/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221124.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 24, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 229
Headlines
2U INC: Final Hearing on Consolidated Securities Suit Deal on Dec 9
ACOSTA SALES: Case Management Order Entered in Frederick Suit
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
ALLIANT CREDIT: 7th Cir. Affirms NSF Fee Class Action Dismissal
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Online Store Monopoly of iPhones, iPads
AMAZON.COM: Brittain Alleges Mislabeled Amazon Prime Advertisements
AMERICAN AIRLINES: $7.5-Mil. Settlement Awaits Court Approval
APPLE INC: Apps Illegally Record Personal Info, Libman Suit Says
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bushansky Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
ATHIRA PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Wang Consolidated Class Suit
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Putative VIH Securities Suit
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Faces Suit Over Obsolete Driver-Assist Systems
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Scheduling Order Modified in Williams Suit
BLACK & DECKER: Faces Class Action Over DeWALT's Miter Saw Recall
BLUE SKY: Shareholders Launch Second Class Action to Recoup Funds
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Dickson Seeks Collective Action Certification
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in Georgia
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia
BRISTOL BAY: Class Cert Hearing in Abikar Suit Set for Dec. 14
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Says
CAMPBELL SOUP: Judge Dismisses Plum Baby Food Class Action
CARECORE HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Medical Employees
CENTURY FURNITURE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHARLES P. ROGERS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Santiago Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Amadril Sues Over Shampoo's Benzene Content
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Goldgewicht Says
CIOX HEALTH: Overcharge Copies of Medical Records, Gregorich Says
CLOUDERA INC: California Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
COREMEDIX INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
DAVID BERNHARDT: Court Junks Peltier Case with Prejudice
DEDON INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DELTA AIR: Sued Over Illegal Website-Browsing Surveillance
DIAMOND RESORTS: Settlement Class Gets Initial Certification
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Breach Suit
DISH NETWORK: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted vs Fuentes
ELDER FORD: Asher Walli Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Lead Plaintiffs' Seek Class Certification
EVLUTION NUTRITION: Metague Balks at Deceptive Nutritional Products
FIGS INC: Continue to Defend Ryan Securities Class Suit
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Besser Putative Class Suit
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Reviews Website Disclosure Form
GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Strikes Dahm's June 2, 2022 Expert Report
GITHUB INC: Open Sourcing Violates Copyright Interest, Suit Says
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Google Assistant's Voiceprints
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Faces Dollens Suit Over Drop in Share Price
H & M HENNES: Faces Class Action Over False Sustainability Claims
HAIN CELESTIAL: Parties in Howard Suit Seek Briefing Schedule
HOME DEPOT: 4th Claim in Fan Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action in California Over Unpaid Wages
HOMELAND SECURITY: Edakunni May Supplement Administrative Record
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Seeks Dismissal of Pizzuto Class Suit
HONDA CANADA: Deadline for Owners to Submit Claims Set March 31
HONEST COMPANY: Continues to Defend Dixon Securities Class Suit
IKEA US: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought in Dukich
IMANI LOUNGE: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Anderson Suit Alleges
INFLECTION RISK: Class Settlement in Taylor Suit Wins Final Nod
INFUCARE RX: Sharfman Files Bid for Class Certification
JBS USA FOOD: Brown Sues Over Fixing the Compensation Payment
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Court Tosses Bid for Class Certification
JOHN DEERE: Nine U.S. Farms File Right-to-Repair Class Action
JOJO'S CHOCOLATE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LA TINFORA GROCERY: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LAKE CITY CREDIT: Judge Certifies FDCPA Class Action Lawsuit
LAKESIDE RESTAURANT: Faces Nolen et al. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Love Suit Alleges
LEVI NORTH: Scheduling Order Entered in Toll Class Action
LINCARE HOLDINGS INC: Eichman Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Ct. Hears Bid for Final OK of Sweet Suit Deal
MARK CUBAN: Robertson Seeks to Certify Liability Issue Classes
MARSHALL HOTELS: Bid to Continue Stay of Class Cert Deadlines Nixed
MATRIX TRUST: MBA Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
MDL 2913: Canandaigua City Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
MDL 2913: Cobleskill Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in N.Y.
MDL 2913: Delaware Academy Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Unatego Claims
MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Marion Central Says
ME & MY BIG IDEAS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Bid for Class Deal Approval Due Dec. 15
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Class Action Firms Investigate Hacking Incident
MEDICAL ASSOCIATES: Kale Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
META PLATFORMS: Burgess Sues Over Monitored Browsing Activity
METRO KNOXVILLE: Sullivan et al. File Suit Over Age Discrimination
MICHAELS STORES: Powell Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MISTRAS GROUP: Price Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Gibson Suit Over TCPA Breach
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Class Suit Over Baking Lorna Doone Cookies Tossed
NATIONAL GRID: Suit Seeks to Reopen Discovery & Stay Deadline
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Revised Briefing Schedule in Walker Suit
NEW YORK, NY: WCEJ Suit Seeks Leave to Amend Injunction Bid
NEW YORK: More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid OK'd
NEWREZ LLC: Cwelt 2008 Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
NO TAX 4 NASH: Settles TCPA Class Action for More Than $1 Million
NORMANDY, MO: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
NOUMI LTD: Vic. Supreme Ct. Agrees to Settlement Group Costs Order
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Genova Sues Over Defective Graphics Card
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Allegheny Files Suit Over Securities Breach
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Cupat Files Suit Over Securities Violations
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Shijun Liu Files Suit Over Securities Breach
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Adopts Recommendation to Junk Talley Suit
PFIZER INC: Bleeker Sues Over Adulterated and Misbranded VCDs
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Settles ADA Class Action Over Curb Ramps
PHYSICIANS CENTRAL: Matos FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
PIKE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Deras Suit Alleges
PIM BRANDS: Faces Jackson Suit Over Mislabeled Sour Jacks Gummies
PISA GROUP: Williams Files Amended Bid for Class Certification
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Remand of Diesel Class Suit to State Court Denied
PROPETRO HOLDING: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 11, 2023
QUAKER OATS: Campobasso Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing
RANDSTAD GENERAL: Avillanoza Suit Removed to S.D. California
RAPID FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class of Detainees in Watkins
REALPAGE INC: Alvarez Sues Over Unlawful and Anticompetitive Acts
REALPAGE INC: Cherry Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Action Settlement in Peer Gets Final Approval
RIPTYDZ HOSPITALITY: Hessler Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
RZ INDUSTRIES: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE: Bid to Certify Class in Paz Denied as Moot
SEPHORA USA: Finster Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
SHERBURNE COUNTY, MN: Brenizer Files Bid for Class Certification
SHLEPPERS HOLDINGS: Underpays Movers, Nereo et al. Suit Claims
SMOOTH SYNERGY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SONY ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Lens Serial Number Stickers
SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STANDARD FIRE: Harrington Sues to Recover Damages from Negligence
STAR HOME DECOR: Banuelo Sues Over Improper Use of Biometric Data
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Brownell Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
STERICYCLE INC: Edge Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
STONEMOR MICHIGAN: Berry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
T&B INC: Ebbighausen Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
T-SYSTEMS: House Sues Over Unlawful Use of Personal Biometric Data
TAQ DF LLC: Colorado Us Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TEKPRO LLC: Gaines Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
TETRA TECH: Brown Sues Over Hostile Work Environment
TMC GENERAL: Alcaraz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks More Time to Oppose Squires Class Status Bid
TRACER BULLET: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRAIL TAVERN: Craghead Sues to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Briefing Schedule Set in Consolidated Wells Case
TRIDENT SECURITY: Hunkler Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRIVEST PARTNERS: Hall Sues Over Fraudulent Home Solar Systems
TUDI MECHANICAL: Nichols Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid Wages
U.S. BANCORP: Underpays Mutual Fund Specialists, Jackson Says
U.S. VISION INC: Torres Files Suit in D. New Jersey
UNCLE AL'S: Van Lehn Wins Bid to Certify Collective Action
UPLIFT FAMILY: Freiberger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
US PREMIUM: Antitrust Suits v. NBP in U.S. Consolidated in D. Minn.
VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Dettmering Sues Over Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme
VILLAGES OF ORLEANS: Sued Over Care Home's COVID-19 Deaths
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Faces Shareholders' Suit Over Inflated Prices
VISUAL DATA MEDIA: Fleming Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
VITALANT: Spears Suit Removed to N.D. California
WEBMD LLC: Faces Class Action Over Personal Info Disclosures
WHELAN SECURITY: Brady Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WILCO LIFE: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought
YOUTUBE LLC: Marschke Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal.
ZOLA HOSPICE: Bodnar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ZULIE VENTURE: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
2U INC: Final Hearing on Consolidated Securities Suit Deal on Dec 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2U, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2022, that the final approval hearing of
the settlement in the consolidated securities suit filed in
Maryland is set for December 9, 2022.
On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the Company, Christopher
J. Paucek, the Company's CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the
Company's former CFO, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based upon allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
projections.
The district court transferred the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, consolidated them
under docket number 8:19-cv-3455 (D. Md.), and appointed Fiyyaz
Pirani as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.
On July 30, 2020, Mr. Pirani filed a consolidated class action
complaint ("CAC"), adding Harsha Mokkarala, the Company's former
Chief Marketing Officer and current Chief Revenue Officer, as a
defendant.
The CAC also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against Mr. Paucek, Ms.
Graham, members of the Company's board of directors, and the
Company's underwriters, based on allegations related to the
Company's secondary stock offering on May 23, 2018.
The proposed class consists of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019.
On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
August 5, 2021, the court largely denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.
On February 18, 2022, the court stayed discovery until April 19,
2022, pending mediation. On April 28, 2022, the parties informed
the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement and accompanying documents.
On June 23, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.
The final approval hearing is set for December 9, 2022.
The settlement payment is being funded by the Company's insurers.
The $37.0 million payable under the proposed settlement and the
related insurance proceeds are recorded within other current
liabilities and prepaid expenses and other assets, respectively, on
the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
2U, Inc. is an American educational technology company that
contracts with non-profit colleges and universities to build,
deliver and support online degree and non-degree programs. It is
based in Lanham, Maryland.
ACOSTA SALES: Case Management Order Entered in Frederick Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEROY FREDERICK, v. ACOSTA
SALES CO., INC., MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS US OPERATING CO.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01350-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy
Criswell Wiegand entered a case management order as follows:
1. The parties shall exchange initial Nov. 30, 2022
disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)
on or before:
2. The parties shall file any motion to Dec. 30, 2022
add new parties on or before:
3. The parties shall file any motion to Dec. 30, 2022
amend the pleadings on or before:
4. The parties shall complete their Dec. 9, 2022
ADR session by:
5. Discovery related to class Feb. 17, 2023
certification shall be completed
on or before:
6. Defendants must file a notice on Feb. 17, 2023
the docket as to whether they
intend to call an expert witness
in connection with class
certification on or before:
7. If the Defendants will use such March 17, 2023
an expert, they shall disclose
their expert report on or before:
8. The parties shall complete all March 31, 2023
expert discovery, including
depositions, on or before:
Acosta was operates as a sales and marketing agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ElWAkxat no extra charge.[CC]
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Acutus Medical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the company and
certain of its present and former officials will continue to defend
themselves in several putative securities class suits in court.
Acutus Medical Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
have been named as defendants in two putative securities class
action lawsuits filed by stockholders in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on February 15, 2022
and March 23, 2022.
Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about our business, prospects and operations.
The putative claims are based upon statements made in filings made
by us with the SEC, press releases and on earnings calls between
May 13, 2021 and November 11, 2021. The lawsuits seek, among other
relief, a determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on
a class-wide basis, unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, other expenses and costs.
On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two actions, appointed
a lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel for the proposed class.
On September 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.
The Company and its present and former officials are defending the
action.
Acutus Medical, Inc. is an arrhythmia management company focused on
improving the way cardiac arrhythmias are diagnosed and treated
based in California.
ALLIANT CREDIT: 7th Cir. Affirms NSF Fee Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Larson, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, disclosed that on
October 25, in the case ALICIA M. PAGE v. ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district
court's order dismissing a class action alleging that an Illinois
internet-based credit union breached its account agreement when it
charged non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees to its customers. Plaintiff
alleged the account agreement required the credit union to use the
ledger-balance to assess NSF fees and only assess one NSF fee per
transaction. The credit union argued that the account agreement
permitted it to use the available-balance to assess NSF fees. The
account agreement referenced "sufficient available funds" and
further stated: "[c]hecks or other transfer or payment orders which
are drawn against insufficient funds may be subject to a service
charge as set forth in the Fee Schedule" and "[i]f the amount of
the item presented for payment exceeds the total of all available
overdraft sources, the item will be returned as non-sufficient
funds (NSF) and you will be charged applicable fees." The Fee
Schedule listed a $25 "Non-sufficient Fund Item (each)."
The Seventh Circuit observed that in granting the credit union's
motion to dismiss, the district court rejected the plaintiff's
theory, stating: "the plain, unambiguous language states that a
member needs sufficient available funds and reasoning that
[plaintiff's] proposed reading would render [the] use of the word
‘available' meaningless." The district court distinguished this
case from an Eleventh Circuit case holding a similar account
contract was ambiguous because the contract at issue in that case
did not include "available" in close proximity to "sufficient
funds." The district court rejected the one NSF fee for multiple
presentments theory based on the plural use of "fees" in the
disclosure "you will be charged applicable fees."
In recognizing that the credit union could have drafted the account
agreement "more clearly than it did," the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the district court's order by holding:
The fact that some institutions disclosed that they used the
available-balance method differently or more clearly does not prove
that the Agreement promised to use the ledger-balance method or
that the Agreement is ambiguous. The lack of conspicuous
disclaimers about how [the credit union] assesses NSF fees does not
change the fact that the available-balance method better fits the
contractual language than the ledger-balance method.
Taken together, [the account agreement] and the Fee Schedule permit
[credit union] to charge an NSF fee each time a payee attempts to
make an ACH debit from an account with insufficient funds.
While the credit union ultimately prevailed, this case serves as
reminder to review your account agreement disclosures with counsel
to ensure that your fee assessment practices are clearly disclosed
to consumers and compliant with applicable law. As we recently
commented, NSF fees have also been under attack through CFPB policy
statements. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Online Store Monopoly of iPhones, iPads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and APPLE INC., a
California corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01599 (W.D.
Wash., Nov. 9, 2022) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, in exchange for eliminating the Apple
resellers that were driving down online prices for Apple products,
Apple agreed to provide Amazon consistent supplies at a discount of
up to 10%, contingent on its ability to keep the excluded sellers
off Amazon Marketplace. This was accomplished by the Global Tenets
Agreement, dated October 31, 2018, and made effective January 1,
2019 (hereinafter the "Unlawful Boycott Agreement").
The Unlawful Boycott Agreement transformed Amazon's near-zero share
of Apple iPhone and iPad sales on Amazon Marketplace to its current
dominant position in which Amazon won the buy box for sales of
Apple iPhones and iPads, and resulted in Amazon's domination in
sales after the agreement was reached. At the expense of consumers,
merchants, and competition as a whole, Amazo and Apple, who are
horizontal competitors—profited handsomely from the Unlawful
Boycott Agreement. The Unlawful Boycott Agreement causes severe
anticompetitive effects in the online market, and it cannot be
justified as serving any procompetitive end, says the suit.
AMAZON.COM, INC. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products. The Company products include books, music, computers,
electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers
personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and
direct shipping to customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
barabaram@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: benh@hbsslaw.com
AMAZON.COM: Brittain Alleges Mislabeled Amazon Prime Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA BRITTAIN; and LINDA DIAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01764-CAB-DEB
(S.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2022) alleges violation of the California's
False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant Amazon
misrepresents its "Amazon Prime" membership ("the Product") on a
statewide and nationwide basis. Amazon markets specific benefits
that consumers will receive by purchasing the Product, including
"same day" or "two day" delivery and shipping speeds. However, in
reality, the Product does not provide actually provide its
advertised benefits. The purchase of the Product does not confer
the benefit of delivery within two days or within the same day.
Consumers who purchase the Product, and subscribe to the Amazon
Prime Membership, are often waiting substantially beyond the same
day and more than two days for ordered items, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the premium them and the Class
Members paid due to Defendant Amazon's false and deceptive
representations about the Product.
AMAZON.COM, INC. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products. The Company products include books, music, computers,
electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers
personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and
direct shipping to customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shalini Dogra, Esq.
DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
2219 Main Street, Unit 239
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (747) 234-6673
Facsimile: (310) 868-0170
- and -
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
W EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
7700 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
Facsimile: (949) 674-4930
Email: jacob@swemploymentlaw.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: $7.5-Mil. Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that if you've flown American
Airlines in the past few years and had to pay to check your
luggage, you might be due some money. American, the largest carrier
in the world, is paying least $7.5 million to settle claims it
charged undo fees to stow luggage.
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in the District Court
for the Northern District of Texas last year include passengers who
qualified for the airline's AAdvantage Gold status loyalty program
and travelers with AA-branded credit cards that came with bag-check
privileges.
They claim their benefits haven't been properly programmed into
AA's airport software system since at least 2013.
"As a result, AA passengers were improperly charged and forced to
pay baggage fees," according to the complaint.
American agreed to the settlement on Oct. The company has declined
to comment on the case but, in court filings, denied any
wrongdoing.
The financial agreement needs to be approved by the court before
customers receive any compensation.
What is American Airlines accused of in the class-action lawsuit?
Plaintiffs in Cleary, et al., v. American Airlines allege that the
carrier routinely tells certain passengers they can check bags for
free, then requires them to pay when they arrive to check in at the
airport.
"Knowing that waiving baggage fees would entice fliers, AA offered
free checked bags to certain customers -- including customers who
flew frequently in AA's loyalty program, AAdvantage; customers who
purchased first or business class tickets and customers who held
AA's branded credit cards," the suit reads.
American "systematically breached those contracts by nevertheless
requiring those passengers to pay AA to check such bags."
Some passengers said they requested a refund and were refused. One
class representative, Eric Earll, said he was approved for a
Citi/AAdvantage Platinum Select credit card, "which he understood
would allow him to check a bag at no additional charge on his
upcoming flight."
But when Earll arrived at the airport, "the AA check-in agent told
him the computer showed no bag fee waiver, that this happens all
the time and that he had to pay the fee in order to check the
bag."
According to the lawsuit, American Airlines generated over $1.4
billion in baggage fees in 2019 alone.
An agreement was reached in August, days before a trial was
scheduled to start, The Washington Post reported.
Who is eligible for part of the American Airlines settlement?
The settlement breaks class members into two groups:
Travelers with AA-branded credit cards that entitled them to free
bag-checking privileges but were charged on a domestic flight.
Passengers who received email confirmation that one or more of
their bags would be free to check but still had to pay.
To qualify for part of the settlement, class members must have
traveled on or after Feb. 24, 2017, and their tickets must have
been bought no later than April 8, 2020.
How much could customers receive from American Airlines?
While both the class representatives and the airline have agreed to
the terms of the settlement, they still need to be approved by the
courts. If and when that happens, eligible customers will receive a
full refund of all relevant checked-baggage fees.
According to the American Airlines website, the charge for the
first checked piece of luggage on a domestic flight is $30. From
there, fees increase to $40 for a second bag, $150 for a third bag
and $200 for a fourth one.
Refunds will be issued via mailed checks and electronic payments.
While American has agreed to a $7.5 million floor, there is no cap
on how much the settlement might ultimately pay out.
How do I file a claim in the American Airlines baggage fee
settlement?
Right now, the settlement website offers details on class members'
rights and options but does not include forms or deadlines for
filing a claim.
"Please check back in the coming weeks for detailed information on
the proposed settlement," reads a statement on the site.
In court papers, American Airlines said it would notify potential
class members of the settlement by mail and public notice. It will
also establish a toll-free phone number and include additional
information on the settlement website.
Attorneys with Giskan Solotaroff and Anderson, the firm
representing the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for
details. [GN]
APPLE INC: Apps Illegally Record Personal Info, Libman Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOT LIBMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-07069 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2022) is an action arising from
Apple's knowing and unauthorized recording, copying, taking, use,
and tracking of consumers' communications and activity, and its
knowing and unauthorized invasion of consumer privacy.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violates state law in
connection with its illegal recording of consumers' confidential
activity on its consumer mobile applications ("apps") -- a huge and
growing treasure trove of data that Apple amasses and uses for its
own profit. Apple purports to offer consumers the option to control
what app browsing and activity data Apple collects by adjusting
their privacy settings to turn off "Allow Apps to Request to Track"
before opening or browsing mobile apps. Apple repeatedly assures
its consumers that "Apple requires app developers to ask for
permission before they track your activity," says the suit.
Apple records, tracks, collects and monetizes analytics data --
including browsing history and activity information -- regardless
of what safeguards or "privacy settings" consumers undertake to
protect their privacy. Even when consumers follow Apple's own
instructions and turn off "Allow Apps to Request to Track" and
"Share Analytics" on their privacy controls, Apple nevertheless
continues to record consumers' app usage, app browsing
communications, and personal information in its proprietary Apple
apps, including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Books, and
Stocks, the suit asserts.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bushansky Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Athira Pharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the Bushansky
consolidated shareholder derivative suit is stayed by court.
On April 14, 2022, a shareholder derivative action was filed by
plaintiff Stephen Bushansky in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against certain current and former
members of the Company's board of directors, captioned Bushansky v.
Kawas et al., No. 2:22-cv-497.
Plaintiff purports to bring the action derivatively on the
Company's behalf, and a nominal defendant to the action. The
derivative complaint alleges that its board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties by failing to prevent alleged misstatements in
our public filings, failing to discover altered images in certain
research papers, and failing to take appropriate action. The
derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and waste of
corporate assets. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified
damages, disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation
received by the individual defendants, restitution, declaratory
relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative
plaintiff, including attorneys' fees.
On May 6, 2022, a second shareholder derivative action was filed by
plaintiff Thomas Houlihan in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against certain of our current and
former directors and officers, captioned Houlihan v. Kawas et al.,
No. 2:22-cv-620. Plaintiff purports to bring the action
derivatively on our behalf, and we are a nominal defendant to the
action. The derivative complaint alleges that certain of its
current and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to prevent alleged misstatements in our public
filings and failing to take appropriate action regarding altered
images in certain research papers. The derivative complaint asserts
claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well
as claims for breach of fiduciary duties, contribution, and
indemnification. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified
damages, unspecified corporate governance reforms, restitution, and
an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff,
including attorneys' fees.
On May 26, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating the cases
and staying them until further order of the court.
Athira Pharma, Inc. is a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company based in Washington.
ATHIRA PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Wang Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Athira Pharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that discovery is
ongoing in the Wang consolidated putative securities class
lawsuit.
On June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Fan Wang and Hang Gao filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer Dr. Leen Kawas, captioned
Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00861. Plaintiffs
Wang and Gao assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding
the Company's business.
Specifically, the Wang plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
disclose to investors that certain research conducted by Dr. Kawas
was allegedly tainted by scientific misconduct during her doctoral
work at WSU, including the manipulation of data, and that as a
result, the defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. The
Wang plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
That same day, on June 25, 2021, plaintiff Harshdeep Jawandha filed
a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, certain members
of the Company's board of directors at the time of the Company's
initial public offering (IPO), as well as the IPO underwriters,
captioned Jawandha v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., No.
2:21-cv-00862. The Jawandha complaint asserts violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that
that the Company's IPO registration statement was materially false
and misleading because it omitted to state that certain of Dr.
Kawas's published doctoral research papers at WSU contained
allegedly improperly altered images, that the research was
allegedly foundational to the Company's efforts to develop
treatments for Alzheimer's disease, and that the defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading. The Jawandha plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Also on June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Timothy Slyne and Tai Slyne filed
a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and the same
members of the Company's board of directors and underwriters as in
the Jawandha complaint, captioned Slyne v. Athira Pharma, Inc. et
al., No. 2:21-cv-00864. The Slyne complaint asserts violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that purported
issues with Dr. Kawas's doctoral research at WSU should have been
disclosed in the Company's IPO registration statement. The Slyne
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other
equitable relief.
On August 9, 2021, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases.
On October 5, 2021, the district court issued an order appointing
lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead and liaison
counsel.
On January 7, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act.
The consolidated amended complaint is brought against the Company,
Dr. Kawas, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, certain members
of the Company's board of directors at the time of the Company's
IPO and secondary public offering, or SPO, and the IPO and SPO
underwriters. As with the previous complaints, it is based on
allegations that the IPO and SPO registration statements and/or
other public statements were materially false and misleading
because they omitted to state that certain of Dr. Kawas's published
doctoral research papers at WSU contained allegedly improperly
altered images. Lead plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of
themselves and the purported class.
On March 8, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim under the federal securities laws.
On July 29, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss. The order dismissed the
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims arising under the Exchange
Act, dismissed the Section 11 claim arising under the Securities
Act as to all defendants other than the Company and Dr. Kawas,
dismissed the Section 12(a)(2) claim arising under the Securities
Act as to the lead plaintiffs, and dismissed the Section 15 claim
arising under the Securities Act against all defendants other than
Dr. Kawas. The order permitted lead plaintiffs until August 19,
2022 to file a second consolidated amended complaint. Lead
plaintiffs did not file a second consolidated amended complaint.
On August 12, 2022, defendant Dr. Kawas filed a motion for partial
reconsideration of the court's July 29, 2022 order. On October 4,
2022, the court denied the motion.
On October 13, 2022, the court granted defendants an extension to
file their answer(s) until November 4, 2022.
On October 24, 2022, the parties filed a (i) joint status report
and discovery plan and (ii) stipulation and case scheduling order,
wherein the parties proposed deadlines for material case events,
including the completion of fact discovery, expert discovery, and
dispositive motion practice.
Athira Pharma, Inc. is a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company based in Washington.
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Putative VIH Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bakkt Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself in the VIH putative securities class
action.
On April 21, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. and certain of its directors and
officers prior to the Business Combination in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of VIH and/or purchasers of Bakkt Class A
common stock issued in connection with the Business Combination.
On August 3, 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel and on October 18, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The complaint alleges that VIH
made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly
material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in
connection with disclosures relating to certain of VIH's financial
statements, accounting, and internal controls. The complaint
alleges that the false or misleading statements and omissions were
contained in the registration statement and Prospectus/Proxy filed
in connection with the Business Combination and in other SEC
filings made by VIH. The complaint alleges that VIH traded at
artificially inflated prices as a result of the allegedly
misleading statements and omissions. Plaintiff seeks certification
of a class of purchasers of (1) VIH/Bakkt's publicly traded
securities between March 31, 2021 and November 19, 2021, both dates
inclusive and/or (2) Bakkt's publicly traded securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement.
The complaint seeks damages, as well as fees and costs. Bakkt
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.
The Amended Complaint names as defendants only one current
director, and no current officers, of Bakkt.
Bakkt was formerly known as "VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings" and
operated as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), also
called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company
that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its
business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an
unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Faces Suit Over Obsolete Driver-Assist Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Stimson, writing for Inside Towers, reports that a New
Jersey driver filed proposed class action suits against BMW and
Porsche over the automakers' alleged failure to disclose that the
internet-enabled Porsche Connect and Connected Drive/BMW Assist
features in certain vehicles would be inoperable after 3G service
was phased out this year.
