/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230207.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 7, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 28
Headlines
ALLIANZ SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
AMN SERVICES: Clarke Seeks Partial Summary Judgment
ANGLO AMERICAN: Denies Claims in Kabwe Mine Poisoning Class Action
APPLE INC: Faces Fourth Class Action Over App Tracking Tools
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Misleads Investors on IPO, Class Suit Alleges
AT&T INC: Settlement Claim Filing in Data Plan Suit Due May 18
AUDIBLE INC: Asks Court to Seal Opposition Brief
AUSTRALIA: Alice Springs Residents Back Class Action v. NT Gov't
AXAR CAPITAL: Titterton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
BISSELL HOMECARE: Tabot Sues Over Defective Cordless Vacuums
BLACK HORSE: Seyfarth Attorneys Discuss BIPA Class Action Ruling
BLOCK.ONE: Reaches New $22-MM Class Settlement With Investors
BUFFALO, NY: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Flouride in Water
BUFFALO, NY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by March 1
CANADA: Directs DND to Drop Class Action Deadline Extension Appeal
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in N.D. Suit
CIRCLE K: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered in Neely
COCLICO INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CORIZON HEALTH: Morrelli, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
DELTA EXPRESS: McCoy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIRECTBUY HOME: Class Cert Pretrial & Trial Dates Entered
DOOLEY ELECTRIC: Tremont Electric Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ENOVIX CORPORATION: Rosin Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price
EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Woodall Alleges
FEDERAL INSURANCE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Wesco
FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Jeep Owners' "Death Wobble" Class Action
FIVE BELOW INC: Hicks Suit Removed to C.D. California
GAP INC: Black Files Suit in N.D. California
GEICO GENERAL: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by Feb. 21
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Indicative Ruling on Scope of Summary Judgment
HAPPY GROUP: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Amended in Rusoff Suit
HIGGINS CRAB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Suit Alleges
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Stellato Sues Over Tuition Fee Adjustments
HOMEADVISOR INC: HA Defendants' Bid for Sanctions Granted in Part
HSBC BANK: Ni Case Referred to Magistrate Judge
HUNT MILITARY: Class Settlement in Skinner Gets Initial Approval
INLAND FLEXO: Hoffman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
INVITING HOME INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
J TRANSPORT: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Samaniego Says
J.N. GLASS & MIRROR: Delgado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
JACOB RIEGER & COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Unpaid Tips and Wages
JONATHAN SIMKHAI: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KANSAS CITY, MO: Scheduling & Trial Order Entered in Jimenez Suit
KEETSA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KEVIN COPPINGER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Lucero Suit
KORU HEALTH: Burnett Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
KROGER CO: Faces Class Actions in Five States Over Payroll Issues
LASTPASS US LLC: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
LENOVO INC: Gisairo, et al., Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
LEVEL 3: Johnson Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
LH MERCANTILE: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
LURA MERRITT: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert. Bid
M.P. ENVIRONMENTAL: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judge Denied Extension to Clear Racism Suit
MATERNAL AND FAMILY: Finigan Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
MAXFUND INC: Storz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
MAZDA MOTOR: Sued Over 2021 Vehicle Models' Engine Oil Leak
MERRIN GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Parisien Files FDCPA Suit in D. North Dakota
METLIFE GROUP: Knudsen Sues Over ERISA Violation
MGM RESORTS: Gibson Sues Over Artificially Inflated Hotel Prices
MGM RESORTS: Sued Over Las Vegas Strip Hotel Price Fixing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Carter Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cox Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
MONRO INC: Settlement Talks in Labor Class Suit Continue
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Vacates Status Quo Order in Robbins Suit
NESTLE USA: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Sparkling Water
NEWSWEEK DIGITAL: Mendoza Sues Over Video Privacy Protection Breach
OCLARO INC: Court Vacates Class Cert Hearing in Karri
OHGANE INC: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
P.C. RICHARD: Parties Seek Postponement of Class Cert Hearing
PARAGON COIN: Davy Files Suit in C.D. California
PARAGON RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Reinhart Claims
PENTAGON FEDERAL: DeConinck Sues Over Duplicate Transactions
PLASTAKET MANUFACTURING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRESTIGE COMMUNITY: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Le
PRIORITY WRECKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Whitman Alleges
REALPAGE INC: Andersen Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
RENE ROBLES: Grizzle Loses Class Cert Bid
RIPPLE LABS: Order on Discovery Dispute Letter Brief Entered
ROWAN PIERCE: Class Certification Hearing Reset to June 26
SALUD FAMILY HEALTH: Gabelman Sues Over Data Security Incident
SAPUTO CHEESE: Class Cert. Dates Vacated Pending Mediation
SARKLI-REPECHAGE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAVORY DELI: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Court Allows Summary Judgment Bid in Turner
SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEAL BEACH ENVY: Untoria Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines
STANDARD INSURANCE: Class Action Scheduling Order Modified
STUDENT LOAN: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class, Subclass in Shadrin
SUNFRESH PRODUCE: Sanchez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SURF WORLD: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWISSPORT USA: Goins Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TARDIS CAPITAL: Andersen Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
TIKTOK INC: Murphy Sues Over Unlawful Routine Surveillance
TOM'S OF MAINE: Fish Sues Over False & Misleading Representation
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: McKee Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
TURBIE TWIST: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Jimenez Suit
TWITTER INC: Justice Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TWO LITTLE GUYS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
U.S. ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT: Chery Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ULTA INC: Chan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Judge Declines Class Action in Copyright Suit
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE: Law Students Join COVID, Strike Disruption Suit
VIDA LONGEVITY: Settlement in Securities Class Action Gets Approval
WELLS FARGO: Scheduling Order Modified in Easton Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Schenning Sues Over Investigators' Unpaid Overtime
WHOLE FOODS: Wins Summary Judgment vs Kinzer
WOLVERINE WORLD: McWilliam Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
XL FLEET: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by March 10
YIELDSTREET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 17
*********
ALLIANZ SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 31
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Allianz SE (OTC: ALIZY) between
March 9, 2018 and May 17, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Allianz's
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Allianz class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2121 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Allianz did not have effective internal
controls; (2) Allianz's subsidiary was involved in substantial
fraudulent activity; (3) as a result, Allianz was at an increased
risk of regulatory scrutiny; (4) as a result, Allianz was at an
increased risk of substantial losses and financial costs; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 3,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2121 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
AMN SERVICES: Clarke Seeks Partial Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERNA MAXWELL CLARKE and
LAURA WITTMANN, individuals on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. AMN SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-04132-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
an order granting them partial summary judgment as to:
(1) whether class members may recover unpaid overtime
incurred after the date of class certification; and
(2) whether class members are entitled to prejudgment
interest under Labor Code section 218.6.
AMN Healthcare operates as a temporary healthcare staffing
company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HjegOW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
ANGLO AMERICAN: Denies Claims in Kabwe Mine Poisoning Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Wicks, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that
agonising stomach pain, loss of appetite for days on end and
debilitating headaches are some of the suspected symptoms of lead
exposure children in Kabwe, Zambia, ranked by the Blacksmith
Institute as one of the world's most polluted places, are
struggling with.
Their stories form the foundation of a class action bid against
Anglo American South Africa over its historic involvement with the
Kabwe mine, where unsafe lead mining and smelting operations
spanning the course of almost a century have left the land and its
people exposed to dangerously high levels of lead.
Even now, almost 30 years after the mine finally closed in 1994,
the contamination remains.
YEARS IN THE MAKING
In 2019, lawyers from Johannesburg firm Mbuyisa Moleele and
London-based Leigh Day, acting on behalf of 10 children and two
now-young women, announced plans to bring a class action bid
against Anglo, which was invested in the mine between 1925 and
1974.
Anglo denies responsibility, though, saying it had an "indirect
minority shareholding (of ±10%) in the company that operated the
mine" but never owned or operated it.
If successful, this bid would pave the way for as many as 140,000
lead exposure victims to potentially be able to claim damages from
the mining giant.
The case was brought in South Africa because of Anglo's head
offices in the country. The lawyers have also said this is the only
way to secure justice for the community because Zambian law doesn't
provide for the type of "opt-out" class action they have proposed
(where all potential claimants are included unless they opt out)
nor for contingency fee arrangements or third-party funding.
Before they can bring a class action, the applicants have to secure
the court's permission or certification.
The certification hearing got under way in the high court in
Johannesburg in January and was expected to wrap up last week.
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR SERIOUS HEALTH CONCERNS
The proposed class action is aimed at securing financial
compensation for children and women of child bearing age who were
in Kabwe during their early childhoods and have elevated blood lead
levels.
Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the
effects of the toxic metal in Kabwe, which the legal team behind
the case explained in the court papers:
"[Children] live and play in dusty backyards and streets, coating
them in lead-contaminated dirt. When they touch their faces and
mouths, they ingest large quantities of lead. Their growing bodies
and brains absorb more of this lead than adults do, causing
irreparable brain damage. In extreme cases, lead poisoning can kill
children.
"When girls grow up and fall pregnant, the lead stored in their
bones as young children is released back into their bloodstream,
poisoning them and their unborn children".
The papers painted a bleak picture of children in Kabwe's plights.
Parents detailed their first-hand experiences with a range of
suspected physical symptoms.
They also mentioned behavioural problems like aggression, as well
as developmental delays and learning difficulties.
Medical experts who examined the children said the most probable
cause was the elevated levels of lead in their blood. And not only
did they say some of the damage done was likely irreversible, but
also that these children were at risk of developing further adverse
effects as time went on.
Lawyers for the children represented have argued Anglo's actions
"both caused and materially contributed to the ongoing harm"
suffered by them.
But the company has denied this.
ANGLO DENIAL
The case against Anglo is that during between 1925 and 1974, in
which the mine produced 66% of its total lead output, the company
was "directly involved" in the mine's affairs.
Anglo, itself, described the situation in Kabwe as an
"environmental disaster" in its arguments before the court. But it
put the blame at the feet of the state-owned Zambia Consolidated
Copper Mines Limited (ZCCM), which ran the mine from 1974 until its
closure.
It has also said that because 66% of all the lead was produced
during the period it was involved doesn't mean 66% of all the lead
pollution was its fault.
It argued ZCCM operated in "a grossly negligent and reckless
fashion" and that under its watch there were several years during
which there was inadequate emission control, and lead pollution
"increased markedly".
Ariella Scher is an attorney with the Centre for Applied Legal
Studies and represents Amnesty International and the Southern
Africa Litigation Centre, which are amici curiae (friends of the
court) in the certification application.
She said they considered this an "incredibly novel" case and that
it could set a precedent for holding corporations registered in
South Africa liable for their activities in other states.
"In South African courts and law, nothing like this has ever been
attempted. A corporation that's registered in South Africa - we
then call South Africa its home state - has never been sued for its
actions in a foreign state - so here, Zambia.. we call it the host
state," she said.
Scher also said that to their knowledge, this was the first case of
its kind to be brought in the global south.
Their submissions were intended to assist the court in deciding
whether to certify the class action.
Scher said they looked at international human rights law and
instruments that enshrined a right to remedy and recognised a duty
on the state "to ensure corporations registered in their
jurisdictions are operating appropriately", as well as on the
corporations themselves. [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Fourth Class Action Over App Tracking Tools
------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Hilliard, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a
fundamental misunderstanding of App Tracking Transparency tools has
led to multiple lawsuits against Apple in recent weeks, with the
fourth filed in Northern California being the most recent.
Developers at Mysk published a report in November 2022 accusing
Apple of including a device identifier with information that it
claims was meant to be anonymous. This has sparked a series of
nearly identical class action lawsuits that seek $5 million in
damages due to Apple's allegedly dishonest privacy stance.
Plaintiff Julia Cima filed the lawsuit with the Northern District
of California. She seeks class action for anyone affected by
Apple's various violations of privacy law, competition, and more.
The lawsuit calls out Apple's "flagrant violation of consumer
privacy" and inability to honor users' requests to restrict data
sharing. Apple restricts third-party apps from using identifiers
and cross-app tracking but still tracks users across its own apps
with App Tracking Transparency turned on.
Apple describes App Tracking Transparency as a protection against
third-party tracking. That's data harvested by users in one app
being used to track or advertise to them in another app.
A white paper filed by Apple states in unambiguous terms that Apple
doesn't restrict the use of first-party data. Apple itself
admittedly uses first-party data and sees itself as held to a
higher standard than other companies.
App Tracking Transparency has never been heralded as the end of
data collection by Apple itself. Instead, the company promoted it
as a privacy tool that would eliminate data brokers' ability to
create massive data stores based on how individuals browse multiple
apps and websites.
Any app that users install that is connected to the internet is
capable of observing their interactions, and has to, to some
extent. App Tracking Transparency, for example, won't stop Google
from tracking user searches, Netflix from tracking what movie a
user watches, or Amazon from seeing user purchases.
Even Apple's App Store has its privacy labels to tell users what
data is collected by apps, which should tell users that Apple
doesn't stop all collection nor does it intend to.
The lawsuits have a fundamental misunderstanding of first-party
data versus third-party data, and how Apple approaches each. It
isn't clear how these lawsuits will proceed.
Apple has already been hit with three other privacy-focused class
action lawsuits:
Libman v. Apple
Serrano v. Apple
Whalen v. Apple [GN]
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Misleads Investors on IPO, Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Causby, writing for Tokenhell, reports that Argo Blockchain
is facing a lawsuit alleging nondisclosure of material risk
comprising capital constraints, rising electricity, and network
challenges.
The crypto mining firm with a duo listing on the Nasdaq exchange as
ARBK and ARB on the London Stock Exchange is embroiled in a class
action suit citing misstatement of the actual position.
Misleading Financial Position
The suit alleges the crypto miner misled investors on the risk
levels and going concern during its initial public offering (IPO).
The plaintiffs submitted that Argo Blockchain intentionally misled
investors of its sound business when offering its American
depositary shares (ADS) in 2021.
The plaintiffs' attorney demonstrated that the London-headquartered
firm conveyed an untrue position by making incomplete statements.
The attorneys added that Argo omitted critical facts that would
have prompted potential investors to reconsider their ADS purchase
decision.
The documents annexed to the January 26 filing revealed to the
District Court judge for the Eastern District of New York that the
inclusion of rising electricity charges, network challenges, and
capital inadequacy would have averted the misleading aspect of the
statement.
Nondisclosure of Constraints
The plaintiffs accuse Argo of aiding erroneous investment decisions
by concealing that it battled capital constraints, the spike in
electricity charges, and network-related disruptions.
The plaintiffs argue that the nondisclosure of the constraints
amounted to misleading information about the mining capacity of its
Helios facility in Texas. The petition submitted illustrates that
Argo overstated the business prospects despite the management's
awareness that the constraints would hamper the firm's capability
to mine bitcoin and run the Helios facility.
The filing alleges that Argo could have portrayed the actual
position of the mining business as less sustainable than what it
led potential investors to believe. Consequently, the plaintiffs
hold that Argo overstated its financial prospects.
The lawsuit relates to the bitcoin miner offering 7.5M ADS, each
carrying an equivalent of 10 common stocks. The plaintiffs accuse
Argo of overstating its business prospects in September 2021 to
lure investors to the ADS offered on the Nasdaq Global Market.
Troubled Crypto Mining Segment
Three months later, Argo would suffer the unforgiving squeeze of
2022 that brought down crypto mining firms. Plummeting crypto
valuations and higher electricity costs would characterize the
mining segment in 2022.
The declining Bitcoin price would force the miners to dispose of
their holdings to avoid bankruptcy. Unfortunately, Core Scientific
would face bankruptcy wrath.
Argo Blockchain would avoid suffering the same fate by disposing of
its Helios facility for $65 million to Galaxy Digital. It would
also receive a $35 million loan from the financial-services firm.
The sale of the Texas-based mining facility lifted the miner's
shares price, which slid by 90%. Today, Argo stock price has
regained above the mandatory $1 to exchange at $1.95 on the Nasdaq
pre-market trading. [GN]
AT&T INC: Settlement Claim Filing in Data Plan Suit Due May 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Fragassi, writing for Aol., report that consumers and the
government alike are cracking down on companies that have engaged
in negligent or harmful policies — whether it's purposefully
slowing down data while keeping rates high (in the case of AT&T),
facial recognition breaches (Google and Facebook) or even leading
to foreclosure on houses due to faulty mortgage practices (Wells
Fargo).
Many of these cases have lead to class action lawsuits and
proceedings by the Federal Trade Commision (FTC), resulting in a
number of settlements worth millions -- or even billions -- of
dollars that go directly back to consumers. Below is a rundown of
all the current claims you could be eligible for, and steps
concerning how to recoup any money you may be owed.
AT&T
Total settlement: $60 million.
Deadline to file claim: May 18, 2023.
Requirements: Must have been an unlimited data customer between
Oct. 1, 2011 and June 30, 2015.
In 2019, the FTC launched an investigation into the communications
giant alleging "data throttling," meaning the company intentionally
slowed down speeds for unlimited data customers once they reached a
certain amount of data use every billing period, making functions
like browsing and streaming difficult to use. While most eligible
customers have been refunded or received a bill credit as of now,
there's still $7 million to distribute to those that have not been
compensated. If you think you are eligible, you can fill out a
claim on the FTC website.
Wells Fargo
Total settlement: $3.7 billion.
Deadline to file: Undisclosed.
Requirements: Must have been a Wells Fargo client with an active
banking account, mortgage or auto loan between 2011 and 2022.
The banking institution was hit with a huge complaint by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), who went after the
company for "breaking federal consumer protection laws that apply
to financial products." As a result, Wells Fargo settled for a
whopping $3.7 billion settlement -- $1.7 billion going to a victims
fund and $2 billion going back to consumers. The settlement
includes those who received erroneous overdraft fees in their
checking accounts, misapplied payments in their auto loans and even
negligent foreclosure proceedings.
The CFBP said they have been in contact with most bankers affected,
but if you think you are eligible and have not received
communication yet, you can call Wells Fargo at 844-484-5089, Monday
through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET. You may also file a
complaint at consumerfinance.gov.
Apple
Total settlement: $50 million.
Deadline to file: March 6, 2023.
Requirements: Must have purchased a MacBook, MacBook Air or MacBook
Pro between 2015 and 2019 (a unit with a defective butterfly
keyboard) and have proof of repair.
In Apple's case, this settlement came about as the result of a
class action lawsuit in which laptop purchasers said they bought a
device with a malfunctioning keyboard -- one that made character
keys repeat, disappear or "feel sticky" because of a design flaw.
Amounts paid out will vary, up to $395 for anyone who had to
replace more than one keyboard, $125 for a replacement of a single
keyboard and $40 for repairs on a keycap, as GOBankingRates
previously reported. If you were affected, you can file a claim at
this site with your computer's serial number and proof of repairs.
Synchrony Bank
Total settlement: $2.6 million.
Deadline to file: March 30, 2023.
Requirements: Must have received a call from Synchrony Bank
sometime after Oct. 16, 2020 that utilized AI or a prerecorded
message regarding an account that you did not have.
