/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230224.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 41
Headlines
3M CO: Response Brief in Hardwick PFAS Class Suit Set on March 3
ACACIA NETWORK: Bid for Partial Dismissal of Neor Suit OK'd in Part
ADVENT HEALTH: Proposes $500,000 Settlement in Data Breach Suit
AE RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Mendez Suit Alleges
AETNA INC: Rodney Suit Seeks Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Overtime
AMERICAN LICORICE: Fails To Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Osborn Alleges
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 27
CAMPBELL SOUP: Payne Sues Over Twists Pretzels' Deceptive Labels
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Greenhalgh Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
CARNIVAL CORP: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Suit Says
CITIC CAPITAL: Defrauds GNC Minority Stock Owners, Tang Suit Says
CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Fabuloso Product Contains Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
CONAGRA BRANDS: Tyrakowski Sues Over Lost Retirement Plan Documents
COPPER FIT: Class Action Over ICE Compression Sleeves Dismissed
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $14-M
DRDGOLD LTD: Appeal Over Cert. Ruling in Mine Workers' Suit Denied
ENERGIZER BRANDS: Faces Mentzer Suit Over Power Bank False Ads
FERTITTA ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
FINE ARTS CORE: Founder Named in Class Action Over Sexual Assaults
FIVE STARS: Faces Echeverri Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FLAG & ANTHEM: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOR YOUTH INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRANCHISE GROUP: Martinez Alleges Misleading Reference Price Scheme
FREEDOMROADS LLC: Umanzor Suit Seeks Salespersons' Unpaid Overtime
GANNETT PUBLISHING: Class Certification in Stehberger Suit Flipped
GEICO: Moyer Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY: Seijo Suit Removed to C.D. California
GENWORTH LIFE: Fees Awarded to Attorneys in Haney Insurance Suit
GERALDI'S OF BERRYVILLE: Mahoney Sues Over Unlawfully Retained Tips
GERBER PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Mislabeled Products
GINGER ELIZABETH: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOODER FOODS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE INC: Final Settlement OK in Antitrust Suit Heard on May 18
GUINEA: Faces Class Suit Over Residents' Exclusion From Elections
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Weaver Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
HEALTH PLAN: Kennedy Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
HENKEL US: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Mixer Operators
HIGHLAND HEALTH DIRECT: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
HOME DEPOT: Illegally Intercepts Electronic Information, Suit Says
HOME DEPOT: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communication, Kauffman Says
HOMEBRIDGE INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Jones Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Willbanks Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit in Australia Over "Defective" Engines
IMPERIAL COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under FLSA, Portillo Says
INDEPENDENCE BLUE: Faces Moore FLSA Suit Over Unpaid & OT Wages
INSPIRATO INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
IT'S A NEW 10: Gerard Files Suit in S.D. Florida
JACK HULLAND: Plaintiffs File Motion to Certify Seclusion Suit
JBS USA: Campos FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
JOHN PAUL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Hair Care Products
JOSE F. SANTIAGO: Garces Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOURNAL SENTINEL: Court Reversed Class Cert. Ruling in Stehberger
JUUL LABS: Carroll County to Receive $465,000 Deal in Vaping Suit
KORNIT DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17
LASTPASS US: Faces Goldstein Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access
LEE'S SANDWICH: Two Law Firms File Wage Class Action in Calif.
LENSA AI: Collects Users' Biometric Without Permission, Suit Says
LILIUM NV: Gnanaraj Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Gonzalez Sues Over Fire Dept. Staff's Unpaid OT
LTC HOLDINGS: Faces McDaniel FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Wages
MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Suit Says
MDL 2875: Judge Certifies Valsartan Class Suits in New Jersey
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Sheth v. Blackbaud
METRO AIR: Gomez Suit Remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court
MEYER CORPORATION: Clark Suit Removed to N.D. California
MICHAELS STORES: Crawford Suit Removed to E.D. California
NABFLY INC: Renews Subscription Plan Automatically, Garcia Claims
NELNET SERVICING: Hollenkamp Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NELNET SERVICING: Joaquin-Torres Merged with Data Security Cases
NELNET SERVICING: Kitzler Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NELNET SERVICING: Kohrell Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NELNET SERVICING: Kohrell Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NEWREZ LLC: Case Management Deadlines Extended in Ricci Suit
NEXSTAR MEDIA INC: Rohlfs Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Eisley Sues Over Train Derailment
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Erdos Sues Over Train Derailment
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Hall Sues Over Train Derailment
NORTHWEST FEDERAL: Patton Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
NUTRIPAN COLOMBIAN: Faces Manzano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
O'LAMPIA D&D LLC: Bradshaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OFFLIMITS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Hair Care Products' Side Effects
OLD COPPER: Carranza Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
OLD COPPER: Faces Suit Over Alleged Use of False Reference Prices
ORNUA FOODS: Winans Sues Over Kerrygold Butter Sticks' False Labels
PERSONAL SERVICING: Paramo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PIZZA PACK: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Marquez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PREMIER LOGISTICS: Rico Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Koch Files Suit in D. New Mexico
PROVIDENT BANCORP: Rosen Law Probes Firm Over Securities Violation
QUAD STUDIOS INC: Chin Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
QUALCOMM: Opposes Lawyers' Attempt to Obtain Contracts With Apple
RAVEN CONCEPTS: Faces Siriwangchai Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Mo.
REALPAGE INC: Kramer Sues Over Residential Real Estate Lease Cartel
REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Fike Suit Claims
REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Larue Suit Says
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: Suit Filed in N.D. California
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought
SCHIPHOL AIRPORT: Faces Baggage Workers Class Action Lawsuit
SEQUIUM ASSET: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Velez-Aguilar Suit
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: FTX Investors File Class Action Lawsuit
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Court Sustains Allegations Over Pricing Scheme
SPEAR PHYSICAL: Faces Marino Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Motion to Dismiss Landfill Waste Suit Denied
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: PFM's Shareholder Class Action Receives Funding
SYNGENTA CROP: Jenkins Filed Antitrust Suit in S.D. Indiana
TCF CO: Wiretaps Electronic Communication, Lightoller Suit Says
TIKTOK INC: Moody Sues Over Invasion of User Data & Usage Privacy
TRANS UNION: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Okpala Suit Alleges
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Deducts Labor Depreciation, Class Suit Says
UMG RECORDINGS: Waite Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 2nd Cir.
UNITED PRODUCTION: Calderon Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
UNITED STATES: Anastopoulo Law Files Water Contamination Suit
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Discriminated From USDA Loan System
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders HHS to Stop Termination of Medicaid
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $4.5M Deal in Tuition Suit Granted OK
VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Sells Unregistered Securities, Pelham Claims
W BBQ: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
WALMART INC: Bid to Dismiss DeMaso Suit Granted With Leave to Amend
WESTCHESTER PREMIER: Faces Casco Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WESTJET AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss Westgate Labor Suit Granted
WIN WASTE: Won't Use Declarations Obtained by Cogliano in Suit
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Technology Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $9.7MM Est. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Co. Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Reports $67MM Restricted Cash
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $43MM Estimated Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 920 Active Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Has $947MM Future Asbestos Liabilities
*********
3M CO: Response Brief in Hardwick PFAS Class Suit Set on March 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding of JDSupra reports that The response brief is
currently due March 3 in the case-captioned Hardwick v. 3M Co.
One of the biggest cases to watch in 2022 was the Hardwick class
action. Back in March, Judge Edmund Sargus of the Southern District
of Ohio issued an 49-page opinion certifying a class in Hardwick v.
3M Co.
Plaintiffs in this class action are not seeking compensatory
damages for personal injuries. Rather, they seek: (1) medical
monitoring; and (2) the establishment of an independent panel of
scientists to study the effects of PFAS. The class definition was
broad: "Individuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05
parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any
other PFAS in their blood serum. "
The Sixth Circuit unanimously granted interlocutory review of the
class certification order. It found that the "extraordinary
procedure" of interlocutory review was necessary because "when a
district court certifies one of the largest class actions in
history, predicated on a questionable theory of standing and a
refusal to apply a cohesion requirement endorsed by seven courts of
appeals, to authorize pursuit of an ill-defined remedy that sits
uneasily with traditional constraints on the equity power and
threatens massive liability, such a decision warrants further
review. "
Defendants' opening brief and amicus briefs supporting defendants
were filed at the end of December. The response brief is currently
due March 3. This will continue being a case we have our focus on
into 2023. [GN]
ACACIA NETWORK: Bid for Partial Dismissal of Neor Suit OK'd in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GIITOU NEOR and TYRONE WALLACE on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs
v. ACACIA NETWORK, INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, ACACIA NETWORK
HOUSING INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, PROMESA RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE
FACILITY, INC., d/b/a PROMESA, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 22-cv-4814 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in
part and denies in part Acacia's motion for partial dismissal.
The Plaintiffs bring the action against Defendants Acacia Network,
Inc., d/b/a Acacia Network, Acacia Network Housing Inc., d/b/a
Acacia Network, Promesa Residential Health Care Facility, Inc.,
d/b/a Promesa, and John Doe Corporations 1-100 (collectively,
"Acacia"). They allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and
request damages consisting of unpaid wages, including overtime,
unpaid spread of hours premium, compensation for late payment of
wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.
The Plaintiffs bring the class action on behalf of employees who
worked for Acacia on or after the date six years before their first
Complaint was filed on June 8, 2022.
Acacia Network is a domestic not-for-profit corporation that
subleases hotels and accommodations to the government to use as
housing and assistance centers for the homeless in New York City.
It owns and operates over 56 hotels turned shelters and assistance
centers, 750 individual family units, and 4 buildings in New York.
It also controls Promesa Residential Health Care Facility, Inc. All
of the locations operate as a single integrated enterprise under
the control of Acacia Network. Acacia collectively operates from
its headquarters located on 175th Street in Bronx, New York.
Neor was hired by Acacia as a Promesa youth social worker in
January 2019. Because she was often required to clock out and
continue working, Neor was not paid for her work during her lunch
hour or after her scheduled shift. Her employment with Acacia ended
on May 14, 2020.
Wallace was hired by Acacia on March 21, 2018 as a Housing
Specialist to work at Acacia's shelter in Brooklyn, New York.
Wallace was not paid for his work during his lunch hour or after
his scheduled shift. His employment with Acacia was terminated on
Dec. 28, 2021.
The Plaintiffs also claim that Acacia had a policy of rounding
employees' hours in a way that consistently decreased the hours
they worked by rounding clock-in times up and rounding clock-out
times down, leading to more lost wages. Finally, they allege that,
in violation of NYLL Section 195, they never received wage notices
and, because their hours were miscalculated, due to various forms
of time-shaving, Acacia failed to provide them and the class
members with accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs filed the action on June 8, 2022. Acacia submitted a
letter to the Court outlining deficiencies in their complaint and
requested permission to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
On Aug. 9, 2022, the Court granted Acacia leave to move to dismiss
after the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On
Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC. On Aug. 26, 2022,
Acacia moved to partially dismiss the FAC for the Plaintiffs'
failure to plead sufficient facts to support their claims for (1)
untimely wage payments, (2) non-neutral rounding, (3) spread of
hours compensation, and (4) failure to provide wage notice and wage
statements because the Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain a class
or collective action.
Pending before the Court is Acacia's motion for partial dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Acacia is moving to dismiss the claims alleging (1) untimely wage
payments, (2) non-neutral rounding, (3) failure to pay spread of
hours wages, and (4) failure to provide wage notices and
statements.
Judge Ramos opines that Acacia's rounding practice caused Neor to
lose wages she was owed. Wallace was similarly undercompensated.
The Plaintiffs sufficiently detail that the rounding policies
alleged in the FAC would necessarily result in consistent
underpayment of wages. Accordingly, Judge Ramos holds that the
Plaintiffs appropriately plead that Acacia's policy is precisely
the kind of unlawful, non-neutral rounding policy prohibited under
Section 785.48(b). Therefore, the motion to dismiss the unlawful
rounding practice under FLSA and NYLL claim is denied.
However, Judge Ramos opines that the FAC does not allege any harm
stemming from a lack of accurate wage notices or statements. The
inaccuracies in the wage statements would immediately alert the
Plaintiffs to the fact that they were not being properly
compensated by Acacia. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs lack standing
because they fail to demonstrate how the lack of accurate wage
notices and statements led to either a tangible injury or something
akin to a traditional cause of action. Therefore, the motion to
dismiss is granted.
As it is not apparent that any further opportunity to amend would
be futile, Judge Ramos permits the Plaintiffs to replead claims
under NYLL Section 195.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Ramos grants in part and denies in
part Acacia's motion for partial dismissal. He denies Acacia's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unlawful rounding claims under
FLSA and NYLL. He grants its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for violations of wage notice and wage statement provisions
of NYLL Section 195.
The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
to replead their NYLL Section 195 claim, and, if they choose to do
so, they must file it by March 9, 2023. The Defendants are directed
to answer or otherwise respond to the FAC or Second Amended
Complaint by March 30, 2023.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion, Doc.
22.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p83scf9 from Leagle.com.
ADVENT HEALTH: Proposes $500,000 Settlement in Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
hipaajournal.com reports that the Nashville, TN-based health
system, Advent Health Partners, has proposed a $500,000 settlement
to resolve claims related to a September 2021 data breach involving
the protected health information of 61,072 patients.
Advent Health Partners detected a breach of its email environment
in early September 2021. The investigation confirmed hackers had
access to, and potentially stole, the protected health information
of patients such as names, Social Security numbers, driver's
license information, dates of birth, health insurance, medical
treatment information, and financial account information. Affected
individuals were notified about the breach in March 2022, and were
offered credit monitoring services for 12 months.
A lawsuit - McHenry v. Advent Health Partners, Inc. - was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Advent Health Partners over the breach. The lawsuit alleged
the health system failed to implement reasonable and appropriate
cybersecurity measures, despite being aware of the high risk of
phishing attacks on healthcare providers. The lawsuit also took
issue with the length of time taken to notify affected individuals.
The breach was detected in early September 2021, yet Advent Health
Partners did not announce the breach on its website until February
2022, and notifications were sent in March 2022, 6 months after the
breach was detected. The lawsuit also alleges the notifications
were 'woefully deficient' and lacked even basic details about the
data breach, and that the 12 months of credit monitoring services
were insufficient.
The lawsuit alleges the failure to protect patient data and the
delay in issuing notifications violated Tennessee law. The lawsuit
also claims the health system failed to comply with the federal
standards of HIPAA and had not followed FTC guidelines for
protecting sensitive data. The lawsuit alleged negligence, breach
of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.