The 28-page suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Porsche says the automaker's representations
about the Porsche Connect feature in 2014-2019 vehicle models were
false and misleading given the company failed to disclose until
2022 that the cars telematics had been built and installed with
3G-only capabilities, notes ClassAction.org. That means they
wouldn't work as 4G and 5G wireless networks were phased in.
Porsche has stated publicly that "some vehicles" may be eligible
for a "technology upgrade" but has offered little details on the
timing, nature or cost of any such upgrades, according to the court
document.
Similarly, the complaint against BMW claims the automaker did not
disclose until April 2021 that the Connected Drive/BMW Assist
telematics found in vehicles dating back to the 2013 model year had
been built and installed to work only with the now-sunsetting 3G
network and "could not be transitioned over to any more advanced
technology."
Each complaint cites a January 2022 Consumer Reports article that
stresses the shutdown of 3G networks meant millions of cars with
driver assist features could lose their ability to automatically
contact first responders after a crash. Although some vehicles'
hardware or software could be updated, millions more could lose
their connections permanently, Consumer Reports stated.
Consumer Reports highlighted that even though automakers knew 3G
networks would shut down permanently between February and July of
this year, many still relied on 3G as recently as their 2021 model
year vehicles for cost savings.
By contrast, General Motors, whose 2015 and later models of
Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac all had the proprietary "OnStar"
hardware which was also affected adversely by the 3G sunsetting,
announced to its customers that in 2021, "OnStar began working with
AT&T on network updates and started executing over-the-air software
updates to ensure members were not impacted by the network
transition." GM committed to automatically send over-the-air
software updates for free to address the 3G phase-out, according to
Consumer Reports, notes the court documents.
According to the cases, the plaintiff, Peter Grayson, owns a 2014
BMW xDrive Coupe and 2018 Porsche Panamera 4S. The man alleges he
and similar BMW and Porsche drivers paid for cars under the
mistaken belief that their driver-assist systems would work for the
life of the vehicle. He seeks the suit to be certified as a class
action, a jury trial, damages for himself and members of the class,
plus attorneys' fees and expenses.
The BMW case (2:22-cv-06103) looks to cover U.S. drivers who bought
or leased a 2013-present BMW vehicle with a Connected Drive/BMW
Assist with 3G-only limitations. The Porsche suit (2:22-cv-06105)
looks to represent U.S. drivers who bought or leased, a 2017-2019
911, 2015-2019 Cayenne, 2017-2018 Macan, 2017-2021 718, 2014-2018
Panamera, or 2014 918 Spyder with Porsche Connect with 3G-only
limitations, according to ClassAction.org. [GN]
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Scheduling Order Modified in Williams Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE WILLIAMS, JUWAN
WHITE, JOSEPH NETT, and LAKISHA SWIFT in Their Individual and
Representative Capacities on Behalf of a Class of All Persons
similarly situated,v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-08698-FLA-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L.
Aenlle-Rocha entered an order modifying scheduling order as
follows:
1. The Last Date to Hear Motion June 16, 2023
for Class Certification, which
is currently set for January
6, 2023, shall be extended to:
2. The briefing schedule for
Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion
for Class Certification shall
be as follows:
Plaintiffs' deadline to file March 1, 2023
the Motion:
Defendants' deadline to file April 14, 2023
an Opposition to the Motion:
3. Plaintiffs' deadline to file a May 5, 2023
Reply in support of the Motion:
On November 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application,
requesting the court modify the Scheduling Order to extend
Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Motion for Class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EItxsBat no extra charge.[CC]
BLACK & DECKER: Faces Class Action Over DeWALT's Miter Saw Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that DeWALT and
parent company Black & Decker face a proposed class action that
alleges their recall of DeWALT's 12-inch sliding compound miter
saws in August was "grossly inadequate" given that consumers
received neither monetary relief nor direct notice that the
"extraordinarily dangerous" product was being pulled from stores.
The 21-page lawsuit relays that the miter saw was voluntarily
recalled by DeWALT on August 4 of this year because a "defect"
could cause the product's rear safety guard to break or detach,
posing a significant laceration and projectile hazard and rendering
the saw unusable. Due to the defect, the saw blade could become
exposed, and DeWALT and Black & Decker have received "at least
nine" reports of laceration injuries, the suit states.
The filing contends, however, that DeWALT and Black & Decker's
recall merely allowed the companies to "say [they] were doing right
by [their] customers," despite the fact that the recall notice was
"only briefly publicized" and that the link to relevant recall
information on the defendants' website was "buried among a lengthy
list of other links," such that consumers "would not have a reason
to follow the link if they did not already know about the recall."
Further, neither DeWALT nor Black & Decker emailed customers who
bought the 12-inch sliding compound miter saw online, even though
email notice would have been relatively low-cost and effective, the
case says.
The lawsuit states that the only relief offered by the recall was
replacement saws. Consumers were not offered cash refunds in lieu
of a replacement, and customers' requests for cash refunds were
"generally denied" by the defendants, the complaint says.
Per the suit, the products covered in the DeWALT recall were
manufactured between April 2019 and April 2022, and include the
DWS779, DSW780, and DHS790 models. The case alleges DeWALT and
Black & Decker, in light of online safety reports to the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and negative product reviews, knew
or should have known of the defect since at least 2019 yet
continued to sell the miter saws anyway. Since April 2019, the
defendants have received 571 reports from consumers regarding the
rear safety guard assembly or related components breaking or
detaching, the suit states.
"At a minimum, such an unusually high number of reports about the
same exact issue, as well as the severity of the injuries reported,
should have alerted Defendants to the Defect and caused it to take
immediate action to protect consumers," the complaint reads,
alleging DeWALT and Black & Decker "profited enormously" by failing
to disclose the miter saw defect sooner.
In all, more than 1.3 million DeWALT 12-inch sliding compound miter
saws, which reportedly retail for between $600 and $820, were
recalled across the United States and Canada.
DeWALT has said consumers should stop using the recalled 12-inch
sliding compound miter saw immediately. To contact DeWALT or
request a repair kit, head to the manufacturer's website here.
Consumers can also take their DeWALT miter saw to an authorized
repair center for free repairs.
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
bought a DeWALT 12-inch sliding compound miter saw. [GN]
BLUE SKY: Shareholders Launch Second Class Action to Recoup Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for The Area News, reports that that irate
shareholders who lost money because of Blue Sky's massive collapse
in 2019 have launched a second class action to recoup their funds.
The Brisbane-based investment firm was worth over $1 billion in
market capitalisation at its peak in 2017. This plummeted after
short-seller Glaucus reported on "wildly exaggerated" assets in the
company in March 2018.
By May 2019, the firm's market capitalisation was just $14 million
when receivers were brought in.
In the class action, filed in the Federal Court on Nov. 7, Blue Sky
Alternative Investments is said to have misled the public by
painting an overly rosy picture of its finances from 2017 to 2019.
The firm is accused of hiding "material uncertainties" which showed
its future may not have been as bright as promised.
"(Each) of the (financial reports) did not give a true and fair
view of the financial position and performance of (Blue Sky),"
court documents say.
Blue Sky made misleading and deceptive statements through its
financial reports and announcements, and failed to release critical
information to the public, the lawsuit claims.
The class action, which is being run by Shine Lawyers, also
includes claims against former executive director Robert Warner
Shand, former chairman John Bruce Kain and auditors Ernst & Young.
Mr Shand, Mr Kain and EY are accused of hyping up the firm's
finances.
This misinformation boosted the share price of Blue Sky shares and
caused investors loss when the price ultimately plummeted, the
lawsuit claims.
Shine's class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp said investors
were left with worthless shares once Blue Sky's true financial
position was revealed.
"This was a catastrophic financial collapse which left hundreds of
shareholders worse off. We'll be looking to hold those responsible
to account and try to recoup as much of the losses as we can," he
said.
David Furniss, the shareholder leading the class action, still
holds 722 Blue Sky shares which he purchased for $13.80 per share
in January 2018.
The lawsuit seeks compensation, damages, interest and legal costs.
In August, another class action was filed by shareholder R&B
Investments, represented by Sydney-based law firm Banton Group,
over the Blue Sky collapse.
As well as Mr Shand, Mr Kain and EY, this earlier lawsuit also
targets former directors Timothy Wilson, Nicholas Dignam, Michael
Gordon, Philip Hennessy, Alexander McNab, Kim Morison, Elaine Stead
and Mark Sowerby.
If the two class actions cannot be run together in co-operation
between Shine and Banton Group, the Federal Court may need to hold
what's called a "beauty parade" to figure out which lawsuit offers
the best deal to shareholders.
In January 2021, Ms Stead successfully sued the now Nine-owned
Fairfax for defamation over a series of Australian Financial Review
articles regarding her time at Blue Sky.
The Federal Court awarded her $280,000 in damages after AFR
journalist Joe Aston referred to her as a "feminist cretin", a
"stupid person" and a "prodigious destroyer of capital" in a number
of Rear Window columns published in 2018 and 2019.
In his defamation judgment, Justice Michael Lee said he had not
made findings on why Blue Sky collapsed or on the legal or moral
appropriateness of the directors' actions.[GN]
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Dickson Seeks Collective Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DICKSON, and all
others similarly situated under 29 USC § 216(b), v. THE BOSWORTH
COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:22-cv-00010-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff seeks to reconsider his motion for collective action and
to authorize notice to similarly situated employees.
On October 26, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
collective action and to authorize notice to similarly situated
employee. However, the Court inappropriately considered evidence
for employees outside the scope of the proposed collective to reach
its decision.
The Plaintiff conceded (and Defendant acknowledged) that the
Plumbing Construction and HVAC Construction departments should be
excluded from the collective. Notwithstanding, the Court based its
analysis upon facts pertaining to the two departments that the
parties expressly excluded from the collective.
Accordingly, because, amongst other considerations, there is a
common plan or policy, common compensation, and a common overtime
policy applicable to the proposed collective, the Court should
reconsider its Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Collective
Action and to Authorize Notice to Similarly Situated Employees, and
grant Plaintiff's Motion for Collective Action and to Authorize
Notice to Similarly Situated Employees.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tY5u2Vat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1980
Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brightouse Life Insurance Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the
Company continues to defend itself in the Martin Class Suit in the
Northern District of Georgia.
Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6,
2021). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff is the owner of a
universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance
Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of
universal life insurance policies issued or administered by
defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges should have
decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2021, which was denied in February 2022. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company of NY was initially named as a defendant when the
lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a defendant, without
prejudice, in April 2022.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brightouse Life Insurance Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the
Company continues to defend itself in the Newton Class Suit in the
District Court for Northern District of Georgia.
Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
filed May 8, 2020). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all
persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the
terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other
things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be
increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a
motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and
denied in part in March 2021.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRISTOL BAY: Class Cert Hearing in Abikar Suit Set for Dec. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abikar, et al., v. Bristol
Bay Native Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01700 (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order setting a hearing on
the motion to certify class for Dec. 14, 2022 at 8:30 AM in
Courtroom 4C.
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act involving
minimum wage.
Bristol Bay is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in
settlement of aboriginal land claims.[CC]
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARELI GASTELUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, LLC;
MEDICAL REFERRAL NETWORK INTERNATIONAL; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV35496 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 9, 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 Gastelum was employed by the Defendants as nurse.
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, LLC provides specialized care,
advanced treatment and leading-edge technologies that help
individuals rebuild life following injury or illness. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
CAMPBELL SOUP: Judge Dismisses Plum Baby Food Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP disclosed that litigation soon followed a
February 4, 2021 report and September 29, 2021 supplement
(discussed here) by the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee
on Economic and Consumer Policy that raised alarm over the levels
of heavy metals -- including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury --
reportedly found in baby foods produced by seven of the largest
baby food manufacturers in the U.S. Many of these class action
lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing, among other
reasons.
On October 31, 2022, a federal judge dismissed without prejudice
plaintiffs' fraud and consumer protection claims in a New Jersey
district class action against Campbell Soup Co. and Plum PBC
(formerly a subsidiary of Campbell) that alleged dangerous levels
of heavy metals in Plum baby food products. The court found that
plaintiffs have not alleged a "concrete and present harm" that
would establish that they have standing. The plaintiffs' pleadings
were compared to similarly unsuccessful claims involving Sprout and
Gerber baby foods and claims in California against Walmart's
Parents Choice baby food that were allowed to proceed. As compared
to the "conclusory allegations" that failed in the other cases,
plaintiffs in Kochar v. Walmart, Inc., (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2022)
passed the standing test by:
Alleging that the levels of heavy metals were above "naturally
occurring" levels for the products directly at issue;
Outlining the average levels of certain heavy metals in foods
regularly consumed by children and infants per FDA testing to
provide a comparative baseline necessary for the court to assess
risk of harm for standing purposes;
Alleging that Walmart was in possession of testing data showing
high levels of heavy metals present in its products based on its
own internal standards;
Articulating a "premium price" economic injury by stating that the
plaintiffs had "spent their own time and money dealing with
purchasing safer baby food alternatives;" and
Alleging that there were costs and expenses incurred related to
their efforts to ensure that their babies have not been harmed, as
well as costs and expenses for treatments their babies have
received.
It remains to be seen whether any of the heavy metals lawsuits will
ultimately be successful, given the difficulties and uncertainties
in determining levels that are both safe and feasible, as outlined
in FDA's Closer to Zero plan (discussed here). It seems clear,
however, that getting to trial will require more than generalized
concern and alarm. [GN]
CARECORE HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Medical Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRE'ANYA GUDGER and JENNA
: FRIEND, on behalf of themselves and others : similarly situated
v. CARECORE HEALTH LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00239-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
-- Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under the FLSA on behalf of Named Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated;
-- Directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
email to the following:
"All current and former hourly medical employees of
Defendant who
(1) had a meal break deduction and/or
(2) received additional remuneration in any workweek that
they were paid for at least 40 hours of work, beginning
three years prior to the filing date of this Motion and
continuing through the final disposition of this case
"Medical employees" includes all employees providing
direct care or working in medical records."
-- Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form;
-- Directing the Defendant CareCore Health LLC to provide
within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel
or comma-delimited format a roster of all individuals that
fit the definition above that includes their full names,
dates of employment, last known home addresses, and
personal email addresses; and
-- Directing the Defendant to provide a declaration that the
produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order.
This case involves the Defendant's unlawful companywide policies
and/or practices of requiring meal break deductions despite
employees not enjoying bona fide meal breaks as well as not
properly computing its hourly employees' regular/overtime rates of
pay when they receive compensation in addition to their base hourly
pay.
The Named Plaintiff Tre'Anya Gudger worked for the Defendant as an
hourly, non-exempt employee in the medical records department, and
Named Plaintiff Jenna Friend worked for Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt State Tested Nursing Assistant ("STNA").
The Defendant has had a companywide policy and/or practice of
applying a 30-minute deduction to its employees' daily hours worked
for meal breaks. However, Named Plaintiffs and Defendant's other
similarly situated medical employees were
often unable to take a full 30-minute, uninterrupted meal break.
CareCore is family owned and operated, and provides individualized
care plans for our valued community.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hXOSp9 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 Road Suite No. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
CENTURY FURNITURE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Furniture,
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Century Furniture, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06891 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Century Furniture -- https://www.centuryfurniture.com/ -- is one of
the world's largest privately owned manufacturers of upper-end
residential furniture.[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
CHARLES P. ROGERS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles P. Rogers &
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Charles P. Rogers &
Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06894 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Charles P. Rogers -- https://www.charlesprogers.com/ -- is
America's best source for top quality mattresses and beds since
1855.[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
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Santiago Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Santiago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Children's Place, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09378 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's violation of New York Labor Law by not paying Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers on a timely and weekly basis as
required.
Plaintiff Santiago was employed as a sales associate at one of The
Children's Place's retail store locations in New York from December
2018 until December 2020 and was paid bi-weekly at all times.
Santiago and other manual workers need to be paid weekly to keep up
with day to day expenses such as housing and transportation costs,
groceries, utilities, and other regular bills, and in order to
obtain the full value of their earned wages as due. Because of
Defendant's improper compensation policies, Plaintiff was deprived
of timely and weekly pay, in direct violation of the NYLL, says the
suit.
The Children's Place, Inc. operates retail stores selling infant
and children's clothing in New York State and throughout North
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Amadril Sues Over Shampoo's Benzene Content
------------------------------------------------------------
EDEN AMADRIL and ARIANA SKURAUSKIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-07010 (N.D. Cal., November 8,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
State Consumer Fraud Acts, California False Advertising Law, Unfair
Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust
enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Dry Shampoo under the brand Batiste. The Defendant represented the
product as properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for
its intended use. However, unknown to consumers, the product
contains dangerously high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen.
Had the Plaintiffs known the truth, they would not have purchased
the product, says the suit.
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a manufacturer of haircare products
with its principal place of business located at 500 Charles Ewing
Blvd., Ewing, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (714) 651-8845
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
- and –
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and –
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and –
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: (919) 600-5009
E-mail: eruben@milberg.com
- and –
Zoe Aaron, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: zaaron@milberg.com
- and –
Alex Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Dry Shampoo Contains Benzene, Goldgewicht Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SOFIA GOLDGEWICHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-23585 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2022) is a
class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated, who purchased for normal household use Defendant's dry
shampoo products that are allegedly defective because they contain
benzene in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
The complaint states that the products are defective because they
contain significant amounts of the chemical benzene, a known human
carcinogen; yet despite the presence of benzene, Defendant
represents that the products are safe and effective for their
intended use. The complaint also asserts that the presence of
benzene in Defendant's products was not disclosed to consumers in
the products' labelling, advertising or otherwise, in violation of
state and federal law. The Plaintiff and the putative class
suffered economic damages due to the Defendant's misconduct and
seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price
of the products, says the suit.
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is an American manufacturer of household
products headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyes.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
CIOX HEALTH: Overcharge Copies of Medical Records, Gregorich Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE GREGORICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC; TRIDENT MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC d/b/a TRIDENT MEDICAL CENTER; and SEON JONES, MD,
Defendant, Case No. 2022CP1005185 (S.C. Comm. Pleas., Nov. 9, 2022)
is an action against the Defendants for overcharging of copies of
their own medical records.
According to the complaint, when patients' medical records are
requested by their attorneys, the Defendants systemically charge
more for copies of the patients' records than is permitted by South
Carolina law. Unfortunately, individual patients typically bear the
ultimate responsibility for the costs of these overcharges.
Throughout the state of South Carolina, the Defendants have taken
patients' attorneys' rights to access their medical records and
unlawfully profited at patients' expense, says the suit.
CIOX HEALTH, LLC provides health care information solutions. The
Company offers electronic records, release of information, revenue
cycle, and audit management services. CIOX Health serves customers
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
CLOUDERA INC: California Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that
on October 25, 2022, Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
motion to dismiss a putative class action against an enterprise
data cloud platform company (the "Company"). In re Cloudera, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 19-CV-03221-MMC, 2022 WL 14813896 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 25, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misled
investors in its characterization of the Company's platform in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5. The Court, having dismissed an earlier
complaint, dismissed the claims without further leave to amend,
finding that the Company's statements were not false or
misleading.
In 2017, the Company announced an Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
and Secondary Public Offering ("SPO"). Plaintiffs alleged that
during and after this offering period, the Company misled investors
with claims about its "original cloud native architecture" and
"cloud-native platform" even though the Company lacked any of the
key features of "effective cloud computing." The key point of
contention was whether the terms "cloud native" and "cloud
architecture," which the Company used in its communications with
investors, had meaning beyond non-actionable corporate puffery.
Plaintiffs alleged that the terms had a specific meaning, which
they drew from an article published by the Company several months
after the close of the Class Period and years after most of the
challenged statements were made. According to plaintiffs, investors
would have understood "cloud-native" and "cloud architecture" to
refer to specific attributes that the Company's product actually
lacked. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that statements made
during an April 3, 2018, earnings call were misleading because they
"suggested that the Company's weak guidance and results" were
attributable to mistakes in how the Company allocated sales
resources rather than "the market's shift to cloud offerings which
the Company then lacked."
The Court rejected plaintiffs' arguments. First, the Court held
that the article published by the Company did not prove that the
Company made misrepresentations because the "article never use[d]
the term 'cloud native' or 'cloud architecture.'" Moreover, even if
the article had used such terms, the Court found the article to be
too far removed in time from the challenged statements to be
determinative. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' allegations
regarding how reasonable investors might understand "cloud native"
or "cloud architecture," holding that plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege that "cloud native" or "cloud architecture" had
"distinctive" meanings. Instead, the Court held that these
statements were puffery.
Second, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company's
statements during its earnings call regarding its disappointing
guidance and results were misleading. Specifically, the Court held
that there was no factual support for plaintiffs' allegation that
the Company had disappointing results because it "lacked
cloud-native services and [the Company] could not provide public
cloud services comparable to its competitors."
The Court dismissed the complaint without further leave to amend
because plaintiffs had already amended their complaint and had
failed to cure deficiencies identified in a decision dismissing the
prior complaint. [GN]
COREMEDIX INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cormedix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the parties in the
Securities Litigation adhere to the schedules set by court:
-- Defendants deadline to file November 23, 2022
dismissal motion :
-- Lead plaintiff's deadline Janauary 7, 2023
to file opposition to
Defendant's dismissal motion:
-- Defendants deadline to file February 6, 2023
reply brief: on February 6, 2023:
On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv014020-JXN-CLW, two putative
class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September
13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company. The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on
December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in
In re CorMedix Securities Litigation. In the second amended
complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of
shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019 and August 8, 2022,
inclusive; and (ii) shareholders who purchased CorMedix securities
pursuant or traceable to the Company's November 27, 2020 offering
pursuant to CorMedix's Form S-3 Registration Statement, its
Prospectus Supplement, dated November 27, 2020, and its Prospectus
Supplement, dated August 12, 2021.
The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and
twelve (12) current and former directors and officers of CorMedix,
namely Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts,
John L. Armstrong, and Joseph Todisco (the "Officer Defendants" and
collectively with CorMedix, the "CorMedix Defendants") as well as
Janet Dillione, Myron Kaplan, Alan W. Dunton, Steven Lefkowitz,
Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan (the "Director Defendants").
The second amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5), the
Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a), the Director Defendants,
CorMedix, Baluch, and David violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and that the Director Defendants, Baluch, and David violated
Section 15. In general, the purported bases for these claims are
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions related to
the NDA submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete
response letters, as well as communications from the FDA related
and directed to the Company's contract manufacturing organization
and heparin supplier.
The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims and
anticipates filing a motion to dismiss.
As of this filing, the parties are adhering to the current schedule
set by the Court: the Company and the other defendants are due to
file their motion to dismiss on November 23, 2022; the lead
plaintiff is due to file an opposition to the Defendants' motions
to dismiss on January 7, 2023; and Defendants are due to file their
reply brief on February 6, 2023.
CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and
treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases based in New
Jersey.
DAVID BERNHARDT: Court Junks Peltier Case with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PELTIER, et al., v. DAVID
BERNHARDT, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03775 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Thomas F. Hogan entered an order that the case is dismissed with
prejudice.
The Court retains continuing jurisdiction only for the limited
purposes of:
a. supervising the implementation, administration,
enforcement, construction, and interpretation of any and
all terms and conditions of this Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Final Settlement Class Certification and
Final Class Action Settlement Approval Order; and
b. resolving any disputes or disagreements that may arise
between or among the Parties from the implementation of
the Class Action Settlement Agreement.[CC]
DEDON INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dedon, Inc. The case
is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Dedon, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06897-BMC
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DEDON -- https://www.dedon.de/ -- is a German luxury brand for
outdoor furniture.[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
DELTA AIR: Sued Over Illegal Website-Browsing Surveillance
----------------------------------------------------------
Skye Witley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Delta Air
Lines Inc. tracks and records how consumers interact with its
website in violation of a Pennsylvania wiretapping law, according
to a proposed class action that continues the trend of lawsuits
targeting browser surveillance.
Delta relies on third-party "session replay" software that collects
information on a website user's keystrokes, mouse movements, page
views and more, according to the complaint filed in the US District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The proposed class action is the latest in a wave of litigation
accusing companies of website-browsing surveillance in violation of
state wiretapping laws. [GN]
DIAMOND RESORTS: Settlement Class Gets Initial Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Norman Zwicky, et al., v.
Diamond Resorts Management Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02322-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. HumetewaA
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary certification of class for settlement purposes only,
preliminary approval of Settlement, and Approval of Motice.
1. The lawsuit is preliminarily certified, for settlement
purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the
following class of with respect to the claims asserted in
the lawsuit:
"All current and former members of the Premiere Vacation
Collection Owners Association who were assessed
Assessments for any Calendar year(s) from 2011 through and
including 2022, excluding ILX Acquisition and any entity
that received any bulk transfer/assignment of ILX
Acquisition's Bulk Membership in the Premiere Vacation
Collection Owners Association;"
Excluded from the Class are Diamond Resorts International,
Inc., Diamond Resorts Management, Inc., their parents,
subsidiaries, successors, affiliates, current officers and
directors and all judges assigned to this litigation and
their immediate family members.
2. The Court appoints as Class Representatives: Plaintiffs
Norman Zwicky, George Abarca, Vikki Osborn, and Elizabeth
Stryks-Shaw.
3. The Court appoints as Class Counsel:
Edward Louis Barry, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD L. BARRY
2120 Company St., Third Floor
Christiansted, VI 00820
- and -
Jennie Tetreault, Esq.
Robert Matin Moore, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PHELPS & MOORE, PLC
4045 E Union Hills Rd., Ste. A102
Phoenix, AZ 85050
- and -
Jon Laurence Phelps
PHELPS LAW GROUP
4045 E Union Hills
Dr., Ste. 104A
Phoenix, AZ 85050
In August 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint ("TAC") per the parties' stipulation. In October 2021,
the parties sought a 60-day stay of the case so they could engage
in mediation, which the Court granted.
The Court preliminarily finds that the Proposed Class meets the
requisite certification standards and grants conditional
certification of the Proposed Class for settlement purposes.
However, the Court denies the Proposed Settlement Agreement without
prejudice because it is unsupported by appropriate documentation so
as to give the appearance of unfairness.
First, there is insufficient documentation from which the Court can
adequately assess the sufficiency of the evidence utilized by the
parties to arrive at the Agreement.
Second, given the dearth of information provided, there appears to
be a facial inequity when comparing the relief provided to the
Proposed Class and the amount of attorneys' fees requested.
Thus, the Court cannot adequately assess the parties' rationale for
proposing this fee award. Lastly, the parties do not provide any
documents to support their calculation of (a) the maximum estimated
recovery amount in this case; or (b) the reasonableness of the
proposed Settlement Fund.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hVfF5zat no extra charge.[CC]
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Dish DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a 401(k) Plan breach suit.
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against DISH Network, DISH Network's Board of Directors,
and DISH Network's Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary
breaches arising from the management of the Company's 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds. DISH Network intends to vigorously defend
this case.
DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.
DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.
DISH NETWORK: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted vs Fuentes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARCISO FUENTES, v. DISH
NETWORK L.L.C. Case No. 4:16-cv-02001-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Dish's motion for summary judgment.
The Court also entered order that the parties should appear on
December 9, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. for a status conference, and they
shall submit a joint status report on or before December 2, 2022.
Fuentes' claims against Dish are based on alleged violations of
four California statutes: the Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA),
Translation Act (CTA), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and
the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The facts, which are undisputed
unless otherwise noted.
Fuentes argues that Dish's conduct is unlawful, fraudulent, and
unfair. This claim rests, in part, on Fuentes' claims for
violations of the HSSA, the CTA, and the CLRA. Because the Court
concludes Dish is entitled to judgment in its favor on the CTA
claim and on the CLRA claim, in part, Dish is entitled to judgment,
in part, in its favor on this claim.
Because the Court has found in favor of Fuentes on the HSSA claim
and on the CLRA claim, in part, he too is entitled to judgment, in
part, in his favor on this claim. Because the Court concludes both
parties are entitled to judgment in their favor based on violations
of the unlawful prong, it does not reach the question of whether
Dish's conduct also violates the unfair or fraudulent prongs of the
UCL.
On August 1, 2015, Fuentes, who speaks Spanish, received a Spanish
language 24 in the mail advertising Dish's satellite television
service for $19.99 per month for 25 months.
Dish has some month-to-month subscription options, and those
customers pay Dish's full retail rates and purchase Dish's
equipment. In order to determine if a customer qualifies for
promotional rates and the option to lease equipment, Dish will run
a credit check, with a customer's permission.
Dish is an American television provider and the owner of the
direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish
Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VoyOeDat no extra charge.[CC]
ELDER FORD: Asher Walli Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ASHER WALLI, LLC, Plaintiff v. ELDER FORD OF TAMPA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 22-005274-CI (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir. Ct., November 7, 2022) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, alleging the Defendant of violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has been sending numerous
text messages advertisements to his cellular telephone in an
attempt to promote its car dealership business. Accordingly, the
Defendant uses various approaches to attempt to drive business to
its website, where its car inventory is displayed and provided a
link which states “send to mobile.” The Plaintiff also claims
that the Defendant has used an automated system for the selection
or dialing of telephone numbers in sending its Text Message
Advertisements. However, the Defendant has failed to obtain the
Plaintiff's prior express written consent to receive such text
message advertisements, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease
the sending of all Text Message Advertisements involving an
automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers
that relate to the Defendant's car dealership to his cell phone
without obtaining its prior express written consent. The Plaintiff
also seeks statutory damages, for himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, as well as statutory penalties plus
pre-judgment interest, and other relief as may be appropriate.
Elder Ford f Tampa, LLC is a car dealership company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Tel: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Lead Plaintiffs' Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bettis v. Envision
Healthcare Corporation et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
and
2. appointing them and plaintiffs Central Laborers' Pension
Fund and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local
655 Food Employers Joint Pension Fund as Class
Representatives and approving their selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel.
The Lead Plaintiffs are Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California, LIUNA National (Industrial) Pension Fund, and LIUNA
Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund.
Envision Healthcare provides healthcare services, including
physician-led services, ambulatory surgery center management,
post-acute care and medical transportation.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hTRbthat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq.
Christopher D. Stewart, Esq.
Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
Sean C. McGuire, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza, 414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
- and -
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN, & BERNSTEIN LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com
mchalos@lchb.com
- and -
Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT
341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: jonathan@msb.law
- and -
Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
Shannon Rose Selden, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 909-6772
E-mail: egreenfield@debevoise.com
srselden@debevoise.com
- and -
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
Robert P. Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
P.O. Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 248-2828
E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com
robert@bramlettlawoffices.com
- and -
John T. Long, Esq.
CAVANAGH & O'HARA
2319 West Jefferson Street
Springfield, IL 62702
Telephone: (217) 544-1771
E-mail: johnlong@cavanagh-ohara.com
- and -
John S. Hicks, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC
211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 726-5600
E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com
- and -
James A. Holifield, Jr., Esq.
HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL & ASSOCIATES PLLC
11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
Knoxville, TN 37934
Telephone: (865) 566-0115
E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com
- and -
James Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
The Freedom Center, 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Richard A. Bodnar, Esq.
Marc B. Kramer, Esq.
ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 597-2800
E-mail: rbodnar@rksllp.com
mkramer@rksllp.com
- and -
Britt K. Latham, Esq.
W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq.
Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Esq.
Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq.
Briana T. Sprick Schuster, Esq.
BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC
150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-6200
E-mail: blatham@bassberry.com
bphillips@bassberry.com
jcrace@bassberry.com
kwalker@bassberry.com
briana.sprick.schuster@bassberry.com
- and -
Benjamin B. Coulter, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 251-3000
E-mail: bcoulter@burr.com
- and -
Seth McInteer, Esq.
Howell O'Rear, Esq.
MCINTEER & O'REAR PLC
2209 Crestmoor Road, Suite 310
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 724-6207
E-mail: seth@mcolawfirm.com
howell@mcolawfirm.com
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq.
Craig S. Waldman, Esq.
Amy L. Dawson, Esq.
William T. Russell, Jr., Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-3525
E-mail: pkazanoff@stblaw.com
cwaldman@stblaw.com
amy.dawson@stblaw.com
wrussell@stblaw.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Grundy, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
222 Second Avenue South, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 724-3200
E-mail: kgrundy@burr.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
Bank of America Plaza, 414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Spencer Alan Burkholz, Esq.
Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq.
Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
Christopher D. Stewart, Esq.
Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
Sean C. McGuire, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
debraw@rgrdlaw.com
llargent@rgrdlaw.com
jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com
ericn@rgrdlaw.com
cstewart@rgrdlaw.com
hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
smcguire@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
clyons@rgrdlaw.com
EVLUTION NUTRITION: Metague Balks at Deceptive Nutritional Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL METAGUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVLUTION NUTRITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-02925-TJS (D. Md., Nov. 10, 2022) is an action arising from
the deceptive trade practices of the Defendant in its manufacture
and sale of nutritional powders containing branched-chain amino
acids labeled "BCAA ENERGY" (the "Product") and its advertisements
which imply or claim that the Product contains "0 Calories."
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Product contains
purposely misbranded calorie content of "0 Calories," or which omit
caloric information altogether from their respective nutritional
labels. The actual calorie estimate for the Product is
approximately 35 Calories, depending on formulation and use
guidance, which can include multiple servings per day. Evlution's
representations regarding the number of Calories in the Product on
its labels, webpages and other marketing and advertising media and
materials is purposely deceptive to create a competitive advantage
against compliant competitors, the Plaintiff says.
As a direct and proximate result of these unfair acts or practices,
the Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged because they
purchased a Product they otherwise would not have, paid more for a
Product than they otherwise would have, and are left with a Product
of diminished value and utility because of the number of Calories
it actually contains, says the suit.
EVLUTION NUTRITION, LLC is an e-commerce based company that designs
and distributes nutritional supplements, workout gear and gym
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PIERCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street
Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
- and -
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
P.O. Box 279
Sewickley PA 15143
Telephone. (412) 370-9110
Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
FIGS INC: Continue to Defend Ryan Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
FIGS Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend itself in the securities class suit filed by
Sean Ryan.
On November 1, 2022, Sean Ryan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
against us and certain of our executive officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations
of the Securities Act and Exchange Act for allegedly making false
and misleading statements with respect to our use of air freight,
supply chain, repeat customers and outlook between our initial
public offering in May 2021 and May 2022.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, other
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. This action is in
the earliest stages.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the forgoing cases are
without basis or merit, and it intends to continue to vigorously
defend against such claims; however, it cannot be certain of the
outcome of these proceedings and, if determined adversely to the
Company, its business and financial condition may be adversely
affected.
FIGS INC. engages in the design and production of scrubs for men
and women.[BN]
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Besser Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstSun Capital Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend Samantha Besser's putative class suit.
On September 13, 2021, Samantha Besser filed a putative class
action amended complaint against the Bank in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. The amended complaint
alleges that the Bank improperly charged multiple insufficient
funds or overdraft fees when a merchant resubmits a rejected
payment request.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, which
incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all the Bank's
checking account customers who were charged multiple insufficient
funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment requests. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified restitution, actual and statutory damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court deems proper for herself and the purported class.
On September 27, 2021, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The motion to dismiss has been fully pled and is
before the Court for decision.
The Bank believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it intends
to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.
FirstSun Capital Bancorp, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the
financial holding company for Sunflower Bank, National Association,
which operates as Sunflower Bank, First National 1870 and Guardian
Mortgage.
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Reviews Website Disclosure Form
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Raftery Wiggins, Esq.,of Duane Morris LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the Ninth Circuit reviewed a website
disclosure form -- for a marketing website that generates leads --
to determine when consumers assent to terms through interacting
with a website. The Ninth Circuit analyzed the factors of: (1)
reasonably conspicuous notice, (2) manifestation of assent, and (3)
use of the word -- arbitration -- in the notice itself. Berman v.
Freedom Financial LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022). Many similar
federal court rulings concern websites in which the consumer is
engaging in a transaction -- such as buying a product -- so Berman
has a different factual basis because the marketing website was
giving away free items as a means of obtaining leads for other
companies.
In the facts underlying this case, Fluent is a digital marketing
company that generates consumer leads for its clients by collecting
information about consumers who visit Fluent's websites. Fluent
offers free items via its websites such as gift cards and free
product samples as an enticement to get consumers to provide their
contact information and answer survey questions. Fluent then uses
the information it collects in targeted marking campaigns conducted
on behalf of its clients.
Fluent asked the first plaintiff to: (1) "confirm her zip code" by
clicking a button and then (2) click on a large button stating
"this is correct, continue!" Fluent asked the second plaintiff to:
(1) confirm "gender" by clicking a large button and then (2) click
the "continue" button. Significantly, located in between these two
buttons were two lines of text - in small gray font which was
partially underlined - stating: "I understand and agree to the
Terms and Conditions which includes mandatory arbitration and
Privacy Policy."
Defendants used the contact information provided by consumers like
plaintiffs to conduct a telemarketing campaign on behalf of
defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a TCPA class action on behalf of consumers who
received unwanted calls or text messages from defendants during the
telemarketing campaign. Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration which was denied. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial
of the motion.
The Ninth Circuit noted that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")
limits the court's role to determining whether a valid arbitration
agreement exists and, if so, whether the agreement encompasses the
dispute at issue. Plaintiffs did not contest that the arbitration
provision on the websites' terms and conditions encompasses their
TCPA claims. Thus, the only legal issue was whether either
plaintiff assented to the terms, including the arbitration
agreement.
The Ninth Circuit first discussed whether New York or California
law governs, and the result would be the same under either state's
law because both states require mutual consent. Absent a showing of
"actual knowledge" of the contract terms by the consumer-plaintiff,
inquiry notice will result in a contract only if: (1) the website
provides "reasonably conspicuous" notice and (2) the consumer makes
an "unambiguous" manifestation of assent. The Ninth Circuit ruled
that neither condition is satisfied and analyzed:
Reasonably conspicuous notice: Website users are entitled to assume
that important provisions -- such as those that disclose the
existence of contractual terms -- will be prominently displayed.
The Ninth Circuit looked at:
Font size: the size of the text in the disclosure was smaller than
the font in the surrounding website elements
Color: the gray color of the text containing the hyperlink to the
full terms and conditions made the disclosure hard to read
Phrase: the specific phrase used on the button that users click to
agree to the terms and conditions was generically phrased as
"continue"
Underlining: the underlining for the hyperlinks to the arbitration
agreement did not sufficiently denote the hyperlink
Manifestation of assent: The "continue" button did not indicate to
the user what action would constitute assent to those terms and
conditions. Further, the text of the button itself gave no
indication that it would bind plaintiffs to a set of terms and
conditions.
Including "arbitration" in the notice: Merely because the notice
references the word "arbitration" is not enough because the key
question is whether the plaintiffs can be deemed to have manifested
their assent to the terms.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to compel
arbitration.
In sum, websites should comply with the three bullet-point analysis
-- reasonably conspicuous, manifestation of assent, and use of
"arbitration" in the notice -- to create enforceable contracts via
website disclosures. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Strikes Dahm's June 2, 2022 Expert Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Benjamin W. Cheesbro entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to strike untimely Dr. Dahm's June 2, 2022 expert report.
Dr. Dahm's June 2, 2022 expert report will not be considered for
any purposes, including summary judgment, class certification, or
trial (should one occur).
The Defendant argues Dr. Dahm's report should be disregarded
because Plaintiff did not disclose the expert report until June 14,
2022, which was after the deadline in the Scheduling Order, after
the summary judgment motion deadline, and the day Daubert motions
were due.
The Defendant contends Plaintiff has not shown good cause for
failing to meet the Court's deadlines and argues the failure to
disclose Dr. Dahm is not substantially justified or harmless.
Defendant urges the Court to strike Dr. Dahm's report.
The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends his disclosure of Dr.
Dahm was timely. The Plaintiff asserts the Court never set a
deadline for the disclosure of expert reports and the disclosure
was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hTAEW1at no extra charge.[CC]
GITHUB INC: Open Sourcing Violates Copyright Interest, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. DOE 3; and J. DOE 4, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GITHUB, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation;
OPENAI, INC., a Delaware nonprofit corporation; OPENAI, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-07074 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2022) alleges Defendants'
violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class are owners
of copyright interests in materials made available publicly on
GitHub that are subject to various licenses containing conditions
for use of those works (the "Licensed Materials.").
The Plaintiffs and the Class allege that the Defendants stripped
the Plaintiffs' and the Class's attribution, copyright notice, and
license terms from their code in violation of the Licenses and the
Plaintiffs' and the Class's rights. The Defendants used Copilot to
distribute the now-anonymized code to Copilot users as if it were
created by Copilot.
The Defendants' goal is to replace a huge swath of open source by
taking it and keeping it inside a GitHub-controlled paywall. It
violates the licenses that open-source programmers chose and
monetizes their code despite GitHub's pledge never to do so, says
the suit.
GITHUB, INC. develops application software. The Company designs and
provides an online platform to allows users to store and share
codes repositories with friends, co-workers, classmates, and
complete strangers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq.
Travis Manfredi, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
tmanfredi@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew Butterick, Esq.
1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 968-2632
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
Email: mb@buttericklaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Google Assistant's Voiceprints
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Google is
facing a class action alleging the company is violating Illinois
state law by capturing and storing people's voiceprints through
Google Assistant.
Ryan Segal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint Oct. 21 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Google LLC alleging
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and
other claims.
Segal alleges in his class action that through its Google
Assistant, Google is collecting and storing voiceprints of users
without their knowledge. He claims Google fails to disclose that
each person who speaks into the Google Assistant-enabled device is
having their biometric data collected. Segal alleges that Google
does not disclose the biometric data collection of its users or
properly inform users in writing the purpose and length of time
their biometric data is being collected, stored and used.
He further alleges Google did not obtain a written release from him
to collect, capture and use his biometric information in violation
of Illinois law. Segal claims Google has violated the privacy
rights of Illinois residents and that Google Assistant records
every voice it detects and creates voiceprints and that the company
has benefited from the practice at the class members expense.
Segal and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury
and all other just relief. They are represented by Christian Levis,
Amanda Fiorilla and Rachel Kesten of Lowey Dannenberg PC in White
Plains, New York and Mark Todzo and Eric Somers of The Lexington
Law Group in San Francisco.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 5:22-CV-06398 [GN]
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Faces Dollens Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICKEY DOLLENS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated Class A stockholders of GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE,
INC., Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE, INC. Defendant, Case No.
2022-1018 (Ch. Del., Nov. 10, 2022) alleges violation of the
Delaware General Corporation Law (the "DGCL").
According to the complaint, Goosehead has adopted an invalid
provision in its operative Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the "Certificate"), purporting to require that
Directors on the Company's Board may be removed "only for cause by
the affirmative vote of the holders of seventy-five percent (75%)
of the total voting power of the outstanding shares of capital
stock of the Corporation entitled to vote generally in the election
of Directors. Notably, moreover, this provision was triggered only
upon the favored insider stockholders' loss of majority control
over Goosehead's stockholder voting power.
In September 2022, for example, Goosehead named Mark Jones, Jr. as
its Chief Financial Officer. He is the 30-year-old son of Goosehead
founders Mark Jones (the Company's CEO and Chairman) and Robyn
Jones (the Company's Vice Chair of the Board), and the
brother-in-law of Chief Legal Officer P. Ryan Langston. His hiring
to one of the senior-most positions at the Company could only have
been possible through the Stockholders Agreement's illegal grant of
power to the favored minority shareholders, which include Mark and
Robyn Jones, as well as P. Ryan Langston. In reaction to this
blatant act of nepotism, Goosehead's share price dropped by over
21% on a single day, wiping out more than $243 million in Class A
shareholder value, says the suit.
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that the
arrangements made by the Defendants are invalid and unenforceable
under the DGCL.
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE, INC. operates as an insurance agency. The
Company offers home, auto, motorcycle, umbrella, flood, landlord,
life, business, commercial auto, product liability, and
recreational insurance services. Goosehead Insurance serves
customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Curry, Esq.
Tayler D. Bolton, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Telephone: (302) 485-0483
H & M HENNES: Faces Class Action Over False Sustainability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that clothing in H&M's "Conscious
Choice" collection is deceptively marketed as sustainable given
that the items are made from materials that are damaging to the
environment.
The 55-page case says that contrary to H&M's advertising, the
women's, men's, kid's and baby clothing in its Conscious Choice
collection are neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly
because they are made primarily of recycled polyester, a disposable
plastic considered to be a "one-way street to landfill or
incineration."
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign
up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter here.
According to the filing, consumers are reasonably led to believe
that Conscious Choice products are an environmentally responsible
purchase, especially since H&M defines its collection with the
following statement on its website:
"The shortcut to more sustainable shopping? Conscious choice . . .
pieces created with a little extra consideration for the planet.
Each Conscious choice product contains at least 50% of more
sustainable materials -- like organic cotton or recycled polyester
-- but many more contain a lot more than that."
Additionally, the case alleges the products are further
misrepresented through H&M's use of green hangtags on Conscious
Choice clothing to identify them as "sustainable," and advertising
campaigns for the Conscious Choice collection that contain
"[c]onscious-clad models surrounded by lots of grass and plush
green plants."
Per the complaint, clothing made from recycled polyester will
likely end up in a landfill because its fibers are weakened as they
are mechanically recycled from polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottles. According to the case, this method of "downcycling" PET
bottles is "problematic in several ways." In particular, in a
"circular economy," the case explains, materials should be reused
and recycled "like-for-like" to prevent waste, meaning, according
to the suit, "clothes should be made into new clothes, and
packaging into new packaging, rather than poaching from other waste
streams."
Essentially, turning plastic bottles into clothes "should be
considered a one-way ticket to landfill, incineration or being
dumped in nature," the suit summarizes.
Further, the filing contends that the Conscious Choice Collection
actually contains a higher percentage of synthetics, 72 percent,
than H&M's main collection, 61 percent. Also, the case argues that
recycled polyester still sheds microplastics that end up in the
ocean, the air and food chains.
As the case tells it, many companies "greenwash" their products by
claiming their clothing is made from more sustainable materials to
capitalize on consumers' increasing concern for the environment and
their willingness to pay more for environment-friendly products. As
a result, the Conscious Choice Collection products are sold at a
higher price than similarly manufactured products that are not
represented as "conscious," "sustainable," and environmentally
friendly, the suit says.
Ultimately, however, there is little that is sustainable about the
idea that consumers can keep consuming plastic items simply because
they can be recycled into more products, the lawsuit contends.
"Basing sustainability strategies on the idea that consumers can
continue to consume disposable plastic goods (because they can be
recycled into more products) is highly problematic. This method of
'green' marketing does not address the fundamental issue of
perpetuating disposable solutions and over-consumption of natural
resources. Indeed, these strategies encourage consumers to buy more
clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can be
recycled in some magic machine."
The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides, a
set of principles designed to prevent companies from greenwashing
their products, state that "an environmental marketing claim should
not overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental
attribute or benefit.
"Marketers should not state or imply environmental benefits if the
benefits are negligible," the case reads.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased H&M Conscious Choice Collection products for personal,
family, or household use during the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]
HAIN CELESTIAL: Parties in Howard Suit Seek Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA
RINGLER, and TRECEE ARTIS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the parties met and conferred and
agreed on the following briefing schedule:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 6, 2023
Certification shall be due on
or before:
-- Defendant's Opposition to the May 26, 2023
Motion for Class Certification
shall be due on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply in support June 29, 2023
of their Motion for Class
Certification shall be due on or
before:
-- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion July 13, 2023
for Class Certification shall take
place on:
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tCJIkSat no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Tracy Howard, Adina Ringler and
Trecee Artis are:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
TGUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
5 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
The Attorneys for Defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-2262
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: asmith@jenner.com
- and -
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 923-2765
Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com
HOME DEPOT: 4th Claim in Fan Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LI FAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01355 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fourth
claim for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.
Fan brought the putative class action against Home Depot, alleging
various wage and hour violations. The Defendant employed the
Plaintiff as a non-exempt retail associate from approximately July
2016 to October 2020 at its Madera, California facility.
The Plaintiff's complaint contains the following four claims: (1)
failure to pay wages including overtime, Cal. Lab. Code Sections
510, 1197; (2) failure to timely pay wages, Cal. Lab. Code Sections
201 et seq.; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, Cal. Lab. Code Section 226; and (4) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. &
Professions Code Section 17200.
The Defendant's first motion to dismiss was set for hearing on
Sept. 6, 2022. The Court was prepared to hear and decide the motion
on the merits, but at oral argument, the counsel for both sides
discussed cases which they had not previously brought to the
Court's attention. The Court denied the Defendant's motion without
prejudice to allow the parties to adequately brief the cases they
intended to rely on.
The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's fourth claim under
the UCL, which seeks restitution of withheld wages based on the
same alleged facts as her first claim for wage violations. It
argues that she fails to state a claim for restitution under the
UCL because the complaint does not allege that he lacks an adequate
remedy at law.
Judge Shubb holds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
plead an inadequate legal remedy and he dismisses her UCL claim. He
explains that in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, 971 F.3d
834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020), the court dismissed the Plaintiff's
claims for equitable restitution because the operative complaint
did not allege that the plaintiff lacked an adequate legal remedy,
and the plaintiff sought the same amount in both equitable
restitution and damages for the same past harm.
The Plaintiff's UCL claim fails for similar reasons. Judge Shubb
points out that the operative complaint did not plead an inadequate
legal remedy. The Plaintiff's fourth claim under the UCL and first
claim for damages are based on the same factual allegations and
cite multiple of the same sections of the California Labor Code.
Both claims also seek the same relief -- namely the amount of wages
unpaid, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Such claims, he says,
based on monetary harm are "exactly" the type of claim "for which
legal remedies are appropriate." As in Sonner, the Plaintiff fails
to explain how the same amount of money for the exact same harm is
inadequate or incomplete, and nothing in the record supports that
conclusion."
The Plaintiff argues that dismissal of the UCL claim will result in
an unfair limitation of the class period in this action from a
period of four years, to three years from the initial filing of the
complaint. However, she cited no cases in support of this argument,
and multiple courts -- including courts comparing the statutes of
limitations of the UCL and the California Labor Code -- have found
that a shorter statute of limitations alone does not render a legal
remedy inadequate.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's UCL claim should be
dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Shubb finds that amendment of the Plaintiff's UCL claim would
be futile. Based on the foregoing analysis, he does not see -- and
the Plaintiff's counsel has not provided either in briefing or at
oral argument -- any possible set of facts that could cure the
deficiencies of the UCL claim. Accordingly, he denies the
Plaintiff's request for leave to amend.
In sum, Judge Shubb grants the Defendant's partial motion to
dismiss and dismisses the fourth claim under the UCL without
prejudice and without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwtm86z from Leagle.com.
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action in California Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Human Resources Director, reports
that a putative class action for unpaid wages against Home Depot
U.S.A, Inc. alleged two claims: first, unpaid minimum and overtime
wages under section 5101 of California's Labor Code and under the
applicable wage order; and second, unfair competition.
Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa -- the plaintiffs in the case of
Camp et al. v. Home Depot, USA, Inc. -- argued that, during the
relevant period, "Kronos," Home Depot's electronic timekeeping
system, captured each minute that employees worked but, because of
the company's quarter-hour rounding policy, employees were paid
wages for less time, in the aggregate, than the timekeeping system
reflected.
Correa worked for Home Depot from March 2015 to October 2015. She
did not gain or lose minutes due to rounding, as her time and pay
records showed. Camp began working for Home Depot in March 2015.
The records showed that, between March 2015 and October 2020, he
suffered a total net loss of 470 minutes or approximately 7.83
hours of work time due to the rounding policy.
Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment. It accepted that
Camp lost 470 minutes over around four-and-a-half years due to
rounding but argued that its rounding practice was neutral and
otherwise lawful under the ruling in the case of See's Candy Shops,
Inc. v. Superior Court (2012). The company contended that Correa
had no standing to bring an unpaid wages claim because she lost no
wages due to the rounding policy.
The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and entered
judgment in Home Depot's favor. The trial court found that Home
Depot's rounding practice was neutral on its face and compliant
with the standard in See's Candy. The plaintiffs appealed.
The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District reversed the
judgment against Camp and directed the trial court to deny Home
Depot's summary judgment motion with respect to Camp. The appellate
court dismissed Correa's appeal as abandoned since she conceded
that she was overpaid and could not bring an unpaid wages claim.
The record reflected that Home Depot used a timekeeping system that
recorded the time to the minute that an employee punched in or out
during a shift, including for meal breaks, then applied a
quarter-hour rounding policy to the employee's total shift time.
The record also showed that, between March 2015 and October 2020,
Camp lost over seven hours of work time due to rounding.
Based on this record, Home Depot failed to show that there was no
triable issue of material fact on the issue of whether Camp was
paid for all the time that he worked, the appellate court
concluded. [GN]
HOMELAND SECURITY: Edakunni May Supplement Administrative Record
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEEPTHI WARRIER EDAKUNNI, et al., Plaintiffs v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00393-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the administrative record.
In this putative Administrative Procedure Act (APA) class action,
the Plaintiffs allege that United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) has unlawfully delayed adjudicating
applications for change or extension of work status and for work
authorization filed by nonimmigrants in the H-4 and L-2 visa
categories. They have brought suit against the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, Mayorkas, to "compel agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" under the APA.
On July 5, 2022, the Court denied the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment. All but one of the parties' arguments -- the
Plaintiffs' argument that USCIS had failed to adhere to mandatory
deadlines for adjudication of the I-765 and I-539 applications at
issue -- were dismissed without prejudice to re-filing pending
appropriate supplementation of the administrative record.
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion to
supplement the administrative record.
The Court's Order allowed the Plaintiffs to move to supplement the
administrative record with respect to the FIFO [first-in,
first-out] processing rule and the newly-added plaintiffs only. The
Plaintiffs have now moved to supplement the administrative record;
however, they devote the bulk of their briefing to argument about
supplementation of the record on matters beyond the scope of the
Court's Order.