Synchrony is in some hot water for allegedly having made calls to
consumers about accounts they did not have with the bank, and
thereby violated federal telemarketing laws as governed by the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Though the bank doesn't
admit to wrongdoing, they did settle on the $2.6 million amount,
with claimants receiving between $35 and $140 depending on how many
people file by the deadline at this website.
Celsius Drinks
Total settlement: $7.4 million.
Deadline to file: Feb. 12, 2023.
Requirements: Must have purchased a canned Celsius drink or the
brand's drink mix between Jan. 1, 2015 and Nov. 23, 2022.
This class action lawsuit was brought against the energy drink
manufacturer, alleging they have citric acid in their drinks though
the label on the cans promote "no preservatives." In order to file
a claim, you may upload proof of purchase alongside your info to
this website. Payouts are up to $250 for claims with proof; those
without can still get up to $20, per CBS News.
Thinx
Total settlement: $5 million.
Deadline to file: April 12, 2023.
Requirements; Must have purchased a pair of the underwear between
Nov. 12, 2016 and Nov. 28, 2022.
The so-called "period panty" that promoted itself as a "safer and
more sustainable" option for menstrual hygiene was the target of a
class action lawsuit alleging that their products contained
chemicals (like PFAS) that are harmful to both humans and the
environment. The manufacturer agreed to settle for $5 million.
Those who purchased the underwear within the terms noted above can
submit a claim here and opt for a cash refund of up to three pairs
($7 each) or a 35% off voucher for a future purchase up to $150,
per NPR.
Also, if you're a resident of Illinois, you may want to be on the
lookout for any biometric-related class action lawsuits. Illinois
has some serious privacy laws when it comes to the internet
provided under the umbrella of the state's Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA). Facebook recently paid 1.4 million Illinois
residents $397 in 2022 as part of a class action lawsuit for facial
recognition breaches through its "Tag Suggestions" feature, per
CNBC. Google is starting a payout for similar violations in its
"Face Grouping" option -- offering settlements of $200 to $400.
Deadlines to file both of those claims have passed, but more may
yet come. [GN]
AUDIBLE INC: Asks Court to Seal Opposition Brief
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn
Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order approving a procedure for moving to seal Audible, Inc.'s
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification ("Opposition Brief") and the supporting exhibits.
Audible intends to file documents Plaintiffs designated as
"confidential" or "highly confidential" pursuant to the parties'
Protective Order in support of its Opposition Brief. Audible is
still preparing its Opposition Brief and does not have a final
brief or set of documents it intends to file in support. On January
20, 2023, Audible notified Plaintiffs of its intention to file
Plaintiffs' confidential and highly confidential documents, and the
parties agreed on the below procedure.
This procedure is similar to the one the Court approved for
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Class
Certification.
-- Audible files its letter-motion January 26, 2023
to seal and files its Opposition
Brief and all supporting documents
under seal. Any portions Audible
seeks redacted will be highlighted
in yellow:
-- The Plaintiffs file any February 1, 2023
letter-motion to seal their
documents and sends Audible
any highlighted/redacted exhibits:
-- Audible files public and redacted February 2, 2023:
versions of the documents
that Audible and Plaintiffs do not
move to keep under seal.
Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that
allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of
spoken word content.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HLsABe at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
Christopher Bagley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 226-1913
E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com
cbagley@farrin.com
- and -
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Leland Belew, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN,
PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
lbelew@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Buckley, Esq.
Deena Feit, Esq.
Wenbo Zhang, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
1191 Second Avenue, 10th floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 389-4510
E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com
dfeit@fenwick.com
wzhang@fenwick.com
- and -
Kathryn J. Fritz, Esq.
Jedediah Wakefield, Esq.
Nicholas A. Santos, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
E-mail: kfritz@fenwick.com
jwakefield@fenwick.com
nsantos@fenwick.com
AUSTRALIA: Alice Springs Residents Back Class Action v. NT Gov't
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that thousands of Alice Springs residents have
gathered to share grief and anger over years of high property crime
rates, with many voicing support for a class action against the
Northern Territory government.
The meeting was held amid a national focus on a surge in
alcohol-fuelled violence and property crime, with organisers saying
business owners and residents have suffered financial loss and
physical and emotional damage over several years.
Speaking at a packed convention centre, organiser Garth Thompson
said the situation was a result of government "negligence" and
residents "deserve to be compensated for what the government has
put us through".
"I'm more than proud to stand here and say we, as a community of
Alice Springs, are about to sue our government for $1.5 billion in
compensation," the business owner told the crowd.
The compensation estimate is based on the number of rate-payers in
Alice Springs.
The gathering was cut short after just 20 minutes, as a number of
people shouted objections to Mr Thompson's call on the crowd to
contact police for a welfare check if they saw "a group of kids,
whoever they are, during school time".
While many in the room expressed support, some voiced concern about
the tone of the meeting and discussions on social media.
Outside the meeting, one resident used racist language when
speaking to the ABC to describe some of the Aboriginal youth from
the town.
"The little b**** f***ers are gonna start to get belted, if
something doesn't come out of it," the man said.
"They're gonna start getting flogged. And they won't come back
[because] we'll take 'em out to the scrub and leave 'em there."
Central Arrernte man Declan Furber Gillick said comments being made
threatened to "demonise and continue to criminalise young people".
"It was probably one of the most tense public and social
environments that I've ever seen in this town," he told the ABC
after the meeting.
Mixed reaction over class action
Mr Thompson said he had been preparing a class action for a couple
of weeks and had consulted lawyers.
Both the federal and territory governments have promised to
allocate extra money for policing and short-term bottle shop
closures, and both have said they were considering re-imposing
blanket alcohol bans in Indigenous communities.
A snap review of blanket alcohol bans announced by Prime Minister
Anthony Albanese during his trip to the town was due to be
finalised by Feb. 1.
However, Mr Thompson said the control measures put forward by the
government were "sometimes quite disgusting".
"They have the ability to fix these problems . . . but they choose
not to," he said, "instead, we're all affected.
"We're all controlled and we're all put in a place where we're
disadvantaged by their decisions to try [to] fix our problems with
a band-aid and it's wrong."
Christine Burke, a local teacher, said she wanted recognition for
residents who were fed up with crime in the town but did not
support a class action.
"I can't say . . . that I'm here in favour of suing the Northern
Territory government," she said.
"It's really our government, so it'll be our money."
Calls for greater Indigenous voice
Speaking to the ABC after the meeting, Warlpiri elder Robin
Japanangka Granites said Aboriginal people were best-placed to
connect with the young people who were engaging in criminal
behaviour.
"We are the ones who should be talking to the kids, not to white
people, because the kids don't understand their language," he said.
Mr Japanangka Granites said he attended the meeting to show his
"support for the people of Alice Springs".
"It's sad, because it's our kids that are doing it and we need to
support our kids by going and talking to their parents out in
community -- not here in Alice Springs, because Alice Springs is
not their country," he said.
Mr Furber Gillick said he was disappointed Aboriginal elders were
not asked to speak at the meeting.
"Those of us who came here for a community meeting ended up
listening to 20 to 30 minutes of a local business owner essentially
stir up a very emotive narrative centred around the protection of
private property," he said.
Opposition compares class action bid to youth justice settlement
In a statement, the Country Liberal Party's member for Braitling,
Joshua Burgoyne, said he supported Mr Thompson's class action bid,
comparing it to a $35 million settlement reached in 2021 between
the NT government and young people who claimed to have been
mistreated while in youth detention in the NT.
"Alice Springs residents have been victims of crime as a result of
failed NT Labor government policies for the past six years," he
said.
"If youth criminals who were in detention centres are able to
receive $35 million in damages, surely the people of Alice Spring
deserve compensation for failed government policies that have led
to a near doubling of property crime over six years."
The settlement between former youth justice detainees and the NT
government came after two lead applicants launched a class action
in 2016, claiming they were assaulted, abused and falsely
imprisoned while in youth detention facilities in Darwin and Alice
Springs.
Many spoke of excessive force and isolation, frequent and
unnecessary strip searches and lasting trauma. [GN]
AXAR CAPITAL: Titterton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Axar Capital
Management, LP, et al. The case is styled as Lewis Titterton, Adam
Fried,and other similarly situated v. Axar Capital Management, LP,
Andrew Axelrod, David Miller, Joseph M. Redling, Patricia
Wellenbach, Robert B. Hellman Jr., Spencer E. Goldenberg, Stephen
J. Negrotti, Case No. 2023-0095-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., Jan. 27,
2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Axar Capital Management LP -- https://www.axarcapital.com/ -- is an
investment manager focused on value-oriented and opportunistic
investing.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Marie Degnan, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES
PO Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Email: sjenkins@ashby-geddes.com
BISSELL HOMECARE: Tabot Sues Over Defective Cordless Vacuums
------------------------------------------------------------
PEARL TABOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., d/b/a BISSELL
HOMECARE, d/b/a BISSELL, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00377 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 25, 2023) brings this class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States who
purchased defective Bissell vacuum with the following model
numbers: 2551, 2551W, and 25519, referred to as the "Cordless
Multi-Surface Wet Dry Vacuums".
According to the complaint, the Bissell vacuums are widely sold and
mass-marketed consumer vacuums. Unfortunately for consumers, the
Vacuums contain a defect in which they overheat, smoke, and catch
fire, or pose a serious risk of catching fire, during ordinary use
("Fire Defect" or "Defect"). These Vacuums are dangerous and
unsuitable for their intended use, says the suit.
Bissell Homecare, Inc. manufactures household vacuum cleaners and
cleaning products. The Company offers upright vacuums, replacement
bags, filters, carpet deep cleaners, sweepers, steam mops, and bare
floor accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan S. Brown, Esq.
SUSAN BROWN LEGAL SERVICES
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 712-3026
Email: susan@susanbrownlegal.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
737 Bainbridge Street, #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY |
ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
BLACK HORSE: Seyfarth Attorneys Discuss BIPA Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Argentine, Esq., and Paul Yovanic, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, on Jan. 31 disclosed that despite its enactment in 2008, the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act's (BIPA) legal standards
were largely undeveloped until its emergence to the main stage
circa 2017. But with the decisions in Rosenbach v. Six Flags in
2019 (standing) and McDonald v. Symphony in 2022 (workers'
compensation), and the recent $228 million jury verdict against
BNSF Railway in the first-ever BIPA trial, we continue to see the
BIPA landscape take shape. With more than 250 lawsuits filed in
2022 alone, BIPA litigation shows no signs of slowing down. As we
look forward to another busy year of BIPA litigation in 2023,
attorneys on both sides of the 'v.' eagerly await two critical
decisions from the Illinois Supreme Court that could significantly
impact pending and future litigation.
Statute of Limitations - decision to be issued on February 2, 2023
Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (No. 127801) seeks to resolve
the longstanding debate about the appropriate statute of
limitations for BIPA actions. Because the law is silent on the
issue, the defense bar (including in Tims) argues that the one-year
limitations period for privacy actions outlined in 735 ILCS
5/13-201 should apply. On the other hand, plaintiffs argue (like in
Tims) that the five-year "catch-all" limitations period contained
in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 is more appropriate for actions under BIPA.
However, in 2021, the Illinois Appellate Court complicated matters
when it decided that the one-year and five-year limitations periods
applied to different sections of the Act. See, generally, 2021 IL
App (1st) 200563. Specifically, the Appellate Court held that the
one-year period under Section 201 applies to Section 15(c) and
15(d) BIPA claims because those sections involve the "publication"
of biometric data, which is a term explicitly used in Section 201.
Conversely, since the Appellate Court found that Sections 15(a),
(b), and (e) of the BIPA do not involve the publication of an
individual's biometric data, it applied the five-year limitations
period from Section 205 to those sections.
Given the split among limitations and claims by the Appellate
Court, a reversal by the Illinois Supreme Court on any claim could
be significant for both plaintiffs and defendants. For example,
suppose the Supreme Court decides that a blanketed one-year
limitation applies to BIPA claims. In that case, it could
significantly reduce the class size of current class actions and
certainly result in some time-barred lawsuits. However, the
opposite would hold if the Supreme Court decides that a blanketed
five-year limitation applies. Indeed, hundreds of BIPA lawsuits
have been stayed for more than a year as this issue gets resolved,
many with a pending motion to dismiss, raising the statute of
limitations issue. Tims was argued before the court in September
2022, and on Jan. 30, the Illinois Supreme Court announced that a
decision will come down on February 2, 2023.
Claim Accrual
Cothron v. White Castle (No. 128004) will determine whether claims
asserted under 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA accrue only once upon the
initial collection or disclosure of biometric information, or each
time a private entity collects or discloses biometric information.
While currently before the Illinois Supreme Court, the case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Following the district court's rejection of White
Castle's "one time only" accrual theory at summary judgment, the
court found the question close enough to warrant an interlocutory
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). During the appeal, the
plaintiff asked the Seventh Circuit to certify the question to the
Illinois Supreme Court. See 20 F.4th 1156, 1159 (7th Cir. 2021).
The Seventh Circuit obliged and directed the Illinois Supreme Court
to answer the following question: "Do Section 15(b) and 15(d)
claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person's biometric
identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to
a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first
transmission?" Id. at 1167.
Oral argument before the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron occurred
in May 2022. White Castle argued that a first-scan theory is
appropriate because that is when the privacy right is first
invaded, and the loss of control occurs. White Castle also stressed
that the issue of damages is necessarily intertwined with the issue
of accrual and encouraged the court to weigh the consequences of
holding that accrual occurs at each collection. Citing proximity to
the issue before the court, White Castle suggested that the damages
component be analyzed because the only safeguard against future
plaintiffs seeking damages on a "per-scan" model are Due Process
concerns and the possibility that lower courts may not find such
significant awards appropriate. While conceding that Due Process
concerns would likely safeguard against a per-scan damages model,
the plaintiff argued that White Castle's view would obviate the
need for defendants to course correct and would avoid consequences
for existing issues.
Resolution of the claim accrual issue is crucial for BIPA
litigation. If the court decides that a claim accrues upon each
scan without addressing the damages component, penalties for even
the smallest of companies could be astronomical with only a Due
Process argument to rely upon. Indeed, if the court does not
address the damages component of accrual at this juncture, it will
likely result in another round of stays until the issue is decided
on a later appeal. A decision on this matter is expected in the
first quarter of 2023.
For up to date information on these cases, the Seyfarth Shaw
Commercial Consumer Class Action Defense practice group will
provide detailed summaries of the decisions as they are released by
the Illinois Supreme Court.
Compliance Recommendations
Despite these BIPA issues still up in the air, there are a few
basic practices that can already be followed to avoid, or mitigate
exposure under the statute:
1. Maintain a public privacy policy;
2. Permanently destroy biometric information in a timely manner;
3. Provide pre-collection notice;
4. Obtain pre-collection consent;
5. Maintain security measures to safeguard biometric information;
6. Strictly prohibit sales and any other form of profiting from
biometric information, including for any vendors; and
7. Obtain vendor compliance with BIPA.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP is an Amlaw 100 firm with a nationally recognized
class action defense practice group. For information regarding
Seyfarth's Commercial Consumer Class Action Defense practice group,
contact the National Chair, Kristine Argentine, at
kargentine@seyfarth.com. Seyfarth is also a leader in BIPA class
action litigation and routinely counsels clients on compliance and
defense strategies to mitigate exposure from the statute. [GN]
BLOCK.ONE: Reaches New $22-MM Class Settlement With Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that after the
rejection last summer of a proposed $27.5 million settlement of
tokenholders' class action securities fraud claims and an aborted
takeover of the litigation by a different plaintiffs' firm,
blockchain company Block.one has reached a new $22 million deal
with investors - and this one could turn out to provide a template
for future crypto class action settlements.
The new settlement proposal from lead plaintiffs' counsel at Grant
& Eisenhofer would exclude claims by investors who acquired their
tokens in foreign transactions. Only investors who bought tokens on
U.S. crypto exchanges -- including Coinbase, Kraken, Binance.US and
Genesis -- or who otherwise conducted trades in the U.S. are
eligible to receive a share of the proposed $22 million settlement
fund.
That new restriction is intended to assuage the concerns of U.S.
District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who refused last August to approve the
proposed $27.5 million settlement because it did not distinguish
between foreign and domestic transactions in the Block.one EOS and
ERC-20 tokens.
As you know, and as Kaplan discussed in his August ruling, the U.S.
Supreme Court held in 2010's Morrison v. National Australia Bank
Ltd that U.S. securities laws apply only to U.S. transactions.
Block.one's lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardwell relied heavily on
Morrison in the company's motion to dismiss the tokenholders' class
action, which was filed back in November 2020. Block.one, which
also denies that it misled investors about the prospects for its
blockchain when it raised $4 billion in a so-called initial coin
offering in 2017 and 2018, argued in the dismissal motion that
Grant & Eisenhofer failed to establish that any of the lead
plaintiff's tokens were acquired in domestic transactions. (Kaplan
has not ruled on the motion to dismiss.)
Grant & Eisenhofer subsequently offered evidence that the lead
plaintiff, an investor group called Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund
LLC, conducted nearly half of its trades for Block.one tokens on
U.S. crypto exchanges. But when Kaplan refused last year to approve
the originally proposed settlement, the judge said he wasn't
convinced the crypto fund could adequately represent the interests
of domestic investors because it also had a conflicting interest in
recovering money for tokenholders whose claims would otherwise be
barred by Morrison.
Kaplan said in his August decision that the conflict within the
class was structural and that Grant & Eisenhofer hadn't done
anything wrong by agreeing to a deal that would compensate both
categories of claimants. Nevertheless, Selendy Gay Elsberg asked
Kaplan after his August ruling to replace Grant & Eisenhofer and
its client, the crypto fund, as leads in the class action.
Selendy Gay argued that its client, an individual investor, had
suffered nearly all of his losses in trades on the U.S. Kraken
exchange, so, unlike G&E's client, he had no incentive to
compromise the interests of domestic investors to obtain recovery
for non-U.S. traders. (Selendy Gay's initial proposal included
co-counsel from the firm then known as Roche Freedman but that
firm, now known as Freedman Normand Friedland, withdrew from the
case last September.)
Grant & Eisenhofer persuaded Kaplan that the firm and its client --
which had, after all, suffered losses in domestic transactions,
albeit not all of its losses -- was still best positioned to
represent the interests of tokenholders with viable claims.
Selendy Gay's Jordan Goldstein declined to comment when I asked in
an email if his client intends to contest the new proposed
settlement, which must still be approved by Kaplan. Daniel Berger
of Grant & Eisenhofer also declined to comment. G&E had proposed at
$5.5 million fee in the original settlement but did not specify a
fee request in the new deal. The $22 million settlement, if it goes
through, would (to the best of my knowledge) still be the
second-biggest recovery for a class of crypto tokenholders alleging
securities fraud, behind a $25 million settlement by the Tezos
Foundation in 2020.
If Kaplan ends up approving this deal, future crypto defendants and
lead plaintiffs should pay attention to the criteria Grant &
Eisenhofer and Block.one used to define the class in order to
encompass investors with valid claims under Morrison but to exclude
those whose claims would be barred by interpretations of the 2010
decision. (Somehow, there's still gray area when it comes to exotic
securities.)