Advent Health Partners chose to settle the lawsuit to avoid further
legal costs and has admitted no wrongdoing. Under the terms of the
settlement, a $500,000 fund will be created to cover claims and
legal costs. Claims may be submitted for reimbursement of ordinary
expenses up to $750 per class member, which can include documented
losses such as out-of-pocket expenses, fees for credit reports and
credit monitoring between September 1, 2021, and April 20, 2023,
and up to four hours of lost time at $18 per hour. Claims may also
be submitted up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member for
reimbursement of extraordinary losses that have not already been
reimbursed, such as losses to identity theft and fraud. Class
members will also be provided with 3 years of credit monitoring
services.
The deadline for objection to or exclusion from the settlement is
March 21, 2023. Claims must be submitted by April 20, 2023, and the
final approval hearing has been scheduled for April 14, 2023.[GN]
AE RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Mendez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AE RETAIL WEST LLC; AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO.; AMERICAN
EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00269-CAB-JLB (SD. Cal.,
Feb. 10, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to include all
required forms of remuneration, including bonuses, in the "regular
rate" of pay/compensation used to lawfully calculate and pay
overtime, sick pay, and premiums to employees under state and
federal law.
According to the complaint, American Eagle has underpaid overtime
wages, sick wages, and Labor Code section 226.7 premiums to the
"California Class" and overtime wages to the "Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) Collective." The American Eagle did not factor the
"FIELD BON-ASM" into Plaintiff's "regular rate of pay", "regular
rate of compensation" and hourly rate. The Defendant underpaid
overtime to Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and California Class
Members by not including all required forms of non-excludable
remuneration in the regular rate of pay during the respective
Statutory Periods, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for the American Eagle in San Diego County,
California as a an Assistant Manager/Merchandise Team Lead from
March 2022 to October 2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
lauren@ferrarovega.com
AETNA INC: Rodney Suit Seeks Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY RODNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00185 (D. Conn., February 13, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
representative from July 2015 through October 2021.
Aetna, Inc. is provider of health care benefits and health
insurance products, headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
AMERICAN LICORICE: Fails To Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Osborn Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREG OSBORN and ADAM VIGIL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN LICORICE CO., Case No.
3:23-cv-00119 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 13, 2023) alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment
Statute.
Since January 19, 2020, the Defendant required the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees to don sanitary clothing and
other protective equipment, and wash their hands, while at
Defendant's facility, but prior to clocking in at the start of
their shift. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
were not paid for this time. At the end of their scheduled shift,
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were required
to clock out and then doff their sanitary clothing and other
protective equipment. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees were not paid for this time, the suit says.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated had to
remove candy from the bottoms of their work boots. Removing candy
was imperative for safety reasons, but Respondent typically
required employees, including Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated, to perform this work off the clock. The amount of time
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees spent
performing unpaid work was at least 10-15 minutes, and upwards of
30 minutes or more each day, when accounting for all pre- and
post-shift time, and work performed during unpaid lunches. This
resulted in at least 50 minutes to 1 hour and 25 minutes or more of
unpaid overtime per collective/class member, per week, added the
suit.
Plaintiff Osborn was employed by the Defendant as a production line
worker and machine operator from 2018 until he resigned on March
18, 2021. Plaintiff Vigil was employed by the Defendant as a cook
from June to October 2020.
American Licorice manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells
food products, in particular various candies, in Indiana and
California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2944
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, and L & C SAFETY, INC. d/b/a STANDARD SAFETY & SUPPLY,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00532 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 13, 2023) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a safety consultant from
approximately January 2018 until April 2021. Throughout his
employment with Defendants, Plaintiff asserts that he was paid a
flat amount for each day worked and did not receive overtime
compensation for all the hours worked in excess of 40 hours each
week.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an American petroleum and natural
gas, exploration and production company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRNewswire reports that bids for lead plaintiff appoint will be due
on March 27, 2023 in a class action filed against Argo Blockchain
plc.
A class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This
lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Argo American Depository Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the documents issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering conducted on or about September
23, 2021; and/or (b) Argo securities between September 23, 2021 and
October 10, 2022, both dates inclusive.
The class action against Argo includes allegations that the Company
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Argo was highly susceptible to and/or suffered
from significant capital constraints, electricity and other costs,
and network difficulties; (ii) the foregoing issues hampered Argo's
ability to mine Bitcoin or Bitcoin equivalents, execute its
business strategy, meet its obligations, and operate its Helios
facility; (iii) as a result, Argo's business was less sustainable
than defendants had led investors to believe; (iv) accordingly,
Argo's business and financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as
a result, the documents issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and defendants' public statements
throughout the class period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
Aggrieved Argo investors only have until March 27, 2023 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Payne Sues Over Twists Pretzels' Deceptive Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAREN PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and SNYDER'S-LANCE
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01210 (S.D.N.Y., February 13,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
State Consumer Protection Statues and New York's General Business
Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Snyder's of
Hanover Braided Twists Pretzels. The Defendants represent the
products as made with "Whole Grain" and that their Honey Wheat
Product is also made with "Real Honey." Unbeknownst to consumers,
however, the Defendants' products are not predominately made with
"whole grain" nor is the Honey Wheat Product primarily sweetened
with "real honey." Instead, the products' ingredients on their back
panel list "enriched wheat flour" as the product's primary
ingredient, a well-known substitute to "whole grain" wheat.
Similarly, the back panel of the Defendants' Honey Wheat products
lists "brown sugar," as the products' primary ingredient, followed
by "tapioca syrup," and "malt extract," two well-known processed
sweeteners, says the suit.
Campbell Soup Company is a food processing company, with its
principal place of business located in Camden, New Jersey.
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Campbell Soup
Company, with its principal place of business located in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gr-firm.com
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Greenhalgh Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG GREENHALGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES, INC., RACHEL E.
HAURWITZ, JASON V. O'BYRNE, RYAN FISCHESSER, SCOTT BRAUNSTEIN,
ANDREW GUGGENHIME, JEFFREY LONGMCGIE, and NATALIE R. SACKS,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00609-VC (N.D. Cal., February 10,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with Caribou's initial public offering
conducted on or about July 23, 2021 and trade of Caribou securities
between July 23, 2021 and December 9, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the treatment effect of CB-010, an allogeneic
anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy, was not as durable as the Defendants
had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, CB-010's clinical
and commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result,
the offering documents and the Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein, says
the suit.
When the truth emerged, Caribou's stock price allegedly fell $0.81
per share, or 9.03 percent, to close at $8.16 per share on December
12, 2022, damaging investors.
Caribou Biosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company based in Berkeley, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Email: 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
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RUBRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-10309 (D. Mass.,
Feb. 9, 2023) sues the Defendant for wiretapping the electronic
communications of the Plaintiff and other Class members who were
visitors to Carnival's website, www.carnival.com.
The Plaintiff asserts that Carnival intercepts, records, and
transmits the Plaintiff's and other website visitor's mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes, URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time. After intercepting
and capturing the Website Communications, Carnival and the Session
Replay Providers use those Website Communications to recreate
website visitors' entire visit to www.carnival.com. Carnival's
procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the
Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of
"looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Carnival website
for the entire duration of their website interaction, says the
suit.
Carnival's conduct allegedly violates the Massachusetts Wiretapping
Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, section 99, and the Massachusetts
Invasion of Privacy Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, section 1,
and constitutes a general invasion of the privacy rights of website
visitors.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all Massachusetts citizens whose Website Communications
were intercepted through Carnival's procurement and use of Session
Replay Code embedded on www.carnival.com, as well as its subpages,
and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action,
including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Daniel Rubridge is a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. He used his smart phone and computer to visit
www.carvinal.com while in Massachusetts.
Carnival Corp is a British-American cruise operator with a combined
fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Carey Alexander, Esq.
Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
calexander@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.con
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
CITIC CAPITAL: Defrauds GNC Minority Stock Owners, Tang Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN YONG TANG, FARIS AL KOOHEJI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIC CAPITAL HOLDINGS
LTD., CITIC LIMITED, CITIC CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, GNC HOLDINGS, LLC,
ZT BIOPHARMACEUTICAL LLC, YICHEN ZHANG, YONG KAI WONG, HANS
ALLEGAERT, KENNETH A. MARTINDALE, TRICIA K. TOLIVAR, CAMERON
LAWRENCE, SUSAN M. CANNING, ALAN D. FELDMAN, MICHAEL F. HINES, AMY
B. LANE, PHILIP E. MALLOTT, MICHELE S. MEYER, ROBERT F. MORAN,
EVERCORE INC., GREGORY BERUBE, ABC COMPANY, JOHN DOE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01195 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in
racketeering activities to defraud the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated minority owners by wrongfully driving GNC into
bankruptcy using interstate mail and wire transmissions. The
incidents of racketeering activity were related to each other in
that they had the same or similar effects, results, participants,
methods of commission, victims, and purpose (the control of GNC and
the deprivation of rights of the Plaintiffs in GNC). The
racketeering acts were not isolated incidents, but were continuous
conduct and such incidents of racketeering activity continued over
a substantial period of time, i.e., from February 2018 through
October 7, 2020, a time period over two and one-half years. As a
result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs have incurred
injury to their property, says the suit.
CITIC Capital Holdings Ltd. is a global investment company
headquartered in Hong Kong.
CITIC Limited is wholly owned by CITIC Group Corporation located in
New York, New York.
CITIC Capital Partners LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary and the
private equity arm of CITIC Capital based in New York, New York.
GNC Holdings, LLC is wholly owned company of ZT Biopharmaceutical
LLC in New York.
ZT Biopharmaceutical LLC is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Evercore Inc. is an investment banking company in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Y. Tang, Esq.
TANG PC
1702 Flushing Ave.
Ridgewood, NY 11385
Telephone: (212) 363-0188
Facsimile: (212) 981-4869
E-mail: john.tang@gettang.com
- and -
Wenjie Cai, Esq.
TANG PC
1702 Flushing Ave.
Ridgewood, NY 11385
Telephone: (212) 363-0188
Facsimile: (212) 981-4869
E-mail: ericat@gettang.com
CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Cleanspark Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2023, that the Company
intends to defend itself from Bishins class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins ("Bishins"), individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the "Class"),
filed a class action complaint (the “Class Complaint”) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Zachary Bradford
("Bradford"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Lori Love ("Love")
(such action, the "Class Action"). The Class Complaint alleged
that, between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021, the Company,
Bradford, and Love "failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the
Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that
several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed
related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis."
The Class Complaint sought: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an
award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award of
reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the
litigation.
On December 2, 2021, the Court appointed Darshan Hasthantra as lead
Plaintiff (together, with Bishins, the "Plaintiffs"), and Glancy,
Prongay and Murray LLP as class counsel.
Hasthantra filed an Amended Complaint on February 28, 2022 (the
"Amended Class Complaint"). In the Amended Class Complaint, Love is
no longer a defendant and S. Matthew Schultz ("Schultz") has been
added as a defendant (the Company, Bradford and Schultz,
collectively, the "Defendants").
The Amended Class Complaint alleges that, between December 10, 2020
and August 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"), Defendants made material
misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's acquisition of
ATL Data Centers, Inc. ("ATL") and its anticipated expansion of
bitcoin mining operations.
In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) were
misleading in their various public announcements related to the
timeline for expanding ATL's mining capacity; and (2) failed to
disclose other material conditions purportedly related to the
Company’s acquisition of ATL, including that an ATL predecessor
had filed for bankruptcy about six months prior to the acquisition,
that another bitcoin miner had declined to acquire ATL, and that a
related party had performed an audit of ATL for the Company.
The Amended Class Complaint seeks: (a) certification of the Class,
(b) an award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award
of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the
litigation.
To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action. The
Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 28, 2022. The Motion
to Dismiss seeks dismissal of all claims asserted in the Amended
Class Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend on the
grounds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 27, 2022. Defendants’
reply in further support of their Motion to Dismiss was filed on
August 11, 2022.
The Motion to Dismiss was denied on January 5, 2023. The Company
will file its Answer on February 9, 2023, and discovery will
commence thereafter.
Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Action cannot be
determined with certainty, the Company stands behind all of its
prior statements and disclosures and believes that the claims
raised in the Amended Class Complaint and the Class Complaint are
entirely without merit. The Company intends to both defend itself
vigorously against these claims and to vigorously prosecute any
counterclaims.
Headquartered in Bountiful, Utah, CleanSpark, Inc. --
www.cleanspark.com -- is in the business of providing advanced
energy software and control technology that enables a plug-and-play
enterprise solution to modern energy challenges. Its services
consist of intelligent energy monitoring and controls, microgrid
design and engineering and consulting services. Its software
allows energy users to obtain resiliency and economic
optimization..The Company's software is uniquely capable of
enabling a microgrid to be scaled to the user's specific needs and
can be widely implemented across commercial, industrial, military
and municipal
deployment.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Fabuloso Product Contains Pseudomonas Aeruginosa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie Patora individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-01118
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023) seeks to remedy the deceptive and
misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Fabuloso cleaning
products throughout the state of New York and throughout the
country.
The Defendant is allegedly using a marketing and advertising
campaign that omits from the ingredients lists that the Products
include Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This omission leads a reasonable
consumer to believe they are not purchasing a product with a known
bacterium when in fact they are purchasing a product contaminated
with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is recognized to be an incredibly dangerous
and life-threatening substance, specifically for immunocompromised
individuals, and especially in the context of inhalation and skin
ingestion. This is egregious, especially because people are
spreading this bacteria all over their homes by using a product
that is supposed to clean their home, says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Fabuloso Product that was
subject to the recall.
Colgate-Palmolive manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells
cleaning products to clean surfaces in the home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Gary Klinger, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
gklinger@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Tyrakowski Sues Over Lost Retirement Plan Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN C. TYRAKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. PENSION PLAN;
CONAGRA BRANDS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00894 (N.D. Ill.,
February 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Employment Security and Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, the fiduciaries of the Beatrice
Retirement Income Plan (BRIP) have lost relevant Plan documents
prior to its merger into the Conagra Brands, Inc. Pension Plan. The
said lost Plan documents reflect the Plaintiff's deferred vested
unreduced age 60 benefit. At no time has any Defendant ever
communicated to the Plaintiff or (on information and belief) any
other former participant of the BRIP that it had lost the relevant
version of the BRIP document and the Plaintiff was not aware of
this fact. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks equitable relief that
will ensure compliance with ERISA in the future and including
without limitation an order (1) (a) requiring the Defendants to
locate and authenticate a copy of the BRIP Plan document in a court
proceeding or (b) requiring the Defendants and the Plaintiff to
reconstruct the terms of the BRIP Plan documents through a court
proceeding; and (2) thereafter (a) harmonize the Conagra Plan with
the BRIP document to ensure no violations of ERISA's anti-cutback
rule; (b) notify each and every affected participant of their
benefits in a court-approved, plain English, common-sense method;
and (c) adequately maintain the BRIP and all Plan documents in
accordance with ERISA.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is an American consumer packaged goods holding
company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Heffner, Esq.