As to FIFO, the Plaintiffs request permission to depose USCIS'
Deputy Associate Director of Service Center Operations Connie A.
Nolan and other agency officials who can speak to the priorities
assigned to each form and visa category at each service center
based on their "knowledge of each service center's personnel
levels, caseloads, and processing from January 2016 to May 31,
2022." They also seek evidence of the total number of all forms
processed by each service center from January 2016 through May 2022
and more specific information about I-539 and I-765 forms assigned
to each service center during that timeframe, even for irrelevant
visa categories.
In response to the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record, the
Defendant supplied information about the adjudication status of the
applications of each newly-added plaintiff from the third amended
complaint. It also provided charts, broken down by service center,
showing the dates each of the Plaintiffs from the proposed second
amended complaint and third amended complaint had filed I-539
and/or I-765 forms and when those forms were adjudicated.
Judge Lin finds that the information the Defendant has provided
does not provide the Court a full enough picture to determine
whether USCIS is, in fact, following FIFO with respect to all I-539
and I-765 forms filed by applicants within the H-4 and L-2 visa
categories. It has not provided any information about the relative
filing and adjudication dates of members of the prospective class
beyond the named Plaintiffs to allow the Court to determine whether
the FIFO processing rule is being evenly applied to all applicants
(versus just those who have filed suit) and whether the Plaintiffs'
applications are being processed pursuant to the FIFO rule in
relation to all other applicants (not just vis-à-vis each other).
In order to balance the burden on the Defendant with the need to
ensure an adequate record, Judge Lin requires a random sampling of
data to supplement the record. She requires the Defendant to
supplement the administrative record with information about the
respective application filing dates and adjudication dates of all
I-539 and I-765 applications filed for H-4 classifications and all
I-539 applications filed for L-2 classifications as well as the
reason(s) for deviation from the FIFO rule for the one month period
of March 2022, for the service centers at which Plaintiffs filed
applications. Judge Lin allows the Defendant to determine how best
to provide this information in a manner that does not disclose the
identity of applicants other than the Plaintiffs.
With this in mind, Judge Lin grants the Plaintiffs' request for the
deposition of Nolan regarding the June 29th Nolan Declaration,
limited to four hours. To the extent any statement in prior or
later declarations submitted by Nolan in this matter may be
inconsistent with the June 29th Nolan declaration, the Plaintiffs
may inquire about the inconsistencies. They may also inquire about
any exceptions to the FIFO processing rule and how such exceptions
have been applied during the Relevant Time Period.
The Plaintiffs also seek a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and
non-testimonial evidence relating to the agency's human resources
caseload, staffing, and other resource allocation-type information
from Jan. 1, 2016, to May 31, 2022. They claim this information is
relevant to establish if forms were processed according to FIFO,
but Judge Lin does not see any justification for such granular
detail that seems geared toward ultimately having the Court decide
how the agency should use its resources (an invitation the Court
will decline) and would significantly expand the current record.
Judge Lin finds this request overbroad and denies it. However, she
allows the Plaintiffs a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition strictly limited
to whether the FIFO rule has been followed for processing of I-539
forms for H-4 and L-2 classifications and I-765 forms for L-2
classifications since the biometrics requirement was suspended and
any exceptions to the FIFO rule. They will refrain from asking
questions about operational and human resources decisions unless
they are necessary to determine whether FIFO was followed during
the Relevant Time Period.
Regarding competing priorities, the Defendant's summary judgment
briefing did not present any evidence on this issue. Therefore,
Judge Lin also allows the Plaintiffs a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on
the issue of competing priorities. To be clear, she is granting the
Plaintiffs one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of one day (seven hours) to
cover both the topics of FIFO and competing priorities. Nothing in
her Order precludes the Defendant from designating multiple
individuals as its 30(b)(6) representatives or designating Nolan as
its Rule 30(b)(6) representative for either the FIFO or competing
priorities topics, should the Plaintiffs request such a deposition
and should Nolan be the appropriate designee.
For these reasons, Judge Lin grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the administrative record. Within
seven days (i.e., by Nov. 22, 2022), the parties were to submit a
joint proposal that includes timeframes for (1) the Defendant to
file the one month sample requested as a supplement to the
administrative record, (2) the parties to complete deposition(s)
consistent with the Order, (3) the parties to meet and confer
regarding any additional discovery needed regarding FIFO and
competing priorities after the deposition(s) have concluded, if
necessary, and (4) a briefing schedule for renewed motions for
summary judgment, if desired. The Defendant is encouraged to
request a status conference with the Court before the deadline
provided to discuss any questions about or difficulties with
providing the information requested.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7584hh from Leagle.com.
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Seeks Dismissal of Pizzuto Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Homology Medicines Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the Company has
filed its motion to transfer venue and dismissal of the Pizzuto
securities class suit.
On March 25, 2022, the Company and certain of its executives were
named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California; Pizzuto v. Homology Medicines, Inc., No.
2:22–CV–01968 (C.D. Cal 2022).
The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain
information regarding efficacy and safety in connection with a
Phase I/II HMI-102 clinical trial, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount. The case is in its early stages.
Homology Medicines Inc. operates as a genetic medicines company.
The Company offers a platform to utilize human hematopoietic stem
cell derived adeno-associated virus vectors to treat a range of
disease-causing mutations through gene correction, insertion, and
knockout. Homology Medicines serves patients in the United
States.[BN]
HONDA CANADA: Deadline for Owners to Submit Claims Set March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec approving
the settlement reached in the Daunais Class Action case against
Honda Canada Inc., CBL & Associes, avocats Cabinet BG Avocat inc.
wishes to inform members that the six-month claim period has been
open since September 30, 2022.
Owners and former owners of 2006-2013 Honda Civic and 2006-2011
Acura CSX vehicles purchased in Quebec who experienced Early Paint
Degradation have until March 31, 2023 to submit their claim. The
maximum benefit per eligible person has been set at $2,675.
Several settlement possibilities are available:
-- Receive up to $2,550 to have your affected vehicle repainted
by an authorized auto body shop
-- Obtain cash compensation of a maximum of $1,530, or 60% of
the amount allowed to have your vehicle repainted
-- Get reimbursed up to $2,550 if the vehicle has already been
repainted due to Early Paint Degradation
-- Obtain compensation of up to $1,530 if the vehicle was resold
at a loss due to Early Paint Degradation
Conditions apply in all cases.
Claim requests can be made on the drivewithstyle.ca website. All
the necessary information is listed on the website, including how
to make a claim and the required supporting documents. Examples of
Early Paint Degradation are also available. A phone line is also
available to answer questions from members: 1 (800) 270-7047.
MEDIA CAMPAIGN: TO CONTINUE DRIVING WITH STYLE
An integrated marketing campaign has been launched in digital and
traditional media to reach the people concerned and invite them to
make a claim.
The campaign revolves around the idea of style, a key criteria for
consumers when choosing a car. Because the colour and condition of
the car's paint are part of its style, the advertising messages
urge the public to continue driving in style by claiming their
benefits online. [GN]
HONEST COMPANY: Continues to Defend Dixon Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honest Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the company
continues to defend itself from the Dixon putative securities class
action suit.
On September 15, 2021, Cody Dixon filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging federal securities law violations by the
Company, certain current officers and directors, and certain
underwriters in connection with the Company's IPO.
A second putative class action complaint containing similar
allegations against the Company and certain current officers and
directors was filed by Stephen Gambino on October 8, 2021 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
These related complaints have been transferred to the same court
and a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed in the matter, and a
putative consolidated class action complaint was filed by the Lead
Plaintiff on February 21, 2022.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative consolidated class
action complaint was filed on March 14, 2022.
On July 18, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part.
The Company believes the securities complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.
Honest Company is an honestly safe baby and beauty store that
brings innovative formulas and thoughtful designs to beauty and
baby products.
IKEA US: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought in Dukich
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA DUKICH and JOHN
DUKICH, et al.on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC and IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time
to file reply in support of motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff Samantha Meyers moves the Honorable Court for a
brief, 8-day extension of time to file a Reply in Support of her
Motion for Class Certification, stating as follows:
On November 7, 2022, Defendants filed their brief in opposition to
class certification.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply brief in support of her
motion for class certification is November 21.
An 8-day extension, to and including December 2, 2022, will provide
Plaintiff adequate time to prepare a reply within the Court's
prescribed page limits.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3VaIdGhat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Daniel J. Mann, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Bethany Nikitenko, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG , LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
dmann@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
bnikitenko@feldmanshepherd.com
IMANI LOUNGE: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Anderson Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMAN ANDERSON and SELETA STANTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IMANI LOUNGE, LLC, and
MICHAEL CONWAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00652-UJ (M.D. Ala.,
November 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay proper minimum wage compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Anderson and Stanton worked as dancers at Imani Lounge
in Dothan from December of 2017 until October of 2021 and from
January of 2017 until September of 2021, respectively.
Imani Lounge, LLC is an owner and operator of an adult
entertainment club called Imani Lounge in Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: (205) 523-0463
Facsimile: (205) 756-4463
E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
- and -
Laura Edmondson, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: laura@sanfordlawfirm.com
INFLECTION RISK: Class Settlement in Taylor Suit Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tony N. Taylor, Plaintiff v. Inflection Risk
Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-2266 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.),
Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Settlement
Approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and their Motion for
Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Award.
The Court held a hearing on the Motions on Nov. 15, 2022, and there
was no objection to either Motion. Having considered the terms of
the settlement, Judge Magnuson concludes that it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e). He notes that there were
no objections filed to the settlement and no class member excluded
themselves from the settlement.
Accordingly, Judge Magnuson grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion
for Final Approval and approves the settlement.
The following settlement classes are certified for settlement
purposes:
a. Deemed Misdemeanor Class: All natural persons on whom the
Defendant published a consumer report, from Oct. 12, 2018, to July
13, 2021, where:
1) the consumer had a Minnesota criminal conviction for
which the imposition of a sentence was stayed pursuant to Minn.
Stat. Section 609.135;
2) the conviction was deemed a misdemeanor pursuant to
Minn. Stat. Section 609.13, before the date on which the Defendant
prepared the consumer report, with probation being discharged;
3) the consumer report indicated that the offense level
was felony; and
4) the consumer report did not indicate that the
conviction was deemed a misdemeanor.
b. Nationwide Inaccurate Offense Characterization Class: All
natural persons on whom Defendant published a consumer report, from
Oct. 12, 2018, to Sept. 29, 2021, where:
1) the Defendant's report listed a criminal offense;
2) the Defendant's report characterized the offense as
offense class: violence; and
3) the description of the crime on the Defendant's
report does not involve a violent act against another person, or a
threatened violent act towards another person. A list of offenses
the Parties have agreed satisfy this criterion (3), for purposes of
the Settlement, is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit
A.
The Class does not include individuals who were
convicted of crimes involving possession of a weapon and where the
underlying elements of the crime involve violence or threatened
violence towards another person or where the state law of the
jurisdiction defines the possession of a weapon as a crime of
violence.
As agreed by the parties in the Settlement Agreement, on the
Effective Date, the Released Parties will be released and
discharged in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Each
Settlement Class Member is permanently barred and enjoined from
instituting, maintaining, or prosecuting, either directly or
indirectly, any lawsuit that asserts Released Claims against the
Released Parties, as those terms are defined in the Settlement
Agreement, including by participating in any class action or other
representative or collective proceeding that asserts Released
Claims against the Released Parties.
Judge Magnuson grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees,
Costs, and Class Representative Award. He awards (i) $1,354,055.04
as reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, and
(ii) the Class Representative $7,500 to be paid from the Settlement
Fund, in consideration for the service performed for and on behalf
of the Settlement Classes. He approves payment of $105,950 to the
Settlement Administrator for reimbursement of its out-of-pocket
expenses in the administration of the Settlement, to be paid from
the Settlement Fund.
Judge Magnuson approves the parties' distribution plan of payments
to the Settlement Classes as outlined in the Settlement Agreement
following the approved deductions. Should funds remain after all
distributions are made, and the check negotiation period provided
for in the Settlement Agreement has passed, the Parties' chosen cy
pres, Public Justice, is approved for receiving such balance.
The action is dismissed with prejudice and without further costs to
any party.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r7zsc76w from Leagle.com.
INFUCARE RX: Sharfman Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D.,
P.A., v. INFUCARE RX LLC and INFUCARE RX PENNSYLVANIA INC., Case
No. 6:21-cv-00525-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying the following class:
-- Class A
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax,
on or about March 10, 2021, March 11, 2021, or March 18,
2021, that states: "Infucare Rx is now a Preferred
Provider," and/or "Selected by Cigna's eviCore healthcare
for Specialty and Non-Specialty Infusions Services,"
and/or "Selected by Cigna’s eviCore healthcare for
Specialty Pharmacy and Infusion Therapy Services."
Alternatively, Plaintiff states that if the Court seeks
to distinguish between faxes successfully sent to "stand-
alone" fax machines—as was the case with respect to
Plaintiff -- versus faxes that were successfully sent to
an "online fax service," Plaintiff requests that the
Court certify the following class:
-- Class B
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a Fax
to their stand-alone fax machine, on or about March 10,
2021, March 11, 2021, or March 18, 2021, that states:
"Infucare Rx is now a Preferred Provider," and/or
"Selected by Cigna’s eviCore healthcare for Specialty and
Non-Specialty Infusions Services," and/or "Selected by
Cigna’s eviCore healthcare for Specialty Pharmacy and
Infusion Therapy Services."
The Plaintiff adds that the proposed classes exclude
"practices/physicians" with whom Defendant Infucare claims to have
a relationship, which includes those who have signed declarations
regarding permission. The Plaintiff contends that its counsel
should be appointed class counsel under Rule 23(g) and Plaintiff
should be appointed class representative.
Mr. Sharfman initiated this junk fax case against Infucare RX, LLC
and Infucare RX Pennsylvania, Inc. alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).
The Defendants argue that online fax service users -- included
within Class A -- do not have claims under the TCPA and lack
Article III standing. The Defendants also argue that both proposed
classes fail under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) and certification
is not justified because Plaintiff has not demonstrated
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation under Rule
23(a) or that common issues predominate, and a class action would
be superior under Rule 23(b).
InfuCare is a specialty infusion therapy provider focused on
treating patients with chronic conditions who require comprehensive
clinical management services.
A copy of the Court's order Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AwvlCtat no
extra charge.[CC]
JBS USA FOOD: Brown Sues Over Fixing the Compensation Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Brown, Minka Garmon, and Jessie Croft, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JBS USA FOOD COMPANY;
CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP.; HORMEL FOODS CORP.;
AMERICAN FOODS GROUP, LLC; TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC; SEABOARD FOODS, LLC;
NATIONAL BEEF PACKING CO., LLC; IOWA PREMIUM LLC; SMITHFIELD FOODS
INC.; SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP.; AGRI BEEF CO.; WASHINGTON
BEEF, LLC; PERDUE FARMS, INC.; AGRI STATS, INC.; and WEBBER, MENG,
SAHL AND COMPANY, INC. d/b/a WMS & COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-02946 (D. Colo., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants who have conspired and combined to fix and depress the
compensation paid to employees at red meat processing plants in
violation of Sherman Act and to enjoin the Defendants from
continuing their unlawful agreement and to recover actual,
compensatory and treble damages, as well as costs, attorneys' fees
and interest.
The Defendants include eleven red meat processors and several of
their subsidiaries ("Defendant Processors"), which collectively
produce approximately 80 percent of the red meat sold to consumers
in the United States. The Defendant Processors have compensated
Class Members with hourly wages or annual salaries and employment
benefits. Each Defendant Processor has established a schedule for
hourly wage rates, annual salaries, and employment benefits based
on the specific position and years of experience of the Class
Members.
The Defendants implemented, monitored, and enforced their
conspiracy to fix and depress compensation paid to Class Members
through a series of overt acts, including: Secret Compensation
Surveys where the Defendant Processors collectively designed,
implemented, and concealed a compensation survey covering dozens of
positions across red meat processing plants.
Secret Annual Meetings where the Defendant Processors sent their
executives, including vice presidents of human resources and
directors of compensation, to annual in-person meetings (the "Red
Meat Industry Compensation Meetings"). The purpose, intent, and
outcome of these annual Red Meat Industry Compensation Meetings was
to depress and fix the wages, salaries, and benefits of Class
Members at artificially depressed levels.
Direct Communications among Executives where the Defendant
Processors' senior executives extensively discussed, compared, and
in turn further suppressed compensation through email and phone
communications. Those conspiratorial communications included both
group emails to senior executives for purposes of aligning
Defendant Processors' compensation practices and bilateral
communications meant to adopt time-sensitive plans for future
compensation.
Exchanging Compensation Data through Agri Stats where each month,
the Defendant Processors Hormel Foods Corporation, JBS, Seaboard
Foods LLC, Smithfield Foods, Inc., Triumph Foods, LLC, and Tyson
Foods, Inc. ("the Pork Processor Defendants") exchanged detailed,
current, and non-public compensation information through Agri
Stats.
No Poach Agreements where, in furtherance of their conspiracy to
depress Class Members' wages, the Defendant Processors also entered
into illegal "no poach" agreements with each other to refrain from
recruiting one another's employees.
The Defendant Processors engaged in the conspiracy to increase
their profits by reducing labor costs, which comprise a substantial
share of each Defendant Processor's total operating costs. The
intended and actual effect of Defendants' conspiracy to fix
compensation has been to reduce and suppress the wages, salaries,
and benefits paid to Class Members since January 2014 to levels
materially lower than they would have been in a competitive market.
The agreement entered by Defendants to fix and depress compensation
paid to employees of red meat processing plants has unreasonably
restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Act, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff were employed by the Defendants.
American Foods Group, LLC is a Delaware limited-liability company
headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
abigailp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
Boulder, CO 80305
Phone: (202) 559-2433
Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
Rachel E. Nadas, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 559-2433
Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com
rnadas@hfajustice.com
- and -
George F. Farah, Esq.
Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
Nicholas J. Jackson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
33 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 477-8090
Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com
rchang@hfajustice.com
njackson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Martha E. Guarnieri, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1727 Snyder Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19145
Phone: (215) 422-3478
Email: mguarnieri@hfajustice.com
- and -
Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
Alison S. Deich, Esq.
Zachary Glubiak, Esq.
Louis Katz, Esq.
Zachary I. Krowitz, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com
adeich@cohenmilstein.com
zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com
lkatz@cohenmilstein.com
zkrowitz@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
Eura Chang, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
Email: bdclark@locklaw.com
sjteti@locklaw.com
echang@locklaw.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Candice J. Enders, Esq.
Julia R. McGrath, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Email: ecramer@bm.net
cenders@bm.net
jmcgrath@bm.net
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Court Tosses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY WAYNE BECKETT v.
SHERIFF, JEFFERSON COUNTY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00358-TH-CLS (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Thad Heartfield entered an order:
1. adopting the the report of the Magistrate Judge Hon.
Christine L. Stetson; and
2. denying the Plaintiff's request for class certification.
The Plaintiff Ricky Wayne Beckett, a prisoner confined at the
Jefferson County Correctional Facility, proceeding pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against
the Sheriff of Jefferson County, Texas.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L.
Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for
consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends
denying Plaintiff's request for class certification.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order,
along with the record and the pleadings. Proper notice was given to
Plaintiff at his last known address.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UILEEmat no extra charge.[CC]
JOHN DEERE: Nine U.S. Farms File Right-to-Repair Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
DTN reports that nine farms across the country filed a consolidated
right-to-repair class-action complaint against John Deere at the
end of October. This was the next step after the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in June consolidated 13 lawsuits
filed across the country into one class action in an Illinois
federal court.
All the cases allege John Deere violated the Sherman Act and seek
damages for farmers who paid for repairs from John Deere dealers
beginning on Jan. 12, 2018, to the present.
The cases allege the company has monopolized the repair service
market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment with onboard
central computers known as engine control units, or ECUs.
The new complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Northern Illinois on Oct. 24, lists nine plaintiff farms
including seven that originally filed complaints in various courts
in the past year.
A number of other farms that originally filed individual lawsuits
are not named as plaintiffs on the consolidated complaint.
The lawsuit, however, also includes "similarly situated" parties
— typical of a class-action suit.
The plaintiffs include Alabama farmer Trinity Dale Wells;
Florida-based Colvin Farms; Illinois-based Plum Ridge Farms, Ltd.;
Tennessee farmer Blake Johnson; New York-based Robbins Family
Grain, LLC; Minnesota-based Hapka Farms, Inc.; Eagle Lake Farms
Partnership in Arkansas; England Farms and Harvesting, LLC in
Texas; and Wilson Farms Land and Cattle Co. LLC in Missouri.
The right to repair increasingly has become an issue in agriculture
and other industries with state legislatures introducing bills in
at least 32 states, including bills in 21 states in 2021. A bill
failed to pass in the Nebraska Legislature earlier this year.
In September 2018, the Equipment Dealers Association, a trade and
lobbying group that represents John Deere and other manufacturers,
committed to make repair tools, software and diagnostics available
to the public by Jan. 1, 2021.
In March 2022, Deere announced the May release of the "Customer
Service ADVISOR," the tool that was to be released for purchase in
January 2021.
In a June 2, 2022, statement to DTN, Deere said that for more than
180 years, the company has "empowered" customers to maintain and
repair their own equipment.
"That's why we provide tools, parts, training videos, manuals, and
remote access for customers to work on their machines," the company
said.
"John Deere equipment is manufactured to the highest engineering
standards to maximize performance while protecting the safety and
health of our customers and the environment. While we support the
customers' right to maintain and repair their products, we do not
support customers modifying embedded software due to risks related
to safety, emissions compliance and the uncertainty it creates in
the aftermarket."
Deere said it already offers a variety of tools to farmers to help
maintain and repair their equipment. That includes access to repair
manuals, Customer Service ADVISOR, a diagnostic and information
tool that customers and independent repair shops can purchase from
dealers or online directly from John Deere as of May 2022.
In addition, the company said it provides JDLink, which connects a
machine's information to the web and can alert customers to issues
as they develop and provide other useful information like location
and status.
Deere said it also has Connected Support, which allows dealers to
remotely analyze, clear and refresh diagnostic trouble codes in
"near real-time" to isolate potential issues with customers'
machines. [GN]
JOJO'S CHOCOLATE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jojo's Chocolate LLC.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jojo's Chocolate LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09674 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JOJO's Chocolate -- https://jojoschocolate.com/ -- produces
keto-friendly, paleo, vegan, non-GMO, gluten-free and soy-free
premium dark chocolate bars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
LA TINFORA GROCERY: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Castillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LA TINFORA GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A LA TINFORA GROCERY
CORP.), PASCUAL NUNEZ, and MILTON NUNEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-09640
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. At all the Defendants maintained a policy and practice
of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a deli worker at the deli.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Bronx,
New York under the name "La Tinfora Grocery Corp."BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LAKE CITY CREDIT: Judge Certifies FDCPA Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP disclosed that in the November 7, 2022
edition of the ARM Compliance Digest, Hinshaw partner David Schultz
discusses lessons offered by a Mississippi District Court judge's
decision to certify a class action in a Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act case in which the plaintiff had already obtained a
default judgment against the defendant, after the defendant
allegedly sent letters to the plaintiff that did not have the
proper disclosures on them:
McAllister v Lake City Credit is a messy case in multiple ways.
First, the complaint alleged that two letters regarding a payment
plan failed to comply with 1692g. It seems unlikely that they were
initial communications or that 1692g applied.
Second, the defendant was served but failed to appear. A default
was entered against it. Perhaps the defendant thought that would be
a quick way to end the case. Unfortunately, it was not.
Third, the case was pled as a class action. After the default, the
court considered the motion to certify. It started about by saying
that it still has to do a rigorous analysis of Rule 23's elements
even if there is a default. It then went through the Rule's
elements. However, instead of doing a rigorous analysis, it
accepted the conclusory allegations in the motion. There does not
appear to be any evidence on numerosity or superiority, for
instance.
Fourth, the opinion ends with the court asking plaintiff to submit
a memo on how class notice will be given. That's a pretty good
question, especially since it is not clear anyone else is in the
class.
This case pretty well demonstrates the risks associated with
default judgments.
Read the full November 7, 2022 edition of the AccountsRecovery.net
Compliance Digest.
"Judge Certifies Class Against Defaulted Defendant in FDCPA Case,"
ARM Compliance Digest, November 7, 2022.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is a U.S. based law firm with offices
nationwide. The firm's national reputation spans the insurance
industry, the financial services sector, and other highly regulated
industries. Hinshaw also serves as counsel to the professional
services sector, and provides business advisory and transactional
services to clients of all sizes. [GN]
LAKESIDE RESTAURANT: Faces Nolen et al. Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSHUA NOLEN, JOHN PARKER, STEPHANIE ISLEY, IAN BROWN and
KIMBERLY HENRY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LAKESIDE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, LLC, THIRD
STREET SOCIAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC., NORTHLAND RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATES, INC., SUMMIT RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, LLC., WALDO RAMEN,
INC., SUMMIT RESTAURANT GROUP LLC., DOMHNALL MOLLOY, and ANDREW
LOCKE, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00732-SRB (W.D. Mo., November
7, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiffs as a class and collective
action complaint to challenge the Defendants' unlawful policies and
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Maximum Hours Laws.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform duties as
servers and bartenders within the three years of the commencement
of this action. Plaintiff Joshua Nolan has worked at Third Street
Social from approximately January 2018 until January 2021.
Plaintiff John Parker has worked at the Summit Grill located in
Gladstone from approximately November 2018 until May 2021.
Plaintiff Isley has worked at Boru Asian Eatery from approximately
June 2018 until January 2020. Plaintiff Ian Brown has worked at the
Summit Grill located in Waldo from approximately November 2021
until February 2022, and Plaintiff Kimberly Henry has worked at the
Summit Grill located in Waldo from approximately November 2016
until March 2020.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants required them and other
similarly situated servers and bartenders to spend more than 20
percent of their time engaged in non-tip-producing activities.
However, the Defendants failed to properly pay them the legally
mandated minimum wages and overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they
have worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also
failed to provide the proper notice to its employees paid under the
tip credit that would permit them to take a credit against the
Federal Minimum Wage requirements, say the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to
the amount of unpaid overtime, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the court deems fair
and equitable.
The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants. Individual Defendants
Domhnall Molloy and Andrew Locke are the owners, corporate
officers, principals, and/or primary decision makers of the
corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Tel: (816) 600-0117
Fax: (816) 600-0137
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
- and –
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
Ethan A. Crockett, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Tel: (816) 875-3332
E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
ktodd@hkm.com
ecrockett@hkm.com
www.hkm.com
LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Love Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEITH LOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC.; Doe Corporation 1– 10;
John Doe 1–10; Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00654-MWM (S.D. OH.,
Nov. 10, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Love was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.
Lasership, Inc. provides courier services. The Company offers
pickup and delivery of letters, small packages, and documents.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Riley Kane, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8714
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
rkane@billerkimble.com
LEVI NORTH: Scheduling Order Entered in Toll Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WARREN TOLL, v.