In his decision rejecting the original deal last year, Kaplan had
suggested that under the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals'
post-Morrison test for domestic transactions, the best way to
distinguish between viable and non-viable crypto trading claims
might be to determine the location of the first computer, or
blockchain node, to verify the token's transfer from one owner to
another. That verification, the judge said, was the moment of
"irrevocable liability" for the token purchase.
But in the new proposed deal, Block.one and the lead plaintiff came
up with several different ways to define domestic transactions. The
most obvious are token trades that took place on U.S. crypto
exchanges. There's also a category that expands on Kaplan's
suggestion, defining EOS and ERC-20 token purchases as domestic
transactions if they were verified by blockchain producers in the
U.S. In addition, the class includes U.S.-located tokenholders who
bought their coins from sellers also located in the U.S.
Morrison, as I've reported several times over the last few years,
has been a big stumbling block for crypto investors, which is just
what many crypto defendants intended. Block.one's new proposed
settlement is obviously smaller than its original deal. But if it
provides a framework for defining valid crypto claims under
Morrison, it's still an important accomplishment for investors.
[GN]
BUFFALO, NY: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Flouride in Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imani Clement, writing for WKBW, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against the city of Buffalo in regard to the
lack of fluoride in the city's water. For nearly a decade, Buffalo
Water customers have not had fluoride in their drinking water.
The lawsuit, filed by Buffalo residents, including Abdukadir
Abdullahi, Melissa Mosko, and Robert Galbraith, named not only the
city of Buffalo, but Mayor Byron Brown, and the city's water board
chairman, Oluwole McFoy, as having deprived "Buffalo's Residents of
therapeutic fluoridated drinking water."
The lawsuit additionally calls for the fluoridation of the water to
immediately resume and for all the previously named defendants to
be held responsible for damages to "plaintiffs, their families, and
hundreds of thousands of other Buffalonians."
One of the plaintiffs, Abdullahi, is the father of six children,
ages 9 to 16. Abdullahi and two of his teenage children have been
"diagnosed with cavities as a result of Buffalo's failure to
provide a healthful environment with fluoridated public water."
Abdullahi does not have dental insurance and has claimed to have
been forced to pay out of pocket for dental issues that arise
regarding him or his children.
Plaintiffs Melissa Mosko and Robert Galbraith, spouses, own a home
on the East Side of Buffalo where they live with their 4-year-old
son. The complaint states that the family has "relied and continue
to rely on Buffalo's water supply as their drinking water," and
that they "have been and continue to be harmed by defendants
failing to resume the fluoridation of Buffalo's drinking water."
At the end of a 55-page complaint filed by the plaintiffs and their
attorneys, the following was requested as an award from the Erie
County Supreme Court:
Certify the plaintiff's claim as a class action
Declare that the defendants have and are continuing to violate the
plaintiff's constitutional rights by depriving Buffalo residents of
fluoridated drinking water.
Immediate resumption of fluoridation of Buffalo's drinking water
Orders the defendants to provide free preventative treatment dental
clinics to Buffalo residents that experienced cavities, diseases,
and other complications that are preventable through public water
fluoridation.
Award actual damages and interest at the legal rate.
Award plaintiff's costs, attorney's fees, and disbursements
In the complaint, damages are believed to exceed $160 million
dollars, a payment the plaintiffs expect to be paid out by the
defendants. [GN]
BUFFALO, NY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by March 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as
Trustee of American Homeowner Preservation Trust series 2015A+ v.
City of Buffalo, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00249 (W.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Jeremiah J. Mccarthy entered an order granting motion
for extension of time to file motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
filed by no later than March 1, 2023.
-- Such motions shall be made returnable before the Magistrate
Judge.
-- The parties are directed to provide a courtesy copy of all
motion papers to the Court. Upon resolution of plaintiff's
motion for class certification, a conference will be
scheduled to address further proceedings.
The nature of suit states civil rights violation.
Buffalo is the second-largest city in the U.S. state of New York
behind New York City and the seat of Erie County. It lies in
Western New York, at the eastern end of Lake Erie.[CC]
CANADA: Directs DND to Drop Class Action Deadline Extension Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Liberal government has told the
Department of National Defence to drop its appeal of a court ruling
that extends the deadline to submit a claim for a sexual misconduct
class action settlement.
A spokesperson for Defence Minister Anita Anand's office confirmed
that the department had dropped the appeal.
"We will always stand up for Canadian Armed Forces members and
Department of National Defence employees who have experienced
sexual misconduct," the spokesperson said in a statement.
A source, speaking on the condition they not be identified, told
CBC that the Liberal government directed the department to drop the
appeal.
The decision to drop the case was first reported by Global News.
A Federal Court signed off on the $900-million settlement in 2019.
The final date to accept claims was Jan. 23 of last year.
But the court ruled earlier in January that late claims could still
be processed after the deadline if there was a reasonable
explanation for the delay. Late claims would need to be submitted
by Feb. 5, the court said.
The class-action case was initiated by seven former members of the
Armed Forces on behalf of past members and those still serving.
The settlement provides for payments of between $5,000 and $55,000
to victims of sexual misconduct.
More than 20,000 people have come forward with claims so far,
according to the class action website.
Victims who experienced exceptional harm and were denied Veterans
Affairs benefits could be eligible for up to $155,000.
The federal government did not admit liability in the case.[GN]
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in N.D. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D. by and through his
parents and co-guardians M.D. and T.D., on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated, v. CHRIS REYKDAL, in his capacity as the
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and OFFICE OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, a Washington State agency, et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Lauren King
Judge Lauren King entered a Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling
order regarding class certification motion as follows:
Deadline to complete discovery on April 10, 2023
class certification (not to be
construed as a bifurcation of discovery)
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file May 10, 2023
motion for class certification (noted
on the fourth Friday after filing and
service of the motion pursuant to
LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to
different times for filing the response
and reply memoranda).
The Court has considered the parties' positions regarding
bifurcation and will not bifurcation based on the information and
arguments available to it at this stage. However, this decision is
without prejudice to either party filing an appropriate motion to
14 the scheduling order.
The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion
for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the
court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek
class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wFvgtY at no extra charge.[CC]
CIRCLE K: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered in Neely
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NEELY v. CIRCLE K
STORES, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02556-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Mac R. McCoy entered a case management and scheduling order
as follows:
-- Motions to Add or Join Parties March 23, 2023
or to Amend Pleadings:
-- Rule 26(a)(2) Expert
Disclosures
Plaintiff: June 13, 2023
Defendant: July 13, 2023
Rebuttal: Aug. 14, 2023
-- Discovery and Motions to Sept. 13, 2023
Compel Discovery:
-- Motions for Class Sept. 13, 2023
Certification
(if applicable)
-- Mediation: Sept. 27, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WRg084 at no extra charge.[CC]
COCLICO INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coclico, Inc. The
case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Coclico, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00614
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Coclico -- https://coclico.com/ -- makes beautiful shoes, clogs,
heels and boots produced in limited quantities. Made with love in
Spain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CORIZON HEALTH: Morrelli, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE MORRELLI, JOSE
ROJAS, JANICE ANDRES, SANDRA CRUZ-PEREZ, VICTORIA MARTINEZ,
VERONICA VIZCARRA, and LAURA PADILLA, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
1:18-cv-01395-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on March 15,2023 for an order certifying the action as a
a class action under Federal Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and (b)
The Plaintiffs propose the following class definitions:
"All registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, or other
similarly situated non-exempt health care employees who
worked in Tulare and Fresno counties at time between July 3 ,
2013 through July 1, 2018;"
"All registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, or other
similarly situated non-exempt health care employees who
worked in Tulare and Fresno counties at time between July
3,2013 through July 1, 2018, and who were subject to the
the Defendant, and each of their, altemative workweek
schedule;"
"All registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, or other
similarly situated non-exempt health care employees who
worked in Tulare and Fresno counties at time between July 3,
2013 through July 1, 2018, and who were paid wages for work
performed on Shift 1 and on Shift 2;"
"All registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, or other
similarly situated exempt health care employees who worked in
Tulare and Fresno counties at time between July 3,2013
through July 1, 2018, and who were paid a meal premium by the
Defendants, and each of them;" and
"All registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, or other
similarly situated non-exempt health care employees who
worked in Tulare and Fresno counties at any time between July
3, 2013 through July 1, 2018 and who the Defendant scheduled
to work fewer hours than required by the alternative workweek
agreement."
Corizon Health formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately
held prison healthcare contractor in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RvXGA1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELTA EXPRESS: McCoy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Express
Delivery, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lamont McCoy, Kureen
Cook, Robert Harris, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public as private
attorneys general v. Delta Express Delivery, Inc., Pinder Sangha,
Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00333791-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 27, 2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Delta Express Delivery -- https://www.deltaexpressdelivery.com/ --
is one of the most international company in the world and can offer
solutions for an almost infinite number of logistics needs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS
350 S. Grand Ave., No. 3350
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (888) 979-9356
Fax: (213) 927-3701
Email: ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com
DIRECTBUY HOME: Class Cert Pretrial & Trial Dates Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO BORJA RODRIGUEZ, v.
DIRECTBUY HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC. et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-09226-SB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld
Jr. entered an order setting class certification pretrial and trial
dates as follows:
-- Jury Trial: January 22, 2024
-- Pretrial Conference: January 5, 2024
-- Motion to Amend Pleadings/ March 31, 2023
Add Parties:
-- Class Certification
Motion for Class Certification: June 16, 2023
-- Opposition to Motion for June 23, 2023
Class Certification
-- Reply Brief in Support June 30, 2023
of Class Certification:
-- Motion for Class Certification July 14, 2023
Hearing:
-- Discovery Deadline (Nonexpert): September 1, 2023
-- Discovery Deadline (Expert) September 29, 2023
DirectBuy Home provides home improvement products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JoZhFX at no extra charge.[CC]
DOOLEY ELECTRIC: Tremont Electric Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dooley Electric
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tremont Electric Co.,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
with regard to that certain construction project located in New
York City v. Dooley Electric Company, Inc., Case No. 650563/2023
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Jan. 27, 2023).
Dooley Electric -- http://dooleyelectric.com/-- has been at the
forefront of electrical design and installation with over 95 years
of experience in the New York City market.[BN]
ENOVIX CORPORATION: Rosin Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ROSIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENOVIX CORPORATION, HARROLD RUST, STEFFEN
PIETZKE, CAMERON DALES, and THURMAN J. RODGERS, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00372 (N.D. Cal., January 25, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements about Enovix's business operations with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to trade Enovix
common stock at artificially inflated prices from February 22,
2021, through January 3, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Enovix's revenues and ability to manufacture
its proprietary battery technology.
When the truth emerged, Enovix fell from a close of $18.87 per
share on October 31, 2022, to $10.53 per share by the close of
trading on November 2, 2022, a 44% decline. Enovix's share price
continued to drop 41% from a close of $12.12 per share on January
3, 2023 to a close of $7.15 on January 4, 2023. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of Enovix's securities, the Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the suit.
Enovix Corporation is a manufacturer of silicon-anode lithium-ion
batteries, with its principal place of business in Fremont,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8494
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Woodall Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELANDER WOODALL, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGREEN PACKAGING LLC; and PACTIV
EVERGREEN INC, Defendants, Case No. No. 1:23-cv-459 (N.D. Il., Jan.
25, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Woodall was employed by the Defendants as production
worker.
EVERGREEN PACKAGING INC. provides beverage packaging solutions. The
Company offers cartons and packaging products for liquid beverages,
juices, dairy products, dry foods, cereals, and liquid eggs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
FEDERAL INSURANCE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Wesco
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wesco Insurance Company v.
Federal Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-02840-PGG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and
in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices
in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for such an application arises and must comply with Local
Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's
Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences are not required, but may be requested where
counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
Wesco Insurance operates as an insurance company.
Federal Insurance Company provides insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40hKi6N at no extra charge.[CC]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Settles Jeep Owners' "Death Wobble" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Teague, writing for Autoblog, reports that Jeep owners are
among the most loyal and rabid fans of any vehicle brand out there.
The number of Jeep-related events, accessories, and media entities
is staggering. All that Jeep positivity is impressive, but there's
one significant problem that unites the brand's owners like no
other: "Death Wobble." The issue became so widespread that owners
banded together on a class action suit, and we recently learned the
case's outcome.
As part of its settlement, FCA, Stellantis' U.S. division and
Jeep's owner, will offer some owners warranty extensions and could
reimburse owners for expenses already incurred related to the
problem. The new eight-year/90,000-mile warranty covers replacement
parts and labor related to a failed front suspension damper. "Death
wobble" occurs at highway speeds. When the driver hits a bump, the
vehicle's steering wheel, wheels and tires, and suspension can
vibrate or shake. From the driver's seat, it feels like a temporary
loss of control, and outside the vehicle, the shaking wheels can
look quite dramatic.
The suite has been working its way through the courts for years.
First filed in 2019, the case still needs to pass a fairness
hearing in April before being finalized. FCA has always maintained
that the issue is not a safety concern, but many disagree. Some
reports of the issue go back even further, causing congresspeople
to draft a letter to then-CEO Sergio Marchionne and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2012.
"Death wobble," primarily associated with the Jeep Wrangler and
Gladiator, can apparently happen in any vehicle with a solid front
axle. FCA's former chief technical compliance officer compared the
issue to the resonance that builds after striking a tuning fork, as
the suspension and components tend to vibrate back and forth when
the wobble strikes.
We don't know how much the class action will cost FCA, but a case
update in 2020 noted 192,000 affected Jeep owners. Given that Jeep
sold more than that in Wranglers alone during 2018, 2019, and 2020,
the number of owners may grow before the dust settles. [GN]
FIVE BELOW INC: Hicks Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chris Hicks, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Five Below, Inc., Case No. 22STCV38125 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 27, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00638 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Five Below Inc. -- https://www.fivebelow.com/ -- is an American
chain of specialty discount stores that sells products that are
less than $5, plus a small assortment of products from $6 to
$25.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 239-3400
Fax: (424) 239-3434
Email: Harrison.Brown@blankrome.com
GAP INC: Black Files Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Gap, Inc. The
case is styled as Edward Black, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00388-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The Gap, Inc. -- https://www.gapinc.com/en-us/ -- commonly known as
Gap Inc. or Gap, is an American worldwide clothing and accessories
retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 766-3534
Email: AZohrabian@hedinhall.com
- and -
Arun Ravindran
Frank S. Hedin
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 203-4573
Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com
fhedin@hedinhall.com
GEICO GENERAL: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by Feb. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND WILLIAMS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS
INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:19-cv-05823-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order extending the deadline to
submit joint status report to February 21, 2023.
On July 29, 2021, this Court entered an Order staying this matter
and ordering the Parties to provide the Court with a joint written
status report and proposed case schedule within ten days after the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Lundquist v.
First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 21-35126 (9th Cir. 2021).
On February 11, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in Lara
affirming Judge Bryan's denial of class certification in Lundquist
v. First Nat'l Insurance Co. of Am., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB.
On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs-appellants in Lara petitioned for
rehearing and ehearing en banc. Lara.
On May 10, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lara.
On June 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Lara.
Accordingly, the deadline for the Parties to submit their joint
status report was initially June 17, 2022.
Geico General operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kHxshK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
John M. DeStefano, Esq.
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
The Defendants are represented by:
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
Brian J. Hembd, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1850 N Central Ave., Suite1400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
- and -
Vanessa S. Power, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
- and -
Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 583-8888
Facsimile: (206) 583-8500
E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
Jason R. Burt, Esq.
Steven J. Pacini, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com
jason.burt@lw.com
steven.pacini@lw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Indicative Ruling on Scope of Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for
an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
60(a) and 62.1 that:
-- upon an order by the Ninth Circuit granting limited
remand, the Court will amend its order granting Google's
motion for summary judgment to make clear that the
Summary Judgment Order and Judgment resolve Counts 1, 6,
10, 10 12, 15, and 16 of Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint.
-- In the alternative, Google requests that the Court issue
an order that Google's motion raises a "substantial
issue" that the Court will decide upon limited remand
from the Ninth Circuit.
On September 18, 2020, before the parties briefed Google's first
motion to dismiss in this case, the district court took the unusual
step of asking the parties to jointly select ten causes of action
to litigate through trial.
Judge Koh ruled that the district court and the parties would
consider how to deal with the remaining six causes of action (the
"Dormant Claims") after trial. As a result, the Dormant Claims have
not yet been litigated.
Judge Koh was subsequently elevated to the Ninth Circuit and the
case was reassigned to this Court. On December 12, 2022, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of Google on the basis of the
Plaintiffs' express consent to the challenged data collection,
dismissed all six remaining causes of action that survived Google's
motion to dismiss, and entered judgment closing the case.
Indeed, the Summary Judgment Order dismissed the Plaintiffs'
wiretapping claims under CIPA on the basis of consent; that
reasoning applies with equal force to Plaintiffs' wiretapping claim
under the federal Wiretap Act.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing
on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing,
computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial
intelligence, and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40kMk5U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
Teuta Fani, Esq.
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
Alyssa G. Olson, Esq.
Maria Hayrapetian, Esq.
Diane M. Doolittle, Esq.
Sara Jenkins, Esq.
Josef Ansorge, Esq.
Xi ("Tracy") Gao, Esq.
Carl Spilly, Esq.
Jomaire A. Crawford, Esq.
Jonathan Tse, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
teutafani@quinnemanuel.com
stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
alyolson@quinnemanuel.com
mariehayrapetian@quinnemanuel.com
dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com
sarajenkins@quinnemanuel.com
josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com
tracygao@quinnemanuel.com
carlspilly@quinnemanuel.com
jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com
jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com
HAPPY GROUP: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Amended in Rusoff Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al. v.
THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-08084-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
granting the plaintiffs' administrative motion to amend class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff Feb. 28, 2023 Apr. 11, 2023
Motion for Class Feb. 28, 2023 Apr. 11, 2023
Certification and
associated Expert Reports
Opposition and expert Apr. 28, 2023 Jun. 9, 2023
reports
Reply and rebuttal reports Jun. 9, 2023 Jul. 21, 2023
Hearing on the Motion for Jul. 18, 2023 Aug. 29, 2023
Class Certification
Happy Group is a mobile application development company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WUwrk3 at no extra charge.[CC]
HIGGINS CRAB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CASSIDY WARD; AVERY DAWSON; TAYLOR HYDE; BENJAMIN LUST; and MELANIE
MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HIGGINS CRAB COMPANY LLC (d/b/a Higgins Crab House;
and ROBERT HIGGINS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00207-MJM (D. Md., Jan. 25,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, unlawful retention of tips,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
HIGGINS CRAB COMPANY LLC operates two restaurants and bars under
the name Higgins Crab House. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 251-3752
Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
-and -
Jordan S. Liew, Esq.
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 251-3752
Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Stellato Sues Over Tuition Fee Adjustments
--------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL STELLATO; HANNAH BUCKLEY; REBEKAH COHEN; IMANI SCHULTERS;
MIAH LATVALA; MIKAYLA FALLON, and MATTHEW MIGLIORE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 601435/2023 (N.Y. Sup.,
Nassau Cty., Jan. 25, 2023) seeks a fair adjustment of the tuition
and fees that the Defendant retains despite the termination of
in-person instruction, and the loss of related access, benefits,
and services less than halfway into the Spring 2020 semester due to
Hofstra University's response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19") pandemic.