Matthew Hurst, Esq.
HEFFNER HURST
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 346-3466
E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com
mhurst@heffnerhurst.com
- and -
Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
805 Lake Street, #226
Oak Park, IL 60301
Telephone: (312) 878-8391
COPPER FIT: Class Action Over ICE Compression Sleeves Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that the
lawsuit detailed on this page was dismissed with prejudice on
September 1, 2022.
The parties' one-page stipulation of dismissal does not state a
reason as to why the proposed class action was dismissed.
The parties' one-page August 30 stipulation of dismissal does not
state a reason as to why the proposed class action was dismissed.
United States District Judge Eric N. Vitaliano formally tossed the
case on September 1.
A new case was filed on February 15, 2023 that claims Copper Fit
has falsely advertised the apparent therapeutic, health and
performance benefits of its ICE compression sleeves, gloves and
socks. Read more about the suit over on the ClassAction.org blog.
Lawsuit
A proposed class action alleges Copper Fit has falsely advertised
the apparent health benefits of its popular ICE line of compression
garments.
The 38-page lawsuit in New York alleges Copper Fit has falsely
claimed, in particular, that the antioxidant coenzyme
Q10-CoQ10-infused into the fabric of its compression garments is
"motion activated" and then released and absorbed into the body
when using the products, and that the purportedly absorbed CoQ10
can increase energy, among other health benefits.
The specific products mentioned in the complaint include the Copper
Fit ICE Compression Knee Sleeve, Plantar Fascia Ankle Sleeve,
Compression Gloves, Compression Elbow Sleeve, Compression Socks and
Compression Back Support. The suit alleges Copper Fit introduced
the aforementioned products "[i]n order to take advantage of the
CoQ10 'health' hype created by the diet supplement industry, and to
deceive consumers."
According to the filing, the "vast majority" of people naturally
produce enough CoQ10 and do not require any additional amounts for
their health and well-being, including for energy. Although CoQ10
is one of the most popular dietary supplements in the U.S., the
industry behind it has "engaged in a massive promotion of untold,
but questionable, purported CoQ10 health benefits," the lawsuit
says. From the complaint:
"The CoQ10 dietary supplement industry has generated its own
controversy. To realize any benefits of CoQ10 supplementation at a
cellular level, an individual must achieve effective or optimum
CoQ10 blood levels. In its raw form, however, CoQ10 is a
crystalline powder that is insoluble in water, and poorly soluble
in fat, and thus not easily absorbed even in the digestive track
[sic] when taken by mouth (let alone from fabric through the skin).
CoQ10 supplement manufacturers have faced their own class action
lawsuits asserting that they have made false claims regarding the
effectiveness of their CoQ10 supplements and the absorption rates
of such supplements when ingested."
The plaintiff, a Staten Island, New York resident, says he would
not have bought the products, or would not have paid the "premium
price" Copper Fit charges for them, had he known the CoQ10 infused
into the compression garments was not absorbed into the human body,
or that the negligible amount that may be absorbed provides no
health benefits.
According to the suit, Copper Fit has extensively claimed that its
copper-infused compression clothing can help relieve muscle and
joint soreness, provide support for muscle stiffness and reduce
recovery time, among other apparent benefits. Moreover, defendant
Ideavillage Products Corp. has also implied that the copper infused
into its compression garments is absorbed into the body to provide
"essential" and "therapeutic" benefits, the lawsuit states.
The complaint alleges that these representations were false given
the copper infused into the products was not absorbed into the
human body, and that any copper that was absorbed provided no
therapeutic, health or performance benefits.
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period, purchased in New York Copper Fit ICE
products that the company warranted as infused with CoQ10 that is
absorbed into the body when the products are used, and that such
CoQ10 provides health benefits, including improving energy. [GN]
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $14-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Christine Joy of Seeking Alpha reports that Corcept
Therapeutics (NASDAQ:CORT) has reached a preliminary settlement in
a class action lawsuit, as part of which the medications company
has agreed to make a one-time payment of $14M.
The settlement has been made for all claims in a purported
securities class action against Corcept and certain of its
executive officers, which was pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
The settlement amount will be covered in full by Corcept's
insurers. [GN]
DRDGOLD LTD: Appeal Over Cert. Ruling in Mine Workers' Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran Ryan of MoneyWeb reports that on February 6, 2023, the
Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) threw out an appeal by DRDGold and
East Rand Proprietary Mines (ERPM) against an earlier Johannesburg
High Court decision certifying that mine workers suffering harm in
the course of their work constituted a 'class'.
The class action was brought on behalf of thousands of surviving or
deceased mineworkers and their dependents who contracted silicosis
as a result of breathing silica dust during their work.
In 2016, the South Gauteng High Court allowed the class action to
proceed, a decision that was immediately appealed by the mining
houses.
In 2018, 19 mining companies reached a settlement with lawyers for
the claimants, under which mineworkers and their defendants could
claim compensation for harm suffered in the course of their work.
In 2019 the Johannesburg High Court was asked to approve the
settlement.
The high court certified two classes, a silicosis and a
tuberculosis class. The class action comprises two phases: the
first to establish liability of the mining companies, and the
second to settle individual claims.
DRDGold and ERPM opted not to participate in the settlement
agreement, and decided to argue their cases in the SCA.
The two mining houses are "the only mining companies who have
persisted in litigating this matter" says a statement by class
action pioneer, Richard Spoor Inc Attorneys, one of the firms
representing the mineworkers.
Should DRDGold and ERPM appeal the SCA ruling to the Constitutional
Court, this could add years to the case, as it must still go to
trial, says George Kahn, a director at Richard Spoor Inc.
"However, if we ultimately reach a settlement with DRDGold and
ERPM, this would likely bring the matter to a speedier conclusion,
though we will still have to go to court to get its approval for
the settlement."
Responding to the SCA ruling, DRDGold (of which ERPM is a
subsidiary) said it had challenged the class certification on
several counts:
-- That it was too broadly defined;
-- The tuberculosis class action against it had been withdrawn;
-- It would have minimal involvement in the legal proceedings;
-- It ceased underground mining at Durban Deep in 2000; and
-- That there was no basis for the liability of parent companies.
-- ERPM further contended that it was provisionally liquidated and
a compromise with creditors was reached in 2001, and that it ceased
underground mining in 2008.
Lawyers for the mineworkers argued that while insolvency
settlements provide protection against further creditor claims,
this does not apply to claims of delict (violations of law).
DRDGold argued it would be prejudiced by having to participate in a
class action suit in which it had a minimal role to play. Judge
Christiaan van der Merwe, on behalf of the SCA, said this claim of
prejudice "appears to be exaggerated. "
Van der Merwe's ruling says the certification of a class - of which
DRDGold and ERPM sought to be excluded - was no more than a
procedural device aimed at facilitating the determination of the
class action. It could be altered by the court during the class
action proceedings, and matters that do not affect the two mining
companies could be separated from the main case and the companies
excused.
Says Kahn: "The ongoing class action litigation deals with the
legacy of apartheid that continues to endure in the lungs, families
and communities of labourers that silicosis and tuberculosis
followed home from the mines.
The SCA also found that a 'declarator' issued by Johannesburg High
Court, allowing general damages claims by deceased mineworkers to
be transmitted to their dependants, remains intact.
This means the class action against DRDGold and ERPM will proceed
to trial.
Before summons can be lodged in the class action case, lawyers for
the mineworkers must apply to the Johannesburg High Court for a
'variation' on the 2016 order, to exclude mines that have already
settled.
"Then we give notice and only after notice periods [so people who
want to opt out of the litigation and instruct their own lawyers
have a chance to do so] will summons be issued," says Kahn.
"To progress the matter the plaintiffs are now required to issue a
summons to commence action. The grounds of appeal will be raised as
a defence in addition to the defences raised on the facts of the
matter and these issues will most likely be dealt with by way of
points in limine [before the main case is heard]."
Kahn disputes that DRDGold cannot establish its legal liability in
this case.
"The High Court in 2015 commented that the mining companies
themselves would know what their anticipated liability would be
because they alone carry all the relevant data points."
This data would include earnings, the age of workers at date of
dismissal as well as health information. [GN]
ENERGIZER BRANDS: Faces Mentzer Suit Over Power Bank False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Mentzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Energizer Brands, LLC,, Case No. 2:23-cv-02028-CSB-EIL
(C.D. Ill., Feb. 12, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the
Energizer Max Power Bank, that it would deliver 10,000 mAh and not
a significantly lower amount.
The Plaintiff believed and expected the Product would provide
10,000 mAh because that was the number highlighted on the front
label. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at premium price, approximately not less than
$29.99, excluding tax and sales.
The Plaintiff says that he paid more for the Product, would have
paid less or not have purchased it had he known the representations
and omissions were false and misleading.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes:
Illinois Class: All persons in the State of Illinois who
purchased the Product during the statutes of
limitations for each cause of action alleged;
and
Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States of
Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Mississippi,
Arkansas, Alaska, Wyoming and South Carolina who
purchased the Product during the statutes of
limitations for each cause of action alleged.
Energizer manufactures, labels and sells a portable charger for
electronic devices promising 10,000 milliampere hour under the
Energizer brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
FERTITTA ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
FATARA MUHAMMAD on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. FERTITTA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; LANDRY’S INC., MCCORMICK &
SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP., d/b/a MASTRO’S STEAKHOUSE, MASTRO’S
RESTAURANTS, LLC, MASTRO’S HOUSTON LLC, TILMAN J. FERTITTA,
STEVEN LEE SCHEINTHAL, RICHARD HOLDEN LIEM, or any other related
individual or entity, Case No. 4:23-cv-00493 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 9,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages and
wages owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Hospitality Wage Order.
The Plaintiff seeks all compensation, including unpaid minimum
wages and overtime under the FLSA and unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, improper pay stubs and wage notices, and failure to pay
wages and illegal deductions pursuant to the New York Labor Law and
supporting regulations, which they were deprived of, plus interest,
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated workers were never paid any wages from the Defendants and
only received tips from customers. She received zero in wages from
any Defendant during her tenure at Mastro's restaurant locations,
the Plaintiff claims. Accordingly, the Defendants did not meet the
requirements to entitle them to take a tip credit against their
employees' wages, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants at Mastro's since
September 2017 as a bathroom attendant.
Fertitta is a conglomerate and holding company that holds companies
and investments owned by Tilman Fertitta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Edwards, Esq.
David James, Esq.
Paul Samuel, Esq.
EDWARDS LAW
603 W. 17th St
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 623-7727
Facsimile: (512) 623-7729
E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com
david@edwards-law.com
paul@edwards-law.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
FINE ARTS CORE: Founder Named in Class Action Over Sexual Assaults
------------------------------------------------------------------
T'Cha Dunlevy of Montreal Gazette reports that FACE school founder
named in class-action filing for alleged sexual assaults.
Plaintiff and three other men describe the experiences they
allegedly had with Phillip Baugniet while they were between the
ages of 7 and 13.
A group of students who attended two downtown Montreal schools have
filed an application for a class-action lawsuit over claims they
were sexually assaulted by the schools' principal.
The application, which was filed this month, says the founder and
former principal of FACE school, who was previously the principal
at the now-defunct Victoria School, sexually assaulted the children
while they were students and he was the principal. It names Phillip
(Hart) Baugniet, as well as the English Montreal School Board
(EMSB), and the Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM),
which jointly run FACE school, located on University Ave., as
defendants.
The suit seeks damages and interests of $450,000 for the
plaintiffs, plus $750,000 for losses suffered, and $10 million for
the attack on their dignity and physical integrity.
Baugniet was the principal and a teacher at Victoria School in the
early 1970s, until he founded FACE (Fine Arts Core Education)
school in 1975, where he acted as principal until 1991. The alleged
incidents took place during school visits or private visits to his
farm in Cornwall, Ont., and to his home.
In the application, the plaintiff, referred to only as "C.," and
three other men describe the experiences they allegedly had with
Baugniet while they were between the ages of 7 and 13.
C., whose identity is protected by a publication ban, is now in his
early 40s. He attended FACE from 1986 to 1989, beginning in
kindergarten at age 5. The document alleges that C. was assaulted
by Baugniet when he was in Grade 2, on a weekend school trip to the
latter's farm with approximately 40 other students, during the
1988-89 school year.
The students were sleeping in different cabins on the property, in
groups of around five students per cabin. The document alleges that
one night, Baugniet entered the cabin where C., who was 7 at the
time, was sleeping. Baugniet allegedly crouched next to him "and
began to touch his genitals, saying it would 'keep you warm.'"
Baugniet is then alleged to have done the same to another student
sleeping in the same room, before leaving the cabin.
On another occasion, during the winter of 1990-1991, C. alleges
that Baugniet followed him into the bathroom at Baugniet's Montreal
home and touched his genitals. On both occasions, Baugniet is
alleged to have subsequently acted as if nothing happened.
The document alleges that C. suffered serious developmental issues
because of the incidents, including beginning to consume alcohol
and drugs in adolescence and becoming "extremely distrustful" of
others and of authority figures. At 17, C. began consuming hard
drugs "to forget the sexual assaults." C.'s studies and
professional life were stunted, according to the document, and he
continues to have trouble maintaining steady employment due to his
drug use and depression.
"C. also feels shame, guilt and rancour connected to the sexual
assaults committed by Baugniet," according to the document.
Another man, referred to as "Member #2" and now in his early 60s,
met Baugniet in 1973-74 when he was a Grade 6 student at Victoria
School, where Baugniet was his principal, music teacher and English
teacher.
Over the course of the school year, Baugniet began to invite Member
#2 on extracurricular outings. During a parent-teacher meeting,
Baugniet met and befriended Member #2's mother. That April,
Baugniet invited the 12-year-old boy and his mother to his farm for
the weekend, as he often did with Victoria School students.
During the visit, Baugniet allegedly "took his clothes off in front
of Member #2, invited him to touch him, touched the genitals of
Member #2 repeatedly and pressed his erect penis against him."
Baugniet is alleged to have sexually assaulted Member #2 on four
occasions over the course of the spring. Member #2 never told his
parents or other family members, out of fear and shame. In the
decades since, Member #2 is said to have felt shame and guilt,
fallen into drug use and suffered other repercussions.
The third alleged victim, "Member #3," is the older brother of
Member #2, whom Baugniet met after meeting their mother. Baugniet
is alleged to have sexually assaulted Member #3 during a visit to
his farm in early 1974.