LEVI NORTH, et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-62527-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Patrick M. Hunt entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Parties Exchange Rule 26(a)(1) December 16, 2022
Initial Disclosures
-- Joinder of Parties, Amendment December 29, 2022
of Pleadings, and Motions for
Class Certification:
-- Exchange Rule 26(a)(2) Expert February 23, 2023
Disclosures and Summaries/
Reports:
-- Exchange Rule 26(a)(2) Expert March 23, 2023
Rebuttal Summaries/Reports:
-- Fact Discovery Completed: April 13, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Completed: April 28, 2023
-- Dispositive Pretrial Motions May 11, 2023
and Motions to Exclude or
Limit Expert Testimony:
-- Mediation Completed: April 28, 2023
-- Motions in Limine: June 29, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UL8M5iat no extra charge.[CC]
LINCARE HOLDINGS INC: Eichman Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kenneth Eichman, an individual, and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals v. Lincare Holdings,
Inc., Lincare Inc., Lincare Pharmacy Services, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00973 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
Middle District of Florida on Sept. 26, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02173-TPB-SPF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Lincare Holdings Inc. -- https://www.lincare.com/ -- is a provider
of oxygen and other respiratory therapy services to patients in the
home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
Marcus Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alyssa Michelle Engstrom, Esq.
Wesley Douglas Hurst, Esq.
POLSINELLI LLP
2049 Century Park East Ste 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-1801
Fax: (310) 556-1802
Email: aengstrom@polsinelli.com
whurst@polsinelli.com
- and -
Michael S. Hooker, Esq.
Jason A. Pill, Esq.
John D. Mullen, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000
Tampa, FL 33602-5315
Phone: (813) 472-7550
Fax: (813) 472-7570
Email: michael.hooker@phelps.com
jason.pill@phelps.com
john.mullen@phelps.com
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Ct. Hears Bid for Final OK of Sweet Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended on September 30, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022,
that the final hearing to consider final approval of the settlement
in the case captioned Sweet v. Cardona, No. 3:19-cv-3674 (N.D.
Cal.) was last November 9, 2022, and the company intended to
participate in the hearing and present arguments.
On June 22, 2022, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of Education (the "DOE") before a federal court in
California (Sweet v. Cardona, No. 3:19-cv-3674 (N.D. Cal.)) and the
DOE submitted a proposed settlement agreement to the court. The
plaintiffs in the suit contend, among other things, that the DOE
has failed to timely decide and resolve borrower defense to
repayment applications submitted to the DOE. If approved, the
settlement would result in full discharge and refund payments to
covered student borrowers who have asserted a borrower defense to
repayment to the DOE and whose borrower defense claims have not yet
been granted or denied on the merits.
The lawsuit is a class action filed against the DOE in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by a group
of students, none of whom attended any of the Company's
institutions.
The Company was not a party to the lawsuit when it was filed. The
plaintiffs requested the court to compel the DOE to start approving
or denying the pending applications. The court granted class
certification and defined the class of plaintiffs generally to
include all people who borrowed a Title IV Direct loan or FFEL
loan, who have asserted a borrower defense to repayment claim to
the DOE, and whose borrower defense claim has not been granted or
denied on the merits.
The Company has not received notice or confirmation directly from
the DOE of the total number of student borrowers who have submitted
borrower defense to repayment claims related to its institutions.
The proposed settlement agreement sets forth a long list of
institutions, including Lincoln Technical Institute and Lincoln
College of Technology, and, under the proposed settlement, the DOE
would agree to discharge loans and refund all prior loan payments
to each class member with loan debt associated with an institution
on the list (which includes its institutions), including borrowers
whose applications the DOE previously denied after October 30,
2019.
The DOE and the plaintiffs stated in a court filing that this
provision is intended to provide for automatic relief for students
at the listed schools, which they estimate to total 200,000 class
members.
The parties also stated that the DOE has determined that attendance
at one of the institutions on the list justifies presumptive relief
based on strong indicia regarding substantial misconduct by the
institutions, whether credibly alleged or in some instances proven,
and the high rate of class members with applications related to the
listed schools. The proposed settlement agreement provides a
separate process for reviewing claims associated with schools not
on the list. It is unclear whether the DOE would seek to impose
liabilities on the Company or other schools or take other actions
or impose other sanctions on Company or other schools based on
relief provided to students under the proposed settlement agreement
(particularly if the DOE provides relief without evaluating or
accounting for legal and factual information provided to the DOE by
the Company and other schools or without providing the Company and
other schools with notice and an opportunity to respond to some of
the claims).
In July 2022, the Company and certain other school companies
submitted motions to intervene in the lawsuit in order to protect
its interests in the finalization and implementation of any
settlement agreement the court might approve. The Company noted in
the motion that the proposed settlement agreement introduced, for
the first time, the prospect that the DOE would "automatically" and
fully discharge loans and refund payments to student borrowers
without adjudication of the merits of the students'
borrower-defense applications in accordance with the DOE's
borrower-defense regulations and without ensuring that the Company
and other institutions can defend against allegations asserted in
individual borrower-defense applications.
In addition, the Company also asserted that it would be unlawful
and inappropriate if the DOE sought recoupment against the Company
based on loans that were forgiven under the proposed settlement
agreement without providing the Company an opportunity to address
the claims or accounting for its responses to the claims already
submitted which the Company believes is required by the
regulations. The Company also asserted that the lawsuit and the
potential loan discharges could result in reputational harm to the
Company and its institutions and could result in other actions
against the Company by other federal and state agencies or by
current and former students.
The court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
agreement on August 4, 2022, and also granted Company's motion for
permissive intervention for the purpose of objecting to and
opposing the class action settlement.
On September 22, 2022, the DOE and the plaintiffs filed a joint
motion for final approval of the settlement. In that joint motion,
the DOE and plaintiffs reported that approximately 179,000 new
borrower defense applications had been submitted to the DOE as of
September 20, 2022.
The Company and the three other intervenor schools filed briefs
opposing final approval. The court has scheduled a final approval
hearing for November 9, 2022, and the Company intend to participate
in the hearing and present arguments.
The Company cannot predict whether the court will grant or deny
final approval of the proposed settlement agreement, or whether the
DOE and plaintiffs will make amendments to the proposed settlement
agreement. If the proposed settlement agreement, as it is
currently drafted, receives final approval by the court, the DOE is
expected to automatically approve all of the pending borrower
defense applications concerning the Company's schools that were
submitted to the DOE on or before June 22, 2022 and to provide such
automatic approval without evaluating or accounting for any of the
legal or factual grounds that the Company provided for contesting
the applications that were provided to the Company. The DOE may or
may not seek recoupment from the schools relating to the automatic
approval of borrower defense applications. If the DOE approves
borrower defense applications concerning Company and attempts to
recoup from the Company the loan amounts in the approved
applications, the Company would consider options for challenging
the legal and factual basis for attempting to recoup these
liabilities.
The settlement agreement also requires the DOE to review borrower
defense applications submitted after June 22, 2022 and by the date
of the final approval of the agreement within 3 years under
procedures described in the agreement. If the DOE grants some or
all of these applications, the DOE also could attempt to recoup the
loan amounts in these applications from the Company's schools. The
Company cannot predict whether the currently proposed settlement
will be approved, what actions the DOE might take if the proposed
settlement is approved (including the ultimate timing or amount of
borrower defense applications that the DOE may grant in the future
and the timing or amount of any possible liabilities that the DOE
may seek to recover from the Company, if any), or what the outcome
of any challenges the Company might make to such actions will be,
but such actions could have a material adverse effect on its
business and results of operations.
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation is committed to providing
students with the quality, hands-on skills and training they need
to succeed in an ever-changing employment landscape.
MARK CUBAN: Robertson Seeks to Certify Liability Issue Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pierce Robertson, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. Mark Cuban, Dallas Basketball Limited, d/b/a Dallas Mavericks,
Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the Proposed Liability Issue Classes;
-- appointing the Proposed Class Representatives to serve as
Class Representatives for the Proposed Nationwide Issue
Class; and
-- appointing The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, and Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP, to serve as Class Counsel for the Proposed
Nationwide Issue Class.
The Plaintiffs/Proposed Class Representatives, Pierce Robertson,
Rachel Gold, Sanford Gold, and Edwin Garrison, assert in this class
action claims against Defendants, Mark Cuban, Dallas Basketball
Limited for various common law and statutory violations, including
specifically participating in the offer and sale of unregistered
securities, in the form of the Voyager Earn Program Account (EPA),
which has already been the subject of great examination and
sanctions from numerous state and federal regulatory entities.
On November 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs served on Defendants very
narrow and targeted discovery -- which is not required for the
Court to resolve this motion, but which will expedite preparation
for an expedited trial on the merits of Defendants' liability for
Plaintiffs' claims -- including
(1) a Request for Production on Defendants,
(2) a Set of Interrogatories on Defendants,
(3) just three Requests for Admission on Defendant Cuban,
(4) Notice of Taking Defendants' Corporate Representative
Depositions by Zoom on January 12 and 13, and
(5) subpoenas for third party depositions (without documents)
for Henry Gaskins on December 15, Jeff Mishkin on
December 16, and Stephen Ehrlich on December 19.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hThz6mat
no extra charge.[CC]
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class are:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749–8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
Hon. Ursula Ungaro (Ret.), Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-539-8400
E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
uungaro@bsfllp.com
MARSHALL HOTELS: Bid to Continue Stay of Class Cert Deadlines Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Link v. Marshall Hotels &
Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00805 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge David N. Hurd entered an order denying bid to continue the
stay of all class certification deadlines and schedules:
The stay that this Court previously set in July of 2022 is hereby
lifted. This Court has extended and stayed the deadlines and
schedules several times in this litigation at the request of the
parties.
The deadlines and schedules are re-set as follows:
-- Plaintiff expert disclosure is Jan. 13, 2023
due by:
-- The Defendants expert disclosures Feb. 13, 2023
are due by:
-- any rebuttal expert disclosure is Feb. 28, 2023
due by:
-- al Discovery (including merit, March 31, 2023
class action, documentary,
non-expert and expert depositions)
shall be completed by:
-- Class certification motion shall be April 21, 2023
filed by:
-- Dispositive motions shall be filed by: May 12, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
MATRIX TRUST: MBA Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MBA ENGINEERING, INC., as
Sponsor and Administrator of the MBA ENGINEERING, INC. EMPLOYEES
401(K) PLAN and the MBA ENGINEERING, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN, and
CRAIG MEIDINGER, as Trustee of the MBA Engineering, Inc. Employees
401(k) Plan and the MBA Engineering, Inc. Cash Balance Plan,
Individually and as representative of all others similarly
situated, v. MATRIX TRUST COMPANY, and MATRIX SETTLEMENT AND
CLEARANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01915-E (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this case as
a class action with the following definitions, naming Plaintiffs as
class representatives, and appointing the undersigned as class
counsel:
-- 12b-1 Fee Class
"All Customers of Matrix's Denver Office which had assets
in the custody of Matrix Trust that generated 12b-1 Fees
from January 2014 until the date Notice is sent to the
class members;"
-- Cash Interest Class
"All Customers of Matrix's Denver Office which had cash in
the custody of Matrix Trust Company that generated an
amount of interest from January 2014 until the date Notice
is sent to the class members."
MBA Engineers is a full service structural, civil, and geotechnical
consulting engineering firm headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.
Matrix Trust provides automated trust, custody and agent services
for Qualified and Non-Qualified Retirement Plans.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EO0x2Sat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arnold Shokouhi, Esq.
Justin N. Bryan, Esq.
D. Aaron Dekle, Esq.
McCATHERN , SHOKOUHI , EVANS , GRINKE ,PLLC
3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 741-2662
Facsimile: (214) 741-1741
E-mail: arnolds@mccathernlaw.com
jbryan@mccathernlaw.com
adekle@mccathernlaw.com
- and -
Evan Selik, Esq.
McCATHERN , SHOKOUHI , EVANS , GRINKE ,PLLC
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 225-6150
Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
E_mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
MDL 2913: Canandaigua City Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
CANANDAIGUA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07004 (N.D. Cal., November 8, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Canandaigua City School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Canandaigua City School District is a school district with its
offices located at 143 N Pearl Street in Canandaigua, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Cobleskill Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COBLESKILL-RICHMONDVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06997 (N.D. Cal.,
November 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Cobleskill-Richmondville Central School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick.
Cobleskill-Richmondville Central School District is a school
district with its offices located at 155 Washington Avenue in
Cobleskill, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Delaware Academy Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
DELAWARE ACADEMY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06996 (N.D. Cal., November 8,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Delaware Academy Central School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Delaware Academy Central School District is a school district with
its offices located at 2 Sheldon Drive in Delhi, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Unatego Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNATEGO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07003-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 8,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Unatego Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Unatego Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 2641 State Highway in Otego, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Marion Central Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARION CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07005 (N.D. Cal., November 8, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Marion Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Marion Central School District is a school district with its
offices located at 4034 Warner Road in Marion, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
ME & MY BIG IDEAS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Me & My Big Ideas,
LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Me & My Big Ideas, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09623 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Me & My Big Ideas -- https://meandmybigideas.com/ -- designs and
offers a wide range of day planners, notebooks, and paper crafting
tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Bid for Class Deal Approval Due Dec. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH BERRY, Plaintiff v. MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-5183-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York orders the Parties to submit an amended request for
judicial approval of the proposed settlement agreement by Dec. 15,
2022.
The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against her former
employer, a cable television provider, alleging that the employer
failed to compensate her and others for the few minutes they spent
each morning booting up their computers. She also alleged that the
employer failed to comply with state-mandated recordkeeping
requirements.
For these alleged violations, the Plaintiff brought claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Iowa Wage Payment
Collection Law, in addition to claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
Rather than undergo protracted litigation over minutes of
uncompensated time, the Parties agreed to an early settlement. That
is all well enough. But the Court must review all FLSA settlements
for fairness, and the Parties have not provided enough information
for the Court to perform that duty.
Judge Vyskocil holds that the Court has been advised of nothing
more than that the Plaintiff will receive $2,000 in the settlement
and that her attorney will get almost triple that amount. There are
no specifics regarding the negotiation process, the Plaintiff's
maximum possible recovery, or the likelihood of the Plaintiff's
success on the merits.
The Plaintiff's counsel also fails to provide sufficient
information for the Court to determine whether the attorneys' fees
are reasonable. The amount of attorneys' fees and costs requested
in the case, $5,500, is more than 70% of the total payout of
$7,500. Judge Vyskocil points out that the Court cannot approve the
Plaintiff's counsel's request for fees without further
information.
For the reasons she explained, Judge Vyskocil cannot approve the
settlement as currently proposed. The Court needs more than this
scant information to perform a thorough fairness review. Approval
of the settlement is therefore denied without prejudice to renewal
with proper support which addresses the Court's concerns. She
orders the Parties to submit an amended request for judicial
approval of the proposed settlement agreement by Dec. 15, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2yu5uaya from Leagle.com.
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Class Action Firms Investigate Hacking Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Alexander Hunt, writing for LSJ Online, reports that a class
action has been announced against Medibank Private over the hacking
incident that compromised the data of 9.7 million customers.
Two law firms, Bannister Law Class Actions and Centennial Lawyers,
are working together to investigate the hacking incident. Customer
information such as names, dates of birth, driver's license
numbers, addresses and some medical records have been accessed.
"We believe the data breach is a betrayal of Medibank Private's
customers and a breach of the Privacy Act," Bannister Law and
Centennial Law wrote in a joint statement.
"Medibank has a duty to keep this kind of information
confidential.
"This latest data breach exposes the lack of safeguards in place to
prevent such personal and private information being released to
wrongdoers and Medibank and ahm have failed policyholders in these
circumstances."
The firms are investigating whether Medibank breached their privacy
policy and the terms of their contract they provided to customers.
They will also consider whether Medibank should pay damages to
their current and former customers because of the breach.
A similar class action was brought against telco-giant Optus in
September for their recent data breach. While both hacking
incidents were of a similar scale, the Medibank data breach is
potentially more serious as private health data was accessed.
Associate Professor Michael Duffy at Monash Business School said a
Medibank class action may raise similar procedural issues to the
current Optus class action.
"In terms of the liability argument, there may be a question of
whether reasonable care was or was not exercised by Medibank, and
whether appropriate defensive technology is being used," said
Duffy.
"As these hacks are becoming more common and formidable, there may
be another question into the future of how reasonable it is for
businesses to keep asking for sensitive personal data as a
condition of doing business," he said.
"Nevertheless, businesses requesting and keeping personal details
that aren't completely essential could become more legally
problematic for them, if they are hacked."
The alleged hacker threatened to sell customer information if
Medibank failed to pay ransom. A threat was posted on a website
linked to the Russian ransomware group REvil. The post read: "Data
will be publish (sic) in 24 hours. P.S. I recommend to sell
medibank stocks". Underneath the post, the hacker linked a
satirical video about the Medibank data breach featuring Mark
Humphries.
Medibank Private said they will not pay ransom to the criminal
responsible for the data theft and are following the advice of
cyber security experts.
"Based on the extensive advice we have received from cybercrime
experts we believe there is only a limited chance paying a ransom
would ensure the return of our customers' data and prevent it from
being published," said Medibank CEO David Koczkar.
"In fact, paying could have the opposite effect and encourage the
criminal to directly extort our customers, and there is a strong
chance that paying puts more people in harm's way by making
Australia a bigger target.
"It is for these reasons we have decided we will not pay a ransom
for this event."
Professor Lyria Bennett Moses, a cybersecurity expert at the
University of NSW, said it was a difficult situation to navigate.
"[When] people pay ransom…they are taking on legal risk in the
sense that there is the possibility that the organisation can be
accused of money laundering or funding terrorism…[and]
essentially they are funding more of this kind of cybercrime as
well," said Moses.
"On the other hand, by not paying the ransom, they increase the
risk that individuals whose data is caught up in this, who
obviously have done nothing wrong, will be directly harmed."
Monash University expert Dr Lennon Chang considered the Australian
Cyber Security Centre's third annual cyber threat report and the
evolving nature of cybercrime in Australia.
"There is no big change in terms of cybercrime types compared to
last year's report. Money is still the main purpose for cyber
criminals," said Chang.
"The line between cybercrime and national security is becoming
blurred. Cyberattack and cybercrime are now part of cyberwar.
Cybercrime can become a national security issue, given the current
landscape."
The Australian Federal Police recently launched Operation Pallidus
to investigate the data breach against Medibank Private. [GN]
MEDICAL ASSOCIATES: Kale Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Associates of
The Lehigh Valley, P.C. The case is styled as Iris Kale,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Medical Associates of The Lehigh Valley, P.C., Case No.
5:22-cv-04520 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 11, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.
Medical Associates of the Lehigh Valley -- https://www.matlv.com/
-- is an independent healthcare provider based in Allentown,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Arthur Barry, Esq.
POGUST GOODHEAD, LLC
505 S. Lenola Road, Suite 126
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Phone: (610) 941-4204
Fax: (610) 941-4245
Email: jbarry@pogustgoodhead.com
META PLATFORMS: Burgess Sues Over Monitored Browsing Activity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Burgess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-05500-JST (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 27, 2022), is brought seeking relief for all persons
who used Meta's Facebook or Messenger app and whose private
browsing activity and communications were surreptitiously
intercepted, monitored and recorded by Meta's in-app internet
browsers.
Beginning in April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Meta to
obtain its users' informed consent before tracking their internet
activity on apps and third-party websites. As a result, Meta lost
access to its primary stream of revenue, derived from the user data
it obtained from this tracking. Now, even when users do not consent
to being tracked, Meta tracks Facebook users' online activity and
communications with external third-party websites by injecting
JavaScript code into those sites.
When a user clicks on a web link within the Facebook, Instagram, or
Messenger app, Meta automatically directs them to the in-app
browser Meta monitors instead of the user's default browser. Meta
does not tell its users this is happening or explain that they are
being tracked. The user information Meta intercepts, monitors, and
records includes personally identifiable information, private
health details, text entries, and other sensitive confidential
facts.
Meta's undisclosed tracking of citizens' browsing activity and
communications violates federal and state wiretap laws and other
laws, entitling Plaintiff and Class members to damages. Plaintiff
and Class members also seek injunctive relief and equitable
remedies to stop Meta's undisclosed and nonconsensual tracking
practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years
and regularly accesses her account using the Facebook App on her
iPhone.
Meta is a multinational technology conglomerate that owns Facebook,
Instagram, and several other social media platforms, and
offers a wide array of products and services, including advertising
and marketing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 239-4778
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
METRO KNOXVILLE: Sullivan et al. File Suit Over Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID SULLIVAN, DARLENE ROBERTSON, and CHARLES CUMMINS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. METRO KNOXVILLE HMA, LLC d/b/a TENNOVA HEALTHCARE, Defendant,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00392 (D. Tenn., November 7, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant in its IT Department
but they were terminated on or about October 1, 2021. Plaintiff
Sullivan, who was 68 years old at the time he was fired, began his
employment with the Defendant on or around July 2006 as a System
Analysist. Plaintiff Cummins began his employment with the
Defendant in 1999 as a Help Desk Technician and he was 68 years old
also when the Defendant fired him. Plaintiff Robertson was 69 years
old at the time of her termination and was a Network
Administrator.
According to the complaint, the Defendant terminated 13 employees
in its IT Department, but at least 11 of them were in their fifties
or sixties. One of its terminated employee has overheard the
Defendant's Senior Director of Information Technology stating that
the Defendant had enough old IT employees. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant willfully discriminated them when they were
selected for termination on the basis of their age while choosing
to keep the substantially younger IT employees.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
have suffered and will continue to suffer lost wages and benefits,
loss of earning capacity, loss of future income, and other benefits
and privileges of employment. Thus, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated terminated older employees, the Plaintiffs
bring this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover all
damages, including back pay, non-wage economic costs and losses,
reinstatement or front pay, post-judgment interest, and liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other legal and
equitable relief to which the Plaintiffs are shown to be entitled
under the facts of this case, says the suit.
Metro Knoxville HMA, LLC is a healthcare provider with numerous
hospitals and treatment facilities located throughout eastern and
central Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
Clint J. Coleman, Esq.
Gina M. Modica, Esq.
NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
10263 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN 37922
Tel: (865) 383-1053
E-mail: jesse@nlgattorneys.com
clint@nlgattorneys.com
gina@nlgattorneys.com
MICHAELS STORES: Powell Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kristen Powell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No.
CACE-22-014913 was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Nov. 11, 2022, and assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-62097-XXXX.
The Complaint asserts a cause of action under the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act, seeking statutory damages, an injunction, an
order declaring that Michaels has violated the FTSA, and attorneys'
fees.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dianne O. Fischer, Esq.
Nicole K. Chipi, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Brickell Bay Dr., Suite 900
Miami FL, 33131
Phone: (305) 391-5236
Email: deedee.fischer@sidley.com
nchipi@sidley.com
pvilla@sidley.com
MISTRAS GROUP: Price Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the
settlement as agreed upon by the parties in the case captioned
Justin Price v. Mistras Group, Inc., received final court approval
on September 26, 2022, and the Company paid the settlement proceeds
and related payroll taxes to the claims administrator in the fourth
quarter of 2022.
Two proceedings have been filed in California Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles regarding alleged violations of the
California Labor Code. Both cases are captioned Justin Price v.
Mistras Group, Inc., one being a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of current and former Mistras employees in California and
the other was filed on behalf of the State of California under the
California Private Attorney General Act on the basis of the same
alleged violations.
The two cases were consolidated and requested payment of all
damages, including unpaid wages, and various fines and penalties
available under California law.
On May 4, 2021, the Company agreed to a settlement of all claims in
the cases, which was more formally documented pursuant to a
settlement agreement completed October 5, 2021, as amended as of
May 3, 2022.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $2.3 million
to resolve the allegations in these proceedings and to be
responsible for the employer portion of payroll taxes on the amount
of the settlement allocated to wages.
The settlement as agreed upon by the parties received final court
approval on September 26, 2022, and the Company paid the settlement
proceeds and related payroll taxes to the claims administrator in
the fourth quarter of 2022.
The Company recorded expense of approximately $1.6 million during
the three months ended March 31, 2021 related to this settlement,
which is in addition to expense of $0.8 million the Company
recorded during the three months ended December 31, 2020.
Mistras Group, Inc. develops asset protection solutions. The
Company provides acoustic, ultrasonic, thermography, radiography,
and non-destructive testing platforms used to evaluate the
structural and mechanical integrity of critical energy,
industrial,
and public infrastructure. Mistras Group serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Princeton Junction, New Jersey.
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Gibson Suit Over TCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
JAMES GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF TEXAS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-03818 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the TCPA's corresponding regulations.
Mr. Gibson brings this case to protect his privacy rights and that
of two classes of similarly situated people who: (1) were called on
their phones by or on behalf of Molina using an artificial or
prerecorded voice despite not having provided Molina prior express
written consent to place such calls; and/or (2) were called on
their phones by or on behalf Molina despite having their numbers
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc. is an insurance company that sells
health insurance policies to Texas residents and is a subsidiary of
Molina Healthcare, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
30 East Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 540-8888
Facsimile: (877) 788-2864
E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
teamkimmel@creditlaw.com
- and -
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
Clayton (St. Louis), MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
E-mail: croberts@butschroberts.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Class Suit Over Baking Lorna Doone Cookies Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
Baking Lorna Doone cookies without butter doesn't qualify as fraud,
U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled on Oct. 31.
He dismissed a class action complaint that Goldie Troutt of Olney
filed against cookie maker Mondelez Global.
Troutt claimed a promise of shortbread on a package she bought at
the local Wal-Mart constituted a promise of butter.
"Troutt jumped to the conclusion that the cookies contained butter
without any supporting foundation," McGlynn wrote.
He found her understanding of the label fanciful and unreasonable.
Spencer Sheehan of Great Neck, New York filed the complaint last
year with Peter Lubin of Elmhurst as local counsel.
They proposed a consumer fraud action for Illinois and another for
Delaware, Kansas, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.
In March, Mondelez Global moved to dismiss the complaint as vague
and fanciful.
McGlynn allowed Sheehan and Lubin to make the complaint more
specific and they amended it in June.
Mondelez Global moved to dismiss it on July 15.
Lubin moved to withdraw as Troutt's counsel on July 29.
McGlynn found the standard for deception requires probability that
a label would mislead a significant portion of consumers acting
reasonably.
He found it requires more than a mere possibility that some few
customers viewing a label in an unreasonable manner might
misunderstand it.
He dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding Troutt took
advantage of an opportunity to amend it.
Alexander Smith and Dean Panos of Chicago represented Mondelez
Global. [GN]
NATIONAL GRID: Suit Seeks to Reopen Discovery & Stay Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL
GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., FIRST CONTACT LLC, and IQOR US
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting his motion to exclude or, in the
alternative, to reopen discovery and stay deadline for him to
submit a rebuttal expert report and to move for class
certification.
In the alternative, the Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen
fact discovery so Plaintiff can conduct discovery concerning the
late and/or contradictory disclosures.
The Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated consumers for the Defendants' violation of
M.G.L. and the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations, which
prohibit creditors and those acting on their behalf from
"'initiating a communication with any debtor via telephone in
excess of two such communications in each seven-day period.'"
National Grid provides utility services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hXArBqat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
Stephen Taylor, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-03499-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 27, 2022), is brought
against Defendant arising from the Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information, including
without limitation, unencrypted and unredacted names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, phone numbers,
and gender information (collectively, "PII").
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to the Plaintiff who was or is a
customer of the Defendant. Current and former customers' knowledge
about what PII the Defendant lost, as well as precisely what types
of information was unencrypted and in the possession of unknown
third parties, was unreasonably delayed by the Defendant's
unreasonable notification delay after it first learned of the data
breach.
On September 13, 2022, the Defendant notified state Attorneys
General about a widespread data breach involving sensitive PII of
thousands of individuals occurred. The Defendant explained in its
required notice letter that it discovered an unauthorized
third-party gained access to a portion of the Defendant's network.
The Defendant discovered that files on its network were accessed
and acquired by the unknown actor (the "Data Breach"). On September
3, 2022, the Defendant chose not to notify affected customers or,
upon information and belief, anyone of its data breach instead
choosing to address the incident in-house by implementing other
safeguards to some aspects of its computer security. On September
6, 2022, the Defendant concluded its investigation, but did not
notify Class Members' that their PII had been impacted for over a
week.
The first that the Plaintiff and the Class Members learned of the
Data Breach was when they received by U.S. Mail Notice of Data
Breach letters on September 13, 2022. In its Notice Letters, sent
to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to explain why it took the
company a full week after confirming the breach occurred to alert
Class Members that their sensitive PII had been exposed. As a
result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff was unaware that
their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to
be, at significant risk to identity theft and various other forms
of personal, social, and financial harm.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to the Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts
and omissions, and due to the utter failure to protect Class
Members' sensitive data. Hackers obtained their PII because of its
value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and
similarly situated Class Members. The risks to these persons will
remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a current and former customer of the Defendant.
Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., based in Columbus, Ohio,
manages pension, retirement, health, and welfare funds for public
sector employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks Revised Briefing Schedule in Walker Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walker. et al., v. City of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03234-DG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants propose the following revised briefing schedule:
-- Defendants' deadline to serve December 22, 2022
their opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
shall be on or before:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to serve February 2, 2023
their reply memorandum of law
shall be on or before:
By way of background, the Court endorsed the Parties' proposed
briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' class certification motion on
July 21, 2022.
On September 8, 2022, Plaintiffs requested a one-week extension of
time to serve their motion papers and a concomitant one-week
extension of time for Defendants to file their opposition papers
until the current deadline of November 18, 2022, on consent, which
was granted.
On September 19, 2022, Plaintiffs requested leave to file excess
pages, which was granted.
The Parties are currently engaged in discovery, and a status
conference was held before the Hon. Taryn A. Merkl on October 31,
2022.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3OgLSQIat no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: WCEJ Suit Seeks Leave to Amend Injunction Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Women of Color for Equal
Justice, et al., v. The City of New York, Case No.
1:22-cv-02234-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs request for leave to
amend motion to change to motion for declaratory and preliminary
injunction and request for expedited hearing on all pending motions
including the motion for conditional class certification.
On October 26, 2022, the Women of Color for Equal Justice, et al
submitted a Second Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction and Motion
for Class Certification.
Upon review of this Court's denial of the TRO only, the Plaintiffs
realized that the motion failed to properly plead or lable the
motion for appropriate relief and standard of review for the type
of injunctive and declaratory relief sought.
Therefore, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend its Motion for
Preliminary Injunction with Motion for Class Certification along
with their Letter Motion For Summary Judgement to drop the request
for injunctive relief pursuant to FRCP section 65 and to make clear
that Plaintiffs are not seeking a "cause of action" under the OSH
Act, but rather Plaintiffs seek Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
pursuant to FRCP section 57 under 28 U.S.C. section 2201 and
§2202, which authorizes this Court to award as a final judgment a
declaration of rights and obligations between the Plaintiffs and
the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education
and to issue an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2202.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3givd2Cat
no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK: More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caballero v. New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al.,
Case No. David N. Hurd (N.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order
granting the Defendant's request for an extension of time to
respond to the motion to certify class
-- Response to Motion due by: Dec. 2, 2022
-- Reply to Response to Motion due by: Dec. 9, 2022
The nature of suit states Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government that
maintains the state prisons and parole system.[CC]
NEWREZ LLC: Cwelt 2008 Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
CWELT 2008 SERIES 4343, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-016556 (Fla. Cir.,
17th Judicial, November 7, 2022) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are Florida homeowners whose homes
have been in foreclosure. As a servicer of their underlying
homeowner mortgage loans, the Defendant has routinely and
systematically charged homeowners fees via standardized statements
it has sent them that list the amounts it requires for them to pay
off their loans. However, the Defendant charged them "Auctioneer
Costs" although there was no auction has taken place.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used deceptive means of
collecting debts by representing a confusing, inaccurate, and
misleading Payoff Statements. Accordingly, the Defendant has
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A) because through its Payoff
Statements imposing "Auctioneer Cost" fees, it falsely or in a
misleading manner stated, or misrepresented, the amount, character,
or status of the amounts needed to payoff the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' mortgage debts, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief for itself and the
Class that the Court deems just and proper.
Newrez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing is a debt
collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Botsford, Esq.
BRUCE BOTSFORD, P.A.
2524 Flamingo Lane
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
Tel: (954) 663-7002
E-mail: service@botsfordlegal.com
NO TAX 4 NASH: Settles TCPA Class Action for More Than $1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Lamb, writing for WTVF, reports that it's not the Powerball
jackpot, but nearly 3,000 people in Nashville are getting a pretty
big payday.
In July, NewsChannel 5 reported on the opportunity to join the
class action lawsuit against NoTax4Nash -- an effort to recall
Mayor John Cooper in 2020 -- for automatically dialing thousands of
Nashville voters with a recorded message, an alleged violation of
the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
As part of the settlement, NoTax4Nash denied any wrongdoing, but
the group agreed to put up more than $1 million as part of a
class-action settlement fund for voters in Nashville who attested
they received one of those robocalls.
John Spragens is one of the attorneys administering the
class-action lawsuit. He says 2,946 people signed up.
Spragens says payments from that fund are now beginning to arrive
in those nearly 3,000 bank accounts, and it isn't chump change:
$212.17 for every person who signed up.[GN]
NORMANDY, MO: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DAVIS; QUINTON M.
THOMAS; ROELIF EARL CARTER; MEREDITH WALKER; v. CITY OF NORMANDY,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01514-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. approving the terms of a proposed class action settlement;
2. approving Class Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs; and
3. entering a Final Order consistent with these findings.
The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the parties'
proposed class settlement on March 29, 2022, finding the terms
sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to inform the class and
proceed to a formal fairness determination.
After negotiations, the Parties reached a proposed settlement of
this action. On July 20, 2022, the Parties executed a Class Action
Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement provides Class Members with substantial and
immediate monetary relief and Normandy with certainty and finality,
while avoiding the inherent risks, delays, and expenses associated
with continued, protracted class action litigation.
Normandy is a city in St. Louis County, Missouri.
A copy of Parties' motion dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ELESIkat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake A. Strode, Esq.
John M. Waldron, Esq.
Maureen G.V. Hanlon, Esq.
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
440 North 4th Street, Ste. 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (855) 724-2489 ext. 1008
Facsimile: (314) 925-1307
E-mail: mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
S. Zachary Fayne, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 471-3114
Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
E-mail: Zachary.fayne@arnoldporter.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason S. Retter, Esq.
HELLMICH, HILL & RETTER, LLC
1049 N. Clay Ave.
Kirkwood, MO 63122
Telephone: (314) 646-1110
E-mail: jason@hellmichhillretter.com
NOUMI LTD: Vic. Supreme Ct. Agrees to Settlement Group Costs Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that the
Supreme Court of Victoria has agreed to a group costs order,
proposed by Slater and Gordon and Phi Finney McDonald, whereby the
amount of any award or settlement in proceedings brought against
ASX-listed food company Noumi and its auditor, Deloitte, be a 78-22
per cent split between group members and their solicitors.
The class action being brought against Noumi sees the plaintiffs,
Nicholas Gehrke and Lester Buch, seeking damages on behalf of group
members who were shareholders in the listed company, on the ground
that it misrepresented its true financial position to the market as
a result of accounting errors that overstated its performance.
Deloitte, as Noumi's auditor, is alleged to have engaged in
misleading conduct by certifying as correct, incorrect accounts,
which is said to have affected the value of Noumi's shares and to
have caused loss to the group member investors.
In November of last year, Victorian Supreme Court Justice Lisa
Nichols consolidated separate actions being brought, with Mr Gehrke
and Mr Buch being appointed as joint plaintiffs and their
solicitors, Slater and Gordon Lawyers and Phi Finney McDonald,
being granted leave to be jointly named as solicitors in a
consolidated proceeding.
The plaintiffs and their solicitors sought a group costs order
(GCO), in accordance with s33ZDA of the Supreme Court Act 1986
(Victoria), under which costs payable be calculated as a percentage
of whatever award or settlement may be recoverable.
The percentage sought for the solicitors to recover was 22 per
cent, inclusive of GST, with liability for payment to be shared
among the plaintiffs and group members.
Under the proposed GCO, it was also requested that the plaintiff
firms be equally and severally liable to pay costs to the
defendants and to give any security for costs of the defendants, if
the court so ordered.
In order to grant a GCO, Her Honour noted, the court must, under
s33ZDA of the act, be "satisfied that it is appropriate or
necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding".
Nichols J accepted that GCOs engender "simplicity and transparency
about funding and legal costs from the time at which a GCO is
made". [GN]
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Genova Sues Over Defective Graphics Card
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Genova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-07090-SVK (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought on behalf of purchasers of the
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 graphics card (hereafter, the "RTX 4090" or
the "Card"), which were marketed and sold by the Defendant with a
defective and dangerous power cable plug and socket, which has
rendered consumers' cards inoperable and poses a serious electrical
and fire hazard for each and every purchaser.
The Plaintiff and class members have been hit with a costly double
whammy: a premium purchase price (the MSRP is $1,599) for a
dangerous product that should not have been sold in its current
state. Immediately after the RTX 4090 was released, consumers began
experiencing problems at the point where the 16-pin power cable
plugs into the Card. Consumers reported that the connector on the
cable or the socket on the Card began melting after use. This
included consumers who were experienced in graphics card
installations and did it correctly, and who had no indication of
any problems.
The cause of the melting appears to be a design flaw, relating to
the high wattage flowing through each of the 16 pins. If there is
even a temporary break in the electrical connection for any of the
pins, too high a current will flow through the remaining pins,
causing a meltdown. Consumers have reported this issue with both
the native power cable and the power cable adapter. A meltdown
poses a serious electrical and fire hazard.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and
violations of New York's General Business Law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Genova purchased an RTX 4090 for $1,599.99 from a
Best Buy location in New York City.
NVIDIA researched, designed, and marketed the RTX 4090..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Allegheny Files Suit Over Securities Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that on
October 25, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, captioned Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System
v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02805,
naming the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors as defendants.
The suit alleges false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects, and purport to allege claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend this matter
vigorously.
Because the litigation is in early stages, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter.
Palantir Technologies is a public American software company that
specializes in big data analytics. Headquartered in Denver,
Colorado, it was founded by Peter Thiel, Nathan Gettings, Joe
Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Alex Karp in 2003.
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Cupat Files Suit Over Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that on
September 15, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, captioned Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al.,
naming the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors as defendants.
The suit alleges false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects, and purport to allege claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend this matter
vigorously.
Because the litigation is in early stages, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter.
Palantir Technologies is a public American software company that
specializes in big data analytics. Headquartered in Denver,
Colorado, it was founded by Peter Thiel, Nathan Gettings, Joe
Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Alex Karp in 2003.
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Shijun Liu Files Suit Over Securities Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that on
November 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, captioned Shijun Liu, Individually and as Trustee of the
Liu Family Trust 2019 v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02893, naming the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors as defendants.
The suit alleges false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects, and purport to allege claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend this matter
vigorously.
Because the litigation is in early stages, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter.
Palantir Technologies is a public American software company that
specializes in big data analytics. Headquartered in Denver,
Colorado, it was founded by Peter Thiel, Nathan Gettings, Joe
Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Alex Karp in 2003.
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Adopts Recommendation to Junk Talley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTEZ TALLEY, and
PENNSYLVANIANS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, v. COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01208-CB-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order adopting Judge Kelly's
Report recommending dismissal of Plaintiff, Quintez Talley's,
federal claims pre-service, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 1915A.
The Memorandum Order also formally dismissed all claims raised on
behalf of "Pennsylvanians with Mental Illness," and declined to
exercise jurisdiction over Talley's state law claims. Final
Judgment in the case was entered that same day.
On November 2, 2022, Talley filed a pro se "Motion for Class
Certification" asking the Court to certify "Pennsylvanians with
Mental Illness" as a class. The Motion is denied to this extent.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EFhP22at no extra charge.[CC]
PFIZER INC: Bleeker Sues Over Adulterated and Misbranded VCDs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Bleeker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00277 (D. Wash., Nov.
14, 2022), is brought arising from adulterated, misbranded, or
unapproved varenicline containing drugs ("VCDs") that were
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, or
ultimately sold by Defendant Pfizer in the United States under the
brand name Chantix.
These VCDs are non-merchantable and are not of the quality that the
Defendant Pfizer represented. The brand name drug Chantix is known
generically as varenicline and is a partial nicotine agonist. It is
a first-line therapy in the treatment to help quit smoking. Unlike
many other smoking-cessation aids, Chantix does not contain
nicotine.
The Defendant Pfizer represented and warranted to consumers that
its VCDs (that is, what it purports to be Chantix) were
therapeutically equivalent to, and otherwise the same as, the
actual FDA-approved brand name drug Chantix. Specifically,
Defendant Pfizer represented and warranted that the VCDs were fit
for their ordinary uses, met the specifications of Defendant's
FDA-approved labeling materials, and that it manufactured and
distributed the VCDs in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations.
The Defendant willfully disregarded these standards, and knowingly
and fraudulently manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, or
distributed adulterated or misbranded VCDs for purchase in the
United States by consumers. The Defendant's VCDs were adulterated,
misbranded, or both (and thereby rendered worthless), through
contamination with a probable human carcinogen known as N-nitroso
varenicline. Additionally, Defendant was on notice of other
potential contamination from nitrosamines such as
N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA") and N-nitrosodiethylamine
("NDEA").
The Defendant's VCDs also were adulterated, misbranded, or both by
virtue of the Defendant's failure to adhere to current Good
Manufacturing Practices ("cGMPs") and related practices and
regulations in the manufacture and distribution of Chantix. When a
drug is manufactured in a non-cGMP compliant manner, that means the
manufacturer cannot assure that the drugs meet the appropriate
quality, purity, identity or strength. Accordingly, such drugs are
adulterated or misbranded or both. Ironically, the Defendant's
wrongful acts caused those people trying to use smoking products
less to take a pill containing carcinogens similar to those
contained in cigarettes.
The Plaintiff received VCDs that were illegally and willfully
introduced into the market by the Defendant, which caused them and
hundreds of other purchasers paying for or reimbursing
prescriptions for these VCDs to sustain substantial economic
damages and/or are now in need of medical monitoring. The
Defendant's VCDs were not fit for their ordinary use and the
Defendant has been unjustly enriched through the sale of these
knowingly adulterated and misbranded drugs. Defendant's conduct,
also constitutes actionable common law fraud, consumer fraud, and
violates state and federal law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff obtained one or more of Defendant's VCDs.
Pfizer has been engaged in the manufacturing, sale, or distribution
of Chantix and adulterated and misbranded VCDs in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
NELSON BOYD, PLLC
601 Union Street, Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 971-7601
Email: nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com
boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Settles ADA Class Action Over Curb Ramps
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Richman, writing for City of Philadelphia, reports that the
City of Philadelphia disclosed that a Settlement Agreement has been
reached in the Class Action, Liberty Resources, Inc., et al. v.
City of Philadelphia, No. 19-cv-03846. The Parties have finalized
the Agreement and have jointly filed for preliminary court
approval.
Under the Agreement, the City will install or remediate at least
10,000 curb ramps over the next 15 years with 2,000-ramp milestones
every three fiscal years. In addition to the City's obligations
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to install,
remediate, and maintain curb ramps, the City will also perform such
work on curb ramps annually in response to requests from
Philadelphia residents through the City's 311 system.
As one of the Nation's oldest and most historic cities, the City
welcomes the accessibility improvements and investment this
Agreement will provide in pedestrian access across the City and its
neighborhoods. The City commends Liberty Resources, Disabled in
Action of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia ADAPT, and Disability Rights
Advocates on their advocacy and assistance in crafting an Agreement
that will improve accessibility in Philadelphia for years to come.
These documents are also available in Chinese and Spanish. [GN]
PHYSICIANS CENTRAL: Matos FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Matos, and all others similarly situated v. PHYSICIANS
CENTRAL BUSINESS OFFICE, LLC, and MARK A. CERECEDA, Case No.
2022-018329-CA-01 was removed from the Superior Court of the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 31, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-23542-XXXX to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Freddy Perrera, Esq.
Brody M. Schulman, Esq.
PERRERA & ALEMAN, P.A.
12505 Orange Drive, Suite 908
Davie, FL 33330
Phone: (786) 485-5232
Email: freddy@pba-law.com.com
brody@pba-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David M. DeMaio, Esq.
Paul J. De Boe, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Two Datran Center
9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1625
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 374-0506
Facsimile: (305) 374-0456
Email: david.demaio@ogletreedeakins.com
paul.deboe@ogletreedeakins.com
PIKE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Deras Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ARMANDO DERAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIKE ELECTRIC, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-23686-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2022) alleges that
the Defendant systematically underreported the wages earned by its
employees in Florida by not including the "per diem" payments it
made in the wages it reported as earned by its hourly employees in
Florida.
Plaintiff Deras was employed by the Defendant as staff.
PIKE ELECTRIC, LLC provides energy solutions. The Company offers
engineering, designing, construction, transmission, distribution,
storm restoration, procurement, and fleet services. Pike Electric
serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com
PIM BRANDS: Faces Jackson Suit Over Mislabeled Sour Jacks Gummies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v PIM BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01433-NAD (N.D. AL., Nov. 10, 2022) is a consumer
protection class action arising from the Defendant's practice of
marketing "slack-filled" boxes of Sour Jacks gummies candy ("the
Product" or "Sour Jacks").
According to the complaint, the practice of using oversized
containers with substantial, nonfunctional, empty space inside is
called "slack-fill" and is illegal under Alabama and Federal law.
The Defendant's Sour Jacks gummies candy contain a significant
amount of nonfunctional slack-fill. Specifically, the boxes
consistently have an astounding 60+ per cent empty space. By
violating Federal and Alabama slack-fill laws, Defendant's products
are deemed "misbranded", says the suit.
PIM BRANDS LLC manufactures and distributes confectionery products.
The Company offers candies, chewing gums, fruit snacks, wafers, and
yoghurt snacks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
101 Mohawk Drive
Trussville, AL 35173
Telephone: (205) 995-0068
Facsimile: (866) 610-1650
Email: cmtlaw@aol.com
PISA GROUP: Williams Files Amended Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
THE PISA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04752-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed
amended Class and appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as Class
Counsel.
Pisa group is a nationwide call center company specializing in
outbound customer retention and inbound customer support services.
Pisa Group is a telecommunications company offering outbound and
inbound call center services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 15,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ef6l3Tat
no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES , PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 322-6387
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Craig Thor Kimmell, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN , P.C.
30 E. Butler Avenue
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 540-8888
Facsimile: (877) 600-2112
E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Remand of Diesel Class Suit to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIM MARIE DIESEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-892 (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand.
The Plaintiff originally filed her petition in the Circuit Court
for the County of St. Louis, Missouri. P&G removed the case by
invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiff
moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the
amount in controversy is not met.
Diesel filed the Class Action Petition alleging various violations
of Missouri law by Defendants P&G and Does 1 through 10. She
alleges P&G mislabels its DayQuil products as "non-drowsy." She
asserts that the statement is false and misleading because the
product contains dextromethorphan hydrobromide, which can cause
drowsiness in consumers.
The Plaintiff filed a four-count Petition for: (1) breach of
warranty (Count I); (2) breach of implied contract (Count II); (3)
unjust enrichment (Count III); and (4) violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (Count IV), Mo. Rev. Stat. Section
407.020. She seeks compensatory damages, restitution, attorney's
fees, and "such further relief as the Court deems just, including
injunctive relief" on behalf of a putative class of Missouri
citizens who purchased DayQuil products over a five-year period in
Missouri.
After the Defendant removed the action, averring jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion,
opposing removal on the basis that the minimum amount in
controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $5
million necessary to establish jurisdiction under CAFA.
Judge Schelp disagrees and concludes that the Defendant showed by a
"preponderance of the evidence" that the amount in controversy is
met, and the Plaintiff did not establish to a "legal certainty"
that the claim is for less than the requisite amount. He holds that
the Plaintiff's stipulation of damages cannot be used to defeat
CAFA jurisdiction because she cannot legally bind members of the
proposed class before the class is certified. Evidence before the
Court also demonstrates DayQuil sales in Missouri during the period
at issue are approximately four times greater than the $5 million
jurisdictional threshold.
Because the Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA's jurisdictional
minimum, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d). Accordingly, Judge Schelp denies the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3bs4vupk from Leagle.com.
PROPETRO HOLDING: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 11, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
NYKREDIT PORTEFOLJE ADMINISTRATION
A/S, OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, OKLAHOMA LAW
ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, OKLAHOMA CITY
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, POLICE
AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY
OF DETROIT, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
No. MO:19-CV-217-DC
v.
PROPETRO HOLDING CORP., DALE REDMAN,
JEFFREY SMITH, IAN DENHOLM, and SPENCER
D. ARMOUR III,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE of (i) Pendency of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement; (ii) Settlement Hearing; and
(iii) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses
This notice is for all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of ProPetro Holding Corp. ("ProPetro") on the open
market from March 17, 2017 to March 13, 2020, inclusive, and all
persons who purchased ProPetro common stock in or traceable to
ProPetro's Initial Public Offering on March 17, 2017.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Midland/Odessa Division, a hearing will be held on April 11, 2023,
at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable David Counts, United States
District Judge, in person at the United States Courthouse, 200 East
Wall, Midland, Texas 79701, to determine: (1) whether a proposed
Settlement of Nykredit Portefolje Administration A/S et al. v.
ProPetro Holding Corp. et al., No. MO:19-CV-217-DC for the sum of
Thirty Million ($30,000,000.00) in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this
Action being dismissed with prejudice and will prevent Settlement
Class Members from ever being part of any other lawsuit against the
Defendants (and parties related to them) about the legal claims
being resolved by this Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated September 22, 2022; (2) whether,
for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Plaintiffs'
Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
connection with this Action, together with interest thereon, and
whether the Plaintiffs should receive an award of their costs and
expenses in representing the Settlement Class. Those matters will
be addressed by the Court at the Settlement Hearing to be held on
April 11, 2023.
If you (a) purchased or otherwise acquired ProPetro common stock on
the open market during the period from March 17, 2017 to March 13,
2020, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby; or (b)
purchased ProPetro common stock in or traceable to ProPetro's
Initial Public Offering on March 17, 2017, your rights may be
affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice") and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim Form"), you
may obtain copies either by downloading this information at
www.ProPetroSecuritiesLitigation.com or by writing to ProPetro
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91309, Seattle, Washington 98111.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim Form by mail (postmarked no later than February 23, 2023), or
online at www.ProPetroSecuritiesLitigation.com (submitted no later
than February 23, 2023), establishing that you are entitled to a
recovery.
You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you
request to be excluded, in writing, such that it is postmarked no
later than March 21, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice referred to above. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no
later than March 21, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get
any payment from the Settlement, and you cannot object to the
Settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens
in the lawsuit, and you may be able to sue Defendants' Releasees
about the Released Plaintiffs' Claims in the future. If you want to
bring your own lawsuit based on the matters alleged in this Action,
you may want to consult an attorney and discuss whether any
individual claim that you may wish to pursue would be time-barred.
Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's fee and expense application must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Representative Defendants' Counsel, such that they are received
no later than March 21, 2023, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.
Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to
the Claims Administrator:
ProPetro Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91309
Seattle, Washington 98111
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
James A. Harrod
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Tel.: (212) 554-1400
Fax: (212) 554-1444
Email: settlements@blbglaw.com
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
Daniel L. Berger
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Tel.: (646) 722-8500
Fax: (646) 722-8501
Email: dberger@gelaw.com
For any questions, please call (877) 917-0135 or visit
www.ProPetroSecuritiesLitigation.com.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION [GN]
QUAKER OATS: Campobasso Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Campobasso, Anthony Civitano and Alfonzo Farfan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE QUAKER OATS
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 1:22-cv-06043 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 2, 2022), is brought seeks to challenge the Defendants' false
and deceptive practices in the marketing and sale of two of its
Quaker "SIMPLY" granola products: Quaker Simply Granola Oats,
Honey, Raisins & Almonds, and Quaker Simply Granola Oats, Honey &
Almonds (collectively, the "Products").
Specifically, the use of the word "SIMPLY" in the name of the
Products followed by a clarifying list of select named ingredients
(hereinafter, the "Represented Ingredients"), with pictures of only
those Represented Ingredients on the front label of the Products,
leads reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are
comprised only of the Represented Ingredients. However, these
practices are false and misleading because the Products consist of
a litany of other ingredients including wheat, sugar, inulin and
inflammatory vegetable oils.
The Plaintiffs and Class members have reasonably relied on
Defendants' deceptive naming and advertising of the Products,
reasonably believing that the Products do not contain ingredients
other than the Represented Ingredients. Plaintiffs and Class
members purchased the Products and paid a premium price based on
Defendants' advertising of the Products as "SIMPLY" granola, which
is seen as a premium due to being a food with clean, simple
ingredients. Had Plaintiffs and Class members been aware of the
truth about the Products, they would not have purchased them, or
would have paid significantly less for them. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured by the Defendants'
deceptive business practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Defendants' Products.
Quaker is one of the most well-known producers of consumer food
products in the U.S, including oatmeal and granola products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
RANDSTAD GENERAL: Avillanoza Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrille Avillanoza, an individual, Dimetrieze Walker, an
individual v. RANDSTAD GENERAL PARTNER (US) LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, TAYLOR LUCERO, and individual, and DOES 1
through 50, Case No. 37-2022-00034713-CU-0E-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on Nov. 1, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01704-L-AGS.
The Plaintiffs seek recovery for: wage and hour violations (based
on failure to timely pay wages owed, failure to pay overtime wages,
and failure to pay wages due upon separation of employment);
failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse
employees for required business expenses; violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law; failure to produce pay records:
failure to produce personnel file; failure to produce signed
instruments; failure to provide rest periods; gender
discrimination; sexual harassment; failure to prevent harassment
and/or discrimination; retaliation in violation of California's
Fair Employment and Housing Act; negligent supervision; retaliation
in violation of the California Labor Code; and wrongful
constructive termination.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristapor Vartanian, Esq.
