case is captioned as Sherice Sargent, et al. v.
School District of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 22-2493, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Aug.
16, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SHERICE SARGENT, individually, as next friend
of her minor child, and on behalf of those similarly situated, et
al., are represented by:
James J. Fitzpatrick, III, Esq.
Walter S. Zimolong, III, Esq.
ZIMOLONG LLC
353 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite 300
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: (215) 665-0842
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Defendant-Appellee SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA is represented
by:
William K. Kennedy, II, Esq.
Renee N. Smith, Esq.
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 772-7291
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dental Floss Contains PFAS, Dalewitz Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN DALEWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 7:22-cv-07323 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant's false and deceptive marketing and sale of
Oral-B Glide Dental Floss products (the "Product" or "Oral-B
Glide").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the Defendant
marketing the Product as "Pro-Health," laboratory testing indicates
that the Product most likely contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"), which are a group of synthetic chemicals
believed to be harmful to humans and the environment. Because of
the ability of PFAS to persist and accumulate over time, PFAS are
harmful at even very low levels, says the Plaintiff.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY manufactures and markets consumer
products. The Company provides products in the laundry and
cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care
segments. Procter & Gamble products serves customers worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (914) 693-2018
Email: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
- and -
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Buffington Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BUFFINGTON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE
ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:20-cv-07408-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
The Court certifies a class comprised of all persons:
"(a) who insured a vehicle for physical damage coverage under
a New York automobile insurance policy issued by Progressive
Advanced Insurance Company, (b) who made a claim under the
policy for physical damage to the vehicle, (c) whose claim
was adjusted as a total loss between September 10, 2014 and
the date of this Order, and (d) who were not paid the
applicable New York sales tax owed for their total-loss
claim."
The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed application to appoint
Plaintiff Steven Buffington as class representative and, under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1), and appoints Edward A. Normand and Amy L.
Judkins of Normand PLLC, Joseph N. Kravec of Feinstein Doyle Payne
& Kravec, LLC, and Antonio Vozzolo of Vozzolo, LLC as class
counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B7yPvW at no extra charge.[CC]
RAINBOW ROADSIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fox Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE FOX; LORENZO DOMINGUEZ; and MICHAEL SKILLINGS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RAINBOW ROADSIDE SERVICES, LLC; KIMBERLY J. GREEN; MARY ELIZABEITH
LOFLIN; and CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-01540
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as roadside
technician.
RAINBOW ROADSIDE SERVICES, LLC operates a light-duty roadside
assistance company operating in Brevard and Pinellas Counties.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
Daniel E. Kalter, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Telephone: (813) 379-2560
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
RPM DINING LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ehde Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIS EHDE; CASSANDRA LONG; and CRYSTAL LONSDORF, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RPM
DINING, LLC dba YELLOW ROSE; and MIKE PERSINGER, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00870 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 25, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers.
RPM DINING, LLC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business
includes operating of bars, night clubs, and other locations that
sell alcoholic drinks. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
Email: kristensen@cz.law
-and-
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
SCHWABE NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christoph Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CHRISTOPH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-975 (E.D. Wi., Aug. 25, 2022) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Christoph was employed by the Defendant as maintenance
technician.
SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA, INC. manufactures prepared foods and
miscellaneous food specialities. The Company operates in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
SESAME PLACE: $25M Lawsuit Alleges Rampant Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
AJ McDougall at Breaking News reports that a law firm filed a class
action civil lawsuit against the parent company behind Sesame Place
Philadelphia, alleging its character performers exhibited
"pervasive and appalling race discrimination" against Black guests.
An attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Baltimore man Quinton
Burns and his 5-year-old daughter said the girl and other Black
people were ignored as "a sea of white children" were catered to by
performers during a meet-and-greet. The child, lawyer Malcolm Ruff
added, "was forced to experience racism at the age of 5." The
lawsuit alleges that the four employees named as defendants in the
suit "held personal beliefs of racial bias towards Black people"
and that parent company SeaWorld "was previously aware" of those
biases. The suit, which seeks $25 million in damages, comes just
days after a video appearing to show the character "Rosita"
snubbing two young Black girls went viral and sparked outrage. The
family in the video was unaware of Burns' lawsuit before its
filing, a spokesperson told CNN. [GN]
SHEARER'S FOODS: Moore, et al., Seek Leave to File Instanter
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN MOORE & HEATHER KOLM,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SHEARER'S
FOODS LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01017-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for leave to file instanter a sur-reply to Shearer's
Foods Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Briefing and Decision on
Conditional or Class Certification.