Member #3, who was 13 at the time, spent three weeks at the farm,
where he was alone with Baugniet and Baugniet's father. Baugniet
informed him they would sleep in a renovated barn -- Baugniet in a
bedroom and Member #3 on a mattress in an open area. During the
second week of his stay, Baugniet, who was allegedly drunk, is said
to have invited Member #3 to give him a massage, then asked him to
lie next to him to watch the stars. The scenario repeated several
times that week.
At the beginning of the third week, Baugniet allegedly returned to
the barn late and woke Member #3. "Baugniet is drunk again," the
document alleges. "Baugniet turned him on his side, pulled down his
underwear and violently (sodomized him). Baugniet then went to
sleep in his room."
Baugniet is alleged to have sodomized Member #3 several other times
that week, and on one occasion to have performed fellatio on him.
Baugniet is then alleged to have told Member #3 that what happened
was a secret and that "if he reveals the sexual assaults to anyone,
(Baugniet) will kill him."
Member #3 claims to suffer repercussions from the alleged assaults,
including having trouble maintaining a job, drug consumption,
anorexia, insomnia, and feelings of shame, guilt and rancour.
Member #4 is in his late-50s. He was 10 years old during the
1973-1974 school year. During a two-day trip outside the city with
the school orchestra, the document states, Baugniet entered the
dormitory where he was sleeping and began touching his genitals.
Back at school, Baugniet is alleged to have called Member #4 into
his office and made him phone his mother and ask for permission to
spend the weekend at his farm. As school visits to the farm were
common, the boy's mother agreed. Over the weekend, Baugniet is
alleged to have "touched the genitals of Member #4 and masturbated
him" on multiple occasions, including during the drive to the farm,
on a tractor and in Baugniet's bed.
Member #4 is haunted by the incidents to this day, according to the
document.
In the request, the lawyers for the plaintiffs claim to have been
contacted "by other victims of Baugniet. "
The class-action suit can move forward only if Quebec's Superior
Court agrees to hear the case. [GN]
FIVE STARS: Faces Echeverri Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ECHEVERRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE STARS LOYALTY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00627-KAW (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2023) seeks legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form
of text messages, to Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the
cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida,
in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has never provided his
"prior express written consent" to Defendant or any other party
acting on Defendant's behalf to authorize the subject telephonic
sales calls for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods
or services by means of an "automated system for the selection or
dialing of telephone numbers." Because Plaintiff's cellular phone
alerts him whenever he receives a text message, each telephonic
sales call by or on behalf of Defendant to his number invaded his
privacy and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt, says the
suit.
Five Stars Loyalty, Inc. is a company that provides all-in-one
payments and marketing platform services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
FLAG & ANTHEM: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flag & Anthem, LLC.
The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Flag & Anthem, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01105 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flag & Anthem -- https://www.flagandanthem.com/ -- is a brand
representing a modern and youthful take on classic wardrobe
essentials for men's and women's clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
FOR YOUTH INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against For Youth, Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. For
Youth, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01148 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Youth INC. -- https://www.youthinc-usa.org/ -- accelerates the most
promising youth-development organizations across New York
City.[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
FRANCHISE GROUP: Martinez Alleges Misleading Reference Price Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FRANCHISE GROUP INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES
1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00277-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal., Feb.
13, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more
products through americanfreight.com that were deceptively
represented as discounted from a false reference price in violation
of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False
Advertising Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the advertised discounts were
fictitious because the reference prices did not represent a bona
fide price at which Defendant previously sold or offered to sell
the products, on a regular basis, for a commercially reasonable
period of time, as required by the Federal Trade Commission. Thus,
the Defendant's scheme intends to, and does, provide misinformation
to the customer. This misinformation communicates to consumers,
including the Plaintiff, that the products sold on Defendant's
e-commerce website have greater value than the advertised
discounted price, the lawsuit contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have purchased products tainted by
this deceptive pricing scheme. The Plaintiff also seeks obtain
actual, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate
relief in the amount by which Defendant was unjustly enriched as a
result of its sales offered at a false discount.
The Plaintiff purchased Edie Occasional Collection online from San
Diego County, California on September 30, 2022.
The Franchise Group is an American publicly traded holding company
that acquires and manages mainly franchise companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
James B. Drimmer, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: Todd@lcllp.com
Jim@lcllp.com
Scott@lcllp.com
FREEDOMROADS LLC: Umanzor Suit Seeks Salespersons' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON UMANZOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOMROADS, LLC; CAMPING WORLD RV SALES,
LLC, A/K/A CAMPING WORLD RV SALES, A/K/A CAMPING WORLD RV SALES
(HANOVER CO), A/K/A CAMPING WORLD RV SALES (HENRICO CO), A/K/A
CAMPING WORLD RV SALES (NEWPORT NEWS CI), A/K/A CAMPING WORLD RV
SALES (PRINCE WILLIAM CO), A/K/A CAMPING WORLD RV SALES
(SPOTSYLVANIA CO), A/K/A AIRSTREAM OF VIRGINIA (HANOVER CO), A/K/A
AIRSTREAM OF VIRGINIA (SPOTSYLVANIA CO), A/K/A GANDER RV
(SPOTSYLVANIA CO), A/K/A GANDER RV SALES (ROANOKE CO), A/K/A RV
WORLD OF VIRGINIA (SPOTSYLVANIA CO), AND A/K/A MCGEORGE'S ROLLING
HILLS (HANOVER CO); and RV WORLD, LLC, A/K/A GANDER RV, A/K/A
GANDER RV SALES (SPOTSYLVANIA CO), AND A/K/A RV WORLD OF VIRGINIA
(HANOVER CO), Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00117 (E.D. Va.,
February 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Virginia Overtime
Wage Act.
Mr. Umanzor was employed by the Defendants as a salesman.
FreedomRoads, LLC is an operator of a network of recreational
vehicle dealerships at various locations throughout Virginia, with
its primary place of business in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
Camping World RV Sales, LLC is an operator of a network of
recreational vehicle dealerships at various locations throughout
Virginia, with its primary place of business in Lincolnshire,
Illinois.
RV World, LLC is an operator of a network of recreational vehicle
dealerships at various locations throughout Virginia, with its
primary place of business in Lincolnshire, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
GANNETT PUBLISHING: Class Certification in Stehberger Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL STEHBERGER,
Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant v. GANNETT PUBLISHING
SERVICES, LLC AND JOURNAL SENTINEL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Respondents, Appeal No. 2021AP1403
(Wis. App.), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I,
reversed the circuit court's order granting class certification for
the first claim in the first amended complaint.
Gannett Publishing Services, LLC and Journal Sentinel, Inc.
(collectively the Journal) appeal from the order granting class
certification for the first claim in the first amended complaint
brought by Michael Stehberger, who was also certified in that order
as the class representative for an opt-out class of newspaper
carriers who alleged they were misclassified as independent
contractors instead of employees. In Stehberger's first claim, he
alleged that the Journal was making unauthorized wage deductions
from the carriers' payments for service error complaints, in
violation of WIS. STAT. Section 103.455 (2019-20).
Further, Stehberger cross-appeals the circuit court's decision in
the same order to deny certification for his second claim. In
Stehberger's second claim, he alleged that a liquidated damages
provision in the carriers' contracts was unreasonable and,
therefore, constituted an unlawful penalty.
In June 2019, Stehberger filed a class action suit against the
Journal for unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract.
Stehberger requested to be named the representative of the class of
newspaper carriers who were individual parties to a Home Delivery
Agreement with the Journal. The carriers delivered the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel as well as "other newspapers, publications, and
inserts" to Journal customers in Milwaukee and surrounding
counties.
The parties dispute the meaning of the terms of the Agreement, but
in essence, each Agreement set identical terms regarding the
rights, duties and obligations of the carriers and the Journal. The
carriers had assigned routes and customers. The Journal followed a
liquidated damages provision in the Agreement to offset a
"liquidated damages" fee of $2 for each service error complaint
from the "negotiated fee rate" of compensation earned by the
carriers. Service error complaints included missed deliveries and
wet or damaged publication deliveries.
Stehberger alleged that the carriers were misclassified as
independent contractors and should be properly treated as
employees. Stehberger then alleged that the Journal's procedure of
deducting $2 as stipulated damages violated WIS. STAT. Section
103.455, which prohibits wage deductions for "defective or faulty
workmanship, lost or stolen property or damage to property" unless
the worker is an independent contractor.
In October 2020, Stehberger filed an amended complaint to which the
Journal responded with a motion to dismiss Stehberger's new claim
in the amended complaint. His amended complaint added a claim that
the $2 damages fee was an unlawful penalty on the allegation that
the fee exceeded any redelivery costs and was not individually
computed for the actual service error cost. Further, he filed a
motion for class certification in November 2020, and the Journal
filed a motion opposing class certification in December 2020.
In April 2021, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the pending
motions for and against class certification. For the first claim
for unlawful wage deduction, the court found that Stehberger
sufficiently alleged that the proposed class members of carriers
were employees, with a basis to raise the WIS. STAT. Section
103.455 claim. It found commonality in the questions and concluded
that the claim could be certified for class action. For the second
claim that the $2 damages fee was unreasonable and consisted of an
unlawful and unenforceable penalty, it denied class certification
because it found there was "no commonality" to determine
reasonableness on "a class-wide basis."
In August 2021, the circuit court issued a written order that
granted class certification for Stehberger's first claim, certified
Stehberger as the class representative, and denied class
certification for his second claim. The Journal appeals granting
class certification on the first claim. Stehberger cross-appeals
the denial of class certification on the second claim.
On appeal, Stehberger and the Journal each argue that the circuit
court erred in how it entered the certification order. The Journal
asserts that the certification order granting class action for
Stehberger's first claim for misclassification and unlawful wage
deduction did not include the factual findings and legal
conclusions that WIS. STAT. Section 803.08(11) requires.
Conversely, Stehberger argues that the circuit court erred when it
dismissed Stehberger's second claim that the $2 liquidated damages
provision in the Agreement constituted an unlawful penalty.
The Court of Appeals concludes that the circuit court erroneously
exercised its discretion when it granted certification on the first
claim without adequately explaining its reasoning based on the
evidence in the record, as required by WIS. STAT. Section
803.08(11). The record reflects that the certification order failed
to include sufficient factual findings and conclusions of law to
support the court's decision. The Court of Appeals reverses and
remands for further proceedings.
Again, the Court of Appeals concludes that the circuit court failed
to adequately explain its reasoning for denying certification for
the second claim. Because it again concludes the circuit court's
decision was an erroneous exercise of discretion, it reverses the
order entirely and remand for further proceedings.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals remands for further
proceedings to correctly determine whether certification of each
claim is appropriate. No costs to either party. The Opinion will
not be published.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yfmskveb from Leagle.com.
GEICO: Moyer Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------
James Moyer, on behalf of himself and as a member of the Class v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY,
LLC, GEICO CORPORATION, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO ADVANTAGE
INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO SECURE
INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and ABC BENEFIT PLANS 1-15, Case No.
2:23-cv-00578-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 9, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") by misclassifying its employees.
The Defendants have employed hundreds of captive insurance agents
like Plaintiff across all fifty states to sell the company's
insurance products. While Defendants may call its insurance agents
independent contractors, they do not treat them as such. Instead,
the financial and management structure, among other things, between
Defendants and its captive insurance agents1 demonstrates that such
agents, like The Plaintiff here, are Defendants' employees.
The Defendants control the location and appearance of its agents'
offices; control who can be their clients and how they obtain new
clients; assign additional duties to the agents outside of any
contractual agreement; require its agents' employees to work for
Defendants' corporate offices without compensation to the agents;
and perhaps most importantly, allow its captive insurance agents to
opt into Defendants' employee health and life insurance benefits.
Together, these factors and others support the conclusion that
Defendants' insurance agents are employees.
Because Defendants allow its agents to opt into Defendants'
employee health and life insurance benefits--making the agents
eligible to receive a benefit from Defendants' employee benefit
plans--the agents, including The Plaintiff, are "participants"
under ERISA. As employees and participants, the protections of
ERISA apply to them. Because Defendants misclassified their agents
as independent contractors, they have failed to provide their
agents all of the same retirement, health, and other benefits they
provide to other employees through several employee benefit pension
and welfare plans established under ERISA.
By misclassifying their agents, like the Plaintiff, Defendants have
avoided the business costs of extending all ERISA protected
benefits to their agents and have evaded compliance with state and
federal laws governing employee benefit plans. Furthermore,
Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to credit The
Plaintiff for sales and failing to pay him commissions on those
sales. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself
against Defendants for unjust enrichment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a captive insurance agent for the Defendants.
The Defendants employ hundreds of captive insurance agents to
exclusively sell Defendants' insurance products or products
Defendants have contracted to sell.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Arnold, Esq.
Damion M. Clifford, Esq.
Gerhardt A. Gosnell II, Esq.
Stefanie L. Coe, Esq.
Tiffany L. Carwile, Esq.
ARNOLD & CLIFFORD LLP
115 W. Main St., 4th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 460-1600
Email: jarnold@arnlaw.com
dclifford@arnlaw.com
ggosnell@arnlaw.com
scoe@arnlaw.com
tcarwile@arnlaw.com
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY: Seijo Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eleazer Seijo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Genuine Parts Company, Kaman
Industrial Technologies Corporation, Kaman Automation, Inc., Ruby
Automation, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-02023-01301503 was removed from the Orange County Superior Court
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Feb. 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00264-JWH-DFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Genuine Parts Company -- https://www.genpt.com/ -- is an American
service organization engaged in the distribution of automotive
replacement parts, industrial replacement parts, office products
and electrical/electronic materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sam Sani, Esq.
SANI LAW, APC
595 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 522
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (310) 935-0405
Fax: (310) 935-0409
Email: ssani@sanilawfirm.com
- and -
Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP APC
2155 Campus Drive Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Carson, Esq.
MARTENSON HASBROUCK AND SIMON LLP
2573 Apple Valley Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30319
Phone: (404) 436-3276
Fax: (404) 909-8120
Email: dcarson@martensonlaw.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Fees Awarded to Attorneys in Haney Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that significant fees awarded to
attorneys in class action with case-captioned Haney v. Genworth
Life Insurance Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-55, Jan. 30, 2023. EDVA at
Richmond (Payne). VLW 023-3-039. 30 pp.
Attorneys who successfully represented a class of persons who
alleged that carriers failed to disclose material information to
policyholders of long-term care, or LTC, policies, to their
detriment, were awarded up to $13 million in fees.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Genworth
Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New
York, alleging that defendants failed to disclose material
information to LTC policyholders, to their detriment. The parties
reached a settlement which the court preliminarily approved. Now
before the court is class counsel's application for an award of
attorney's fees and expenses and service awards to the named
plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs request that class counsel be awarded a contingent fee
of 15% "of certain amounts related to Special Election Options
selected by the Class, which shall be no greater than $13 million.