According to the complaint the Plaintiffs and Class members upheld
their end of the bargain, collectively paying the Defendant
millions of dollars in tuition and fees. However, just 42 days into
the Spring 2020 semester, the Defendant began denying the
Plaintiffs and Class members the on-campus instruction, educational
services and campus resources for which they had contracted.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class did not receive the full
semester's worth of inperson classes and on-campus services for
which they bargained. The Plaintiffs and the Class therefore seek
damages in the form of proportionate tuition and fee refunds for
the period during which they were denied in-person instruction and
access to campus facilities, resources, and services, says the
suit.
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY offers degrees in both undergraduate and
graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs including
undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as
Graduate degree programs in accounting and biology. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
- and -
Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 752-5455
Email: nathant@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steven W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (202) 623-7292
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Email: enoteware@bm.net
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
HOMEADVISOR INC: HA Defendants' Bid for Sanctions Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maura R. Grossman of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado issued her Master's Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part the HA Defendants' Motion for
Sanctions in the lawsuit entitled In re HOMEADVISOR, INC.
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM, Consolidated with Civil
Action No. 18-cv-01802-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.).
On April 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order Appointing Master for
Discovery for the purpose of managing and supervising discovery and
resolving discovery disputes until further order of the Court.
Judge Grossman says it would be an understatement to say that
discovery was contentious and protracted in this matter;
merits-related discovery--with its many accompanying
disputes--began in May 2017 and continued unabated until fact
discovery finally closed on June 30, 2021.
The present dispute--a motion for sanctions brought by HomeAdvisor,
Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, Angi Homeservices, Inc., and CraftJack
Inc. (the "HA Defendants")--has a long and tortured history, which
is detailed at length in the Master's Memorandum Opinion and Order
on (i) the Parties' Joint Motion for Clarification of the Meaning
of Paragraph 6 of the Protective Order and a Determination of
Whether or Not Plaintiffs Have Violated That Provision, and (ii)
the HomeAdvisor Defendants' Motion to Compel Supplementation of
Their Requests for Production Nos. 11, 12, 30, 31, and 32 (the
"MOO"). The MOO was affirmed and adopted in full in the Court's
Order of June 15, 2022 (the "June 15, 2022 Court Order").
The Master made extensive efforts during the Summer of 2022 to
negotiate an informal resolution of this dispute with the parties.
Unfortunately, as anticipated, the efforts to resolve it informally
proved unsuccessful.
This asserted class action was initiated in July 2016 on behalf of
Home Service Professionals ("HSPs") who purchased HomeAdvisor
memberships and related services and products beginning on Oct. 1,
2012. The operative complaint is the Consolidated Third Amended
Class Action Complaint ("TAC"), filed on June 23, 2021, following
the Court's Order granting leave to file same.
The Plaintiffs assert, among other things, that they were deceived
by fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions concerning
HomeAdvisor membership conditions and service requests (a/k/a
"leads"), and were subjected to oppressive business practices at
the hands of HomeAdvisor, as well as certain other Defendants and
non-parties, some of whom have since been dismissed (Sept. 26, 2022
Order, dismissing Defendants C. Venture Management, LLC and
VentureStreet LLC).
In a nutshell, HomeAdvisor is an online marketplace that matches
HSPs with consumers (i.e., homeowners) who are actively in search
of home services. Whereas the matching service is free for
homeowners, HomeAdvisor generates revenue from the fees paid by
HSPs for memberships and leads. The Plaintiffs claim that the leads
are not properly verified, are not from "qualified," "serious,"
"project-ready" homeowners, and are largely "bogus."
The HA Defendants' Motion for Sanctions was borne of the MOO, which
granted the HA Defendants' Motion to Compel certain additional
discovery concerning the Plaintiffs' contacts with the Federal
Trade Commission ("FTC")--after months and months of wrangling, and
in spite of representations made by the Plaintiffs that turned out
to be neither justified nor accurate--contacts which the HA
Defendants allege were improper and in violation of the Protective
Order (the "PO") entered in this matter
The HA Defendants now return to the Master with what they believe
to be clear evidence of the Plaintiffs' misconduct--to their
detriment--including a flagrant violation of the PO, and are
seeking appropriate relief.
In the HA Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, they seek the following
relief in response to the Plaintiffs' alleged misconduct: (1)
pursuant to the Master's inherent authority, a full accounting of
the Plaintiffs' improper communications with the FTC; (2) pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1927, and the Master's inherent authority, the Plaintiffs'
counsel (a) should be held in contempt; (b) pay a $100,000 sanction
to the Clerk of Court; and (c) at a minimum pay the Defendants'
fees and costs in connection with this dispute; (3) pursuant to
Rule 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), the Plaintiffs should be precluded
from citing or otherwise relying on any FTC-related discovery
produced in this action; and (4) the Defendants submit that they
should not have to bear any costs associated with this dispute.
The Plaintiffs respond that the HA Defendants have failed to
demonstrate a violation of the PO and can only conjure up
speculative harm and prejudice that they claim to have suffered as
a result of the Plaintiffs' conduct. They also claim, among other
things, that they did not commit any sanctionable discovery
misconduct because they lodged proper objections and consistently
informed the HA Defendants they were withholding responsive
documents for a variety of reasons, including work
product/privilege.
The Master finds that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Responses and
Objections (R&Os) to RFPs 11, 12, 30, 31, and 32 were disingenuous,
improper, and invalid at the time they were made, and the
FTC-related communications and documents should have been timely
produced without the need for a court order. The Plaintiffs have
also not supplied the HA Defendants or the Master with any evidence
to support their claim that they had a common-interest
understanding or agreement with the FTC.
The Master also finds, that the Plaintiffs failed to log any of the
withheld responsive communications with the FTC on a privilege log
on the basis of a common-interest privilege or otherwise (e.g., as
work product).
The HA Defendants would like to conduct further discovery into the
Plaintiffs' communications with the FTC because they believe that
more information exists but has not been produced. The Master does
not see any need for additional discovery into the issues raised in
the HA Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. Accordingly, this relief
is denied.
The HA Defendants urge the Master to hold the Plaintiffs in
contempt--under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A), and/or
its inherent authority--for their repeated violations of the PO and
because they willfully breached their duty to supplement by
repeatedly and falsely claiming that these responsive documents did
not exist.
The Master holds that the Order Appointing Master for Discovery
does not permit the Master to impose this particular sanction; she
would have to recommend it to the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
this relief is denied.
The HA Defendants also ask the Master to order that the Plaintiffs
pay a $100,000 sanction to the Clerk of Court, again under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A), and/or its inherent authority.
As a threshold matter, significant damage has not been inflicted on
the Court--as distinguished from the Master, who has been amply
compensated for her time dealing with this dispute, so is not
damaged at all--at least not yet. Thus far, the Court has only had
to address the Plaintiffs' motion for a stay pending appeal, and
the appeal of the MOO, so the Court has not yet suffered any
significant injury that requires recompense--no less one to the
tune of $100,000. Accordingly, this relief is denied.
The HA Defendants seek reimbursement of their costs, including
attorney's fees, for the Plaintiffs' many Protective Order
violations. Judge Grossman finds that there is ample basis to award
at least a significant portion of the HA Defendants' attorney's
fees and costs related to this dispute under the facts and
circumstances in this case. Accordingly, the relief of attorney's
fees and costs is granted. These fees and costs will be awarded
against the Plaintiffs' counsel only, with the precise amount to be
determined at a later date.
The HA Defendants ask the Master to bar the Plaintiffs from citing
or otherwise relying on any FTC-related discovery the HA Defendants
produced in this action. The Master disagrees with the HA
Defendants and agrees with the Plaintiffs that the exclusion of
evidence is a drastic sanction not warranted or proper under these
circumstances. Accordingly, this relief is denied.
The HA Defendants believe that they should not have to bear any of
the Master's costs associated with this dispute. The Master has
tracked the time devoted to this dispute separately on her time
sheets and has provided that information to counsel each month
along with her monthly invoice. Hence, this relief is granted.
In sum, the Master says she has worked with counsel for the parties
closely over a period of five years and has come to like and
respect them. She has--at all times--tried to give the benefit of
doubt when counsel for one party has accused counsel for the other
of dishonesty or misconduct, a not infrequent occurrence in this
litigation. As Sigmund Freud is claimed to have once said,
"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." With respect to some of the
parties' disputes, that has been the case: a misunderstanding or an
error turned out to be just that, and nothing more. But
regrettably, this is not one of those cases.
The Master tried to resolve this dispute informally when the odds
of success were low and it has taken a long time to commit this
decision to writing because, frankly, it is unpleasant and painful
to have to sanction counsel. This decision has not been made
lightly and without awareness of the ramifications of a sanction
such as this, including on counsel's reputation. But viewing the
facts as a whole, there is simply no plausible justification for
the Plaintiff's counsel's conduct with respect to their handling of
information received from the HA Defendants designated as
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential," their sustained use of
that information to aid the FTC in prosecuting HomeAdvisor, and
their responses to discovery requests directly implicating those
documents and communications with the FTC.
The Master can reach no other conclusion than that:
(1) the Plaintiffs' counsel engaged in discovery misconduct in
violation of Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(e) and 26(g), respectively, by
(a) failing to supplement their responses in a timely manner to
RFPS 11, 12, 30, 31, and 32 when they learned that in some material
resect the response was incomplete or incorrect and they had many
opportunities to do so, and (b) by maintaining objectively
unreasonable objections of vagueness and burden, and objectively
unreasonable claims of work-product and common-interest privilege,
pertaining to a set of known communications and documents that the
Plaintiffs' counsel received and shared with the FTC;
(2) the Plaintiffs' counsel made repeated obfuscatory
misstatements to opposing counsel and to the Master--whether
intentional or otherwise--which, at the very least, show a reckless
disregard for their duty of candor to opposing counsel and the
Court, since, again, they had more than ample opportunity to
correct their misstatements and continued to try to justify them
either by blaming everyone but themselves or by continuing to
insist on both objectively unreasonable objections and an
objectively unreasonable interpretation of the PO; and
(3) the Plaintiffs' counsel willfully violated a court order
and Master's warning concerning the use of information received
from the HA Defendants labeled "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential," over an extended period of time. It is on this basis
that the HA Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is granted in part and
denied in part.
First, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2) and 37(b)(2)(C), the
Plaintiffs' counsel will be responsible for paying a reasonable
proportion of the HA Defendants' attorneys' fees and costs
litigating the disputes related to the Plaintiffs' contacts with
the FTC and their violations of the PO. The precise amount to be
awarded will be determined by the Master at a later date following
a proper fee submission by the HA Defendants and the Plaintiffs
counsel's opportunity to challenge that.
Second, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section
1927, the Plaintiff's counsel will be responsible for paying a
reasonable proportion of the HA Defendants' attorney's fees and
costs litigating the disputes related to the Plaintiffs' discovery
violations in relation to RFPs 11, 12, 30, 31, and 32. The precise
amount to be paid will be determined by the Master at a later date
following a proper fee submission by the HA Defendants and the
Plaintiff counsel's opportunity to challenge that.
Third, pursuant to and the Order Appointing Master, the Plaintiffs'
counsel will be responsible for repaying the HA Defendants'
$50,392.50 for their portion of the Master's fees devoted to
dealing with the above disputes, starting from the time the Master
announced her initial findings related to the HA Defendants'
motions related to the FTC communications and supplementation of
RFPs 11, 12, 30, 31, and 32 on May 21, 2022--and when she first
warned the Plaintiffs' counsel that if they insisted on prolonging
this dispute, that they could find themselves responsible for
paying the Master's fees--through Dec. 31, 2022. The amount of the
Master's fees to be reallocated beyond this amount (i.e., those
incurred from Jan. 1, 2023 on) will depend, in part, on what
follows this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and will be determined
by the Master at a later date.
Within 21 days of this Order, the Plaintiffs will remit payment of
$50,392.50 to the HA Defendants, and the HA Defendants will make a
petition to the Master for fees and costs that they believe are
reasonable in amount and fairly attributed to the Plaintiffs'
Counsel's sanctionable conduct as set forth.
Within 21 days of the filing of the HA Defendants' fee submission,
the Plaintiffs' counsel may file an objection to the fees and costs
sought.
This Order will not be stayed pending any appeal of it unless the
Court grants a stay upon application by either one or both of the
parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/s79aap2z from
Leagle.com.
HSBC BANK: Ni Case Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, on behalf of
herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring case to Magistrate Judge
Parker for the following purpose:
-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-
dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement); and
-- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Motion to certify
class, if any.
HSBC Bank is a bank with its operational head office in New York
City and its nominal head office in McLean, Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DuNUZk at no extra charge.[CC]
HUNT MILITARY: Class Settlement in Skinner Gets Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALTON SKINNER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v.
HUNT MILITARY COMMUNITIES MGMT LLC, HUNT MH SHARED SERVICES, LLC,
HUNT MILITARY COMMUNITIES MGMT., INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00799-JKP
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jason Pulliam entered an order granting
the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.
Accordingly, the class is certified for settlement purposes and
plaintiff's counsel is appointed as class counsel. The settlement
agreement is preliminarily approved, but it is subject to a
fairness hearing, which shall be held on April 4,
2023 at 1:30 p.m.
The Plaintiff Skinner worked for Hunt Military, a real estate
services company that provides housing and property management
services to military personnel and their families residing on
military installations across the United States, as an hourly-paid
employee.
He alleges that he and other hourly-paid employees were denied pay
because Hunt did not include in their overtime pay the extra pay
for the on-call hours that the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees were engaged to wait for maintenance calls to come in.
Skinner alleges Hunt's actions violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), and related
state wage laws.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3js8a6W at no extra charge.[CC]
INLAND FLEXO: Hoffman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Hoffman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. INLAND FLEXO, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00103 (E.D. Wis.,
Jan. 27, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws ("WWPCL"), for purposes of obtaining relief under
the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
straight time (regular) and/or 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 Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by:
shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's
and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets
for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work performed, to
the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in
violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms
of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.
The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including
but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional,
willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and
state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee working primarily at the Defendant's "Inland
Packaging" location April 2020.
The Defendant is a labeling manufacturer.[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
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
INVITING HOME INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inviting Home Inc.
case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Inviting Home Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00694-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Inviting Home -- https://www.invitinghome.com/ -- offers home
furniture, home lighting, and architectural products for home decor
and home improvement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
J TRANSPORT: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Samaniego Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CAIVINAGUA SAMANIEGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J TRANSPORT LLC and JEYSON
YNOA SANTANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00650 (S.D.N.Y., January
25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure to
comply with wage notice requirements, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and failure to pay in full immediately after
termination of employment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from
March 31, 2022 until July 20, 2022.
J Transport LLC is a transportation company located in Danbury,
Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, PA
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
J.N. GLASS & MIRROR: Delgado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
--------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Delgado, Iram Guerro Delgado and Alfredo Contreras Zepeda
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
J.N. GLASS & MIRROR, LLC, and JULIO ADAN NAJERA GAMEZ, Case No.
1:23-cv-00090 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought seeking
damages in the form of back pay, overtime premium, minimum wage,
and attorney's fees and costs as a result of the Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas common law.
The Defendants have devised and implemented a business plan that
allows them to gain an unfair advantage against their competitors.
Specifically, these Defendants do not pay overtime, do not pay
their employees on time, and sometimes do not pay them at all. The
Defendants failed to pay each worker timely and, as of the date of
the filing of this lawsuit, have not paid the Plaintiffs or
similarly situated employees their full wage. The Defendants failed
to pay each worker overtime at one- and one-half times the hourly
rate for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants for the last three years.
The Defendants hired individuals to install and service glass and
windows.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Phone: 713-868-3388
Facsimile: 713-683-9940
Email: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
JACOB RIEGER & COMPANY: Peterson Sues Over Unpaid Tips and Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Peterson, on behalf of herself and as putative
representative of a Collective and a Class of persons similarly
situated v. JACOB RIEGER & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00057-JAM
(W.D. Mo., Jan. 26, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid tips and
wages and related penalties and damages against the Defendant's
policy and practice of retaining tips received by its employees in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, including
servers and bartenders, were paid on an hourly rate plus tips.
Employees, like Plaintiff, who received tips were required to give
those tips to Defendant. Defendant kept a portion of all tips
received by its tipped employees for the purpose of using them to
supplement the wages of supervisors, managers, and non-tipped
employees such as line cooks and dishwashers. Defendant also kept
all tips received by its employees while employed as "trainees" for
the purpose of using them to pay other employees.
Specifically, Defendant utilizes a 5-tiered system where it
distributes a percentage of each tipped employee's tips to
managers, supervisors, and non-tipped employees such as line cooks
and dishwashers. In addition, employees employed as "trainees" were
required to pay into this tip pool, but did not receive tips from
it.
This practice directly violates the statute in two ways: it
violates the prohibition of an employer retaining employee tips
"for any purposes," and it violates the prohibition of an employer
"allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees'
tips." The Defendant's policy and practice of retaining tips also
unjustly enriched the Defendant by saving Defendant money in
payroll costs, increasing profits, and undercutting competitors, at
the expense of Defendant's tipped employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server.
The Defendant is a distillery, entertainment and restaurant complex
located in Kansas City's West Bottoms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
HODES LAW FIRM, LLC
6 Victory Lane, Suite 6
Liberty, MO 64068
Phone: (816) 222-4338
Fax: (816) 931-1718
Email: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
214 S. Spring Street
Independence, MO 64050
Phone: (816) 974-7220
Fax: (855) 974-7020
Email: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
JONATHAN SIMKHAI: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jonathan Simkhai,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Jonathan Simkhai, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00552 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jonathan Simkhai -- https://jonathansimkhai.com/ -- is a brand
providing luxury ready-to-wear for the modern woman.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KANSAS CITY, MO: Scheduling & Trial Order Entered in Jimenez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAAC JIMENEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. CITY OF
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:22-cv-00780-RK (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an scheduling and trial
order jury trial as follows:
-- Joinder of Parties: March 17, 2023
-- Amendment of Pleadings: March 17, 2023
-- Plaintiff Expert Designation: May 5, 2023
-- Defendant Expert Designation: June 2, 2023
-- Rebuttal Expert Designation: June 16, 2023
-- Discovery Dispute Motions: May 15, 2023
-- Daubert motion deadline: July 21, 2023
-- Plaintiff’s motion for August 11, 2023
conditional collective
action certification and
class certification:
-- Court Status Conference Date: June 6, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLcSQs at no extra charge.[CC]
KEETSA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keetsa, Inc. The case
is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Keetsa, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00557
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Keetsa, Inc. -- https://www.keetsa.com/ -- offers the best value
bed-in-a-box bed sets & mattresses for better sleep.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
KEVIN COPPINGER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Lucero Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL LUCERO, et al., v.
KEVIN COPPINGER, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10088-LTS (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order that:
1. The motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction is denied without prejudice.
2. The motion to certify class is denied.
3. If one or more of the plaintiffs wish to proceed on a
self-represented basis, on or before March 1, 2023, they
either must pay the $402.00 filing fee or each plaintiff
must file an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Costs or Fees and a copy of his prison
account statement for the 6-month period preceding January
13, 2023.