Nathan D. Chapman, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 493-3980
Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
Email: kvartanian@kcozlaw.com
nchapman@kcozlaw.com
RAPID FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class of Detainees in Watkins
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, et
al. v. RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00509-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Miranda M. Du
entered an order certifying a class of:
"people recently incarcerated in Nevada who were required upon
release to use prepaid Access Freedom Cards, issued and serviced by
the Defendants, to access funds they earned or otherwise
accumulated while incarcerated, with no alternative as to method of
reimbursement."
Watkins was incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (NDOC), housed at the Stewart Conservation Camp
facility (SCC), from March 2019 until April 13, 2020. While in
custody, Watkins was voluntarily employed as a firefighter and
earned $1.00 per hour; $0.10 of his hourly earnings were
transferred to his prison trust account.
Consequently, the Court grants Watkins's Motion with respect to
each of his claims. The Court appoints Watkins's counsel as class
counsel due to their experience, knowledge, and resources.
The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines
they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of
the motion before the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UFaq8pat no extra charge.[CC]
REALPAGE INC: Alvarez Sues Over Unlawful and Anticompetitive Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Alvarez and Scott Halliwell, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation;
FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation; MID-AMERICA
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL, a Maryland real estate investment trust; ESSEX
PROPERTY TRUST, INC., a Maryland corporation; ESSEX MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.,
a Maryland corporation; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, a Texas real estate
investment trust; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., a
Washington corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01617 (W.D. Wash., Nov.
10, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' unlawful restraint of
trade, unfair business practice and anticompetitive acts by
developing and using proprietary artificial intelligence and
algorithmic decision-making systems to help big housing landlords
operate as a cartel to push up rents above competitive levels, all
to increase profits at the expense of thousands of unwitting
tenants.
The AI Revenue Management ("AIRM") suite includes a pricing
algorithm driven by machine learning and designed to aid landlords
with driving rent up as high as possible. It is euphemistically
described as a "pricing optimization" software. But its real secret
lies in its coordination of pricing behavior and sharing of
real-time, non-public and competitively sensitive pricing and
supply data across property managers and owners of multifamily
residential housing around the country who would otherwise be
independent, direct competitors with one another.
RealPage's products, including AIRM, are used by numerous property
owners and property management companies to set the cost of housing
for millions of rentable apartment units, including Defendants
Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Lincoln Property Company, FPI
Management, Inc., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., Avenue5
Residential LLC, Equity Residential, Essex Property Trust, Inc. and
Essex Management Corporation, AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Camden
Property Trust Thrive Communities Management, LLC, and Security
Properties, Inc. (collectively, "Lessors" or "the Lessor
Defendants").
The effectiveness of RealPage's pricing algorithm for rentals is
critically dependent on the data behind it, including the otherwise
private and competitively-sensitive real time pricing and supply
data of each of RealPage's clients, including the Lessor
Defendants. As RealPage openly admits, its "breakthrough revenue
management software introduced game changing pricing technology to
the industry," based on its use of, among other factors,
"competitor pricing." And unlike other revenue management software
which relies solely on publicly available pricing information,
RealPage instead relies on private and competitively sensitive
real-time rental data provided by its clients.
As a condition of using RealPage's services, RealPage's clients,
including the Lessor Defendants, agree to provide their private
pricing and supply data to RealPage in real time, and agree that
RealPage may use each client's data for purposes of its pricing
algorithm for all RealPage clients, not just that client. No Lessor
Defendant would agree to share its competitively-sensitive and
private pricing and supply information to benefit its competitors,
unless it knew every other RealPage client reciprocated by sharing
their data, too. Each Lessor Defendant knows that every other
Lessor Defendant and RealPage client is also sharing their private
data with RealPage for the benefit of all Lessor Defendants and
RealPage clients. While no Lessor Defendant would share its private
pricing information with competitors if they were the only ones
doing so, the Lessor Defendants as a whole benefit when they act in
concert to share such information for one another's benefit through
the RealPage pricing algorithm. Doing so improves their collective
ability to coordinate rent increases throughout the country, and
thus to charge supra-competitive prices for rentals.
The Lessor Defendants' agreement to use RealPage's pricing
algorithm is an unlawful restraint of trade and unfair business
practice. It has exacerbated the housing crisis by driving rents up
above what the competitive level otherwise would have been.
Plaintiffs bring this action to stop this unlawful practice, and to
recover treble damages on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated renters, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are renters.
RealPage, Inc. is a software company that developed a property
management revenue software called AI Revenue Management (formerly
known as YieldStar).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
David Mindell, Esq.
Alexander G. Tievsky, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Email: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
dmindell@edelson.com
atievsky@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Todd Logan, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
tlogan@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
shilfingerpardo@edelson.com
REALPAGE INC: Cherry Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Cherry, Kimen Trochalakis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID-
AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-01618 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought to challenge
an unlawful agreement among lessors of multifamily residential real
estate leases ("Lessors") to artificially inflate the prices of
multifamily residential real estate in and around downtown Seattle,
Washington, above competitive levels.
In approximately 2016, more and more Lessors replaced their
independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion by adopting
a common revenue management program—thus artificially
manipulating the forces of supply and demand to their favor.
Lessors agreed to use a common third party that collected real-time
pricing and supply levels, and then received forward-looking,
unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations from that third
party, based on a common algorithm using shared data. Lessors also
agreed to follow these recommendations, on the expectation that
competing Lessors would do the same.
RealPage provided the platform and the algorithm for collusion
through a software called YieldStar, which granted Lessors the
unprecedented ability to "track your competition's rent with
precision." Lessors submitted to RealPage data that is "as fine and
granular as bits of sand," including rents charged for each unit
and each floor plan, lease terms, amenities, move-in and move-out
dates.
RealPage takes this data and recommends a price for each unit that
a Lessor manages, giving the Lessor the courage to charge an
inflated price by the implicit assurance that all of their
competitors were doing the same. Together, RealPage and Lessors
have successfully driven rents higher for renters in the central
neighborhoods of Seattle, including Downtown Seattle, Capitol
Hill/Central District, and South Lake Union/Queen Anne.
The Plaintiffs performed a regression analysis to estimate
advertised rent price based on the size of the property and the
number of bedrooms, and an indicator as to whether the property was
listed by a defendant or non-defendant. The anticompetitive effects
of Defendants' conduct are seen in the fact that actual prices for
the Defendants' listings were consistently higher, across all types
of apartments and controlling for income, than the but for prices,
based on the non-Defendant listings within the central Seattle
area.
The conspiracy Plaintiffs challenge is unlawful under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover their
damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate
relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs rented a multifamily residential unit in a property
managed by Lessor Defendants.
RealPage provides software and services to the residential real
estate industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, DC 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: riop@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Hannah K. Song, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: hannahso@hbsslaw.com
RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KARINA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-at-00886 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 9,
2022) is class action arising out of the July 11, 2022 data
security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the
Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of
the Plaintiff and other patients of the Defendant, the putative
Class Members ("Class").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect individuals' Private Information with which it was
entrusted for either treatment or employment or both.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for
years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to
guard against identity theft, says the suit.
RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA provides anesthesia
solutions. The Company offers anesthesia care and other health care
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle Perry, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Action Settlement in Peer Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PEER and MARK
MOLINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. RICK'S CUSTOM FENCING AND DECKING, INC., a domestic
business corporation, and RICHARD LEE STANLEY, an individual, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01155-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Armistead
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
final approval of class action settlement.
-- The court approves the parties' agreed-upon Class
definition, Class Counsel, Class Representatives, and
Settlement Administrator.
-- The court grants final approval of the Stipulated
Settlement Agreement of Class Action, including the Release
of Claims and distribution of service awards and class
member awards as stated in that agreement.
-- The court approves Legal Aid Services of Oregon as the cy
pres beneficiary.
-- The court approves:
(i) payment of $20,000 in administrative expenses to
Simpluris, the appointed Settlement Administrator;
(ii) service awards of $10,000 to David Peer and $7,500
to Mark Moline; and
(iii) payment of applicable Employer Payroll Taxes as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement;
-- The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs is granted.
a. Class Counsel will receive as their fee $297,000 -- 30
percent of the Maximum Settlement Liability Amount and
will receive reimbursement of $45,672.36 in reasonable
litigation costs.
The Plaintiffs David Peer and Mark Moline, on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated employees, filed this employment action
against their former employer, Rick's Custom Fencing and Decking,
Inc. (RCFD), and its president, Richard Lee Stanley. They contend
that defendants underpaid class members in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Oregon common law.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Gr6F29at no extra charge.[CC]
RIPTYDZ HOSPITALITY: Hessler Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tami Hessler, Michon Burlison, Jenaysia Crane,
Samantha Gilson, Kody Kai, Austin McAlee, Cassidy Raleigh, Brandy
Rhodes, William Saunders, Scott Shiner, Kelly Woods on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Riptydz Hospitality
Group Inc., Jeremy Valez, individually, Brian Gregory,
individually, Dave Goodbread, individually, Sandeep Patel,
individually, Steve Ghidella, individually, Erez Sukarchi,
individually, and William "Bill Prescott, individually, Case No.
2022-CP-26-04663 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Horry County, South Carolina, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Nov. 11,
2022, and assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-04012-JD.
The Plaintiff's filed an Amended Summons and Amended Complaint
wherein the Plaintiffs added a federal cause of action against
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin A. Baroody, Esq.
Holly M. Lusk, Esq.
BELLAMY, RUTENBERG, COPELAND, EPPS, GRAVELY & BOWERS,
P.A.
Post Office Box 357
Myrtle Beach, SC 29578-0357
Phone: 843-448-2400
Facsimile: 843-448-3022
Email: bbaroody@bellamylaw.com
hlusk@bellamylaw.com
RZ INDUSTRIES: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RZ Industries LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RZ Industries LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09647 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RZ Industries -- https://www.rzindustries.com/ -- produces
best-in-class air filtration masks and PTAC filters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE: Bid to Certify Class in Paz Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAZ v. SALSAS OF
TITUSVILLE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00834 (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr entered an endorsed order denying
as moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class in light of the
Plaintiff's amended filing.
The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
SEPHORA USA: Finster Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Finster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sephora USA Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-01187-GLS-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling
practices with regard to its cosmetics advertised as "Clean" under
its "Clean At Sephora" program ("Product").
The Defendant's "Clean At Sephora" initiative is a way for
customers to select products which Sephora has evaluated to provide
"The beauty you want, minus the ingredients you might not. This
seal means formulated without parabens, sulfates SLS and SLES,
phthalates, mineral oils, formaldehyde, and more." Where products
meet this criteria, they are promoted with the green "Clean At
Sephora" seal bearing a checkmark and leaf symbol, in Sephora
stores and online. Elsewhere in its marketing materials, Defendant
states, "Clean at Sephora means all of our clean brands comply with
the criteria, which are focused on transparency in formulation and
sourcing and the avoidance of certain ingredients."
However, a significant percentage of products with the "Clean At
Sephora" contain ingredients inconsistent with how consumers
understand this term. For instance, the Saie Mascara 101 contains
numerous synthetic ingredients, several of which have been reported
to cause possible harms. Its most predominant ingredient,
polyglyceryl-6 distearate, is a compound of glycerol and stearic
acid. Glycerol is manufactured through hydrogenolysis, a chemical
reaction whereby a carbon-carbon or carbon-heteroatom single bond
is cleaved or undergoes lysis by hydrogen. Because the global
cosmetic industry uses millions of metric tons of glycerol per
year, the only viable source for glycerol is as a byproduct in
biodiesel production.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. As a result
of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at
a premium price, approximately no less than $26.00 for 0.31 oz
(10g), excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product from Sephora.
The Defendant operates over a thousand Sephora stores in the United
States and the Sephora website which sell beauty and cosmetic
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SHERBURNE COUNTY, MN: Brenizer Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kyle-William Brenizer;
Travis R. Fairbanks; Johnnie L. Haynes; Montez T. Lee; Steven
Lincoln; Abdiweli Jama; All Inmates of the Sherburne County Jail,
v. The County of Sherburne, Case No. 0:21-cv-01301-DSD-TNL (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
one or more classes and subclasses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3) as follows:
Class A
-- Class A.1 consists of all inmates who were in the custody
of Sherburne County Jail at any time between March 19,
2020 and July 5, 2021.
-- Subclass A.2 consists of all members of Class A.1 who
suffered physical injury as a result of Defendant's
unconstitutional anti-exercise policies (as defined in the
forthcoming memorandum in support of this motion).
Class B
-- Class B consists of all members inmates who were in the
custody of Sherburne County Jail at any time between July
6, 2021 and August 16, 2021.
Class C
-- Class C consists of all members inmates who were in the
custody of Sherburne County Jail at any time between
August 17, 2021 and the present.
Sherburne is a county in Central Minnesota.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EhBPpYat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nico Ratkowski, Esq.
CONTRERAS & METELSKA, P.A.
663 University Avenue W., STE 200
Saint Paul, MN 55104
Telephone: (651) 771-0019
Facsimile: (651) 772-4300
E-mail: nico@contrerasmetelska.com
SHLEPPERS HOLDINGS: Underpays Movers, Nereo et al. Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS NEREO, ARMANDO IZALDE, and DANIEL MONTACHANA, Plaintiffs v.
SHLEPPERS HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a SHLEPPERS MOVING & STORAGE, UNIVERSAL
MOVING LLC, and ERNESTO DEL VALLE, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09505 (S.D.N.Y., November 7, 2022) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged failure to pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Plaintiffs Nereo, Izalde and Montachana were hired by the
Defendants as movers from April 2021, May 2021, and and in or
around 2019, respectively.
Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
were required to work more than 40 hours a week, between 17 to 19
hours a day. However, the Defendants did not compensate them for
all hours they have worked. Accordingly, the average hourly rate
for the Plaintiffs was below the minimum wage when considering the
numerous hours for which they were not compensated. In addition,
the Defendants failed to pay them overtime premium at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendants
failed to maintain any records for the number of hours worked by
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, and failed
to provide them with accurate and truthful wage statements and
notices as required by NYLL.
On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Movers,
the Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid wages plus liquidated
damages and interest, statutory and punitive damages, attorney's
fees, costs, and expenses incurred, and other relief as the Court
may deem equitable, just and proper to remedy the Defendants'
unlawful employment practices.
Shleppers Holdings, LLC d/b/a Shleppers Moving & Storage, and
Universal Moving LLC provide moving services. Ernesto Del Valle is
the owner and manager of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
3272 Steinway Street, Suite 503
Astoria, NY 11103
Tel: (718) 989-1864
Fax: (917) 831-4595
SMOOTH SYNERGY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smooth Synergy
Cosmedical Spa, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Smooth
Synergy Cosmedical Spa, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06869 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 10, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Smooth Synergy Cosmedical Spa, Inc. -- https://smoothsynergy.com/
-- is a full cosmedical spa which specializes in Laser Hair
Removal, Endermologie, Microdermabrasion and other Cosmetic
Aesthetics.[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
SONY ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Lens Serial Number Stickers
-------------------------------------------------------
John Aldred, writing for Photography, reports that it appears that
a class action lawsuit has been filed in California against Sony.
It alleges that the serial number stickers on Sony lenses are prone
to falling off. While this doesn't affect the operation of the
product -- unlike the other class action over dead A7 III shutters
-- it does prevent the owners from taking advantage of the warranty
and getting repairs when needed or participating in product
recalls.
Essentially, the serial number falling off makes the lens worth
less because if it ever dies, it's useless. And that's kind of a
big deal, especially on expensive high-end G Master series lenses.
The plaintiff, Joseph Mursharbash claims that he has experienced
exactly that situation as it's simply a low-quality sticker that's
prone to falling off. And during a product recall of the Sony
16-35mm f/2.8 GM lens, his serial number was nowhere to be found.
Mursharbash's claim states that the Sony 16-35mm lens was recalled
due to potential issues messing up camera operation when used.
Customers were advised that if the serial number of their lens fell
within a certain range, that "subject to the terms and conditions
in the Limited Warranty that accompanied the Affected Lenses, we
will repair your Affected Lens, free of charge, until March 31,
2023". When he went to check the serial number of his lens, this is
what he saw.
The sticker simply wasn't there. It's easy to see how in the
general use of a camera and lens something like this could be
missed, especially if you don't actually need to know your serial
number at the time - which most of us don't. It's just something
you don't think about. But when it was needed, the sticker appears
to have fallen off. This means that not only does Mursharbash not
know for sure if his lens is one of the affected ones but even if
it is, he has no recourse to have it repaired by Sony under the
recall. And he claims that his lens does indeed have issues.
While some camera and lens combos may actually also store the lens
serial number in the EXIF data of images shot using it -- my
Panasonic GH5 does this -- Mursharbash says that Sony relies solely
on the serial number sticker for warranty verification. So, while
it might hypothetically be possible to pull the serial number
digitally, Sony just doesn't do it. This means that warranty and
potential recall services, something that's factored into the cost
of the lens, are worthless.
Looking at a few Panasonic, Olympus and Nikon lenses immediately
accessible near my desk, I can see that other manufacturers engrave
the serial number into the lens barrel or print it on the ring
surrounding the mount. To me, using a sticker, especially one
that's in a spot that's particularly prone to being regularly
rubbed in the course of its use, seems pretty silly. But it's not
up to me to decide, it's up to the courts.
It will be interesting to see how big of a problem this is in the
real world, though and how many people ultimately come forward to
join the class action suit. The suit claims that the issue violates
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legel Remedies Act as well as breach of warranty and
"unjust enrichment". The suit is seeking a trial for compensatory
and punitive damages as well as attorney fees. [GN]
SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sophie's Cuban
Cuisine SCCF, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sophie's
Cuban Cuisine SCCF, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06880 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 10,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sophie's -- https://www.sophiescuban.com/ -- is known primarily for
its savory steaming plates of traditional Cuban food with up to 16
different features plus specials every day, Microdermabrasion and
other Cosmetic Aesthetics.[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
STANDARD FIRE: Harrington Sues to Recover Damages from Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Harrington, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a TRAVELERS OF
MASSACHUSETTS, Case NO. 22-2226C (Mass. Commonwealth, Sept. 27,
2022), is brought against the Defendant to recover damages arising
from Traveler's willful, knowing, and unlawful practice of refusing
(and failing) to tender amounts owed to third-party claimants in
consideration for the inherent diminution in value their
automobiles suffered as a result of Traveler's insureds'
negligence.
On November 10, 2019, Harrington was involved in an accident
("Subject Collision") with Juan Morfe, a Travelers' insured. The
Subject Collision caused Harrington's Vehicle to sustain property
damage. At the time of the Subject Collision, Travelers' insured
was insured under a Massachusetts Standard Auto Policy, which
included indemnity benefits available to pay for third-party
property damage. Harrington made a demand for payment to Travelers
in relation to her property damage claim for Inherent Diminution in
Value ("IDV"). Harrington provided all information necessary for
Travelers to fully adjust her property damage claim.
Travelers possessed all information necessary for Travelers to
fully adjust Harrington's property damage claim, including for the
diminished value of her vehicle. Travelers possessed all
information necessary to adjust the IDV portion of Harrington's 1DV
claim. Travelers determined that its insured was liable for the
damage to Harrington's vehicle. Harrington's car was appraised by
his first party insurance carrier. Travelers received, collected,
retained, and stored all information necessary to fully adjust
Harrington's property damage claim.
Travelers refused to adjust the IDV aspect of Harrington's property
damage claim. Travelers refused to provide any consideration for
the IDV Harrington's vehicle suffered as a result of the Subject
Collision. As a result of the Subject Collision, Harrington's
Vehicle is now worth less than a comparable vehicle that has not
suffered such damage from a collision. Travelers was required to
tender/pay Harrington for all property damage to Harrington's
Vehicle as a result of its insured's liability, including
consideration for IDV.
Travelers was required to tender/pay, on behalf of its insured, all
sums the insured would become legally obligated to tender/pay as
damages for destruction of property, including IDV, caused by the
Subject Collision. Harrington and other similarly situated
individuals have been harmed and damaged by Travelers' claims
settlement practices, including but not limited to not receiving
consideration owed to third-party claimants for the IDV to their
vehicles, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Hull, Plymouth County,
Massachusetts.
Travelers, is an insurance company in the business of providing
professional and personal insurance to consumers throughout
Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. McCullough, Esquire (BBO# 644480)
Robert J. 1 lartigan. Esquire (BBO# 697304)
Kathryne D. Masson, Esquire (BBO# 708406)
MAZOW | MCCULLOUGH. PC
10 Derby Square, 4th Floor
Salem, MAO 1970
Phone (978) 744-8000
Fax (978) 744-8012
Email: kjm@helpinginjured.com
rjh@helpinginjured.com
kdm@helpinginjured.com
STAR HOME DECOR: Banuelo Sues Over Improper Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Cervantes Banuelo, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. STAR HOME DECOR &
ACCESSORIES, INC., Case No. 22LA00000475 (Ill. 19th Judicial Cir.
Ct., Lake Cty., Sept. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") by improperly using, capturing and/or collecting the
biometric data.
Beginning June or July 2021, Defendant required Plaintiff and other
employees to use a biometric "fingerprint" time clock system to
record their time worked. Unlike an employee identification number
or employee identification card, fingerprints are unique and
permanent identifiers. By requiring employees to scan their
fingerprints to record their time, instead of identification
numbers or badges only, the Defendant ensured that one employee
could not clock in for another. Thus, Star Home received labor
management benefits from using a biometric timeclock. The Defendant
achieved financial benefits from using a biometric time clock.
Likewise, the Defendant placed employees at risk based on their use
of employees' biometric identifiers after they had been made to use
the biometric timeclock(s) in question without complying with the
statutes. The Defendant violated BIPA, in several respects, by:
improperly capturing and/or collecting the biometric identifiers of
the Plaintiff and the class that she seeks to represent; failing to
provide adequate written notice, informing the Plaintiff and the
class that she seeks to represent of the same; failing to obtain
written releases from the Plaintiff and the class she seeks to
represent; and improperly disclosing and/or disseminating the
biometric identifiers of the Plaintiff and the class she seeks to
represent, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2010 through
December 31, 2021.
Star Home is a privately owned domestic corporation that
manufactures and distributes wall decor worldwide based out of Lake
Forest, Illinois in Lake County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max P. Barack, Esq.
Haskell Garfinkel, Esq.
THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
6252 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60659
Phone: (312) 736-7991
Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com
haskell@garfinkelgroup.com
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Brownell Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Brownell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case No.
5:22-cv-01199-FJS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2022), is brought seeking
damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and
misleading labeling practices with regard to its French Roast
"Ground 100% Arabica Coffee" ("Product").
Consumers are misled by the representation the Product is "100%
Arabica Coffee" because it is false, deceptive and/or misleading as
a result of added potassium. The Defendant makes other
representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are
false and misleading.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$10.99 for 12 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions. The Plaintiff paid more for the Product than she would
have had she known the representations were false and misleading,
or would not have purchased it, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product from stores including Walmart.
The Defendant operates the Starbucks coffee chain and sells ground
coffee under the Starbucks brand from its own stores and
third-parties including grocery stores, convenience stores, drug
stores, big box stores, warehouse club stores and online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
STERICYCLE INC: Edge Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Larry Edge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STERICYCLE, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-05987 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 31, 2022), is brought to recover overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and unpaid straight time
wages pursuant to Alabama common law.
Although the Plaintiff has routinely worked (and continue to work)
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff was not paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, the
Plaintiff worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and was
not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked each workweek and the
proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Stericycle in Huntsville, Alabama as
a Swing Driver from 2013 until September 30, 2020.
Stericycle is a full-service solid waste company providing paper
shredding services, medical waste collection, and disposal services
to commercial customers across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.233.1550
Fax: 312.233.1560
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
aceragioli@stephanzouras.cm
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
STONEMOR MICHIGAN: Berry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Berry, individually and his behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STONEMOR MICHIGAN LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-12634-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., Nov. 1, 2022), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Improved
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act ("IWOWA"), for unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees,
and other relief against Defendant.
The Defendant pays the Plaintiffs a salary and does not pay them
overtime compensation for the hours they work or worked in excess
of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs consistently and regularly
work or worked more than 40 hours per week but are, or were, not
compensated for their overtime work. The Plaintiffs were unlawfully
classified as "exempt" by the Defendant and deprived of proper
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed at Roseland Memorial Gardens, now
owned by the Defendant, since April 2021.
The Defendant is a domestic limited liability Company that owns and
operates numerous cemeteries in Michigan, including Roseland
Memorial Gardens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Childress, Esq.
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
617 Detroit St., Ste. 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (844) 487-9489
Email: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com
Brendan@hurwitzlaw.com
T&B INC: Ebbighausen Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------
Jared Ebbighausen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. T&B, INC. d/b/a Papa Murphy's Pizza, a
Washington corporation, was removed from the King County Superior
Court, to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington on Nov. 3, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-01568.
The Plaintiff alleges he worked over 40 hours per workweek without
receiving overtime compensation as required by RCW. The Plaintiff
further alleges that the Defendant failed to provide the proper
meal and rest breaks as required by law. The Plaintiff brings five
claims for relief: declaratory judgment; failure to pay wages for
all hours worked; willful withholding of wages, including for
double damages plus attorneys' fees and costs; failure to provide
proper rest and meal periods; and failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff also seeks double damages and prejudgment interest.
The Defendant denies these allegations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vera P. Fomina, Esq.
Gregory M. Skidmore, Esq.
SKIDMORE FOMINA PLLC
1800 112th Avenue NE, Suite 270E
Bellevue, WA 98006
Phone: 425-519-3656
Email: vfomina@skidmorefomina.com
gskidmore@skidmorefomina.com
- and -
James B. Pizl, Esq.
Ari Robbins Greene, Esq.
ENTENTE LAW PLLC
315 Thirty-Ninth Avenue SW, Suite 14
Puyallup, WA 98373
Phone: 253-446-7668
Email: jim@ententelaw.com
ari@ententelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James M. Shore, Esq.
Christopher T. Wall, Esq.
Jacqueline Middleton, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.624.0900
Email: jim.shore@stoel.com
christopher.wall@stoel.com
jacqueline.middleton@stoel.com
T-SYSTEMS: House Sues Over Unlawful Use of Personal Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela House, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. T-SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2022LA000954
(Ill. 18th Judicial Ct., DuPage Cty., Oct. 28, 2022), against the
Defendant to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").
Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed--such as in the recent
Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data
breaches or misuses--employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or
unlawful use of this highly personal and private information.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As
an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff was required to "clock
in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having her fingerprint
scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee,
including Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, Defendant disregards employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA.
Specifically, Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA
because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not
to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required
by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at its location in
Illinois.