" Of note, "none of the attorneys' fees will be deducted from the
cash awards claimed by the Class Members, and instead will be paid
separately by Genworth." The defendant does not oppose this request
and takes no position on the approval of class counsel's attorneys'
fees.
To determine reasonableness, the court employs a seven-factor test
that considers the results obtained and amount involved; small
number of objections; skill and efficiency of attorneys involved;
complexity and duration of the litigation; risk of non-payment and
public policy; time devoted to the litigation and fees in similar
cases. In this case, the court finds that each factor weighs in
favor of finding the fees are reasonable. Based on the factor
analysis and the lodestar cross-check, a 15 percent attorney's fee
is reasonable.
Class counsel requests reimbursement of $39,697.92 in costs. Class
counsel included "expenditures for computer legal research,
document reproduction, court reporting, consultant fees, and
travel, meals, and lodging" in their tabulation of costs. The
categories listed are consistent with the kinds of costs found to
be reasonable in other litigation, and because the expenses have
been shown to be both reasonable in amount and reasonably
necessary, the court will award class counsel $39,697.92 in costs.
Class counsel seeks a $15,000 service award for each of the four
class representatives. Genworth does not oppose. This service award
is appropriate in light of the time and risks class representatives
have taken on to propel the litigation forward. It is also the same
service award that the class representatives in a similar suit
received.
Moreover, as class counsel notes, the class representatives
actively participated in all aspects of the case, including pre-
suit discovery, produced relevant documentation to include
"extremely private financial and medical information, " and
subjected themselves to "public attention and exposure of their
personal information. " The class representatives have "amply
fulfilled their duties, making the requested service award
appropriate," so the court will grant each of the class
representatives a $15,000 service award.
Several persons object to the amount of requested attorneys' fees,
arguing that the request is too high. Two expand on that argument,
explaining that the fee is too high because the relief obtained is
not adequate. Another contends that the attorneys' fees are simply
a write-off for Genworth. One objects to the fee structure, and two
believe that the class representative award is too high and thus
unfair. The court overrules each objection.
Class counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and
expenses and service awards to the named plaintiffs granted.
Objections overruled. [GN]
GERALDI'S OF BERRYVILLE: Mahoney Sues Over Unlawfully Retained Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Mahoney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GERALDI'S OF BERRYVILLE, INC. d/b/a GERALDI'S OF
FAYETTEVILLE, Case No. 5:23-cv-05023-TLB (W.D. Ark., Feb. 10,
2023), is brought the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the
Defendants practice of unlawfully retaining tips and using them for
other purposes.
The Plaintiff worked answering the phone, taking to-go orders,
bagging to-go orders for customers, and ringing up and assisting
customers. Customers often leave tips when paying for to-go orders.
The Defendant instructed Plaintiff that tips from to-go orders
would "go to the house." The Defendant informed Plaintiff that
there was a tip-sharing policy by which the Defendant would
distribute tips received to workers, including the Plaintiff.
However, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that there was no
method to determining what share of tips each member of the staff
received, and it was discretionary for the Defendant to determine
what tips each worker received. Despite having been employed since
November 11, 2022, Plaintiff received no share of tips until
January 6, 2023, when Defendant gave her $60. When Defendant
learned of Plaintiff's concerns about the tip sharing arrangement
and its legality, Defendant offered to pay her an additional $100
on January 29, 2023. To this date, Plaintiff has not received an
appropriate share of tips from the time she began working with
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as a cashier at its
restaurant.
The Defendant is a corporation operating as a restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bill G. Horton, Esq.
T.J. Fosko, Esq.
HORTON LAW FIRM
1000 McClain Rd., Ste. 612
Bentonville, AR 72712
Phone: (479) 268-473
Fax: (855) 936-5115
Email: bill@callhorton.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Mislabeled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP of The Daily Intake reports that Gerber
seeks dismissal of putative class action over allegedly misleading
protein content claims on baby food containing added sugar.
A motion to dismiss hearing was held on February 9, 2023 over a
proposed class action lawsuit filed in the US District Court for
the Northern District of California that alleges protein content
statements on the packages imply that Gerber Products Co.'s foods
for infants and toddlers are healthy and this is misleading because
the foods contain high amounts of added sugar. At issue are the
statement "2 grams of plant protein" on the front label, and the
statement "Nutritious, plant-based, and specifically designed to
provide 2 grams of protein" on the back of the package for Gerber
products such as Fruit & Yogurt Strawberry Banana pouches. Gerber
asserts that the claims are permitted by FDA's food labeling
regulations, that both statements are factual and neutral, and the
back label simply describes the protein.
The judge in the dismissal hearing is quoted by Law360 as saying,
"That's pretty weird, the idea that if you see on the label . . .
'great source of protein,' I don't need to check how much sugar is
in this," and adding, "I get why FDA might want to regulate it, but
to the extent that you're saying that this states a fraud claim
under state law, I'm not quite there I think." The judge is also
said to have mentioned muscle milk, protein bars, and bacon as
examples of foods that may tout protein content and "are probably
net bad for you," and to have struggled with the idea that stating
the protein content on the label will mislead people into thinking
that that the product is healthy.
Compliance with FDA's regulations that are intended to prevent
misleading consumers has been an important factor in many fraud
cases. In this regard, FDA defines a nutrient content claim (NCC)
as a claim that expressly or impliedly characterizes the level of a
nutrient which is of the type required to be in nutrition labeling.
FDA has no regulations that would permit express or implied NCCs
for protein in food intended specifically for use by infants and
children less than 2 years of age. FDA has provided "5 grams of
fat" as an example of a statement that does not implicitly
characterize the level of the nutrient. FDA has cited "healthy,
contains 3 grams (g) of fat, "however, as an example of a factual
statement about the grams of a nutrient that when accompanied by a
characterizing term, e.g., "healthy," can misleadingly imply that a
food, because of its nutrient content, may be useful in maintaining
healthy dietary practices. [GN]
GINGER ELIZABETH: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ginger Elizabeth
Chocolates, Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ginger Elizabeth Chocolates, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01107-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ginger Elizabeth Chocolates -- https://gingerelizabeth.com/ -- is a
a pretty, pastel-hued outpost for truffles, macarons, ice cream,
hot chocolate & other sweets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
GOODER FOODS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gooder Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Gooder
Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01149 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gooder Foods -- https://www.goodles.com/ -- offers veggie-boosted,
protein-packed, mac and cheese, under the brand name Goodles.[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
GOOGLE INC: Final Settlement OK in Antitrust Suit Heard on May 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The official settlement website for the lawsuit detailed on this
page is live and can be found at
www.googleplaydevelopersettlement.com.
According to the site, U.S. app developers who meet the following
criteria may be entitled to an automatic minimum cash payment of
anywhere from $250 to over $200,000:
"1. Sold an application or in-app product (including subscriptions)
for a non-zero price between August 17, 2016 and December 31, 2021;
2. Paid Google a service fee greater than 15% on at least one such
transaction between August 17, 2016 and December 31, 2021; and 3.
Earned proceeds between U.S. $0 and U.S. $2,000,000.00 through
Google Play in every calendar year between and inclusive of 2016
and 2021. For this purpose, the 2016 calendar year shall consist of
August 17, 2016 through December 31, 2016."
To file a claim, head to this page and enter the class ID and
confirmation code you received in your personalized settlement
notice to begin. If you do not have these login credentials or were
not notified of the settlement via email or postcard, enter the
Google Play Application Developer Account owner name and email
address at the bottom of the page to contact the settlement
administrator.
Developers who have received an email or mailed notice of this
settlement will receive a physical check, the site says. Those who
wish to receive digital payment must submit a valid payment
selection form by May 30, 2023, the site states. If you did not
receive notice of the settlement but believe you are covered by the
deal, you must submit a valid payment selection form by May 30,
2023.
The final approval hearing for this settlement is set to take place
on May 18, 2023. If and when the deal receives final approval from
the court, and pending the resolution of any appeals and/or
objections, payment will be distributed to eligible class members
"as soon as possible," the website states.
According to the settlement site, class members who receive a
physical check from the first distribution of money have six months
to the deposit the check from the date it was issued.
August 22, 2022 - Google Settles Antitrust Suit with Developers for
$90 Million
Google has agreed to a $90 million settlement with thousands of
U.S. Android developers to end the proposed class action detailed
on this page and several related lawsuits.
The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval relays
that nearly 48,000 Android developers with earnings of $2 million
or less between August 17, 2016 and December 31, 2021 should expect
"substantial monetary payments," in addition to relief meant to
improve the Google Play Store and help developers better monetize
their products.
In particular, the relief includes an agreement by Google to
maintain a program under which developers pay a reduced service fee
on their first $1 million in annual revenues until at least May
2025. Additionally, Google has agreed to develop an "Indie Apps
Corner" that highlights apps from independent and startup
developers on the apps tab of the Google Play Store homepage.
Google has also agreed to change its developer distribution
agreement to make it clear that developers can use contact
information obtained in-app to communicate outside the app with
users about alternatives to Google Play's billing service for
in-app purchases. Google will also make changes to the Android 12
operating system that will allow auto-updates from third-party
Android app stores and has agreed to publish an "annual
transparency report" that provides developers with "meaningful data
regarding the operation of the Google Play store."
"Antitrust cases are inherently risky and, while Developer
Plaintiffs believe their claims are sound, recovery is far from
certain," the motion states. "If approved, the Settlement will
deliver assured, substantial relief to a Settlement Class that
could receive less value, or nothing at all, from a litigated
outcome."
If and when the deal is preliminarily approved by the court,
developers who are covered by the settlement will receive direct
notice via email and physical mail. Settlement administrators will
also execute a "robust, state-of-the-art media campaign," including
programmatic advertising and social media, to broadcast word of the
deal. They will also set up an official settlement
website—www.googleplaydevelopersettlement.com—and a toll-free
phone number.
ClassAction.org will update this post when the official settlement
website goes live. (Head to this page to sign up to be alerted when
the official settlement website is activated.)
A preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2022.
January 19, 2022 - Trial Date Set for January 2023
The parties in the case detailed on this page have agreed to a
January 2023 trial, meaning consumers will potentially need to wait
another year before seeing a resolution.
Lawsuit
Google has violated federal antitrust laws by erecting "contractual
and technological barriers" that essentially prevent Android users
from downloading apps from anywhere other than the Google Play
Store, harming in the process app developers left with no choice
but to give in to the tech giant's restrictions, a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges.
According to the 71-page complaint out of California federal court,
Google, unsatisfied with its control over the Android operating
system (OS) market and embodying the role of intermediary in "every
digital content purchase" made on an Android-distributed app, has
sought to "further strengthen its monopoly power" by way of an
anticompetitive scheme that harms both smartphone users and app
developers, who have "no choice but to acquiesce to" the
defendant's restrictions on entry into the Google Play Store.
"Through its behavior, Google intends to eliminate consumer choice,
foreclosing competition in mobile app distribution," the lawsuit
alleges, claiming Google's competition-suppressing stranglehold
also applies to in-app payment processing, digital content
purchases and advertising. "There is no legitimate procompetitive
justification for Google's conduct and restrictions."
For original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who design and sell
smartphones and tablets, Google's Android operating system is the
only commercially viable OS that's widely available to license, the
suit begins. Put simply, because OEMs have the Android OS, boasting
nearly three million compatible apps and used by billions
worldwide, as the lone mobile operating system option, Google
wields monopoly power over the market for mobile operating systems
available for license, the lawsuit says.
Despite this level of control, however, defendants Google LLC,
Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia
Pacific Pte. Limited and Google Payment Corp.—together,
Google—have sought to tighten their grip by preventing Android
users from utilizing any app distribution platform other than the
Google Play Store, the complaint alleges.
One of Google's tactics, the lawsuit says, is the bundling of the
Google Play Store with other Google services OEMs must include on
their devices, such as Gmail, Google Search, Maps and YouTube.
Then, as a condition to license those services, Google mandates
that a manufacturer pre-install the Google Play Store and
prominently display it while "interfering" with an OEM's ability to
make third-party app stores or apps available to users, the case
says, claiming these maneuvers essentially shut the door to anyone
looking to encroach upon Google's app-store turf.
"These restrictions effectively foreclose competing app
stores—and even single apps—from a primary distribution
channel," the suit says.
Aside from Android users, Google's alleged conduct harms app
developers, who, for one, are contractually prohibited from
offering an app through the Google Play Store that can, in turn, be
used to download other apps, the complaint relays. Moreover, Google
has made it a condition for app developers to use the Google Play
Store in order to take advantage of Google-controlled advertising
channels, such as placement in search results or on YouTube, the
case says.
The bird's eye view of the extent of Google's control over
everything from search engine results to advertising leaves app
developers with no choice but to bow to the company, the suit
attests.
"Because Google also has a monopoly in internet searches, app
developers have no choice but to acquiesce to Google's
anticompetitive restrictions on Google Play," according to the
lawsuit.
Ultimately, consumers are blocked by Google from being able to
download alternative app stores or apps directly from developers'
websites, with the process for doing so requiring multiple steps
related to changing default settings and clicking through multiple
warnings, the complaint goes on. Even if a user weathers the
process and manages to install a competing app store, Google blocks
the store from offering basic functions, including automatic
background updates such as those seamlessly available for apps
downloaded from the Google Play Store, the suit alleges.
Still further, Google's anticompetitive course of action bleeds
into its handling of in-app payment processing, the case argues,
alleging the company prohibits app developers from allowing payment
processing tools other than Google Play Billing through exclusivity
agreements.
"This essentially forces app developers to use both Google Play
Store and Google Play Billing because Google's monopoly over the
Android App Distribution Market means developers cannot circumvent
this anticompetitive tie by distributing their content through a
channel other than the Google Play store," the complaint reads,
highlighting that Google's payment setup assures it receives
payment for in-app purchases first, before the developer.
Per the suit, such transactions are taxed by Google at a
"supra-competitive" 30-percent rate, earning the company a
commission "up to ten times higher than the toll charged by other
electronic payments."
Absent Google's competition-suppressing conduct, competitors could
offer consumers and developers a choice in the smartphone and
tablet app arena, the lawsuit summarizes, and entities looking to
distribute apps through a competing store could lend a wider array
of innovations and choices with regard to in-app payment
processing.
The lawsuit's filing comes amid a showdown between "Fortnite"
creator Epic Games and both the Apple App Store and Google Play
Store over the 30-percent cut taken by both entities on app sales.