Failure of any plaintiff to comply with these directives
may result in the dismissal of that plaintiff from this
action without prejudice. The Clerk shall provide each
plaintiff with a copy of the standard Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
and shall send a copy of this Order to the Treasurer's
Office at the Essex County Correctional Facility in order
to facilitate any request by plaintiffs for copies of
their certified prison account statements.
In the emergency motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, Lucero seeks to have this Court enjoin the
defendants from depriving covid-negative inmates from access to the
law library and religious services and enjoin any retaliation
against plaintiffs because of their participation in this
litigation.
On January 13, 2023, Manuel Lucero, now in custody at the Essex
County Correctional Facility ("ECCF"), filed a motion to certify
class and an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kWZxlk at no extra charge.[CC]
KORU HEALTH: Burnett Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laporshia Burnett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KORU HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00105-WCG (E.D.
Wis., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws, for purposes of obtaining relief under
the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
straight time (regular) and/or 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 Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by
failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation,
such as monetary bonuses, premiums, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay
for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and
WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid,
non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek,
including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was
intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the
FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff commenced employment at the "Sage Meadow Senior
Living of De Pere," location in the position of Caregiver.
The Defendant owned, operated, and/or managed assisted living and
memory care facilities in a variety of States, including but not
limited to the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin.[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
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
KROGER CO: Faces Class Actions in Five States Over Payroll Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Day, writing for BoiseDev, reports that Kroger, the parent
company of Fred Meyer, and the company hoping to acquire
Boise-based Albertsons faces a slew of lawsuits over payroll errors
that have left workers without their expected paychecks.
Four class-action suits have been filed against the company, driven
by divisions of worker union United Food and Commercial Workers.
Workers complained of missing paychecks, or checks that weren't for
the full amount, according to KGW.
According to WCPO-TV, Kroger is now facing four class-action suits
in five states. Idaho is not one of the states, and it is unclear
if workers in Idaho are impacted. Idaho Fred Meyer employees are
not part of a union.
A Portland employee told KGW he didn't get his check around the
Thanksgiving holiday. He didn't get the check for two weeks, he
said, and then other checks were not correct.
The employee, Mike Papas, told the Portland TV station that he was
given what he was told was a $500 Fred Meyer gift card to
"apologize for the payment issues." He said the card only had $259
on it. He wasn't alone with the shorted gift card issue.
Kroger said a new payroll system caused "systemic and widespread
errors" in a court filing.
"Thousands of employees have been affected by these payroll
issues," Fred Meyer HR lead Tricia Halpin wrote in the court filing
earlier in January. "To this date, Fred Meyer continues to receive
new reports and complaints from Washington employees regarding
their pay on an almost daily basis."
In Washington State, Halpin wrote that Fred Meyer had 1,658 payroll
complaints out of 17,155 workers in the last four months of 2022.
She wrote the company paid about $1.1 million to correct errors –
but said that amount will continue to rise. Halpin wrote that it's
possible every employee has been impacted.
"In addition to complaints from employees, Fred Meyer itself has
proactively identified thousands of payroll issues affecting its
Washington employees and continues to do so," Halpin wrote. "Given
the widespread and systemic nature of the payroll discrepancies at
issue in this case, it is possible that every employee who received
a paycheck under the new payroll system has been affected to some
degree."
Fred Meyer is hoping to acquire Boise-based Albertsons in a $24.6
billion dollar deal. The deal is facing scrutiny from the Federal
Trade Commission, congress, and pressure from unions. [GN]
LASTPASS US LLC: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LastPass US, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LastPass US, LLC, GOTO
Technologies USA, Inc., Case No. CGC23604214 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 25, 2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
LastPass -- http://www.lastpass.com/-- is a free password manager
and form filler optimized for Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera and
Safari..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Phone: (212 643 0500)
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
LENOVO INC: Gisairo, et al., Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN GISAIRO et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-02727-WMW-LIB (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
preliminary approval of settlement between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant and provisionally certifying settlement class.
Lenovo United States operates as a software and hardware reseller.
The Company offers desktops, laptops, ultrabooks, tablets,
monitors, and printers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HLgXu5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street #2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 873-7654
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
LEVEL 3: Johnson Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JOHNSON, on behalf
of Himself and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, v. LEVEL
3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
A. Conditionally certifying a nationwide collective of
current and former on-call Technicians who worked for
Defendant during the three years prior to the filing of
the Plaintiffs' Complaint who were not paid the premium
rate for all overtime hours worked over 40 in a workweek;
B. Certifying the proposed nationwide Rule 23 class for
unpaid wages; appointing named Plaintiff Thomas Johnson as
Class Representative; appointing undersigned counsel and
their firm and members thereof as class counsel; and
allowing them to notify the Class members;
C. Directing the Defendant to produce, in an electronic
readable format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days
of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the
full names, last known mailing addresses, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members
who worked for Defendant for the three years preceding the
filing of Plaintiffs';
D. Authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial
notice, in the form, to all individuals whose names appear
on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-
class mail and direct Defendant to post at all of its
business locations located a copy of the initial notice;
E. Authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up
notice, in the form, and
F. Providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from
the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form;
The Plaintiffs respectfully move this Honorable Court to
conditionally certify this case a hybrid collective/class action
and authorize Plaintiffs to mail and e-mail notice of this lawsuit
and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff Form to the following
classes:
-- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) national Overtime
Collective:
"All current and former Field and Network Technicians who
worked for Defendant any time during the last three years
within the United States."
Alternatively, if for any reason the Court is not inclined to
certify this as a nationwide FLSA collective, Plaintiffs
ask the Court to certify a Florida-only FLSA collective defined as
follows:
-- FLSA Florida Overtime Collective:
"All current and former Field and Network Technicians who
worked for Defendant any time during the last three years
within Florida."
Additionally, the Plaintiffs move this Honorable Court to certify
this case as a class action for the following nationwide class:
-- Unpaid Wages National Rule 23 Class:
"All persons employed by the Defendant in the United States
and denied compensation for work performed within four
years of the filing of this complaint through the date of
final judgment in this action.
Alternatively, if for any reason the Court is not inclined to
certify a nationwide Rule 23 class for unpaid wages, the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to certify a Florida-only Rule 23 class defined as:
-- Unpaid Wages Florida Rule 23 class:
"All persons employed by the Defendant in Florida and
denied compensation for work performed within four years of
the filing of this complaint through the date of final
judgment in this action."
Specifically, the Defendant implemented nationwide, uniform
policies that require its Technicians, including both "Field
Technicians" and "Network Technicians", to work on-call time for
which they are not paid overtime nor straight time. There is no
dispute that time spent on-call by Plaintiffs and the putative
class members was unpaid.
In fact, Defendant's own pay policy makes clear that "'On-Call'
time will be unpaid, while 'Stand-by' time will be paid the per
[sic] premiums listed below."
Additionally, because on-call time was not properly included by
Defendant when it calculated Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay,
Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiffs the correct overtime
premium rate for all hours worked by Plaintiffs over 40.
Level 3 Communications was an American multinational
telecommunications and Internet service provider company
headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. Wikipedia
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y1IFIU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gdesane@wfclaw.com
LH MERCANTILE: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LH Mercantile, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Citizens Insurance Company of America,
a Michigan corporation v. LH Mercantile, LLC d/b/a Pet Supplies
Plus, Apiphanni Anthony, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 1:23-cv-00456 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 25, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Declaratory
Judgement.
LH Mercantile, LLC doing business as Pet Supplies Plus --
https://www.petsuppliesplus.com/ -- founded in 1988 in Redford,
Michigan in the United States, is a privately held pet supply
retailing corporation with a major presence in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 W. Adams St., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 345-1718
Email: kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
LURA MERRITT: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WAYNE WILSON, v.
LURA MERRITT, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00455-AWI-CDB (E.D. Cal.),
the Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Plaintiff's motion for
for class certification.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the
district judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings
and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the
Court. The document should be captioned, "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections
within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on
appeal.
The Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
On July 19, 2022, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued
Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff's motion for
temporary and injunctive relief.
On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his objections to the
Findings and Recommendations. That same date, Plaintiff filed a
motion to appoint counsel and a motion for certification of class.
On August 24, 2022, the Court issued its order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. On October 6, 2022, this
case was reassigned from the temporarily assigned Magistrate Jjudge
to the undersigned.
On December 2, 2022, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an
order adopting findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff's
motion for temporary and injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff contends his complaint "against B-Facility,
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, exceeds 40
African-Americans, General Population (G.P.) exposed to Valley
Fever fungus & spores, on-going imminent danger."
A copy of the Magistrate Judge recommendation dated Jan. 23, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGEfex at no
extra charge.[CC]
M.P. ENVIRONMENTAL: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.P. Environmental
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Alejandro Hernandez, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M.P.
Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100247 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 25, 2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Other Employment – Civil
Unlimited."
MP Environmental Services -- https://mpenviro.com/ -- has been an
independently woman owned and operated transportation, demolition
and remediation firm.[BN]
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judge Denied Extension to Clear Racism Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Carranza, Sasha Hupka, Jimmy Jenkins at Arizona Republic
report that a federal judge in Phoenix overseeing a racial
profiling lawsuit involving the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
said he would not grant any additional time to the agency as it
tries to figure out a way to tackle a growing backlog of misconduct
investigations against deputies.
"I'm not going to give extensions; I've given long enough," U.S.
District Court Judge G. Murray Snow told attorneys on Jan. 27.
His remarks came during a status conference on the latest
court-mandated reforms to weed out racial profiling within the
Sheriff's Office.
It is the latest sign of the growing impatience Snow has shown
toward the Sheriff's Office, more than 15 years after the racial
profiling class-action lawsuit was first filed, and nearly 10 years
after Snow issued the first of three court orders mandating changes
at the agency.
The lawsuit now known as Melendres v. Penzone has cost county
taxpayers $215 million to date, including at least $15 million in
the past seven months.
In his latest order from November, Snow found the agency and
Sheriff Paul Penzone in civil contempt of court for not doing
enough to reduce an investigations backlog that stands currently at
2,057 cases. It takes on average nearly 600 days to close out a
case, in defiance of the court-mandated reforms.
The Jan. 27 hearing centered on two sections within Snow's order.
The deal mandates that the Sheriff's Office commission an
independent study by November to determine the best way for the
agency to reduce the backlog, and also how to best handle staffing
issues at its oversight division.
Penzone, who was not in attendance at the meeting, has blamed
staffing shortages in part for contributing to the backlog.
Will an ongoing study satisfy Snow?
The Sheriff's Office is already in the middle of a study to
evaluate staffing levels. But it may not be enough to comply with
Snow's most recent order.
The agency contracted with the Center for Public Safety Management,
a private training and consulting firm, in August. The firm was
tasked with examining public safety staffing throughout the
Sheriff's Office's operations, except for the county jails.
In court, lawyers for the Sheriff's Office made the case that the
ongoing study should satisfy Snow's demand for an independent
staffing report on the agency's Professional Standards Bureau,
which handles misconduct investigations. Attorney Mary O'Grady said
the team has "already done substantial work" and that the court
could benefit from a study that looks at the entire organization,
including the internal investigations unit.
The firm believes it can do the job, she said. In a letter
submitted to the court, senior consultant Robert Handy wrote that
his team has experience reviewing internal investigation units
across the country and can provide "credible answers" at to whether
public safety would suffer if the Sheriff's Office reallocated
staff resources to its misconduct unit.
"We are confident in our ability to conduct a thorough examination
of MCSO's Professional Standards Bureau processes, procedures, and
staffing in compliance with the court's third order, and make
meaningful recommendations to assist MCSO toward compliance with
the court's orders," Handy wrote.
But civil rights attorneys raised concerns about the large scope of
the review, fearing it would divert attention from the Professional
Standards Bureau and only scratch the surface in looking at
staffing levels needed to support it.
Civil rights lawyers also noted that the firm has yet to take
feedback from all stakeholders while working on the study. Maureen
Johnston, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil
Rights Division, told the court the Community Advisory Board set up
by Snow's prior orders and tasked with rebuilding trust between the
Sheriff's Office and Latino communities in Maricopa County, had not
been consulted about the staffing study at all.
"The community is an afterthought of this process and not a
centerpiece," Johnston said.
Snow said he wouldn't immediately greenlight or refuse the
Sheriff's Office's proposal to have the Center for Public Safety
Management fold the staffing review into the ongoing study. But the
Community Advisory Board should be consulted if the agency expects
his approval, he said.
Sheriff's Office struggles with hiring
The Sheriff's Office doesn't need a staffing study to learn its
entire operations are understaffed.
While addressing Snow's contempt of court citation in November,
Penzone said the Sheriff's Office's progress had been hampered by
several large-scale issues in recent years, including COVID-19,
protests, election security and the fentanyl crisis. But he also
pointed to difficulty in retaining and hiring staff.
In his November order, Snow threatened the Sheriff's Office with
hefty fines if the agency did not fill seven vacant investigator
positions at the Professional Standards Bureau. O'Grady told the
judge the Sheriff's Office had filled the seven positions, averting
the sanctions.
But the staffing struggles aren't over. The office currently has
220 civilian vacancies, 84 deputy sheriff vacancies and 651
detention vacancies, officials claimed.
And the two sides in the lawsuit clashed on whether to allow the
Sheriff's Office to hire more civilian investigators, which O'Grady
said would help them tackle the investigations backlog.
But Johnston said doing so could impact the quality of the
investigations, since sworn investigators receive more detailed
training on how to identify civil rights violations. She and other
civil rights attorneys requested Snow impose court monitoring on
the agency's hiring of civilian investigators, which O'Grady said
would make a long hiring process with numerous background checks
even more complex.
"It's already a pretty cumbersome process," she said. "And we lose
folks along that way."
The Sheriff's Office has tried to address that with increased
advertising of positions and hiring bonuses for some roles,
officials say. But all law enforcement agencies are coming up
against a tight labor market, and filling high-level roles, such as
positions in the compliance division, requires candidates to have
little or no history of discipline. Plus, the Sheriff's Office's
federal oversight saga is well-known to candidates.
Civil rights attorneys say mistrust continues
Clearing the backlog of misconduct cases at the Sheriff's Office
quickly is crucial to the agency's relationship with the
communities it serves, civil rights attorneys said.
Vanessa Pineda, immigrants' rights staff attorney at ACLU of
Arizona, said the Center for Public Safety Management's lack of
outreach to the Community Advisory Board amid the ongoing staffing
study is unacceptable.
"How can you have community policing without the voices of the
impacted community?" she asked.
Additionally, Pineda said the huge backlog of unresolved cases
discourages the community from filing additional complaints.
"It lends to the continual mistrust between the community and
MCSO," she said.
Judge Snow said the inclusion of "diverse communities of all kinds"
would be necessary to move the case forward, and directed the
county to improve its outreach efforts.
"If they thought they could do this on a token basis, it will never
have my approval unless the CAB is seriously consulted in a
meaningful manner," Snow said.
Community Advisory Board member Raul Piña said he was glad the
judge was interested in hearing from the most affected community
members.
Piña said while it's easy to get bogged down in numbers, the
community should not lose sight of the focus of the case: racial
profiling. He was also disheartened to learn that the complaint
caseload has still not declined, despite recent hires by the
Sheriff's Office.
"It's hard to find words to express the frustration," Piña said.
"If you are vulnerable to racial profiling in the county as a
Hispanic vehicle operator, and there's no mechanism to be heard,
there's no remedy for that offense. Wherever you go, you're stuck
in the middle of this perfect storm of malpractice and
unconstitutional policing. It's a travesty."
What's next in the 9th Circuit?
Snow's order finding Penzone in civil contempt of court mirrors a
2016 order he issued against his predecessor, former Sheriff Joe
Arpaio, who was later found in criminal contempt of court as well.
Snow accused Arpaio of openly disregarding court-imposed reforms to
stop racially profiling Latino drivers in Maricopa County as part
of the ongoing class-action lawsuit and referred criminal contempt
charges.
The next year U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton convicted
Arpaio, before then-President Donald Trump pardoned him. Penzone
took over enforcement of the court-mandated reforms that same year
when he ousted Arpaio in that year's election.
While Penzone faces only civil contempt of court, the sheriff said
he plans to appeal the judge's decision to the U.S. 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The Sheriff's Office has until
April 19 to submit the grounds for its appeal. But in the meantime,
Penzone's attorneys said they plan to abide by Snow's court orders.
[GN]
MATERNAL AND FAMILY: Finigan Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maternal and Family
Health Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shanelle Finigan, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Maternal and
Family Health Services, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00149-MEM (M.D. Pa.,
Jan. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Maternal and Family Health Services (MFHS) -- https://www.mfhs.org/
-- is a non-profit health and human service organization working to
improve the health of Pennsylvania women and children by offering
programs that prevent disease, promote wellness, and empower
individuals to make healthy lifestyle choices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
MAXFUND INC: Storz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Storz, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. MAXFUND, INC., D/B/A
MAXFUND ANIMAL ADOPTION CENTER, A COLORADO CORPORATION, KATHY
GAINES, individually and SALINA DAVIDSON, individually, Case No.
1:23-cv-00230-STV (D. Colo., Jan. 26, 2023), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Minimum and Pay
Standards Order ("COMPS") and the Colorado Wage Act for the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff was compensated as both an hourly and salaried
employee over his tenure with Maxfund. While working for Maxfund as
a Kennel Tech, Vet Tech and part of his tenure as Kennel Manager,
Plaintiff was paid hourly. However, while an hourly employee,
Plaintiff was not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 in
individual work weeks, as Maxfund paid Plaintiff for fewer overtime
hours than were actually worked. During the latter half of
Plaintiff's tenure as Kennel Manager and the entire portion of
Plaintiff's employment as Animal Behaviorist, Plaintiff was paid
via salary which compensated him for all hours worked each week,
including those over 40 in individual work weeks. As a salaried
employee, Plaintiff did not receive overtime premiums of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay. As such, Plaintiff was at
times misclassified as a salary-exempt employee. Maxfund should
have at all times compensated Plaintiff as an hourly employee
entitled to overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in
individual work weeks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was initially hired as a Kennel Technician. The
Plaintiff was then briefly transitioned to Veterinary Technician
before being assigned to the Kennel Manager position. Lastly, the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Animal Behaviorist.
MAXFUND, INC., D/B/A MAXFUND ANIMAL ADOPTION CENTER ("MAAC") is a
Colorado non-profit corporation that owns and operates an animal
shelter and a veterinary center that provide animal adoption,
wellness and education services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: (720)-386-9006
- and -
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312)-853-1450
MAZDA MOTOR: Sued Over 2021 Vehicle Models' Engine Oil Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims five different 2021 Mazda vehicle models leak
engine oil due to a valve stem defect.