Shearer's is a manufacturer of snack products including potato
chips, tortillas, whole grain chips, cheese curls/puffs, popcorn,
pork rinds, rice crisps, wafers, cookies, and both sweet and savory
biscuits.
A copy of the Plaintiffs motion dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bi9rE5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
TERRAFORM LABS: Albright Sues Over Drop in Cryptocurrency Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ALBRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERRAFORM LABS, PTE. LTD.; JUMP
CRYPTO; JUMP TRADING LLC; REPUBLIC CAPITAL; REPUBLIC MAXIMAL LLC;
TRIBE CAPITAL; DEFINANCE CAPITAL/DEFINANCE TECHNOLOGIES OY; GSR/GSR
MARKETS LIMITED; THREE ARROWS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.; PANTERA CAPITAL;
NICHOLAS PLATIAS; and DO KWON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07281
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2022) alleges violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants falsely promoted UST, Luna, and other
related Terra coins via social media and other web-based and mail
channels. In particular, the Defendants touted the stability of the
coins and guaranteed 20% annual returns on coins deposited in
Terraform Labs' high-yield savings application on the Terra
blockchain—the Anchor Protocol ("Anchor"). Meanwhile, certain
Defendants engaged in a pattern of money laundering activity,
siphoning billions of dollars from Terraform Labs to a series of
private cryptocurrency wallets, says the Plaintiff.
The Defendants' conduct constitutes a RICO violation. The
Defendants formed an enterprise for the purpose of artificially
inflating the value and trading volume of UST and other coins, so
that the Defendants could profit by, among other things, selling
those coins to the Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendants engaged
in a pattern of racketeering activity to support and profit off
their scheme, namely by making fraudulent statements through
interstate wire transmissions regarding Terra's sustainability, and
by laundering money out of Terraform Labs and into personal
accounts, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff and the Class were harmed when the Defendants' scheme
collapsed and the value of UST and other Terra coins plummeted.
TERRAFORM LABS PTE. LTD. operates a price-stable cryptocurrency.
The Company seeks to power the next-generation payment network and
grow the real GDP of the blockchain economy. Terraform labs
provides financial infrastructure for the next generation of
decentralized application. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, Floor 29
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Email: dberger@gelaw.com
TESLA INC: Toledo Sues Over Defective Brakes in Motor Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALVAREZ TOLEDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-04908-KAW (N.D Cal., Aug. 26, 2022) alleges that Tesla
designed, tested, validated, marketed, and sold defective motor
vehicles featuring advanced driver assistance system ("ADAS"),
branded as its "Autopilot" system ("Autopilot").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Tesla states that
"standard safety features will continue to be active on all new
cars" including "Automatic Emergency Braking," which Tesla
describes as "Designed to detect objects that the car may impact
and applies the brakes accordingly." (the "Autopilot AEB" system).
Tesla's Autopilot and AEB Systems have a defect that causes the
Class Vehicles' brakes to falsely engage randomly and unexpectedly
(the "Sudden Unintended Braking Defect" or the "Defect"). The
Sudden Unintended Braking Defect causes the Class Vehicles to
detect non-existent obstacles, thereby automatically triggering the
brakes and causing the Class Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come
to a complete stop, sometimes in the middle of traffic. Simply put,
as a result of the Defect, the Autopilot and AEB systems at issue
here are a safety hazard, not a safety feature, says the suit.
Had Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Sudden
Unintended Braking Defect, they would not have purchased and/or
leased the Class Vehicles on the same terms or would have paid less
for them. As a result of their reliance on partial representations
and omissions by Tesla, the Plaintiff and the other Class members
have suffered a loss of money and loss in value of their Class
Vehicles, the suit alleges.
TESLA INC. operates as a multinational automotive and clean energy
company. The Company designs and manufactures electric vehicles,
battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and
solar roof tiles, and related products and services. Tesla owns its
sales and service network and sells electric power train components
to other automobile manufacturers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North CA Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
TEVRA BRANDS: Scheduling Order Entered in Fontanez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON FONTANEZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TEVRA BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05119-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as
follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be Dec. 20,2022
completed no later than:
-- All expert discovery shall be Feb. 3, 2023
completed no later than:
-- Next Case Management Conference Jan. 23, 2023
is scheduled for:
Tevra Brands offers high quality, innovative products for your
pets, family and home at an affordable price.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wFItU8 at no extra charge.[CC]
TTEC SERVICES: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Carimbocas Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH CARIMBOCAS; LINDA DLHOPOLSKY; and MORGAN GRANT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TTEC
SERVICES CORPORATION; TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE; EDWARD BALDWIN; K. TODD BAXTER; PAUL MILLER; REGINA
PAOLILLO; EMILY PASTORIUS; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02188-STV (D. Col., Aug. 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the putative
Class Period, the Defendants flagrantly breached fiduciary duties
they owed to the TTEC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (f/k/a TeleTech
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan) (the "Plan"), to the Plaintiffs, and
other Plan participants by mismanaging the Plan's recordkeeping
fees and investment options—causing millions of dollars in
damages to Plan participants.