Earlier this week, Epic filed lawsuits against Apple and Google in
response to the companies' removal of Fortnite from their
respective app stores after the developer introduced a new, direct
way to pay for V-Bucks, the in-game currency, at a 20-percent
discount and outside of the tech giants' app stores. [GN]
GUINEA: Faces Class Suit Over Residents' Exclusion From Elections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS reports that The ECOWAS
Court of Justice began hearing in a class action suit filed by 259
Guineans resident in Senegal asking the Court to order the Republic
of Guinea to pay them more than one billion CFA in compensation for
disenfranchising them from participating in the country's
elections.
In the suit, the applicants alleged that the decision of the
country's embassy in Senegal to suspend the arrangements for their
registration on December 3, 2019, a decision that was compounded on
16th December 2019 following the indefinite suspension of the
exercise in the Republic of Senegal by the country's Independent
National Electoral Commission (CENI) is a violation of their right
to participate in the country's elections. In the application filed
by Mr. Abdul Gadiri Diallo, Mr Abdoul Goudoussi Sow, Mr Amadou
Sangare and Mr Abdoul Homili Diallo on behalf of the group, the
applicants said that the compensation is respect of the damages and
prejudice suffered by the alleged refusal of the respondent State
register them as this would have enabled them to possess the voter
card and vote in the December 2020 legislative and presidential
elections as well as the constitutional referendum.
The applicants, who are represented by their counsel, Mr. DRAME
Alpha Yaya, described the suspension as illegal and a violation of
their right to participate in the elections in disregard not only
of the Guinean constitution but also in defiance of articles 1g 7,
33 of the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance of ECOWAS,
Articles 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Articles
3 and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and 25
of the ICCPR.
The applicants stated that this exclusion from the electoral
process caused them harm and therefore urged the Court to order the
State of Guinea to pay each of them Five million (5,000,000) CFA
francs which made of One billion two hundred and fifty million
(1,295,000,000) CFA francs for all of them. They also asked the
Court to order the State of Guinea to pay all costs in the sum of
twenty-three million (23,000,000) CFA francs.
The applicants urged the Court, not only to find the suspension a
deliberate obstruction of their right to take part in the direction
of the public affairs of their country, but also to find that they
were victims of discrimination when their fellow citizens located
in more distant countries were duly registered. In documents filed
before the Court, the applicants noted that while they were
preparing for the voter registration scheduled for November 28,
2019 in Senegal, it was only on November 29, 2019 that the State of
Guinea contacted the Senegalese authorities asking them to set up
voting and security arrangements for the exercise, 24 hours after
the date of the commencement of the registration.
In the initiating application filed before the Court's Registry on
March 12, 2020, the applicants said that in order to exercise the
right to vote in the Republic of Guinea, a citizen must have a
voter's card issued by the Independent National Electoral
Commission (CENI) and be at least 18 years of age at the close of
the electoral list. Citing the country's constitution, they claimed
that registration on the electoral list is a right and a duty for
all Guineans. They said that while the CENI had set 28th November
2019 as the date for the registration in the country's Embassies
and Consulates and 16th February 2020 specifically for the
legislative elections, it was only on 29th November 2019 that the
State of Guinea requested the assistance of the Senegalese
authorities to put in place the requisite logistics and security
measures for the registration, a day after the scheduled start
registration of the exercise. Moreover, the applicants noted that
to register, a citizen must have a valid passport, contrary to
article 19 of the revised electoral code which requires either an
identity card; passport; the military booklet; the civil or
military pension book; the student or pupil card for the current
year; the consular card or a certificate issued by the district
head of the district and countersigned by two notables; The
Applicants alleged that the imposition of these conditions to
reduce the number of registered voters as it is impossible to renew
passports in Senegal without travelling to Guinea. They declared
that on December 3, 2019, the Embassy of Guinea in Senegal
unilaterally decided to suspend the installation of all the
Administrative Commissions for the Establishment and Revision of
the Electoral Lists under the pretext that "this measure aims to
finalize the administrative arrangements with the Senegalese
authorities" explaining that this decision should in principle come
from the CENI. They said that on December 16, 2019, the CENI
definitively suspended the operations of registration and revision
of the electoral lists on Senegalese territory. The applicants
noted that while Guineans abroad, notably CANADA and France, were
registered, their fundamental right to benefit from an electoral
card which should allow them to participate in the elections were
violated by the suspension of the exercise in Senegal. But the
Republic of Guinea, represented by the State counsel, Mr. Joachim
Gbilimou urged the Court to declare that the violations of human
rights invoked by the applicants have not been established and
therefore asked that the claims of the applicants be dismissed. By
a separate application filed on the same 12th March 2020, the
applicants requested interim measures requesting the Court to order
the Guinean State to take urgent and necessary measures to allow
the registration of applicants so their names can appear on the
electoral list which will qualify them to vote.
But the State of Guinea opposed the request for interim measures
and urged the Court to reject the request as pointless and
unfounded. A panel of three judges of the Court comprising Justices
Edward Amoako Asante, Presiding, Gberi-be Ouattara, Dupe Atoki will
hear the suit. [GN]
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Weaver Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rita Weaver, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01142 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00180-WCG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC produces and sells
motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight
motorcycles, and other accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Neal Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 925-300-4455
Email: jsmith@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: jdiamond@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
HEALTH PLAN: Kennedy Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Plan Freedom,
Inc. The case is styled as Amy Kennedy, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Health
Plan Freedom, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00074-FDW-DSC (W.C.N.C., Feb.
8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Freedom Insurance --
https://www.freedominsurancenc.com/health-insurance -- is a local
Morganton, North Carolina independent insurance agency, providing
complete personal and business insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC
4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: (919) 960-1545
Fax: (919) 882-8763
Email: kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
HENKEL US: Hernandez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Mixer Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENKEL US OPERATIONS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00192 (E.D. Wis., February 10, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
overtime wages and regular wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.
The Plaintiff worked as a mixer operator at the Defendant's Oak
Creek, Wisconsin location from December 2021 until January 2023.
Henkel US Operations Corporation is an adhesives, sealants, and
functional coatings solutions provider, headquartered in Rocky
Hill, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
HIGHLAND HEALTH DIRECT: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highland Health
Direct, LLC. The case is styled as Ruhi Reimer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Highland Health
Direct, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60237-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 8,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Highland Health Direct, LLC is a health Insurance in Deerfield
Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric William Kem, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC W. KEM, P.A.
2233 NW 41st Street, Suite 700-H
Gainesville, FL 32606
Phone: (352) 275-7151
Email: ekem@kemlawfirm.com
HOME DEPOT: Illegally Intercepts Electronic Information, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Home Depot illegally intercepts
the electronic communications of its website visitors without their
knowledge or consent, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff David Kauffman claims Home Depot uses embedded session
replay software to record, read, learn the contents of, and make
reports of the interactions made by its website visitors.
Kauffman argues the session replay software allows Home Depot and
its third-party vendors to "view in realtime users' entire visit to
Defendant's website."
"The surreptitious interception, recording, and review of (website
visitors) communications is the electronic equivalent of 'looking
over the shoulder' of each visitor to the website for the entire
duration of the user's website interaction," the Home Depot class
action states.
Kauffman wants to represent a nationwide class and California class
of individuals who had their communications intercepted by Home
Depot or a third-party it procured, and a California class of
individuals who had their cellular communications recorded by Home
Depot or its agents.
Additionally, Kauffman wants to represent a California class of
individuals "whose communications were tapped by a person Defendant
aided, agreed with, employed, or conspired to tap."
Home Depot intercepted electronic communications to read,
understand website visitors' movements, says class action
Home Depot intercepted and recorded its website visitors' mouse
movements, search terms, clicks, keystrokes, information inputted,
and the pages and contents they viewed, the Home Depot class action
alleges.
"Defendant intentionally tapped and made unauthorized interceptions
and connections to Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications to read and understand movement on the website," the
Home Depot class action states.
Kauffman claims Home Depot violated the Wiretap Act and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act. He is demanding a jury trial
and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an
award of statutory, actual, and punitive damages for himself and
all class members.
The multinational home improvement retail corporation was also in
the news last October after a federal judge in Georgia dismissed a
class action lawsuit accusing Home Depot of mismanaging its
employees' retirement savings. [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communication, Kauffman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00259-JLS-AHG
(S.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2023) alleges that Home Depot violates the
Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, in
relation to the unauthorized interception, collection, recording,
and dissemination of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications
and data.
The Defendant allegedly tapped and made unauthorized interceptions
and connections to Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications to read and understand movement on the website, as
well as everything the Plaintiff and Class Members did on those
pages, e.g., both the information inputted and what Plaintiff and
Class Members searched for, looked at, and clicked on. The
Defendant made these unauthorized interceptions, connections and
recordings without the knowledge or prior consent of the Plaintiff
or Class Members, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action for every violation of the Wiretap
Act which provides for statutory damages of the greater of $10,000
or $100 per day for each violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et
seq. under 18 U.S.C. section 2520. The Plaintiff also brings this
action for every violation of California Penal Code which provides
for statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation, pursuant to
Cal. Pen. Code section 637.2(a)(1).
Home Depot owns and operates the website: www.homedepot.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 222-7429
E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
HOMEBRIDGE INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homebridge, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Gelenia Sanchez, an individual, on behalf
of herself and on behlaf of all persons similarly situated v.
Homebridge, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC23604614 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 10, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Homebridge, Inc. -- https://www.homebridgeca.org/ -- is a home
health care service in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas James Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Jones Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Memorial
Hospital. The case is styled as Barbara Jones, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Howard Memorial
Hospital, Case No. 4:23-cv-04010-SOH (W.D. Ark., Feb. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
Howard Memorial Hospital -- https://www.howardmemorial.com/ -- has
been providing comprehensive, patient-focused, inpatient,
outpatient and emergency care for 60 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Breean Walas, Esq.
WALAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
PO Box 4591
Bozeman, MT 59772
Phone: (501) 246-1067
Email: breean@walaslawfirm.com
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Willbanks Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Memorial
Hospital. The case is styled as Josh Willbanks, Phyllis Willbanks,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Howard Memorial Hospital, Case No. 4:23-cv-04009-SOH (W.D. Ark.,
Feb. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Howard Memorial Hospital -- https://www.howardmemorial.com/ -- has
been providing comprehensive, patient-focused, inpatient,
outpatient and emergency care for 60 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit in Australia Over "Defective" Engines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Fisk, writing for Whichcar?, reports that Korean carmakers
Hyundai and Kia are facing further court action -- this time at a
federal level -- over what lawyers are calling 'defective'
engines.
Class actions have been filed in the Federal Court of Australia
relating to defective engines in various Hyundai and Kia vehicles
sold in Australia from 2011 to date.
The actions, being financed by UK-based litigation funder Woodsford
but represented by law firm Johnson Winter Slattery, allege the
vehicles sold by Hyundai and Kia in Australia were offered for sale
with engines that were manufactured or designed defectively.
These include the 4-cylinder Theta II MPI, Theta II GDI, Gamma II
GDI or Nu GDI petrol engines.
As a result, it is claimed said engines have the propensity to
exhibit faults -- such as a sudden loss of power (including while
driving), increased oil and fuel consumption, emission of smoke,
and, in some cases, fire.
In addition, it is claimed that Hyundai and Kia knew of the engine
issues since at least 2015, but continued to sell affected
vehicles.
"We are determined to hold them to account and ensure that
Australian consumers receive the compensation they are due," said
Woodsford's Chief Investment Officer, Charlie Morris.
"We are pleased to have been selected to run this important case,
which raises serious issues regarding the reliability and safety of
a very large number of vehicles sold to the Australian public, when
Hyundai and Kia were in the process of recalling millions of
vehicles overseas for similar engine issues," added Robert
Johnston, Partner at Johnson Winter Slattery.
A spokesperson for Hyundai told Wheels: "Hyundai Motor Company
Australia stands by the integrity and reliability of its vehicles.
We are disappointed about the class actions but will consider the
allegations carefully before commenting further."
"Kia Australia has very recently been notified of the filing of
this class action and as this is a legal matter, will not be making
any further comments at this stage," a Kia spokesperson added.
The case is entirely separate from another, launched in a Victorian
court in January, over a fault with the braking system in several
popular models said to also create a 'fire hazard'.
As many as 194,808 cars could potentially be involved across a
range of models, including the best-selling Tucson and Sportage
SUVs. At the time law firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers had already
lodged a class action against Hyundai with the Supreme Court of
Victoria, and was preparing a similar case against fellow Korean
car giant Kia.
Owners of affected Hyundai and Kia cars can register for the class
actions by providing their details at
www.hyundaiengineclassaction.com.au (for Hyundai vehicles) or
www.kiaengineclassaction.com.au (for Kia vehicles).
In addition to these class actions against Hyundai and Kia,
Woodsford is currently backing numerous other major class actions
in Australia, the UK, and Europe including those brought by
consumers against Mitsubishi Motors Australia, Toyota, Westpac and
ANZ Bank. [GN]
IMPERIAL COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under FLSA, Portillo Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA PORTILLO, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. IMPERIAL COMMERCIAL CLEANING,
INC., Case No. 602456/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 9, 2023) seeks to
recover overtime provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New
York Labor Law, and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs.
The Defendant allegedly never paid Plaintiff for any of the time
she spent traveling between job sites during the course of her
workday. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff at
least the minimum wage rate for all hours, or according to the
terms and conditions of her employment when she was paid above the
minimum wage rate, for her travel time during the workday, in
violation of the NYLL. The Defendant also violated the FLSA and
NYLL's overtime requirements in those weeks where her underpayment
resulted in Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff one and one-half
times her regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage
if greater, for all hours over forty. The Defendant further
violated the NYLL by failing to furnish Plaintiff with accurate
wage statements on each pay day listing, inter alia, her actual
hours worked, and, when applicable, her overtime rate of pay owed,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a former hourly employee who worked for Defendant
as a cleaner at multiple locations in Nassau County, in Long
Island, New York from September 2018 until January 15, 2021.
Imperial owns, operates and manages a nationwide commercial
cleaning company, also offering residential cleaning in Long
Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, N.Y. 10020
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith Gutstein, Esq.
Aaron Solomon, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK, LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, New York 11797
E-mail: kgutstein@kdvlaw.com
asolomon@kdvlaw.com
INDEPENDENCE BLUE: Faces Moore FLSA Suit Over Unpaid & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JODDA MOORE, and TERRELL AIKEN, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, LLC d/b/a
INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00566-NIQA (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 13, 2023) seeks to recover all unpaid wages and unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania common law.
The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA, the PMWA, and
Pennsylvania common law by requiring Plaintiffs and other CSRs to
reboot and load their computers, log-in to their computers, and
open and load various software applications and web browsers, prior
to the commencement of their shifts and without compensation. The
Defendant also failed to compensate CSRs for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Collective and Class members are persons who
perform or performed work for the Defendant as customer service
representatives in Defendant's Member Health Team department.