The 21-page suit says the defect plaguing the vehicles -- the 2021
Mazda CX-30, CX-5, CX-9, Mazda3 and Mazda6 -- causes the cars to
consume an excessive amount of engine oil in between regular oil
changes and creates an increased risk of engine failure, among
other problems. Per the case, the defective Mazda valve stems seals
allow engine oil to leak into a vehicle's combustion chamber,
making it difficult for drivers to maintain proper engine oil
levels and leading to higher carbon emissions.
The plaintiff, a North Carolina attorney and certified public
accountant, claims dealership defendant Keffer Mazda and other
dealers are "actively conspiring" with the automaker to hide the
"true nature" of the "known, dangerous" defect from the public.
An engine's valve stem seals control oil consumption and lubricant
in an engine by allowing a specific amount of oil inside the valve
stem as it moves. According to the lawsuit, dealer-generated data
shows that Mazda has acknowledged internally that some of the
vehicles at issue consume excessive amounts of engine oil, a
purported "symptom" of the alleged valve stem problem. One
technical service bulletin in particular, from November 10, 2020,
instructed dealers to measure a vehicle's oil consumption after
driving 1,200 miles and that "[n]o repair is necessary" when a car
consumes less than one liter of oil within that mileage range, the
suit says.
However, the Mazda owner's manual and warranty advise that the
recommended oil service interval for the 2021 vehicles at issue is
"the earlier of 10,000 miles or one year," the case states.
"Thus, according to Mazda, a vehicle needs to consume more than
eight quarts of engine oil between recommended oil change intervals
in order to necessitate a repair for excess oil consumption," the
filing relays, contesting that "[t]here is nothing normal or
expected about this rate of oil consumption."
From there, service bulletins in October and November 2021 expanded
upon the apparent oil-burning issue, offering special instructions
to dealers for customers who come in with low engine oil-level
concerns, the complaint shares.
To date, the suit relays, Mazda has not provided dealers with an
adequate repair procedure for the valve stem defect, which the case
says "could be caused by premature valve guide wear or seals that
are improperly installed."
The lawsuit stresses that oil consumption is a well-known creator
of harmful emissions into the atmosphere, as oil that enters a
combustion chamber burns with fuel and is then pushed out with
exhaust gases. The case alleges that Mazda, in obtaining the
requisite authorizations to sell the 2021 vehicle models in the
United States, failed to disclose that the cars would consume seven
to eight times the amount of oil they should, "nor have they come
clean since."
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the U.S. who are
current or former owners and/or lessees of the 2021 Mazda CX-30,
CX-5, CX-9, Mazda3 or Mazda6 vehicles that were subject to a
December 2021 technical service bulletin, which include the
following:
"2021 Mazda3 (Japan built 2.5T) with VINS lower than
JM1BP******403639 (produced before September 14, 2021);
2021 Mazda6 (2.5T) with VINS lower than JM1GL******618910 (produced
before September 15, 2021);
2021 CX-30 (2.5T);
2021 CX-5 (2.5T) with VINS lower than JM3KF******472325 (produced
before September 14, 2021);
2021 CX-9 (2.5T) with VINS lower than JM3TC******541071 (produced
before September 14, 2021)." [GN]
MERRIN GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Merrin Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Merrin Group, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00599 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Merrin Group, LLC doing business as Havana Central --
https://www.havanacentral.com/ -- is a leading Cuban & Latin
restaurant in the heart of Times Square.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Parisien Files FDCPA Suit in D. North Dakota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Messerli & Kramer
P.A., et al. The case is styled as Denise Parisien, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Messerli & Kramer
P.A. doing business as: Messerli & Kramer Inc., Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00021-CRH (D.N.D., Jan. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Messerli & Kramer -- https://messerlikramer.com/ -- is a debt
collection law firm headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
METLIFE GROUP: Knudsen Sues Over ERISA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Marla Knudsen and William Dutra, as the representatives of a class
of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the MetLife Options
& Choices Plan v. MetLife Group, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00426
(D.N.J., Jan. 25, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA"), against the Defendant,
the fiduciary of the Plan, who violated ERISA by diverting tens of
millions in drug rebates from the Plan to itself.
Between 2016 and 2021, the Plan earned approximately $65 million in
drug rebates. The Defendant caused 100% of that money to be paid to
itself in breach of its fiduciary duties. The rebates should have
been retained by the Plan and allocated to Plan participants in
proportion to their contributions and otherwise used for
participants' benefit.
If the Defendants had followed an appropriate fiduciary process for
determining how to allocate drug rebates, there are multiple
benefits to the Plaintiffs and the Class that would have been
received. First, it may have been consistent with its fiduciary
duties for the Defendant to reduce ongoing contributions on account
of the rebates collected by the Plan. Second, may have been reduced
co-pays and co-insurance for pharmaceutical benefits. Third, the
Defendants may have distributed rebates to participants in
proportion to their contributions to the Plan.
Due to the Defendant's transfer of drug rebates to itself, the
Plaintiffs and the Class did not receive these benefits, and
therefore paid excessive amounts toward the cost of coverage,
co-pays, and/or co-insurance, and have otherwise been denied their
equitable interest in Plan drug rebates. The Plaintiffs bring this
action pursuant to the ERISA to remedy the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, recover losses to the Plan, and obtain other appropriate
relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former Plan participants.
The Defendant is the principal U.S. employer of insurance and
financial services companies owned by MetLife Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone 813-223-5505
Fax: 813-257-0572
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main Number: 813-224-0431
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
- and -
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE MCDONOUGH THOMPSON & THOMSON LLC
729 N Washington Ave, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: 612-699-4703
Email: cengstrom@engstromlee.com
MGM RESORTS: Gibson Sues Over Artificially Inflated Hotel Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gibson, and Heriberto Valiente, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, CENDYN
GROUP, LLC, THE RAINMAKER GROUP UNLIMITED, INC., CAESARS
ENTERTAINMENT INC., TREASURE ISLAND, LLC, WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS,
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00140 (D. Nev., Jan. 25, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants ("Hotel Operators") to challenge an unlawful
agreement among the Defendants to artificially inflate the prices
of hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip above competitive levels.
The Defendant Hotel Operators are responsible for operating the
vast majority of the hotels on the Las Vegas Strip, including
well-known hotels such as the Bellagio, Wynn, Caesar's Palace, MGM
Grand, and Mandalay Bay. Hotel Operators on the Las Vegas Strip
have replaced their independent pricing and supply decisions with a
shared set of pricing algorithms that allow the Hotel Operators to
collect supracompetitive prices for their hotel rooms. The Hotel
Operators have colluded to adopt these algorithms. The company that
provides the pricing algorithms for Hotel Operators is called
Rainmaker Group. Cendyn is a private company focused on providing
technology for the hospitality industry. Cendyn acquired the
Rainmaker Group in August 2019. Rainmaker Group currently operates
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cendyn.
The vast majority of hotels on the Las Vegas Strip use Rainmaker
Group's pricing algorithms. Confidential Witness 1 ("CW1"), a
former Rainmaker executive, estimated that Rainmaker Group's
products are used by 90% of the hotels on the Las Vegas Strip.
Confidential Witness 2 ("CW2"), a former Rainmaker employee,
recalled a colleague saying, "We're just about in every hotel on
the Strip." Defendant Hotel Operators, who collectively have market
power in the Las Vegas Strip Hotel Market, provide real-time
pricing and supply information to the Rainmaker Group. This
competitive data is taken by the Rainmaker Group and fed through
its algorithms, which then generate forward-looking, room-specific
pricing recommendations to Defendant Hotel Operators.
But this is not how a competitive market works: in a competitive
market, any empty hotel room is lost revenue, so a hotel operator
would try to fill each hotel room by granting concessions or
lowering prices. By contrast, on Rainmaker Group's recommendations
and as an integral part of the conspiracy, Hotel Operators kept
prices high and some rooms empty, knowing their co-conspirators
would not undercut these supracompetitive prices. Information that
discourages Hotel Operators from using all of their available
supply is critical to maintaining unlawfully elevated prices. CW2
stated that Rainmaker Group's algorithms include information for
Hotel Operators on whether a hotel was "overbooked" as well as
recommendations related to the revenue of the hotel.
Hotel Operators also understand that their competitors participate
in and contribute data to the pricing and forecasting services
offered by Rainmaker Group. CW3 stated that Rainmaker Group would
hold yearly, in-person conferences that would feature at least 100
attendees. Clients would typically send employees from their
revenue management departments, or CEOs or CFOs. CW3 said that it
was "not hard" to figure out which companies were using GuestRev
because "you're all at a conference for GuestRev users." CW1 stated
that Rainmaker would share the names of clients with other clients
or prospective clients if they received permission, adding, "The
whole hospitality world is so small, and the revenue managers move
around from place to place, so everybody knew who was using our
system." CW2 confirmed that "Caesars probably knew we were in the
Cosmopolitan and vice versa."
Defendant Hotel Operators' use of these pricing algorithms has led
to supracompetitive pricing. Travel Weekly found that Las Vegas
visitors "paid the highest average daily room rate (ADR) in the
city's history in September 2022, a trend that will likely
continue." 8 News Now reported that prices were skyrocketing, and
"it's truly breaking the bank, with a lack of options or even deals
to cut costs." One tourist stated, "They used to offer a lot of
offers in Las Vegas especially. Like if you go to a casino the
hotel is really cheap, but that is not the case right now."
Meanwhile, Defendant Hotel Operators have advertised revenue
increases up to 15% when they are collectively using Rainmaker
Group products. Tom Walker, Rainmaker Group's Director of Sales for
Rainmaker's Gaming/Hospitality Division, has stated that clients"
that use Rainmaker Group pricing algorithms have seen "returns of
up to 15%." Customer testimonials on Rainmaker Group's website
describe that clients outperform the market, even through market
downturns and in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. For
example, Rainmaker Group client Foxwood reported "producing 70% of
the prior year's revenue with 50% of the volume despite closures
and restrictions throughout the pandemic." CW1 stated that prices
for hotel rooms on high-demand days would increase once clients
started working with Rainmaker Group.
The conspiracy Plaintiffs challenge is unlawful under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs bring this action as a Class Action on
behalf of a class of individuals that purchased hotel rooms from
Defendant Hotel Operators on the Las Vegas Strip in order to
recover damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other
appropriate relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs regularly travel to Las Vegas, Nevada and stay in
hotel rooms managed by the Defendants.
The Defendants rents hotel rooms in Las Vegas, Nevada at multiple
hotel properties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian J Panish, Esq.
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
Ian Samson, Esq.
Adam Ellis, Esq.
PANISH SHEA BOYLE RAVIPUDI LLP
300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 710
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702.560.5520
Email: panish@psbr.law
rravipudi@psbr.law
isamson@psbr.law
aellis@psbr.law
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Stephanie A. Verdoia, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBEL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
stephaniev@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
Hannah K. Song, Esq.
715 Hearst Ave, Suite 202
Berkley, CA 94710
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: riop@hbsslaw.com
hannahso@hbsslaw.com
MGM RESORTS: Sued Over Las Vegas Strip Hotel Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Ken Martin, writing for FOX5, reports that a federal lawsuit has
been filed in Nevada alleging that most hotel casinos on the Las
Vegas Strip have used a third-party vendor to illegally fix
prices.
The suit is seeking class-action damages for hotel patrons who
booked rooms in Las Vegas since 2019.
The complaint alleges that casino giants MGM Resorts International
and Caesars Entertainment, along with Treasure Island and Wynn
Resorts, shared information with a company that used pricing
algorithms to "maximize market-wide prices."
It accuses the resorts and Rainmaker Group Unlimited, a revenue
management company owned by Cendyn Group, of "algorithmic-driven
price-fixing . . . at the expense of consumers and in violation of
antitrust laws."
The suit is looking for unspecified monetary damages for "tens of
thousands if not hundreds of thousands" of people based on alleged
antitrust violations of the federal Sherman Act.
FOX Business has reached out to the companies involved for
comment.
An MGM Resorts spokesperson provided a statement saying, "The
claims against MGM Resorts are factually inaccurate, and we intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against these meritless claims."
MGM Resorts operates properties including Bellagio, New York-New
York, MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay.
A Cendyn Group spokesman said they have no comment at this time.
Caesars Entertainment operates Las Vegas Strip properties,
including Caesars Palace, Harrah's, the Horseshoe, Paris Las Vegas
and the Flamingo.
Wynn Resorts also did not have a comment at this time.
The lawsuit points to concerns about algorithmic pricing identified
in a 2017 speech by Maureen Ohlhausen, a former acting chairperson
of the Federal Trade Commission.
Ohlhausen said companies provide their pricing data to "a common,
outside agent" that uses the information to program its algorithm
"to maximize industry-wide pricing."
The court filing said two former Rainmaker employees told attorneys
the company's products are used by 90% or "just about every"
property on the resort-lined Las Vegas Strip. The lawsuit didn't
identify the former employees.
The average daily room rates for Strip resorts hit record highs in
2022, topping $200 a night in October, according to the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Carter Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Carter, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00068 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 25,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San
Diego.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Cox Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Jesse Cox, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00022-LPR (E.D. Ark., Jan. 27,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San
Diego.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MONRO INC: Settlement Talks in Labor Class Suit Continue
--------------------------------------------------------
Monro Inc. disclosed in its Form 10Q Report for the quarterly
period ended December 24, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 30, 2023, that the parties involved
in a purported labor class suit filed in March 2021 agreed to
continue settlement negotiations.
The purported class action filed in March 2021 and a related
Private Attorneys General Action (PAGA) filed in September 2021 in
Los Angeles County Superior Court of California alleges that the
Company violated the rights of certain hourly, non-exempt employees
in California under state wage and hour laws.
The matter is in the early stage of discovery and the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself.
The parties have participated in mediation and have agreed to
continue settlement discussions.
Monro, Inc. provides automobile maintenance and repair services.
[BN]
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Vacates Status Quo Order in Robbins Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K January 25, 2023
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
30, 2023, that the Chancery Court issued an order vacating the
Status Quo order for the Robbins putative stockholder class suit on
January 25, 2023.
A putative stockholder class action was filed in the Court of
Chancery, styled as Robbins v. Michery, et al., C.A. No.
2022-1131-LWW (the "Robbins Action"). On December 13, 2022, a
second putative stockholder class action was filed in the Court of
Chancery, styled as Foley v. Michery, et al., C.A. No.
2022-1147-LWW (the "Foley Action" and, together with the Robbins
Action, the "Stockholder Actions").
The plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions filed complaints
alleging, among other things, that the number of shares of Common
Stock issued and outstanding as of the record date (the "Annual
Meeting Record Date") for the Annual Meeting of stockholders held
on July 26, 2022 (the "2022 Annual Meeting") was 477,510,822 and
that, based on this eligible share total, a majority of shares of
Common Stock, when considered separately as a class, did not vote
in favor of the increase in authorized shares at the 2022 Annual
Meeting.
On December 16, 2022, the Court of Chancery issued a status quo
order preventing the Company and the defendants in the Stockholder
Actions from purporting to act as a result of any vote of shares at
the Company's Special Meeting, pending final disposition of the
Stockholder Actions (the "Status Quo Order").
On January 25, 2023, the Court of Chancery entered an order
vacating the Status Quo Order.
Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company,
headquartered in Brea, California. [BN]
NESTLE USA: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Sparkling Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges lime-flavored Perrier sparkling
mineral water is misleadingly labeled in that the beverage,
contrary to what consumers expect, contains only a "trace" amount
of lime.
The 17-page lawsuit argues that, upon viewing the word "lime" and
pictures of lime wedges on the beverage's front label, consumers
are led to expect that the Perrier sparkling water is flavored with
real lime ingredients. The complaint also contends that consumers
will conclude that the sparkling water contains lime because the
product's green-tinted bottle makes its contents appear greener.
In truth, the beverage, contrary to consumer expectations, contains
flavors that merely imitate the taste of limes, the case claims.
Per the case, "lime juice" would be listed as a separate ingredient
if the beverage actually contained all of the nutritive and taste
attributes of lime, but the product's ingredients list mentions
only mineral water, carbon dioxide and natural flavors. The
"natural flavors" ingredient indicates that the product contains
flavor compounds that are synthesized in a lab and only imitate the
fruit's taste, the complaint alleges.
"The cost of using more lime would be several cents per bottle
based on spot markets for lime," the suit states.
According to the complaint, defendant Nestlé USA has been able to
sell more lime-flavored Perrier sparkling water at higher prices
than it would have absent its "false and misleading"
representations. Nestlé has taken advantage of the fact that
consumers prefer beverages that are less processed and are made
without additives or solvents, the filing says.
The suit further contends that consumers have no reason to expect
that the product, sold under the "esteemed" Perrier brand and
imported from France, is made with only a "de minimis" amount of
lime.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Florida, Utah, South
Dakota, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alaska, Wyoming or South
Carolina who purchased the Perrier lime-flavored sparkling mineral
water during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
NEWSWEEK DIGITAL: Mendoza Sues Over Video Privacy Protection Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Mendoza, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00643
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"),
arising from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a
third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"), data containing its
digital subscribers' personally identifiable information or
Facebook ID ("FID") and the computer file containing video and its
corresponding URL viewed ("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal
Viewing Information").
This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against
Newsweek, as the owner of Newsweek.com, for violating VPPA by
disclosing its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to
Facebook without obtaining proper consent. VPPA prohibits "video
tape service providers," such as Newsweek.com, from knowingly
disclosing consumers' "personally identifiable information," which
"includes information which identifies a person as having requested
or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
provider," without first obtaining express consent in a stand-alone
consent form.
The Defendant shares the Personal Viewing Information--i.e.,
digital subscribers' unique FID and Video Media viewed--together as
one data point to Facebook. Because the digital subscriber's FID
uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user account,
Facebook--or any other ordinary person--can use it to quickly and
easily locate, access, and view digital subscribers' corresponding
Facebook profile. Put simply, Facebook pixel grants Facebook
knowledge of the Video Media each of its subscribers view on the
Newsweek.com site.
The Defendant uses the Personal Viewing Information to build more
targeted advertising on its website which, in turn, generates
greater revenue. Thus, without obtaining consent from its digital
subscribers, the Defendant profits from its unauthorized disclosure
of its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to
Facebook. The Defendant reaps these secret profits at the expense
of its digital subscribers' privacy and their statutory rights
under VPPA.
Because the Defendant does not clearly and conspicuously inform
Newsweek.com digital subscribers about this dissemination of their
Personal Viewing Information--indeed, the process is automatic and
invisible--they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend
themselves against the highly personal ways Newsweek.com has used
and continues to make money by using their personal data.
The Defendant chose to disregard the Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other Newsweek.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive personal data
to Facebook. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action
for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to
Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing
violation of VPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began her digital subscription to Newsweek.com around
2016 and continues to maintain the subscription to this day.
The Defendant is an American media company headquartered in New
York, New York who develops, owns, and operates the Newsweek.com
website, which includes a broad selection of video content posted
along with their stories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue
Aventura, FL 33180
Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
OCLARO INC: Court Vacates Class Cert Hearing in Karri
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karri v. Oclaro Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03435 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James
Donato entered an order that the February 16, 2023 status
conference and class certification hearing, and all other pretrial
and trial dates are vacated in light of the parties' settlement.
The Plaintiff will file a motion for preliminary approval by March
17, 2023.
Oclaro was a US-based business manufacturing and selling optical
components.