T-Systems North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with places
of business in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
Adam Florek, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
plesko@peifferwolf.com
aflorek@peifferwolf
TAQ DF LLC: Colorado Us Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar R. Colorado Us & Francisca Jerez Roman, on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated v. TAQ DF LLC,
Javier Tovar Hernandez, and Dionisia Flores Nunez, Case No.
2:22-cv-04368 (E.D. La., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
plaintiffs aim to recover unpaid overtime wages.
While working for the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were not paid
one-and-a half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked
in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as manual laborers by the Defendants.
TAQ DF LLC is a restaurant that specializes in Mexican and Latin
American cuisine in the Greater New Orleans Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold E. Weiser, Esq.
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, LLC
3801 Canal St., Suite 205
New Orleans, La.70119
Phone: (504) 358-2273
Fax: (888) 778-1541
Email: weiserlawfirm@gmail.com
TEKPRO LLC: Gaines Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY GAINES, individually and on behalf of those
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TEKPRO, LLC, YUJUNG "CHRIS" YONG,
and WEI TING "TINA" CHANG, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00883 (M.D.
Tenn., Nov. 2, 2022) alleges that Tekpro has for years illegally
and systematically deprived Plaintiff of overtime compensation owed
for work that is not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant Tekpro from a starting date
more than three years prior to the filing of this action until the
present. She asserts that Tekpro paid her as if she was an
independent contractor. She further alleges that Tekpro maintained
records of the amount of time she worked, and paid her based on an
hourly rate, but did not pay her a higher hourly rate when she
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
Tekpro, LLC provides warranty related services, including
coordinating the repairing of Samsung brand products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
TETRA TECH: Brown Sues Over Hostile Work Environment
----------------------------------------------------
Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders,
Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. TETRA TECH, INC., JESCO ENVIRONMENTAL
AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-20, Case No.
2:22-at-01113 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act, California Government ("FEHA") and other
California statutory and common law theories to correct unlawful
employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide
appropriate relief to the Plaintiffs who were subjected to racial
discrimination, suffered a hostile work environment based on their
race (African American), and/or retaliation for opposing unlawful
employment practices during their employment with the Defendants.
During their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were
subjected to discriminatory and harassing comments, differential
treatment regarding advancement opportunities, selection for
continued employment, and job duties and benefits based on their
race. the Plaintiffs were refused advancement and training
opportunities, and continued employment, in retaliation for their
complaints about discrimination and harassment.
The Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to participate in paid
training and certification courses that were offered to white and
Latino colleagues outside of the Plaintiffs' protected class. One
of these courses granted EPA licenses to participants, and
Defendant Jesco required employees to receive these licenses in
order to remain employed. the Plaintiffs were forced to pay for
this certification out of their own pocket, while white employees
outside the Plaintiffs' protected group had the training paid for
by the Defendant.
The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs the opportunity to work on
assignments that were available and for which the Plaintiffs were
qualitied. However, several white and Latino employees who were
outside of the Plaintiffs' protected group, and who were not well
qualified for the positions, were hired instead. During their
employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were continually
subjected to harassment, as the Defendants unlawfully created a
hostile work environment for African-American employees, including
the Plaintiffs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs identify as African-American/Black and was employed
directly or jointly by the Defendants as non-exempt employees.
The Defendants are corporations, conducted and conducts business
throughout the United States, including in Butte County,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S Mallison, Esq.
Hector R Martinez, Esq.
Heather Hamilton, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Phone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Email: stanm@themmlawfirm.com
hectorm@themmlawfirm.com
hhamilton@themmlawfirm.com
TMC GENERAL: Alcaraz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMC General
Construction Inc., et al. The case is styled as Oscar Ramiro Ruiz
Alcaraz, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMC General
Construction Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00327354-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 26, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"
TMC General Construction, Inc. -- https://tmcgcinc.com/ -- is a
family-owned framing and drywall construction company based in
Sacramento, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks More Time to Oppose Squires Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SQUIRES, et al.,
v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00138-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline to file a public version of Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi, Japan.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tDzNeLat no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas M. Melsheimer, Esq.
M. Brett Johnson, Esq.
Natalie L. Arbaugh, Esq.
Ahtoosa A. Dale, Esq.
William G. Fox Jr., Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
2121 N. Pearl Street Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 453-6500
Facsimile: (214) 453-6400
E-mail: tmelsheimer@winston.com
mbjohnson@winston.com
narbaugh@winston.com
adale@winston.com
wfox@winston.com
- and -
Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: sobi@winston.com
- and -
Bryan Burg, Esq.
Elvin E. Smith, III, Esq.
Kirte Kinser, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Forrest, Esq.
SIEBMAN FORREST BURG & SMITH, LLP
Federal Courthouse Square
300 N. Travis
Sherman, TX 75090
Telephone: (903) 870-0070
Facsimile: (903) 870-0066
E-mail: bryanburg@siebman.com
elvinsmith@siebman.com
kirtekinser@siebman.com
elizabethforrest@siebman.com
TRACER BULLET: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tracer Bullet, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Tracer Bullet, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09649 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tracer Bullet LLC doing business as the MUGSY --
https://mugsyjeans.com/ -- covers jeans and t-shirts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
TRAIL TAVERN: Craghead Sues to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Janell Craghead, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. TRAIL TAVERN OF YELLOW SPRINGS, LLC d/b/a YE OLDE TRAIL TAVERN,
DON BEARD, and CHRISTINE BEARD, Case No. 3:22-cv-00308-MJN-PBS
(S.D. Ohio, Oct. 28, 2022), is brought to collect unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio
Constitution.
The Plaintiff regularly worked between 43 and 76 hours per week.
The Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation at a rate of one-
and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff was paid her
regular hourly rate for all hours worked ("straight time").
Additionally, the Plaintiff received a $1.00 non-discretionary
bonus payment for each hour of every shift that she worked during
which Defendants reached $3,500 in daily revenue for food sales,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants between April of 2021
and August 8, 2022 in the role of kitchen staff.
The Defendants operate a restaurant located in Yellow Springs, Ohio
("Ye Olde Trail Tavern").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq
Greg R. Mansell, Esq
Rebecca L. Hill, Esq
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Phone: 614-610-4134
Fax: 614-547-3614
Email: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Rebecca@MansellLawLLC.com
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Briefing Schedule Set in Consolidated Wells Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that in the
consolidated Wells case, a briefing schedule has been set for
defendants' motion to strike and the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.
The Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors,
officers and former directors and officers are parties to the
following four shareholder derivative suits, each of which involves
substantially similar claims and allegations:
(i) Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359 (filed Dec. 22,
2016 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois), asserting
state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment
and corporate waste;
(ii) Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014 (filed Feb. 7,
2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois), asserting state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste;
(iii) Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00835 (filed Feb.
8, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois), asserting state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and corporate waste, as well as violations of
Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(iv) City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Reed, et
al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753 (filed June 3, 2019 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois), asserting claims breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty and
contribution and indemnification from the individual defendants for
losses incurred by the Company.
Essentially, all four complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone Foods business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.
The complaints allege, among other things, that these actions
artificially inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock
and resulted in harm to the Company, including the filing of the
MPERS class action.
The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations
concerning events in 2017.
Each of these cases involves allegations similar to those in an
earlier-filed, resolved federal securities class action, Public
Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632 ("MPERS") (filed Nov. 16,
2016), in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois brought on behalf of a class of all purchasers
of TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and
including November 2, 2016.
The MPERS complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and was based on essentially the same facts described
above.
The parties filed a stipulation of settlement to resolve the MPERS
class action for a cash payment of $27.0 million (funded by D&O
insurance) in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of the class
claims and full releases. After briefing, preliminary approval,
notice and a hearing, on November 17, 2021, the Court granted final
approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing
the case with prejudice on a classwide basis.
Due to the similarity of the derivative complaints, Bartelt was
consolidated with Lavin, and Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells.
On August 24, 2022 the stay in the consolidated Lavin case was
lifted, and plaintiffs were ordered to file a single operative
complaint by October 24, 2022, which defendants are in the process
of responding to.
On August 26, 2022 plaintiffs in the consolidated Wells case filed
a second amended complaint, which defendants moved to strike.
A briefing schedule has been set in the consolidated Wells case for
defendants' motion to strike and the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.
TreeHouse is a manufacturer and distributor of private label
foods and beverages in North America operating in 29 product
categories across with approximately 40 production facilities
across North America and Italy.
TRIDENT SECURITY: Hunkler Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Leigh Hunkler and Leslie Erin Dirigo, individually, and on
behalf others similarly situated current v. TRIDENT SECURITY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01439-LCB (N.D. Ala., Nov. 10,
2022), is brought against Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed
to the Plaintiffs.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs
and other full-time security guards at a rate equal to at least one
and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid security
guards in Huntsville, Alabama.
The Defendant is a security company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Washington St., Suite 302
Huntsville, AL 35801
Phone: (256) 532-2222
Fax: (256) 513-7489
Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
- and -
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
TRIVEST PARTNERS: Hall Sues Over Fraudulent Home Solar Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Hall, Katherine Glod, and Jeffrey Binder, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRIVEST PARTNERS
L.P., TGIF POWER HOME INVESTOR, LLC, and WILLIAM JAYSON WALLER,
Case No. 2:22-cv-12743-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., Nov. 13, 2022), is
brought arising from the Defendants' operation of an enterprise
business that ostensibly provided sales and installation of home
solar systems, but which was fundamentally an instrument of fraud
and deception that predictably ended in bankruptcy.
Power Home Solar LLC ("PHS," later known as Pink Energy, sometimes
referred to herein as "PHS/PE")'s business model was to promise
significant energy bill savings to potential customers, and then
send poorly trained, unqualified salespeople to potential
customers' homes to sell them wildly overpriced solar systems (the
"Systems"). These Systems would be "designed" and installed by
poorly trained, unqualified and unlicensed technicians, all but
ensuring that the systems would not perform at even a significant
fraction of what the company's agents represented. In most
instances, these nearly worthless solar Systems were financed
through arrangements made by PHS/PE, leaving Plaintiffs and the
putative class with lengthy, expensive monthly payment commitments
with no meaningful corresponding reduction in their electric bills.
This "business model" was executed through a pattern of mail and
wire fraud, executed by Defendants for their own financial gain.
Defendants used this scheme to enrich themselves personally,
including Defendant Waller, who transformed himself into a
cartoonish veneer of wealth and excess through his attempts to
portray a successful businessman. At the beginning of 2018,
Defendant Trivest purchased a 25% share in PHS and took a hands-on
role in managing all aspects of the business along with Defendant
Waller, notably including providing financial support for and
participating in PHS's massive new advertising campaign. The
multimillion-dollar advertising campaign was false, misleading, and
fraudulent and enabled PHS/PE to grow exponentially, causing
enormous harm to customers in 15 states.
The Plaintiffs and Class are consumers who reasonably and
justifiably relied on PHS's representations when they decided to
purchase their Systems. The Plaintiffs and the putative Class have
suffered extensive and devastating damages as a result of
Defendants' racketeering and conspiracy, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Michigan.
Trivest Partners L.P. is an unincorporated organization (limited
partnership) organized under the laws of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
Lance Spitzig, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Phone: (313) 392-0015
Email: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
TUDI MECHANICAL: Nichols Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH NICHOLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUDI MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC. ROBERT TUDI,
and BRADLEY TITUS, individually, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01545-LPL (W.D. Pa., Nov. 1, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to compensate Plaintiff and other
employees at a rate of at least minimum wage, including straight
time and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant from October 1, 2018 for
the position of electrical lead technician and his primary role was
working with other electricians at various job sites to complete
electrical installations.
Tudi Mechanical Systems, Inc. is a facilities services company
specializing in plumbing, electric, and energy solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
Travis A. Gordon, Esq.
J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
The Rubicon Building
201 South Highland Avenue Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
U.S. BANCORP: Underpays Mutual Fund Specialists, Jackson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01294-JPS (E.D. Wis., Nov. 2, 2022) is a collective and
class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid regular and agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of mutual fund specialist via a
third-party staffing company in March 2022 to August 2022.
U.S. Bancorp is a financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
U.S. VISION INC: Torres Files Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. VISION, INC., et
al. The case is styled as Ian Torres, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. U.S. VISION, INC., USV OPTICAL, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06558 (D.N.J., Nov. 10, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury
U.S. Vision -- https://www.usvision.com/ -- a wholly owned
subsidiary of Refac Optical Group, is an international optometric
dispensary chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (212) 868-1229
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
UNCLE AL'S: Van Lehn Wins Bid to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TORI VAN LEHN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNCLE AL'S SPORTS
CAFE SUNRISE, INC. d/b/a LUV'N OVEN ALE HOUSE, and DEBORAH ALVAREZ,
individually, Case No. 0:22-cv-61628-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective Action:
-- Conditional certification is granted as a collective action
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA for the following
collectives:
80/20 Collective:
"All restaurant Servers and Bartenders who worked for
Defendants in Sunrise, Florida, during the three years
preceding this lawsuit who were required to spend more than
20% of any workweek performing "non-tipped" duties and side
work and did not receive the full applicable minimum wage;"
Substantial Side Work Collective:
"All restaurant Servers and Bartenders who worked for
Defendants in Sunrise, Florida, who were required to spend
30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side
work during any shift after December 28, 2021;" and
Overtime Collective:
"All restaurant Servers and Bartenders who worked for the
Defendants in Sunrise, Florida, during the three years
preceding this lawsuit who worked more than 40 hours in
any workweek."
-- The Plaintiff, TORI VAN LEHN, is appointed as the
Representative of the Collective with authority to
negotiate and appear at settlement conferences and
mediations on behalf the class.
-- The law firm of USA Employment Lawyers -- Jordan Richards
PLLC and attorneys Jordan Richards, Esquire, and Jake
Blumstein, Esquire are appointed as counsel for the
Collectives.
Uncle Al's is a down-home family sports bar.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3X6xA9rat no extra charge.[CC]
UPLIFT FAMILY: Freiberger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Freiberger, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. UPLIFT FAMILY SERVICES, an
unknown business entity; FAMILIESFIRST, INC., an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403493
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 27, 2022), is brought
pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure for compensatory
damages, restitution, penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata
share of attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a
week during their employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
involving, failing to pay them for all regular/and or overtime
wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in
violation of the California law. The Defendant knew or should have
known that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation, and that they were not receiving accurate
overtime compensation for all overtime worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non0exempt employee.
UPLIFT FAMILY SERVICES was an employer whose employees are engaged
throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa
Clara.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
Email: edwin@calljustice.com
US PREMIUM: Antitrust Suits v. NBP in U.S. Consolidated in D. Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 24, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that on
October 4, 2022, antitrust lawsuits filed against National Beef
Packing Company, LLC ("NBP") in the United States were consolidated
for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court,
Minnesota District under the style In re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust
Litigation.
the United States Antitrust Cases were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court, Minnesota District
under the style In re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation.
USPB is not currently involved in any litigation. However, because
its ownership interest in NBP is USPB's largest asset and because
of the cattle procurement and distribution relationship between
USPB and NBP, litigation involving NBP may impact USPB.
NBP is a currently a defendant in five class action antitrust
lawsuits in the United States District Court, Minnesota District,
and the United States District Court, Kansas District, and thirteen
single plaintiff antitrust lawsuits in United States District
Court, Minnesota District, the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court,
Connecticut, the United States District Court, Northern District of
New York, the United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, the United States District Court, Southern District of
Texas, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
the United States District Court, District of Montana and the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York (the
"United States Antitrust Cases"). In addition, NBP is a defendant
in class action antitrust lawsuits in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia and the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal District.
These lawsuits all allege that NBP violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act or the Canadian Competition Act and some of the lawsuits allege
that NBP violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity
Exchange Act, and various state or provincial laws.
The class-action cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust
Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; Peterson
et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed
originally on April 26, 2019; In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was
filed originally on April 26, 2019; Erbert & Gerbert's, Inc. v. JBS
USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on
June 18, 2020; Specht, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., which
was filed originally on October 31, 2022; Giang Bui v. Cargill,
Incorporated, et al., which was filed originally on February 18,
2022; and Sylvie De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was
filed originally on March 24, 2022. The single-plaintiff Antitrust
Cases are entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding, LLC
v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on August 2, 2021; Cheney
Brothers, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on January
31, 2022; Subway v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed on
February 22, 2022; Amory Investments LLC v. Cargill, Inc. et al.,
which was filed originally on March 8, 2022; Associated Grocers,
Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally
on May 12, 2022; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which
was filed originally on June 8, 2022; Sysco Corporation v. Cargill,
Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 24, 2022; John
Soules Foods, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed
originally on August 5, 2022; Associated Grocers of the South et
al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on
September 15, 2022; The Kroger Co. et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al.,
which was filed originally on September 15, 2022; Kraft Heinz Food
Company v. Cargill Inc., et al., which was filed originally on
September 30, 2022; and Aramark Food and Support Services Group.,
Inc. v. Cargill Inc., et al., which was filed originally on
September 30, 2022.
On October 4, 2022, the United States Antitrust Cases were
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court, Minnesota District under the style In re: Cattle and Beef
Antitrust Litigation.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek treble damages and other relief
under various laws including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the
Canadian Competition Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, and/or the
Commodities Exchange Act and various state and provincial laws and
attorneys' fees.
NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these
cases and intends to defend them vigorously. There can be no
assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the
impact on NBP's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to any potential claims
that might arise out of these government investigations, although
there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these investigations
or the impact on NBP's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates
an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled
boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by-products, and consumer-ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.
VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Dettmering Sues Over Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSS DETTMERING; and FRANCIS MANGUBAT, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES
CORP.; VBIT MINING LLC, ADVANCED MINING GROUP; DANH CONG VO a/k/a
DON VO; PHUONG D VO a/k/a KATIE VO; SEAN TU; JIN GAO; JOHN DOE
INDIVIDUALS 1-10; and ABC COMPANIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01482-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 10, 2022) alleges violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
According to the complaint, the Defendants conducted and conspired
to conduct their affairs through a fraudulent Bitcoin mining
scheme. That scheme promised the sales, leasing, and servicing of
specialized computer hardware to produce Bitcoins for customers,
but in reality functioned as a massive Ponzi scheme that paid out
the promised Bitcoins only as long as new victims provided
additional funds to do so.
The Defendants promised that through their mining packages, that
the Plaintiffs and the Class would lease, with the option to
eventually purchase, computer hardware that was hosted in a
facility maintained by the Defendants, where the hardware would
efficiently mine Bitcoin for the Plaintiffs and the Class. Over
time, the Plaintiffs and the Class would accumulate Bitcoin, which
is kept in what are referred to as "virtual wallets," and which
could be (a) used to purchase additional mining packages from the
Defendants, (b) held as an investment, (c) converted to U.S dollars
(or other government issued currency), or (d) used to buy goods or
services. However, the Defendants' advertised offerings, however,
were a complete sham, and Defendants have perpetrated a classic
Ponzi scheme, says the suit.
The Defendants relied on funds from new victims to pay earlier
victims. In other words, rather than generating new Bitcoins as
promised, the Defendants moved funds from more recent customers
into the accounts of earlier-in-time customers to give the false
appearance of a prosperous business.
VBIT TECHNOLOGIES CORP. sells bitcoin mining hardware and offers
mining equipment hosting. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 656-2500
Email: rjk@chimicles.com
smt@chimicles.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
Email: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
beichel@bonizack.com
- and -
Peter Leckman, Esq.
Mary Catherine Roper, Esq.
David Nagdeman, Esq.
LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER PC
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 320-5660
Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
Email: pleckman@langergrogan.com
mroper@langergrogan.com
dnagdeman@langergrogan.com
VILLAGES OF ORLEANS: Sued Over Care Home's COVID-19 Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------
WKBW reports that a nursing home in Orleans County is facing more
legal trouble. Families filed a class action lawsuit against the
Villages of Orleans facility alleging that mistakes made during the
Covid-19 pandemic led to their loved one's deaths.
The lawsuit claims residents died while living at the care home,
due to public health law violations. Violations listed in the claim
include a failure to properly separate Covid-positive patients, a
lack of protective equipment for staff, and dangerously low
staffing levels.
This care home has a history of violations with the New York State
Health Department. In February 2021 it was handed one of the
largest Covid-19 related fines in New York, totaling more than
$86,000.
According to Brown Chiari, the law firm representing the families,
38 deaths were reported as of July of 2021.
Attorney Michael Scinta says, "they didn't have proper personal
protective equipment, they were passing trays among various people
without proper protections, they didn't do droplet control and
prevention and it allowed it to spread. Often times people were not
allowed to eat. They were left with food without assistance eating
and various failures, infection control failures. "
Scinta says the families will be "seeking for damages relative to
suffering, the harm that was caused and their ultimate death." [GN]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Faces Shareholders' Suit Over Inflated Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report that a U.S. judge on
Nov. 7 said British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson must
face shareholder claims he concealed problems in Virgin Galactic
Holdings Inc's (SPCE.N) spaceship program, and sold hundreds of
millions of dollars of stock at inflated prices.
While dismissing most claims in the proposed class action, U.S.
District Judge Allyne Ross in Brooklyn said shareholders could try
to prove that Virgin and Branson defrauded them into overpaying for
the space tourism company's shares, which now trade more than 90%
below their February 2021 peak.
Shareholders can sue over July 2019 statements that Virgin had made
"great progress" overcoming "hurdles" to commercial spaceflight,
despite a near-disastrous test flight five months earlier when its
rocket plane Unity suffered critical damage.
Branson must also defend his July 2021 statement that his own
just-completed flight on Unity, where he soared 50 miles (80.47 km)
above the earth, had been "flawless" though Unity had strayed from
its assigned airspace.
In a 55-page decision, Ross said shareholders also could sue over
approximately $301 million of stock that Branson sold the month
after the flight.
Lawyers for Virgin and Branson did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
In seeking a dismissal, they said there was no proof of intent to
defraud, and that the defendants had thoroughly disclosed safety
and design issues in developing commercial space travel,
"unquestionably a high-risk proposition."
Laurence Rosen, a lawyer for the shareholders, declined to
comment.
Virgin is based in Tustin, California, and went public in October
2019 by merging with a special purpose acquisition vehicle, Social
Capital.
The lawsuit covers shareholders who owned the stock of either from
July 10, 2019, to Oct. 14, 2021, when Virgin grounded Unity and
delayed its commercial space travel service. Its shares fell 16.8%
the next day, to $20.01.
Branson, 72, is worth $3.7 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
In the Nov. 7 afternoon trading, Virgin shares were up 5 cents at
$4.97.
The case is Kusnier et al v. Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc et al,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 21-03070.
[GN]
VISUAL DATA MEDIA: Fleming Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa R. Fleming, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved
employees v. VISUAL DATA MEDIA SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV3455S (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 28, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' violations of
the Labor Code by failing to pay wages for minimum and overtime
hours worked.
The Defendants' violated of the Labor Code by failing to pay wages
for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked
at the overtime rate of pay; indemnification for all necessary
expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence
of discharging their duties; statutory penalties for failure to
timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles from September 2021,
until December 17, 2021.
VISUAL DATA MEDIA SERVICES, LLC is authorized to do business within
the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Danielle Montero, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CS 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
dmontero@lelawfirm.com
wht2@lelawfirm.com
VITALANT: Spears Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
Chamarie Spears, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. VITALANT, a corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22-CIV-03291 was removed
from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 31,
2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-06711.
The Complaint alleges claims for: unfair competition in violation
of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order;
failure to provide required meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; failure to provide required
rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC
Wage Order; failure to provide accurate itemized statements in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to reimburse employees for
required expenses in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay
sick wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act for failure to make proper disclosures; and
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for failure to obtain
proper authorization.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas M. Mcinerney, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-442-4810
Facsimile: 415-442-4870
Email: tmm@ogletree.com
- and -
Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
- and -
Daniel E. Richardson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: daniel.richardson@ogletree.com
WEBMD LLC: Faces Class Action Over Personal Info Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that WebMD
will have to face a proposed class action over allegations it
improperly disclosed personal information to Facebook in violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal court ruled.
Debra Lebakken claimed in the lawsuit that WebMD improperly
disclosed her personal information to Facebook via the Facebook
tracking pixel, a data aggregation tool that harvests the online
activity of users for the purpose of delivering targeted
advertising.
Personal information disclosed to Facebook, now known as Meta
Platforms Inc., included her name, Facebook ID, email address, and
video webpages she viewed, the lawsuit said. [GN]
WHELAN SECURITY: Brady Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Brady, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; similarly situated v. WHELAN
SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403473 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept.
26, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked and
at least minimum wages.
The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the
Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern
and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all
regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods
and rest breaks in violation of California law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from August 2018 to July 2021.
WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is a California corporation and
an employer whose employees are engaged through the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
WILCO LIFE: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GRUNDSTROM,
Individually, and as successor-in-interest to DR. RICHARD I.
APPLETON and on Behalf of the Class, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulated and agreed that the completion of discovery related to
class certification and the briefing of Plaintiff's motion for
class certification shall proceed according to the following
schedule of deadlines:
-- Deadline to complete fact and January 16, 2023
expert discovery related to
class certification motion:
-- Plaintiff's deadline to file March 20, 2023
motion for class certification:
The Court lifted the stay except with respect to discovery on
September 30, 2021. On August 31, 2022, the parties filed a Joint
Stipulation to extend the deadlines for completing discovery
related to class certification and for filing a motion for class
certification.
Wilco Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TKE7nmat no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff JULIE GRUNDSTROM, and on Behalf of the
Class:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.com
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY are:
Edward M. Holt, Esq.
MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, LLP
1901 6th Ave, N., Suite 2400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 254-1102
E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com
YOUTUBE LLC: Marschke Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRAD MARSCHKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-02022, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 8, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-06987-SK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing and
storing biometric identifiers or information using "Face Blur" tool
without providing notice or obtaining legally mandated consent from
individuals, including the Plaintiff.
YouTube, LLC is a technology company and wholly owned subsidiary of
Google LLC, headquartered in San Bruno, California.
Google LLC is an online advertising technology company,
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Barz, Esq.
Frank A. Richter, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
frichter@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Alexander H. Cohen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
ZOLA HOSPICE: Bodnar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Bodnar, on behalf of herself and all aggrieved
California-based non-exempt employees v. ZOLA HOSPICE, LLC and DOES
1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403517 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara Cty., Sept. 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Labor Code and/or the Industrial Welfare
Commission by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff or aggrieved employees
all wages at the minimum wage rate; pay the Plaintiff or aggrieved
employees all overtime wages at the overtime rate; provide the
Plaintiff or aggrieved employees for all employment related losses
and expenditures; provide accurate wage statements to the plaintiff
or aggrieved employees; or timely pay the Plaintiff or aggrieved
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as hourly non-exempt
employee.
ZOLA HOSPICE, LLC is authorized to do business within the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
S. Sean Shahabi, Esq.
JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
300 W. Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
Glendale, CA 91202
Phone: (818) 630-7280
Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
ZULIE VENTURE: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zulie Venture, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Zulie Venture, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09650 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zulie Venture, Inc. was founded in 2016 and operates in Stafford,
United States. The company belongs to the industry 'Finance &
Insurance.'[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***