Independence Blue is a health insurance company in southeastern
Pennsylvania that offers a range of products and services,
including insurance coverage for individuals, national businesses,
large employer groups, and small businesses; Medicare supplemental
and Medicare Advantage products; Medicaid; and specialty services
such as vision and dental coverage.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq.
MOBILIO WOOD
900 Rutter Ave., Box 24
Forty Fort, PA 18704
Telephone: (570) 234-0442
Facsimile: (570) 266-5402
E-mail: peter@mobiliowood.com
- and -
Alex Pisarevsky, Esq.
Erika R. Piccirillo, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN
& KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West-Plaza One, 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
E-mail: ap@njlawfirm.com
ep@njlawfirm.com
INSPIRATO INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Inspirato Incorporated (NASDAQ: ISPO) between May 11,
2022 and December 15, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Inspirato's
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Inspirato class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10246 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) the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended
March 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022 (collectively, the 'Non-Reliance
Periods') included in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') for the
Non-Reliance Periods, could no longer be relied upon; (2) the
Quarterly Reports could no longer be relied upon due to the
incorrect application of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No.
2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) ('ASC 842') with respect to the
assessment of right-of-use assets and liabilities, resulting in an
understatement of both right-of-use assets and total lease
liabilities of approximately 9% for each of the Non-Reliance
Periods resulting in an understatement of total assets and total
liabilities by approximately 5% for each of the Non-Reliance
periods, and due to property-related and other expenses being under
accrued in the first quarter, and over accrued in the second
quarter, resulting in cost of revenue being understated by
approximately 1% and overstated by approximately 5% in the first
and second quarter, respectively (similarly, any previously issued
or filed reports, press releases, earnings releases, and investor
presentations or other communications describing the Company's
condensed consolidated unaudited financial statements and other
related financial information covering the Non-Reliance Periods
should no longer be relied upon); (3) the Company was not in
compliance with the periodic filing requirements for continued
listing set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1) (the 'Rule') as
a result of its failure to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2022 (the 'Third Quarter
Report') with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') by
the required due date; and; (4) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 17,
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=10246 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. [GN]
IT'S A NEW 10: Gerard Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against It's A New 10, LLC.
The case is styled as Melanie Gerard, Jolie Hamilton, Deborah
Manning, Elizabeth Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. It's A New 10, LLC doing business as: It's A
10 Haircare, Case No. 1:23-cv-20503-KMW (S.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
It's A New 10, LLC doing business as It's A 10 Haircare --
https://itsa10haircare.com/ -- is dedicated to providing
high-quality, luxury hair care products for every hair type.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Email: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (919) 600-5000
- and -
Kristen Joy Pesicek, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 SE 6th street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 712-4600
Email: kpesicek@milberg.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S. Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
- and -
Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Email: rsoffin@milberg.com
JACK HULLAND: Plaintiffs File Motion to Certify Seclusion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Kenny at CBC News reports that nine new affidavits filed with
the Supreme Court of Yukon contain allegations that paint an even
darker picture of the use of holds and seclusion at Jack Hulland
Elementary School in Whitehorse.
None of the allegations have been proven or tested in court.
The application is for the certification of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of students at the school who experienced holds,
restraints and seclusion from 2002 to 2022. The Yukon Department of
Education and the Jack Hulland School Council are named as
defendants. Neither have yet filed statements of defence.
The class action lawsuit was proposed in October 2022 by two
representative plaintiffs, still children, and their guardians. At
the time, a statement of claim was filed. It alleged the two
plaintiffs were "subjected to holds and involuntary seclusion on a
frequent and repeated basis" at the school, beginning in 2015.
In November 2021, the RCMP opened an investigation after being made
aware of allegations. The RCMP never specified the origin of those
allegations. The same month, Yukon Child and Youth Advocate,
Annette King, announced the launch of a review into the issue.The
Yukon education department also ordered an internal review, which
confirmed holds and isolation were used at the school prior to
2020.
The child plaintiffs and their guardians are covered by a partial
publication ban and sealing order.
The application filed on Feb. 14 will come before the Yukon Supreme
Court in June. If a judge certifies it, it will permit the
plaintiffs to pursue a class action lawsuit.
In the application, the parent of one of the plaintiffs says her
child was on anxiety medications by Grade 1. She alleges this was
the result of the child's experience at the school.
The application also included an assessment of one of the
plaintiffs, a child, by B.C. psychologist, Mel Kaushansky.
Kaushansky's report found the child has post-traumatic stress
disorder and depression as a result of chronic exposure to holds,
restraints and seclusion.
Kaushansky said he didn't believe the child would have their
current psychological problems if it hadn't been for their
experience at Jack Hulland.
Another affidavit was filed by a parent who says she was personally
aware of seven students who had been subject to holds and
isolation. This included being locked in a room for hours, through
lunch and recess, the affidavit reads, while cameras kept an eye on
them.
One former student, now an adult, alleges staff "held [her] in the
air like a flying squirrel" as they took her to isolation on more
than one occasion. She alleges her shoulder was once injured in the
process. The CBC is not naming the former student, who was a child
at the time of the alleged incidents.
Another time, the student says she tried to climb over the dividers
separating the isolation spaces. She alleges school staff smeared
the dividers with butter to keep her contained. She says in the
affidavit she had suicidal thoughts by Grade 5 and wasn't able to
pursue an education beyond Grade 9 because she can't see schools as
anything but a prison.
The parent of a separate former Jack Hulland student filed her own
affidavit, saying she knew staff had complained about her child's
behaviour while her child was a student. CBC is not naming the
parent to protect the identity of the child.
The parent says she attended frequent meetings about finding
solutions. After news broke in 2021 that the RCMP were
investigating use of holds at the school, she tried to access her
child's file, including any incident reports that may have detailed
any holds or restraints, according to her affidavit.
Over the course of a year, she alleges that she was shuffled
between contacts at Jack Hulland, the department of education,
student support services and her child's new school. In the fall of
2022, she says she received a file, but it didn't contain any
incident reports.
The parent's affidavit includes printed emails between herself and
various officials, including a note from the assistant deputy
minister for education that said the records were being held under
a court order and could not be released.
James Tucker, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in this case,
says he has directed multiple parents to inquire about the records
of their children. He says none have been successful.
Additional affidavits from students, parents and former teachers
allege having seen children strip naked in isolation, or crack
isolation room windows by throwing themselves against the windows.
One of the parents of the two plaintiffs alleges she was unaware
that "study hall" meant her child was frequently isolated.
She says her child attempted suicide at school. She felt the
suggestion from staff was that she wasn't doing enough as a parent.
[GN]
JBS USA: Campos FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JBS USA FOOD COMPANY
HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00744, was transferred from
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on Feb. 13, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-00333-M to the proceeding.
This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay
wages at a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any
workweek and Defendant's failure to include all remunerations in
the calculation of its overtime rate.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings is a multinational company which
processes beef, pork and lamb.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
400 North Saint Paul, St. Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (979) 220-2824
E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
- and -
David Matthew Haynie, Esq.
Germaine Naja Jones, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N St Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
gjones@foresterhaynie.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph H. Hunt, Esq.
James Stephen Korte, Esq.
Jonathon Michael Watson, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 839-3800
Facsimile: (303) 839-3838
E-mail: jhunt@spencerfane.com
jkorte@spencerfane.com
jmwatson@spencerfane.com
- and -
Randi J. Winter, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
100 South Fifth Street, Suite 2500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 268-7000
E-mail: rwinter@spencerfane.com
JOHN PAUL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Hair Care Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg at Bloomberg News reports that John Paul Mitchell
Systems deceives consumers by promoting its hair-care products as
cruelty-free and not animal tested even though it sold them in
China, which requires animal testing, a new proposed class action
alleges.
The company markets shampoo, conditioner, and other hair-care items
under various brands including Paul Mitchell, Clean Beauty, and Tea
Tree, according to the new lawsuit, filed in the US District Court
for the Northern District of California.
Over the years, product labels have promised in various ways and
words that its products are 100% cruelty free, the plaintiffs say.
Those promises include: "Never Animal Tested"; "No Animal Testing";
"A Pioneer in Cruelty-Free Hair Care"; and "John Paul Mitchell
Systems does not conduct or endorse animal testing," the suit
alleges.
But while portraying itself in the US as an animal rights pioneer,
the company opted to take advantage of the market in China, where
testing on animals was mandatory, named plaintiffs Randall Heagney,
Rica Guerrero, Kerrie Gonnella, John Rohloff, and Jewel Rule
allege.
According to the lawsuit, the company has maintained that it
received an exemption from the animal testing requirement. But the
plaintiffs say they haven't been able to find records showing that
Chinese authorities granted such an exemption and allege that "nor
was JPMS, upon inquiry, able to provide to Plaintiffs any such
documentation."
Because "the marketplace disdains cosmetic products affiliated with
animal testing," Heagney and the others say they incurred financial
harm by overpaying for cosmetics that were tested on animals
despite assurances stating otherwise.
Causes of Action: Express warranty; California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; California False Advertising Law; California Unfair
Competition Law.
Relief: Injunctive relief; restitution; damages; disgorgement of
profits; attorneys' fees and costs.
Potential class size: Unknown number of consumers who bought Paul
Mitchell brand and other products between May 1, 2015, and June 30,
2022.
Response: The company didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.
Attorneys: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents the
plaintiffs.
The case is Heagney v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, N.D. Cal., No.
3:23-cv-00687, complaint 2/15/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Julie Steinberg in
Washington at jsteinberg@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Patrick L. Gregory at
pgregory@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
JOSE F. SANTIAGO: Garces Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Garces, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JOSE F. SANTIAGO Jose F. Santiago Landscaping, an
individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-01042 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023), is
brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law (the "NYLL"), and for violations of the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (the
"Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiff worked approximately 80 hours per week, the Plaintiff
was paid a standard rate of $20.00 per hour as a flat hourly rate,
with no pay raises during the term of his employment. The Plaintiff
was paid a certain amount by check each week, and the remainder in
cash. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any overtime premium
(time and a half) for hours worked over 40 in each workweek.
The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with wage statements at
the time of payment of wages, containing: the dates of work covered
by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of employer;
address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of pay and
basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,
piece, commission, or other; gross wages; deductions; allowances,
ifany, claimed as part of the minimum wage; net wages; the regular
hourly rate or rates of pay; the overtime rate or rates of pay; the
number of regular hours worked, and the number of overtime hours
worked, as required by NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from August 2022 through
December 2, 2022 as a gardener.
The Defendant is a landscaping company located in East Hampton, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (954) 745-0588
Email: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
JOURNAL SENTINEL: Court Reversed Class Cert. Ruling in Stehberger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal reports that the Court of Appeals - District
I order granting class certification in the case-captioned Michael
Stehberger v. Journal Sentinel, Inc. with case number 2021AP001403
was reversed.
Gannett Publishing Services, LLC and Journal Sentinel, Inc.
(collectively the Journal) appeal from the order granting class
certification for the first claim in the first amended complaint
brought by Michael Stehberger, who was also certified in that order
as the class representative for an opt-out class of newspaper
carriers who alleged they were misclassified as independent
contractors instead of employees. In Stehberger's first claim, he
alleged that the Journal was making unauthorized wage deductions
from the carriers' payments for service error complaints, in
violation of WIS. STAT. § 103.455 (2019-20). The appeals court
concludes that the circuit court erroneously exercised its
discretion when it granted certification on the first claim without
adequately explaining its reasoning based on the evidence in the
record, as required by WIS. STAT. Section 803.08(11). The record
reflects that the certification order failed to include sufficient
factual findings and conclusions of law to support the court's
decision.
Reversed and remanded.
It was decided on February 7, 2023. [GN]
JUUL LABS: Carroll County to Receive $465,000 Deal in Vaping Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Goodwin Smith of Carroll County Times reports that Carroll
County schools will receive $465,000 settlement from class action
suit against vaping company Juul Labs.
Carroll County Public Schools is set to receive $465,000 from a
legal settlement with the e-cigarette company Juul Labs, after a
decision in a national lawsuit the county school district joined.
On February 15, 2023, the Board of Education unanimously voted to
give Superintendent Cynthia McCabe the authority to sign the
settlement.
Carroll County was one of several Maryland school districts to sign
on to the lawsuit, legal counsel Rochelle Eisenberg said, which
alleged that Juul Labs Inc. targeted underage buyers, downplayed
its products' risks and contributed to a youth vaping epidemic.
After legal fees, the Carroll school system is set to receive
$465,000. Half the money will be available this fall, and another
12.5% will be dispersed to the school system each year until it has
all been paid. Eisenberg said the money is not restricted, but it
is granted with the intent it be spent to improve student health
outcomes.
"It's little by little, but enough each time to help you in some
way benefit the Carroll County public school students," Eisenberg
said.
Board member Donna Sivigny suggested the board consider using the
funds for an in-school CPR certification program, which was
considered during October’s monthly school board meeting. The
county's high school health curriculum includes CPR instruction,
but students do not receive certification to administer CPR. Adding
CPR certifications to the program would cost about $33,000 each
year.
"One of the things that we had talked about several board meetings
ago was CPR certification, and how that was something that we were
struggling with finding the funding for," Sivigny said.
The board made no decision February 15, 2023 on how it would use
the funds from the legal settlement.
In December, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh announced that
Juul Labs would pay Maryland $13 million under a settlement that
resolved a multi-state investigation into the e-cigarette company's
marketing and sales practices.
Over the next five to nine years, Juul agreed to give $434.5
million to 33 states and territories, with the total settlement
increasing to more than $476.6 million if the company takes the
full nine years to pay.
"Juul's marketing practices were aimed directly at children,
setting them up for a lifetime of addiction, "Frosh said in a
December statement. "This settlement will prohibit Juul from using
flavors, cartoons and other marketing tactics that target kids."
[GN]
KORNIT DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 19
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Kornit Digital Ltd., (NASDAQ:KRNT)
between February 17, 2021 and July 5, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). 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 17, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Kornit securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Kornit class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12250 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 17, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kornit and its senior
executives knew or, at a minimum, recklessly disregarded, that the
Company's digital printing business was beset by significant
quality control problems and deficient customer service; (2) as a
result, Kornit was more vulnerable to pressure from competitors
than it had represented and lacked the competitive advantages it
touted to investors; (3) as a result, problems and deficiencies
caused Kornit to lose market share to competitors, which led to a
decline in the Company's revenues, as Kornit's dissatisfied
customers sought out alternative options for their digital printing
needs; and (4) to the extent that the Company purported to warn of
risks regarding quality and customer service issues as well as
increased competition, Kornit failed to disclose that such risks
had already materialized. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Kornit class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12250or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
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]
LASTPASS US: Faces Goldstein Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASTPASS US LP, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10320-PBS (D. Mass., February 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of
contract/breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation
of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' personally
identifiable information following a data breach. Had LastPass
implemented and maintained an appropriate security program,
including proper monitoring of its network, security, and
communications, LastPass would have discovered the data breach
sooner or prevented it altogether. The Defendant also failed to
timely inform the Plaintiff and Class members about the discovered
data breach. As a result of the Defendants' negligence and
omissions, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party, says the suit.