The nature of suit Securities Exchange Act.[CC]
OHGANE INC: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ohgane Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Alicia Wilson, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ohgane Inc., Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2023-00333601-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
25, 2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Other Employment – Civil
Unlimited."
Ohgane Inc. -- https://www.ohgane.com/ -- is a Korean BBQ and
Cuisines restaurant who are dedicated to bringing Korean Food
throughout the East Bay.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY
2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
Roseville, CA 95661-4219
Phone: 916-587-9105
Email: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com
P.C. RICHARD: Parties Seek Postponement of Class Cert Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLASS v. P.C. RICHARD &
SON, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00399-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order requesting postponement of the hearing
regarding the Motion to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement scheduled for
February 8, 2023.
On December 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his motion to certify
class for settlement purposes and motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement.
On January 6, 2023, Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Settlement.
On January 13, 2023, the Court scheduled the Hearing on Plaintiff's
Motion for February 8, 2023 at 1:45 pm in Courtroom.
Counsel for Defendant has a conflict on February 8, 2023 and is
unable to attend.
Counsel for Plaintiff concurred to rescheduling the hearing to
ensure counsel is present.
Counsel for the Parties are available February 16, February 28, and
March 1, 2023.
The Parties respectfully submit this Joint Request to Postpone the
Hearing on Plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement
purposes and for preliminary approval of class action settlement
and respectfully request that this Court reschedule the February 8,
2023 hearing for a mutually agreeable date of February 16, February
28, and March 1, 2023.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X2urWX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
TUCKER MILLER
440 E Missouri Avenue Suite
C150 Phoenix, AZ 85014
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelli A. Lee, Esq.
John J. Berry, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
1300 Six PPG Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-5854
Facsimile: (412) 281-5055
PARAGON COIN: Davy Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paragon Coin, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Astley Davy, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paragon Coin, Inc.,
Jessica VerSteeg, Egor Lavrov, Eugene "Chuck" Bogorad, Alex
Emelichev, Gareth Rhodes, Jayceon Terrell Taylor a/k/a The Game,
Case No. 2:23-mc-00009 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Civil
Miscellaneous Case.
Paragon Coin -- https://paragoncoin.com/ -- is a revolutionary new
community, leveraging blockchain technology for the legal cannabis
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Marc Apton, Esq.
LEVI AND KORSINSKY LLP
445 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 985-7290
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: aapton@zlk.com
PARAGON RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Reinhart Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REID REINHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON RESTAURANT GROUP LLC and PURVI SHAH,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00410 (D.N.J., January 25, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at Paragon
Tap & Table restaurant located in Clark, New Jersey between
approximately April 2020 and August 2020.
Paragon Restaurant Group LLC is an operator of a restaurant known
as Paragon Tap & Table located in Clark, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
PENTAGON FEDERAL: DeConinck Sues Over Duplicate Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
Blake DeConinck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Case No.
0:23-cv-00215-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought
alleging that PenFed negligently performed duplicate transactions,
resulting in twice the authorized amount of money being withdrawn
from the Plaintiff's and the Class's accounts and rendering
accounts deficient of funds and subjecting Plaintiff to additional
fees and penalties.
As a result of these unauthorized duplicate transactions,
Plaintiff's and the Class's account balances were significantly
lower than they should have been. Regularly scheduled authorized
transactions continued to be automatically withdrawn, despite this
unexpected and unavoidable depletion of Plaintiff's and the Class's
account balances.
As a result, Plaintiff and the Class had previously authorized,
automated payments bounce, resulting in the incurrence of late fees
associated with these bounced transactions. These unpaid
transactions will continue to accrue interest until Plaintiff and
the Class have enough funds in their accounts to make their
payment.
In addition to these late fees, Plaintiff and the Class also
incurred $30 insufficient-funds fees from PenFed itself in
connection with overdrawing their accounts, despite the fact that
PenFed was at fault for the duplicate transactions. Furthermore,
Plaintiff and the Class's credit scores have decreased as a result
of authorized transactions being denied—transactions for which
Plaintiff and the Class had carefully budgeted for, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the United States
residing in Buffalo, Minnesota.
PenFed is a nationwide credit union that provides banking services
to thousands of customers in Minnesota and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
fmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com
PLASTAKET MANUFACTURING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plastaket
Manufacturing Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plastaket
Manufacturing Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00709 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Plastaket Manufacturing Company specializes in plastic injection
molding and mold making for most industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PRESTIGE COMMUNITY: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Le
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TU LE, an individual;
GENEVA NGUYEN, an individual; MAI LY, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, v.
PRESTIGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, a national credit union; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00259-JVS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order on
stipulation for briefing schedule and to continue all pending
mediation and settlement discussions.
The Court said, "The current trial date of June 13, 2023, along
with all other dates in the Scheduling Order be continued for 70
days. The pretrial conference will be set for July 31, 2023. The
new trial date is, therefore, August 22, 2023. The follow briefing
schedule for any Motion for Class Certification, Motion for Summary
Judgment or Rule Motion."
Motions will be due on or before January 30, 2023. All Oppositions
will be due on or before March 1, 2023. All Replies will be due on
or before March 15, 2023. The hearing on the motions will be held
on April 10, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.
Prestige Community operates as a financial cooperative.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jeiAr3 at no extra charge.[CC]
PRIORITY WRECKER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Whitman Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WHITMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY WRECKER SERVICE, INC.;
and JONATHAN MAYE, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00076 (M.D. Tenn.,
Jan. 25, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Whitman was employed by the Defendants as driver.
PRIORITY WRECKER SERVICE, INC. operates as a towing company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
REALPAGE INC: Andersen Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE INC. D/B/A PROPERTYWARE, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-001037 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward
Cty., January 25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending electronic
mail communication to Florida consumers, including the Plaintiff,
between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in an attempt to collect debt without
obtaining customers' prior consent.
RealPage, Inc., doing business as Propertyware, is a software
company headquartered in Richardson, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
RENE ROBLES: Grizzle Loses Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grizzle v. Robles Grizzle,
et al., v. RENE ROBLES, Case No. 5:22-CV-00132-C (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Sam R. Cummings entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
request for class certification and appointment of counsel.
The case will return to the docket of United States Magistrate
Judge D. Gordon Bryant, Jr. for continued judicial screening as
described in the order entered July 8, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RuehEv at no extra charge.[CC]
RIPPLE LABS: Order on Discovery Dispute Letter Brief Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VLADI ZAKINOV, et al., v.
RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Robert M.
Illman entered an order regarding discovery dispute letter brief as
follows:
-- The Defendants' request to Mr. Sostack to reappear for
his deposition and to answer questions under oath about his
trading in digital assets other than XRP is denied;
-- The Defendants' request for an order directing the
Plaintiff to complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4 & 5
is also deied; and, Mr. Sostack's objections to Defendants'
third-party subpoenas for independently obtaining his
trading records from third party exchanges are sustained.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jihsm0 at no extra charge.[CC]
ROWAN PIERCE: Class Certification Hearing Reset to June 26
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raul M. Arias-Marxuach v.
Rowan v. Pierce, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648 (D.P.R.), the Court entered
an order resetting hearing for class certification for June 26,
2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.[CC]
SALUD FAMILY HEALTH: Gabelman Sues Over Data Security Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Gabelman, individually, as natural parent and next friend of
D.G., a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SALUD FAMILY HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00242-DDD-STV (D.
Colo., Jan. 27, 2023) arises out of a data security incident (the
"Data Breach") involving the Defendant, which collected and stored
certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or
protected health information ("PHI") of the Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members.
According to the Defendant, the PII/PHI compromised in the Data
Breach included highly-sensitive information including but not
limited to: names, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers or state identification card numbers, financial account
information, credit card numbers, passport numbers, medical
treatment and diagnosis information, health insurance information,
biometric data, and usernames and passwords.
Social Security numbers are particularly valuable to criminals.
This information can be sold and traded on the dark web black
market. The loss of a Social Security number is particularly
troubling because it cannot be easily changed and can be misused in
a range of nefarious activities, such as filing fraudulent tax
returns to steal tax refund payments, opening new accounts to take
out loans, and other forms of identity theft.
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII/PHI. Inexplicitly,
the Defendant has acknowledged it became aware of "suspicious
activity" on September 5, 2022, but it has only recently begun
contacting Class Members.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
individually, as well as all those similarly situated to address
the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII/PHI
that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely
and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information was unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access
of any unknown third party, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant via letter of the Data
Breach and of the impact to their PII/PHI on November 7, 2022.
SALUD is a healthcare provider catering to the needs of the migrant
workers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2,
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Fax: (856) 210-9088
Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
jshub@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
SAPUTO CHEESE: Class Cert. Dates Vacated Pending Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SAPUTO CHEESE USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01029-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena
M. Barch-Kuchta entered an order:
1. granting the joint stipulation to vacate class
certification dates pending mediation; and
2. vacating the remaining deadlines in the previously
modified preliminary scheduling order nunc pro tunc.
The following dates shall govern this action going forward:
a. The motion for class certification shall be filed no later
than April 28, 2023. Opposition to the motion shall be
filed no later than May 30, 2023.
b. Neither the motion nor the opposition shall exceed 30
pages, exclusive of evidence and evidentiary objections,
unless leave is granted by the Court prior to the filing.
c. Any reply shall be filed no later than June 15, 2023, and
shall not exceed 15 pages, exclusive of evidentiary
objections.
d. Any objections to the evidence SHALL be filed at the same
time as the opposition (for Defendant) and the reply (for
Plaintiff).
f. The hearing on the motion for class certification is set
for July 7, 2023 before Magistrate Judge Helena Barch-
Kuchta in Courtroom 6 in Fresno.
This case was removed to this Court on July 24, 2020. After holding
a scheduling conference, the Court issued a Preliminary Scheduling
Order on February 1, 2021.
The PSO set an October 1, 2021 deadline for Plaintiff to file a
class certification motion. On September 28, 2021 -- the eve of the
class certification deadline -- the Parties moved to vacate the
class certification date so the Parties could engage inmediation.
On August 11, 2022, after mediation failed, the Court reset the
class certification deadlines for October 28, 2022, as proposed by
the Parties.
After the Parties moved to again extend the class certification
dates to permit further discovery, the Court further modified the
class certification deadlines to January 13, 2023.
On January 10, 2023 -- the eve of the class certification deadline
-- the Parties again seek a further extension to the class
certification deadlines.
Saputo produces, markets, and distributes a wide array of dairy
products of the utmost quality, including cheese, fluid milk, and
extended shelf-life milk.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40accl9 at no extra charge.[CC]
SARKLI-REPECHAGE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarkli-Repechage,
Ltd. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Sarkli-Repechage, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-00720 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sarkli-Repechage, Ltd. operates as a beauty store. The Company
provides perfumes, cosmetics, skin, body and hair care products,
and other toilet preparations, as well as offers products for
anti-aging, sensitive, dry, oily, and combination skin conditions,
as well as for anti-acne, intensive anti-cellulite, daily body
care, and hand and foot care requirements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SAVORY DELI: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicasio Marcelino Vazquez, and other similarly situated employees
v. Savory Deli & Grocery 1 Inc., Savory Deli & Grocery Inc. and
Michael Colvin, Case No. 1:23-cv-00695-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26,
2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations
of the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the overtime wage
orders of the New York Commission of Labor codified, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per
week that he worked. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight
rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendants, employed to work as
a delivery and janitor at the deli known as Savory Deli & Grocery.
The Defendants own, operate, and/or controlled a deli, located in
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Web: www.FightForUrRights.com
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Court Allows Summary Judgment Bid in Turner
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turner, et al., v.
Schneider Electric Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11006
(D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order:
-- The motion of defendant Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting,
Inc. for summary judgment is allowed;
-- The motion of defendants Schneider Electric Holdings, Inc.
et al. for partial summary judgment ) is allowed; and
-- The motion of defendant Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting,
Inc. for partial relief from stipulation regarding class
certification is denied as moot.
The Court said,"Because defendants Schneider Electric Holdings,
Inc. et al. failed to address plaintiffs claims with respect to the
Vanguard Developed Markets Index, the Vanguard Total Bond Market
Index and the Vanguard Extended Market Index in its motion for
partial summary judgment, Count II remains viable as to Schneider
Electrics duty of prudence in handling those three Vanguard funds.
The three remaining pending motions are therefore held in abeyance
pending a hearing on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 3:00 PM to
determine the necessity for a bench trial and for dealing with said
motions."
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving Employee Benefits.
Schneider Electric operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides automation hardware and
software, circuit breakers, electronic sensors, energy management
systems, machine safety, material equipment, and motor control
centers.[CC]
SEAHORSE ENTERPRISES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seahorse Enterprises,
LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Seahorse Enterprises, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00721 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Seahorse Enterprises deliver high quality, biodegradable, and
compostable food package products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SEAL BEACH ENVY: Untoria Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Marie Untoria, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SEAL BEACH ENVY, INC.,
dba MASSAGE ENVY, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01669 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 26, 2023),
is brought under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Action of
2004 as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide legally
required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime
wages due for all time worked.
The Defendant as a matter of company policy, practice and
procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to
provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to
accurately compensate the Plaintiff for missed meal and rest
periods, failed to pay the Plaintiff for all time worked, failed
compensate the Plaintiff for off-the-clock work, failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to
compensate the Plaintiff meal rest premiums at the regular rate,
failed to reimburse the Plaintiff for business expenses, and failed
to issue to the Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements
showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect
during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked
at each hourly rate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California from 2015
to June of 2021.
SEAL BEACH ENVY, INC., dba MASSAGE ENVY is a California corporation
who owns, operates, and/or manages massage and beauty spas in Los
Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
Jackland K. Hom, Esq.
Julieann Alvarado, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (619)255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
jackland@zakaylaw.com
iulieann@zakavlaw.com
- and -
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (619) 599-8292
Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@icl-lawfirm.com
SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as George Valdez v. Shamrock
Foods Company et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01719-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order setting the
deadlines for Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
Event Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion August 11, 2023
for Class Certification and Any Class
Certification Expert Report
Deadline for Defendant to File August 25, 2023
Opposition to Class Certification and
Any Class Certification Expert Report
Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply September 1, 2023
in Support of Motion for Class
Certification and Any Class
Certification Rebuttal Expert Report
Class Certification Hearing September 29, 2023
Pursuant to the Court's Standing Order, all merits discovery is
stayed. The Court further directs the parties to engage in a phased
discovery plan.
Phase 1 shall consist of pre-certification discovery to determine
the scope and size of the putative class, as well as whether
Plaintiff is able to meet the prerequisites of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.
Phase 2 shall consist of merits of discovery.
Shamrock is a family-owned and-operated foodservice distributor and
nationally-recognized dairy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HJ9oEn at no extra charge.[CC]
STANDARD INSURANCE: Class Action Scheduling Order Modified
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE SCHMIDT, v.
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01784-JLT-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order
granting stipulated motion to modify class action scheduling order
as follows:
1. The deadline to complete pre-certification discovery is
extended until May 25, 2023.
2. The deadline to file any motion for class certification or
to deny class certification is extended until June 29,
2023.
3. All other aspects of the April 26, 2022, scheduling order
shall remain in effect.
Standard Insurance, also branded as The Standard, is an American
insurance and financial company which is a subsidiary of StanCorp
Financial Group, headquartered in Portland, Oregon.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YbyCk3 at no extra charge.[CC]
STUDENT LOAN: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class, Subclass in Shadrin
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YURY SHADRIN, et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-03641-RDB (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Richard D. Bennett entered an order:
1. certifying the following class of persons under Rule 23
(c)(1) for settlement purposes only:
"Any person to whom FELDMAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. sent a
letter within 1 year immediately preceding the filing of
the Lawsuit that stated directly or indirectly that (a)
the recipient owed attorney's fees in cases where FELDMAN
& ASSOCIATES, P.C.'s fees were contingent and (b) that if
a lawsuit was filed, the court costs would be added to the
amount owed by the recipient."
2. certifying the following sub-class of persons for the
purposes of settlement only:
"Class Members to whom FELDMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. sent
letters on behalf of STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC and/or
WILLIAMS & FUDGE, INC."
Excluded from the class and sub-class are:
An employee or independent contractor of the Defendants, a
relative of an employee or independent contractor of the
Defendants, an employee of the Court where the Lawsuit is
pending or a person who filed for bankruptcy and received
a discharge after the date of the letter from FELDMAN &
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
The claims to be addressed by the class are:
Claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act arising from the facts alleged in
the Amended Complaint.
The Class Notice shall be printed and mailed to the last
known addresses of the class members for which addresses
are known no later than Feb. 20, 2023 and it shall contain
the following dates and information:
-- Deadline for election to be April 28, 2023
excluded:
-- Deadline for objections to April 28, 2023
be filed:
-- Date and Time of Final May 22, 2023
Fairness Hearing:
Student Loan Solutions LLC is not a lender, rather, they are a
buyer of defaulted private student loan debt.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wNXtyR at no extra charge.[CC]
SUNFRESH PRODUCE: Sanchez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Sanchez, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated known and unknown v. SUNFRESH PRODUCE, LLC d/b/a
CENTRO FRESH MARKET, Case No. 1:23-cv-00510 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26,
2023), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendant's
failure to pay for all hours worked and the Defendant's failure to
pay overtime wages at a premium rate of one- and one-half times the
Plaintiff's regular rate.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were shorted their
earned wages. The Defendant manipulated the timekeeping system in
order to not pay all hours worked. Despite not taking a lunch
break, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were deducted one
half hour of compensation when they worked 8 hours or more during a
shift. The Defendant failed to pay overtime wages at a premium rate
of one- and one-half times the Plaintiff's regular rate. Despite
working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime compensation as required by the FLSA and IMWL,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's supermarket located in
Chicago, Illinois.
The Defendant operates a supermarket in Chicago under the name
Centro Fresh Market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos G Becerra, Esq.
BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312)957-9005
Facsimile: (888)826-5848
Email: cbecerra@law-rb.com
SURF WORLD: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Surf World, Inc. The
case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Surf World, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00661
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Surf World, Inc. -- https://www.surfworld.us/ -- is a source for
surfboards, paddle boards, skateboards and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
SWISSPORT USA: Goins Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darielle Goins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00036-D
(E.D.N.C., Jan. 25, 2023), is brought to recover the unpaid
overtime and minimum wages and other damages Swissport owes Goins
and these all these workers under the law, including unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, penalties, interest, and other remedies
provided by federal law in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").
Like many other companies across the United States, the Defendant's
Kronos-based timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a
service outage beginning in December 2021. That outage led to
problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout the Defendant's
organization. As a result, the Defendant's workers who were not
exempt from overtime under federal law were not paid for all hours
worked, including overtime and minimum wages, on time if at all for
their work during and after the Kronos outage.