The Defendants breached their fiduciary when they: (1) failed to
prudently monitor, regularly benchmark, and prudently negotiate the
Plan's recordkeeping fees ; (2) allowed a service provider, T. Rowe
Price, to include proprietary investments in the Plan that
historically and subsequently underperformed the replaced fund and
were more expensive investments; (3) failed to prudently consider
alternatives to mutual funds in the Plan, despite the alternatives'
lower fees; (4) admitted to have only "periodically" reviewed the
Plan's investment options to ensure they were suitable for Plan
participants—in dereliction of their duty to continually monitor
inter alia, each investment offering—causing Plan participants to
incur excessive investment fees; (5) administered the Plan during
the Class Period without crucial protocol—namely, an investment
policy statement—to monitor the Plan investment menu; and (6)
failed to timely include target retirement date funds in the Plan's
investment menu, says the suit.
TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION is a global provider of customer
experience strategy, technology and business process outsourcing
solutions. The Company provides an technology-enabled
customer-centric services that span strategic professional
services, revenue generation, front and back office processes,
cloud-based delivery center environments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard K. Schott, Esq.
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Bernard K. Schott, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
bschott@flsalaw.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com
- and -
Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
1890 Gaylord St.
Denver, CO 80206
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Email: ashaver@lchb.com
TWITTER INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Business Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) resulting from
allegations that Twitter may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Twitter securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8303 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On August 23, 2022, CNN published an article
entitled "Ex-Twitter exec blows the whistle, alleging reckless and
negligent cybersecurity policies" which revealed that "Twitter has
major security problems that pose a threat to its own users'
personal information, to company shareholders, to national
security, and to democracy, according to an explosive whistleblower
disclosure obtained exclusively by CNN and The Washington Post."
The report also stated that the disclosure was "sent last month to
a number of US government agencies and congressional committees,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission and the Department of Justice" and that the
whistleblower is "Peiter 'Mudge' Zatko, who was previously the
company's head of security, reporting directly to the CEO." The
report further stated, among other things, that "[w]hat Zatko says
he found was a company [Twitter] with extraordinarily poor security
practices, including giving thousands of the company's employees -
amounting to roughly half the company's workforce - access to some
of the platform's critical controls." Finally, the report stated
that the disclosure "also alleges that some of the company's
senior-most executives have been trying to cover up Twitter's
serious vulnerabilities, and that one or more current employees may
be working for a foreign intelligence service."
On this news, Twitter's share price fell $3.15 per share, or 7%, to
close at $39.86 per share on August 23, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $63-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) and its contractor Peraton agreed to pay $63 million in
relation to a settlement in a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit
alleges that OPM and Peraton compromised personal information of
then-current and former federal government employees and
contractors, as well as certain applicants for federal employment.
OPM and Peraton deny they have done anything wrong but have agreed
to settle the lawsuit.
The settlement benefits consumers who suffered losses in connection
to the Office of Personnel Management's 2014 and 2015 cyber attacks
or Peraton's 2013 and 2014 cyber attacks.
OPM is a federal agency that serves as human resources for federal
government employees. This agency is responsible for retirement
benefits, insurance and other benefits for federal employees.
To be eligible to make a claim, the class member's personal
information must have been compromised in the data breaches, and
they must also have suffered an out-of-pocket expense or lost
compensable time:
To purchase a credit monitoring product, credit or identity theft
protection product, or other product or service designed to
identify or remediate the data breaches
To access, freeze or unfreeze a credit report with a credit
reporting agency; or
As a result of an identity theft incident or to mitigate an
identity theft incident
Under the terms of the settlement, class members who submit a valid
claim by Dec. 23, 2022, can collect a cash payment. Under the
settlement, each claim will be valued at $700 or the actual amount
of the claim - whichever is greater - up to a maximum of $10,000.
In order to receive a payment from the settlement, class members
must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 23, 2022. Visit
www.OPMDataBreach.com to make a claim.
OPM (as authorized by Congress) has made free credit monitoring and
identity theft protection services available to all individuals
whose personal information was compromised in the data breaches.