For at least a portion of time following the Kronos outage, the
Defendant failed to correctly pay the Plaintiff for the hours that
it did track, or for hours that were not tracked. Instead, the
Defendant has used various methods to estimate the number of hours
the Plaintiff work in each pay period. As a result of the
Defendant's failure to accurately track their actual hours worked
each week, employees who were non-exempt and worked overtime were
in many cases paid less than the hours they worked in the workweek,
including overtime hours. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per week for the Defendant but was not paid the proper
overtime premium for all hours worked on time, if at all, for each
of these weeks since the onset of the Kronos service disruption, on
or about December 11, 2021. The Defendant's failure to pay wages,
including proper overtime and minimum wages, on time and in full
for all hours worked violates the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Swissport during the Kronos outage and was
affected by these pay practices, like Swissport's other workers.
Swissport provides airport ground services and air cargo
handling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: 713 999 5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 3280
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
kimd@forthepeople.com
- and -
Adam A. Smith, Esq.
RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP
PO Box 11050
Goldsboro, NC 27532
Phone: (919) 778-9700
Facsimile: (919) 432-1751
Email: AAS@justicecounts.com
TARDIS CAPITAL: Andersen Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARDIS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-001038 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Jan. 25, 2023)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
TARDIS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC is a consultancy firm offering
human capital and advisory solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
TIKTOK INC: Murphy Sues Over Unlawful Routine Surveillance
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Murphy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK, INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00504 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants intentional interception, disclosure, and/or use of
Plaintiff's and Class members' wire or electronic communications in
violation of the Federal Wire Tap Act as a result of the
Defendants' engagement in routine surveillance of the users web
browsing and information.
Tiktok allows users to upload, share, and view videos and other
content. However, what Defendants do not make known is that the
TikTok app contains software that allows the Defendants to engage
in routine surveillance of the users web browsing and information
searched and viewed. This surveillance goes above and beyond what a
typical consumer would be aware is possible and is a gross
violation of privacy rights. As a result, the Defendants have
violated the rights of Plaintiff and the Class and are liable for
damages.
The Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff or Class members of the
intentional interception, disclosure, and/or use of their wire or
electronic communications. Additionally, the Plaintiffs and Class
members did not consent to such interception, disclosure, and or
use, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of Illinois who used the
app.
The Defendants operate a social media networking app, TikTok, a
popular video-sharing and social networking service, owned by the
Chinese tech company ByteDance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-858-3239
Fax: 312-610-5646
Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
rob.harrer@cclc-law.com
TOM'S OF MAINE: Fish Sues Over False & Misleading Representation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Fish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tom's of Maine, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-00110-DNH-TWD
(N.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading
representation of its toothpaste promoted as "Fluoride-Free" and
"Antiplaque & Whitening" under its eponymous brand ("Product").
A large and growing percentage of consumers are seeking toothpastes
without fluoride, based on a belief it is harmful. However, these
consumers still want to practice preventive oral health. When
consumers see the Product's "Antiplaque" representation, they will
expect it is effective at preventing and reducing gingivitis.
However, the representation is misleading because the Product lacks
ingredients sufficient to control, reduce, prevent, or remove
plaque that leads to gingivitis.
Though the Product contains abrasive ingredients of calcium
carbonate, hydrated silica and sodium bicarbonate, these are not
capable of reducing plaque to prevent or control gingivitis. While
sodium bicarbonate has been shown to exert an antibacterial action,
this was only in high dosages and with extended exposure time,
circumstances different from someone brushing their teeth. Nor is
sodium lauryl sulfate, an anionic surfactant, capable of reducing
plaque in a therapeutically significant way. In fact, its binding
to positively charged side groups of proteins may lead to
denaturation or loss of biological activity through conformational
changes in the molecules. Finally, peppermint oil is unable to
control plaque to the extent it can have a clinically significant
effect on gingivitis.
By promoting the Product as "Fluoride Free" and "Antiplaque,"
consumers like Plaintiff expected it to contain non-fluoride
ingredients whose effect on plaque would significantly control and
prevent gingivitis. While the label is permitted to describe the
Product's antiplaque ability, related to its abrasive ingredient,
"fluoride free" tells consumers that such qualities will be based
on equally effective fluoride alternatives, when this is false. The
Product contains other representations and omissions 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 $6.99 for 5.5 oz, excluding tax and
sales, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product at stores including Walmart.
Tom's of Maine, Inc. manufactures and labels toothpaste promoted as
"Fluoride-Free" and "Antiplaque & Whitening" under its eponymous
brand.[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
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: McKee Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Kathleen McKee a/k/a Kathleen Albright,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Transworld Systems Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00042 (W.D.N.C., Jan. 25,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. (TSI) -- https://tsico.com/ -- provides
receivables collection and management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Phone: (704) 371-4333
Fax: (704) 371-3015
Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com
TURBIE TWIST: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Jimenez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vanessa Jimenez v. Turbie
Twist, LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-09320-JLR-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- No additional parties may be Feb. 21, 2023
joined after:
-- No amended pleadings may be filed Feb. 21, 2023
after:
-- All fact discovery shall be May 23, 2023
completed by:
-- Depositions shall be completed May 23, 2023
by:
-- Requests to admit shall be April 3, 2023
served by:
-- Expert discovery shall be July 18, 2023
completed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jsaPgW at no extra charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Justice Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twitter, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Rebekah Justice, Andrew Dai, on behlaf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Twitter, Inc., Does
1-20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23604287 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 26, 2023).
The case type of suit is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Twitter, Inc. -- http://www.twitter.com/-- is an American social
media company based in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle G. Lee, Esq.
RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
351 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Jahan Sagafi, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
TWO LITTLE GUYS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Two Little Guys
Company. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Two
Little Guys Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00681 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Two Little Guys Company doing business as Joe Tea --
https://joetea.com/ -- is a Montclair, New Jersey based producer of
iced tea and potato chips founded in 1998 by Steven Prato.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
U.S. ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT: Chery Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Chery, and other similarly situated individuals v. U.S.
ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT CORP., BARON SEDAGHAT, and BEY SEDAGAT, Case
No. 1:23-cv-20335-FAM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 27, 2023), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("the Act" or "FLSA"), for damages under the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), for violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), and for
violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Since the beginning of her employment, the Plaintiff was not paid
at the same rate as men in her position or in positions similarly
situated to her. In the beginning of her employment, the Plaintiff
was paid a rate of $10.65. the Plaintiff complained to Defendants
about this low pay rate, and in response to the Plaintiff's
complaints, Defendants only raised her pay rate by one dollar, to
come to $11.65 per hour. Men in the Plaintiff's position or
positions similarly situated to the Plaintiff, such as Eugene
(LNU), whom the Plaintiff supervised, Carlos (LNU), another
supervisor like the Plaintiff, and Richard (LNU), whom the
Plaintiff supervised, all made $14.00 or $15.00 per hour, whereas
the Plaintiff did not. The Plaintiff discovered this information
because these men informed her. The Plaintiff is entitled to the
$3.35 per hour difference for all of her hours worked within the
statutory period.
In addition, the Plaintiff often worked more than 40 hours in a
given workweek, but the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime at the rate of one-and-one-half times her regular pay rate
for the overtime hours she worked for the Defendants. In
particular, the Defendants would make the Plaintiff work shifts off
the clock whenever other employees did not show up. This would
happen an average of 2 times per month, and would require the
Plaintiff to work approximately 9 additional hours. As such, this
resulted in an average of 4.5 overtime hours per week that the
Plaintiff was not getting paid 1.5 times her regular rate. The
Plaintiff complained about the discrepancy in pay and her overtime
wages owed to her superiors, including but not limited to, Oma
Rojas, but the Plaintiff's requests were ignored. The Plaintiff was
terminated by the Defendants in retaliation for her complaints on
November 8, 2021, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, a female, was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt Security Guard Supervisor from June 16, 2017 until
November 8, 2021.
The Defendants are a Florida Profit Corporation and Miami-Dade
County residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max Horowitz, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: max@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
ULTA INC: Chan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
Nang Chan, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the general public v. ULTA INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00650 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Code
of Regulations seeking unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period
compensation, interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.
As a matter of policy and practice, the Defendant required the
Plaintiff and its other warehouse workers like him, to wait in line
and undergo security screening when entering and exiting its
warehouse facility. These required security inspections involve
waiting in line, inspection of pockets and bags, and occur before
the Defendant's warehouse workers clock-in for their work shifts
and after they clock out for their meal break. Although the
Defendant's warehouse workers are under the Defendant's control
while waiting in line for and undergoing these security
inspections, such time is, as a matter of policy and practice, not
compensated by the Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Material Handler at its
warehouse and distribution center in Fresno, California.
The Defendant has engaged in the ownership and operation of
warehouse facilities and distribution centers, which are used to
provide cosmetics and beauty products to Defendant's customers in
the State of California and elsewhere.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Judge Declines Class Action in Copyright Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that a US
judge declined to grant a termination rights case against Universal
Music class action status, basically concluding that each aggrieved
artist's individual case relies on the specifics of their old
record contracts, making the dispute inappropriate for a class
action.
Under US copyright law, when a creator assigns their copyrights to
business partner, they can terminate that assignment and reclaim
the rights after 35 years. The current termination right was added
to US law in the 1970s and only really started to kick in during
the early 2010s.
On the songs side of the music industry, songwriters going through
the required process to terminate past assignments and reclaim
copyrights is now pretty standard. However, on the recordings side
there remains a dispute as to whether the termination right even
applies.
That's based on the argument that record contracts are work for
hire agreements, which means - under US law - the label not the
artist is the default owner of any sound recording copyrights.
Which in turn means, with each individual artist's past record
deals, no assignment of rights ever took place and therefore there
is nothing to terminate.
Despite that ambiguity, plenty of artists have been able to
renegotiate old record deals in the US with the threat of seeking
to terminate those deals. However, some artists are pursuing legal
action in a bid to prove in court that record contracts are not
work for hire agreements and old record deals can be terminated,
and therefore those labels which don't recognise any one artist's
termination notice are in breach of copyright law.
One of the test cases in this domain is against Universal Music.
After the major failed to get the case dismissed, the lawyers
leading on the lawsuit last year filed papers seeking class action
status for the litigation. That would mean, if the artists actively
involved in the lawsuit were successful, any heritage artists with
similar old deals with Universal would benefit from the ruling.
However, according to Law360, judge Lewis Kaplan stated that -
while "plaintiffs' claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law
that undoubtedly extend beyond their own grievances", the lawsuit
is still not appropriate for class action status.
That's because "individualised evidence and case-by-case
evaluations" are necessary to reach a conclusion on each individual
artist's claim against the major, making "this case unsuitable for
adjudication on an aggregate basis".
Responding to that judgement, one of the lawyers working for the
artists in this dispute told Law360: "Plaintiffs believe they
presented a compelling record showing that the defendants' uniform
characterisations of the sound recordings as 'works made for hire'
was unsupported and a sham. Plaintiffs' counsel is evaluating the
ruling and will determine whether to seek interlocutory appellate
review". [GN]
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE: Law Students Join COVID, Strike Disruption Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monidipa Fouzder, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reports that
more than 4,500 law students have now signed up to join a
multi-million-pound group legal action against several universities
over Covid and strike disruption, the Gazette has learned - as the
High Court prepares to hear a request for a group litigation order
to be made in relation to claims against University College London
(UCL).
The UCL litigation is the first in a series of claims being brought
by the 'Student Group Claim' against UK universities. The legal
challenge is being led by law firms Asserson and Harcus Parker.
When the Gazette spoke to Harcus Parker partner Ryan Dunleavy last
November, the number of law students joining the claim was
approaching 3,000.
On Jan. 26, lawyers for hundreds of current and former UCL students
will ask the judge to grant a group litigation order. However, UCL
will reportedly oppose the application, and argue that students
should first be required to go through UCL's internal complaints
procedure and, if matters are not resolved, complain to the Office
of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
Lawyers for the students are expected to argue that the students
are not obliged to undertake such measures and that any delay would
breach students' right to a fair trial under article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
Dunleavy said: 'I believe that students like any consumer have a
right to go to the court if they have suffered a breach of
contract. It is high time these matters were addressed and students
were provided with a clear path for getting redress.'
A UCL spokesperson said: 'We have a well-established complaints
procedure, which gives students the option of complaining to the
Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education if they
are not satisfied with our response. This is the appointed
independent body for dealing with student complaints with powers to
recommend that UCL make awards of compensation to affected students
where appropriate, and this is free for students to use.
'We believe this process represents the best, most efficient and
swiftest way for our students to resolve any complaints. In
proposing this, we are not suggesting that students should not be
able to seek access to the courts, but given that they have not yet
used appropriate and available ways to resolve their complaints
through our established processes, the group litigation order is
unnecessary and premature.'
So far, more than 75,000 current and former students have signed up
to bring claims via the Student Group Claim website. Letters before
action have been sent to 18 universities. The legal team expects to
add more universities -- including law schools. [GN]
VIDA LONGEVITY: Settlement in Securities Class Action Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosca Scarlato, LLC on Jan. 30 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of Vida Longevity Fund, LP limited
partnership interests:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who, during the period from January 1,
2017 through March 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
purchased or otherwise acquired limited partnership interests in
Vida Longevity Fund, LP ("VLF"), either directly, or indirectly
through Life Assets Trust S.A. Compartments VII and/or VIII.
Please read this notice carefully. your rights will be affected by
a class-action lawsuit pending in this court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Plaintiffs have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $1,400,000 in cash (the "Settlement"),
which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on April 18, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. (ET), before
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon, either in-person at the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs
Federal Building, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware
19801-3555, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine (i)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, solely for purposes of the
Settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, Plaintiffs should be certified as
representatives for the Class, and Plaintiffs' counsel should be
appointed as counsel for the Class; (iii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and whether the
releases specified in the Settlement Agreement dated July 8, 2022
(and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(v) whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses and Plaintiffs' application for an Incentive
Award should be approved. If the hearing is held by telephone or
videoconference, information on how to participate will be posted
at www.strategicclaims.net/VLF.
If you are a Class Member, your rights will be affected by the
pending Action and the Settlement, and you might be entitled to a
payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may get copies of them by contacting the
Claims Administrator, VLF Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205,
Media, PA 19063; telephone 1‑866-274-4004; or
info@strategicclaims.net. You also can file claims online or
download copies of the Notice and Claim Form from the Settlement
website, www.strategicclaims.net/VLF.
If you are a Class Member, you must file a claim online or submit a
Claim Form no later than March 21, 2023 to be eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible for a payment,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion that is received no
later than March 21, 2023, in accordance with the instructions in
the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a payment
from the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option that
might allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit
against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning
the claims being resolved by the Settlement, even if you have
pending or later file another lawsuit or other proceeding against
the Releasees related to the claims covered by the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, and Plaintiffs' application for an Incentive
Award must be filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiffs'
counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than March 21, 2023, in accordance with the instructions in
the Notice.
All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in it should be directed to the Claims
Administrator or Plaintiffs' counsel. Please do not contact the
Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their lawyers about this
notice.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
VLF Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: 866-274-4004
Fax: 610-565-7985
Email: info@strategicclaims.net
www.strategicclaims.net/VLF
Inquiries other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form should
be made to counsel for the Class:
ROSCA SCARLATO, LLC
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
2000 Auburn Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: 216-946-7070
arosca@rscounsel.law
By Order of the Court
¹ Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), available at www.strategicclaims.net/VLF.
[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Scheduling Order Modified in Easton Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE EASTON, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all employees similarly
situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WELLS
FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-06070-AB-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. entered an order modifying scheduling order and denying
wells Fargo's ex parte application to shorten time for hearing on
Defendants' motion to strike:
-- Defendant's deadline to file March 23. 2023
opposition to conditional
and class certification motions:
-- The Plaintiffs deadline to file April 14, 2023
reply in support of conditional
certification and class
certification motions
-- Hearing on conditional and May 12, 2023
class certification motions:
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HrfCY0 at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Schenning Sues Over Investigators' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SCHENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00197-GLR (D. Md., January 25, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated internal fraud investigators overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage
Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a research
investigator from February 2020 through about January 13, 2023.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA is a banking company with its principal
business office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
WHOLE FOODS: Wins Summary Judgment vs Kinzer
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KINZER, HALEY
EVANS, and CHRISTOPHER MICHNO, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-11358-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Allison D.
Burroughs entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.
The Court said. "To echo the previous sentiments of this Court and
the First Circuit panel who affirmed the Court's earlier judgment,
this holding is not about the importance of the Black Lives Matter
message, the value of Plaintiffs' advocacy in wearing the masks,
the valor of their speaking out against what they perceived to be
discrimination in their workplace, or the quality of Whole Foods’
decision-making. Title VII. Here, the Court finds that no
reasonable jury could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence
that Whole Foods' reasons for
Plaintiffs’ terminations were pretextual and motivated by
discriminatory animus."
The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant Whole Foods. They
allege they were unlawfully terminated for opposing Whole Foods'
allegedly discriminatory discipline of employees wearing Black
Lives Matter masks at work in violation of the anti-retaliation
provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section
704(a), 42 U.S.C. section 2000e–3(a).
Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain
headquartered in Austin, Texas, which sells products free from
hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and
preservatives.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hm7xUI at no extra charge.[CC]
WOLVERINE WORLD: McWilliam Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen McWilliam, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC., a Delaware
corporation d/b/a SAUCONY, Case No. CACE-23-001007 (Fla. 17th
Judicial, Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 25, 2023), is brought under
the Florida Telephone Solication Act ("FTSA") and the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from the Defendant's
violations of the FTSA and the Do-Not-Call ("DNC") provision of the
TCPA.
To market Saucony's products, Saucony engages in unsolicited text
messaging telemarketing, including to individuals who have not
provided Saucony their prior express written consent as required
under the FTSA. The Defendant claims to be "one of the world's
leading running companies." To promote its business, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited telemarketing, including transmitting calls
using text messages. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop
the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, waste of time and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and
Class Members and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "person" as defined by the
TCPA.
The Defendant sells running shoes and running a barrel to Florida
residents and consumers nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Facsimile: 954-524-2822
Email: seth@epllc.com
- and –
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-889-3359
Facsimile: 954-889-5913
Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
mpascucci@JusticeEamed.com
XL FLEET: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by March 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re XL Fleet Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02002-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon entered an order that:
-- the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification no later than March 10, 2023;
-- the Defendant's opposition shall be filed no later than May
12, 2023; and
-- Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed no later than June 30,
2023.
The Court says, "Having not received a letter from Defendant in
opposition to Plaintiffs' pre-motion letter, the Court concludes
that no pre-motion conference is warranted."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40lg3M4 at no extra charge.[CC]
YIELDSTREET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TECKU; DAVID
FINKELSTEIN; AND LAWRENCE TJOK; individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. YIELDSTREET INC.; YIELDSTREET
MANAGEMENT, LLC; YS ALTNOTES I, LLC; YS ALTNOTES II, LLC; AND
MICHAEL WEISZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-07327-VM-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
"Unopposed/Consent Motion to Extend Class Certification Motion
Filing and Response Dates by Two Additional Weeks," as follows:
a. Motion for Class Certification: February 17, 2023
b. Opposition to Motion for March 20, 2023
Class Certification:
c. Plaintiffs' Reply: April 11, 2023
d. Hearing on Motion: to be determined by
the Court
Yieldstreet is an alternative investment platform focused on
generating income streams for investors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40gvGof at no extra charge.[CC]
*********
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 2023. 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 ***