Those who have not signed up for these services but wish to do so
may visit https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/ or call 1-800-750-3004
Monday through Saturday, between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern Time.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 9, 2022. Class
members who exclude themselves do not benefit from the settlement
but will keep their legal rights against the defendants. The final
approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 14, 2022.
Class members do not need to attend this hearing but may choose to
do so.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits those who suffered losses in connection to
the Office of Personnel Management's 2014 and 2015 cyber attacks or
Peraton's 2013 and 2014 cyber attacks and if, after May 7, 2014,
you suffered an out-of-pocket expense or lost compensable time: (1)
to purchase a credit monitoring product, credit or identity theft
protection product, or other product or service designed to
identify or remediate the data breaches; (2) to access, freeze or
unfreeze a credit report with a credit reporting agency; or (3) as
a result of an identity theft incident or to mitigate an identity
theft incident.
Potential Award
Up to $10,000.
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of expenses related to the data breach, including
receipts, invoices and other proof.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Claims Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Claims or Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
12/23/2022
Case Name
In re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 15-1394 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia
Final Hearing
10/14/2022
Settlement Website
OPMdatabreach.com
Claims Administrator
Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions Inc.
Class Counsel
Daniel C. Girard
GIRARD SHARP
David H. Thompson
COOPER & KIRK PLLC
Tina Wolfson
AHDOOT & WOLFSON
John Yanchunis
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX CASE LITIGATION GROUP
Gary E. Mason
MASON LLP
Norman E. Siegel
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
Class counsel can be reached by calling (415) 981-4800 or emailing
OPM@girardsharp.com. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Doster Suit
---------------------------------------------------
HON. FRANK KENDALL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Air Force, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled Hunter Doster, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Air Force, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00084, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.
Hunter Doster, et al., brought this action, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of the Plaintiff classes, consisting of all
active-duty, and active reserve members of the United States Air
Force and Space Force who: (i) submitted a religious accommodation
request to the Air Force from the Air Force's COVID-19 vaccination
requirement, where the request was submitted or was pending, from
September 1, 2021 to the present; (ii) were confirmed as having had
a sincerely held religious belief by or through Air Force
Chaplains; and (iii) either had their requested accommodation
denied or have not had action on that request. The Defendants are
the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Air Force, in his
official capacity; Surgeon General of the Airforce, in his official
capacity; Commander, Air Education and Training Command, in his
official capacity; Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, in his
official capacity; Commander, Air Force Special Operations Command,
in his official capacity; and the United States of America.
The Plaintiffs claim that their constitutional and Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights have been violated because of
the Defendants' failure to grant religious accommodation from the
COVID-19 vaccine requirement. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief.
On July 14, 2022, the Court ruled that:
1. Plaintiffs' March 2, 2022 Motion for Class Certification is
GRANTED.
2. The class will consist of active-duty and active reserve
members of the United States Air Force and Space
Force, including but not limited to Air Force Academy Cadets,
Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps
(AFROTC) Cadets, Members of the Air Force Reserve Command, and
any Airman who has sworn or affirmed the
United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office and is
currently under command and could be deployed, who:
(i) submitted a religious accommodation request to the Air
Force from the Air Force's COVID-19 vaccination
requirement, where the request was submitted or was pending,
from September 1, 2021 to the present; (ii)
were confirmed as having had a sincerely held religious belief
by or through Air Force Chaplains; and (iii)
either had their requested accommodation denied or have not had
action on that request.
3. Defendants' March 23, 2022 Motion to Sever is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Proposed Intervenors' May 3, 2022 Motion to Intervene and
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and May 4,
2022 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5. Plaintiffs' counsel is APPOINTED as class counsel in this
matter.
6. The Court ISSUES a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER prohibiting
Defendants from enforcing the vaccine mandate
against any Class Member, to expire 14 days from the entry of
the Order.
7. Defendants are ORDERED to file a supplemental brief identifying
why the Court should not grant a class-
wide preliminary injunction.
On July 27, 2022, Judge Matthew W. McFarland further issued an
order granting Plaintiffs' class-wide preliminary injunction.
The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Orders dated July
14, 2022 and July 27, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned as Frank Kendall, et al. v. Hunter
Doster, et al., Case No. 22-3702, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Aug. 16, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants HON. FRANK KENDALL, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force, et al., are represented by:
Zachary A. Avallone, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 514-2705
E-mail: zachary.a.avallone@usdoj.gov
Plaintiffs-Appellees HUNTER DOSTER, et al., on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, are represented by:
Christopher David Wiest, Esq.
CHRIS WIEST, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC
25 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
Telephone: (513) 257-1895
E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com
UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Court Affirms Dismissal of RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
United Therapeutics 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 3, 2022, that a
recommendation to grant both the company's and Smiths Medical's
motions to dismiss without prejudice was issued by the magistrate
judge.
On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1,
LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II,
LLC filed a "Class Action Complaint" against Caring Voices
Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the
company violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating
with CVC when making donations to a PAH fund so that those
donations would go towards copayment obligations for Medicare
patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the company.
Plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare
Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them
to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover
allegedly inflated amounts they paid for our drugs. In April 2021,
the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and UnitedHealthcare
Insurance Company, have informed the company that they may bring
claims directly against the company to recover alleged
overpayments.
In October 2021, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in this
litigation. On that same day, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar
to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen in the matter described
above.
The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a
plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. As a result of
the amended complaint, the court ruled that the company's motion
for judgment on the pleadings was moot.
In December 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of the
plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new
antitrust claims. Smiths Medical has also filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical. On July 21, 2022,
the magistrate judge in the case issued a report and recommendation
that the court grant both the company's and Smiths Medical's
motions to dismiss without prejudice.
The parties have the right to file objections to the report and
recommendation by August 4, 2022. The court has set a case schedule
with trial commencing in June 2024, if the motions to dismiss are
not granted by the court.
URATA AND SONS CONCRETE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been against filed Urata and Sons
Concrete LLC, et al. The case is styled as Juan Hernandez, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Urata and Sons Concrete LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No.
34-2022-00325975-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug.
30, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Urata & Sons Concrete -- https://www.urataconcrete.com/ -- offers a
wide variety of trusted services for commercial structures of all
kinds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
VABSSS CORP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vabsss Corp. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Vabsss Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-05186
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vabsss Corp. is in the Cosmetics business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
VALBELLA AT THE PARK: Zivkovic Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of all other similarly situated persons
v. VALBELLA AT THE PARK, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07344 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 29, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid
wages.
The Plaintiff Zivkovic alleged that the Defendants did not properly
pay the food-service employees for all hours that those employees
worked and did not provide employees with the notices required by
the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Laura Christy Midtown LLC
d/b/a Valbella and Laura Christy LLC d/b/a Valbella from 2011 until
2017.
Valbella at the Park owns and operates a fine-dining restaurant in
Midtown Manhattan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 688-5640
Fax: (212) 688-2548
VALVE CORPORATION: Court Enters Case Schedule Order in Wolfire
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC, et al.,
v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order on the stipulated
motion for entry of case schedule as follows:
-- Rolling Document Productions Begin: Sept. 30, 2022
-- Substantial Completion of Transactional March 1, 2023
Data Production:
-- Substantial Completion of Parties' May 1, 2023
Document Productions:
-- Final Deadline for Service of June 30, 2023
Third-Party Document Subpoenas:
-- Deadline to Amend Complaint: March 1, 2023
-- Close of Fact Discovery: Oct. 31, 2023
Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher,
and digital distribution company headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington. It is the developer of the software distribution
platform Steam and the franchises Half-Life, Counter-Strike,
Portal, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead and Dota.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TC4gFZ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
Facsimile: (206) 905-7100
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David LeRay, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7231
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3285
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Charles Stevens, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
E-mail: charliestevens@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Telephone: (206) 883-2500
Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com
- and -
Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
Scott A. Sher, Esq.
Allison B. Smith, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, P.C.
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-8800
Facsimile: (202) 973-8899
E-mail: korourke@wsgr.com
ssher@wsgr.com
allison.smith@wsgr.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
- and -
David Golden, Esq.
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., 22nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 204-4527
Facsimile: (202) 204-3501
E-mail: dgolden@constantinecannon.com
- and -
A. Owen Glist, Esq.
Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq.
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 350-2700
Facsimile: (212) 350-2701
E-mail: oglist@constantinecannon.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq.
Timothy B. McGranor, Esq.
Kara M. Mundy, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND
PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 464-6400
Facsimile: (614) 719-4796
E-mail: kjrubin@vorys.com
tbmcgranor@vorys.com
kmmundy@vorys.com
- and -
Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND
PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 526-7903
Facsimile: (949) 383-2384
E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gavin W. Skok, Esq.
Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 624-3600
Facsimile: (206) 389-1708
E-mail: gskok@foxrothschild.com
kbroz@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Charles B. Casper, Esq.
MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER
& RHOADS LLP
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone (215) 772-1500
E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com
VANGUARD GROUP INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vanguard Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. The Vanguard Group, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07388 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Vanguard Group, Inc. -- https://www.vanguard.com/ -- is an
American registered investment advisor based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
*********
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 ***