LastPass US LP is a password and identity management services
company based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Gotz, Esq.
Steve Rotman, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 207-0600
Facsimile: (617) 830-8312
Email: jgotz@hausfeld.com
srotman@hausfeld.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Amy Keller, Esq.
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
LEE'S SANDWICH: Two Law Firms File Wage Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern California labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group,
APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against
Lee's Sandwich, for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest
breaks. The class action lawsuit, Case No. 23CV410621, is currently
pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of
California.
According to the lawsuit, Lee's Sandwich allegedly violated
California Labor Code Sections Secs. 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226,
226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by
failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3)
provide required meal and rest periods; (4) provide wages when due;
(5) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) reimburse
for required business expenses.
As a result of their rigorous work schedules, Lee's Sandwich's
employees were allegedly unable to take off duty rest breaks and
were not fully relieved of duty for rest periods. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges employees were required from time-to-time to work
in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute
rest periods as a result of their overburdened work requirements
and inadequate staffing. Further, the lawsuit alleges these
employees were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10)
minutes for some shifts worked of at least two (2) to four (4)
hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least
ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and
eight (8) hours from time to time, and a first, second and third
rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of
ten (10) hours or more from time to time. Additionally, Lee's
Sandwich's employees were also allegedly not provided with one-hour
wages in lieu thereof. As a result of their allegedly rigorous work
schedules and inadequate staffing, Lee's Sandwich's employees were
from time to time allegedly denied their proper rest periods by
Lee's Sandwich.
If you would like to know more about the Lee's Sandwich lawsuit,
please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619)
255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN]
LENSA AI: Collects Users' Biometric Without Permission, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Dafoe at arnet.com reports that a group of Illinois
residents has filed a class action lawsuit against the company
behind Lensa A.I., saying that the viral app broke the state's law
against collecting biometric information.
The suit, filed in Northern California district court (and reviewed
by Artnet News), alleges that Prisma Labs illegally collected the
plaintiffs' facial geometry data through Lensa, which uses A.I. to
create custom cartoon avatars. In doing so, the company violated
Illinois's 2008 Biometric Information and Privacy Act (BIPA), the
document argues.
The case comes amid increased public scrutiny around A.I. programs
and the digital images on which they're trained. Lensa, in
particular, has faced criticism for allegedly scraping artists'
work online. Some users have also decried the app's supposed
penchant for lightening skin, thinning bodies, and churning out
sexualized nudes without users' consent.
"The plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and millions of others like them,
unwittingly provided their facial biometrics to Prisma Labs when
they downloaded the Lensa app," said attorney Tom Hanson in a
statement shared by his firm Loevy & Loevy, which represents the
group behind the complaint.
"A person's facial geometry is like their fingerprint," Hanson went
on. "It is an immutable, unique identifier that deserves the
highest degree of protection the law can afford."
Launched back in 2018, Lensa became an online sensation late last
year as celebrities, athletes, and seemingly just about everyone
else turned their social media profile pictures into one of the
app's signature "Magic Avatars."
To create one of these avatars, the program asks users to upload a
series of selfies and requires access to the photos on that
person's personal device. It's at that point, the complaint argues,
that the app extracts users' facial data without their permission.
Since Lensa's boom in popularity and the various waves of criticism
that followed it, Prisma has updated the program's privacy policy
numerous times, detailing, to increasingly greater degrees, what
data is collected and how that data is stored. Missing from the
policy, though, is any mention of facial geometry.
"Lensa continues to be one of the most downloaded apps in the
country, which is why this lawsuit -- and Prisma Labs' compliance
with BIPA -- is so urgently needed," said Mike Kanovitz, a Loevy &
Loevy Attorney. "Prisma Labs has been unlawfully collecting users'
biometric data without their consent. This is in violation of
Illinois law, and deeply concerning for anyone who believes in data
privacy."
A Chicago-based firm, Loevy & Loevy won the first BIPA case to go
to trial last year when a federal journey ordered the BNSF Railway
Company to pay $228 million in damages for collecting fingerprints
from more than 45,000 truck drivers.
Representatives from Prisma Labs did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on the complaint and the claims made
therein.[GN]
LILIUM NV: Gnanaraj Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANIRAJ ASHIRWAD GNANARAJ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LILIUM N.V.
F/K/A QELL ACQUISITION CORP., BARRY ENGLE, DANIEL WIEGAND, and
GEOFFREY RICHARDSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02564, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:23-cv-80232-RLR to the proceeding.
The suit is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Lilium securities between March 30, 2021 and March 14, 2022,
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Lilium N.V., f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp., is a transportation
company focused on developing an electric vertical
take-off-and-landing aircraft, the Lilium Jet, for use in air
transport system for people and goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Boris Feldman, Esq.
Doru Gavril, Esq.
Drew Liming, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
855 Main Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 461-8200
E-mail: boris.feldman@freshfields.com
doru.gavril@freshfields.com
drew.liming@freshfields.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Gonzalez Sues Over Fire Dept. Staff's Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GONZALEZ, JOHN FRYE, and TONY ORTIZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00222 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Gonzalez and Frye worked for the Defendant as
firefighters in Los Angeles Fire Department since December 3, 2003
and September 2008, respectively.
Plaintiff Ortiz worked as fire captain in the LAFD since June 8,
1989 until his retirement on January 31, 2023.
City of Los Angeles is a public agency in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Oshea Orchid, Esq.
Vasili Brasinikas, Esq.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LEGAL, LLP
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 660
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Telephone: (310) 649-5300
Facsimile: (310) 853-6945
Email: oshea@publicemployees.legal
vasili@publicemployees.legal
- and -
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
Email: Helland@nka.com
LTC HOLDINGS: Faces McDaniel FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHELE MCDANIEL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LTC HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A MEDICAL FACILITIES
OF AMERICA (MFA), Case No. 7:23-cv-00093-EKD (W.D. Va., Feb. 10,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Virginia common law, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
current and former hourly patient-facing care providers, who were
subject to an automatic meal break pay deduction, and who worked
for the Defendant.
According to the complaint, despite automatically deducting 30
minutes of time from the Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective/Class Members' daily time, MFA does not completely
relieve them from duty during their shift for the purposes of
taking their meal break(s). The Plaintiff allegedly did not receive
compensation for all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.
Specifically, when the Plaintiff and Putative Collective/Class
Members worked three 12-hour shifts in a week and did not receive a
meal break during any shift, MFA's deduction resulted in the
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members not being paid
for one and one-half hours of compensable straight time work. As a
result of MFA's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and the
Putative Collective/Class Members for compensable work performed
"off the clock," the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class
Members worked straight time hours and overtime hours for which
they were not compensated at the rates required by the FLSA and the
Virginia state law, added the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by MFA in Roanoke, Virginia as a
Certified Nursing Assistant from December 2019 until February
2021.
LTC provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
paul@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA BATCHELOR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACMILLAN, MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS
INC, MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC, MACMILLAN LEARNING, and MPS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01217 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment arising from Defendants'
failure to protect highly sensitive data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach. Thus, Defendant had no effective means to
prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems --
thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to the
sensitive information.
The complaint asserts that cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' information.
In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' information in a
vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a data breach victim, receiving a breach notice on
December 1, 2022. She brings this class action on behalf of
herself, and all others harmed by Defendants' misconduct.
Macmillan is an international publishing company that conducts
business throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
MDL 2875: Judge Certifies Valsartan Class Suits in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Slack Davis Sanger of GlobeNewsWire reports that Honorable U.S.
District Judge Robert Kugler, entered a 97-page order certifying
valsartan-related consumer and insurer economic loss and medical
monitoring classes against the manufacturer, retail pharmacy, and
wholesaler defendants in this multi-district litigation (MDL) that
arose from the 2018-2019 recalls of the defendants'
carcinogen-contaminated generic hypertension medicines, see In re
Valsartan, Losartan, Irbesartan Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 19md2875
(D.N.J.)
Valsartan is a popular generic prescription medicine indicated to
treat hypertension, and originally sold under the trade names of
DIOVAN(R) and EXFORGE(R). In 2018, about 1.5 million Americans were
taking valsartan containing medicines to help contain their blood
pressure. In mid-2018 to early 2019, many of the generic versions
of valsartan were recalled because they were contaminated with high
levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine
(NDEA). These are both extremely potent carcinogens and are treated
as among the most dangerous genotoxic impurities by the FDA.
"We are grateful for Judge Kugler's thoughtful and well-reasoned
decision to certify classes of economic loss and medical monitoring
claims," said class co-lead counsel, John Davis. "As a result of
this opinion, millions of American consumers and insurers will now
have the opportunity to band together and seek justice against the
manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and wholesalers who manufactured,
distributed, and dispensed adulterated valsartan-containing drugs
in the United States.
Generic drugs are a large and growing segment of the
pharmaceuticals market. In 2015, it was estimated that generic
drugs accounted for 88% of all prescription drug sales.
Judge Kugler found in his opinion that that the contamination
resulted from defendants’ failure to comply with standards that
ensure, among other things, the quality and purity of prescription
drugs sold in the United States.
"The defendants' own documents and testimony from the defendants'
employees, confirms that the defendants engaged in serious
misconduct that resulted in their failure to prevent or detect the
contamination," said Davis.
Davis, a partner at Slack Davis Sanger, serves on the
court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee ("PEC") that
serves as plaintiffs' leadership for the approximately 1,000
personal injury cases and economic loss and medical monitoring
class actions. Along with co-lead attorneys Conlee Whiteley and
Ruben Honik, Judge Kugler's Order appoints Mr. Davis as Class
Counsel for the consumer economic loss class claims.
Since 1993, Slack Davis Sanger has been serving clients nationally
and internationally with personal injury claims, wrongful death,
and medical malpractice claims. With a combined experience of more
than 250 years, Slack Davis Sanger attorneys have extensive
experience in litigation involving class action lawsuits and
whistleblower cases. For more information or to speak with John
Davis, please contact Marketing Manager Stephanie Eitrheim at Slack
Davis Sanger at 512-225-5322. [GN]
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Sheth v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheth v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04511 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing
the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives
The Sheth case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YCr0Yd at no extra charge.[CC]
METRO AIR: Gomez Suit Remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM GOMEZ, Plaintiff v. METRO AIR SERVICE INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04979-SP (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Sheri Pym of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.
The Plaintiff filed the instant putative class action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court on May 5, 2022, on behalf of himself
and those individuals who were employed by the Defendant in
California at any time from four years prior to the Complaint's
filing and classified as non-exempt. He alleges he and other
employees were not compensated with all their wages lawfully due in
that, inter alia, they were from time to time: unable to take their
meal and rest breaks or required to work while clocked out during
their breaks; not provided complete and accurate wage statements;
and not timely paid their correct wages.
The Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action under California's
Business and Professions Code and Labor Code: (1) unfair
competition; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide required meal periods; (5)
failure to provide required rest periods; (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized statements; (7) failure to reimburse employees
for required expenses; (8) failure to provide wages when due; and
(9) failure to pay sick pay wages. Plaintiff alleges the aggregate
amount in controversy is less than $5 million.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a putative class of "all
individuals who are or previously were employed by the Defendant in
California, including any employees staffed with defendant by a
third party, and classified as non-exempt employees at any time
during the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of
this Complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court."
On July 20, 2022, the Defendant removed the action to this Court
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). It
contends the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,
there are more than 100 proposed class members, and there is
diversity of citizenship.
In moving to remand, the Plaintiff argues the Defendant's
assumptions are unreasonable and unsupported. The Defendant opposes
the motion with additional evidence and new assertions of the
amount in controversy. In particular, it now asserts the aggregate
amount in controversy is at least $10,696,664.50, consisting of:
$2,398,452 for rest break claims; $2,356,380 for waiting time
penalties; $3,837,200 for wage statement penalties; and
$2,104,632.50 for attorneys' fees.
Judge Pym opines that many of the Defendant's assumptions made in
support of its calculation of the amount in controversy on the
Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims are unreasonable on their
face without comparison to a better alternative. As such, she finds
the Defendant has not met its burden and its asserted amount in
controversy for these claims does not support its removal of the
case.
Judge Pym further opines that a fair reading of Brice's declaration
may support a reasonable assumption of a three-hour workday. Thus,
multiplying 1,482 former employees by 30 days by three hours by
$13.02, the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's waiting time
penalties claim would be $1,736,607.60.
Judge Pym also opines that there is no basis in the record to
determine how many wage statements may be at issue, leaving no
basis to consider an alternative potential amount in controversy.
She says the Defendant has not met its burden, and therefore its
asserted amount in controversy for this claim does not support its
removal of the case.
Finally, Judge Pym opines that by simply assuming a 25% benchmark
here, the Defendant has not met its burden with respect to the
calculation of attorneys' fees at issue. Even if she were to accept
the 25% benchmark, the only amount in controversy the Defendant has
met its burden to demonstrate on any claim is $1,736,607.60 for
waiting time penalties. Adding 25% to that for attorneys' fees
would result in a total of only $2,170,759.50 in controversy, well
below the $5 million required for removal.
For these reasons, Judge Pym concludes that the Defendant has
failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million CAFA threshold for
removal. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.
The Court Clerk is directed to remand the action to the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p94urzp from
Leagle.com.
MEYER CORPORATION: Clark Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Howard Clark, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S., Case No.
CGC-22-603458 was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Feb. 8, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00581-KAW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Meyer Corporation -- http://www.meyerus.com/-- is a cookware
distributor based in Vallejo, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Suite PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (917) 471-1894
Fax: (310) 496-3176
Email: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Michael Harrison Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Fax: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
mpearson@pwfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jon Peter Kardassakis, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 250-1800
Fax: (213) 250-7900
Email: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Michael Kenneth Johnson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94549-2872
Phone: (925) 357-3456
Fax: (925) 478-3260
Email: Michael.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
MICHAELS STORES: Crawford Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Curtis Crawford, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Michaels
Stores Procurement Co, Inc., Case No. CV-UOE-22-0010787 was removed
from the San Joaquin County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00264-AC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
Michaels -- https://www.michaels.com/ -- has the products needed
for home decor, framing, scrapbooking and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 551-1223
Fax: (858) 551-1232
Email: aj@bamlawca.com
kyle@bamlawca.com
deblouw@bamlawca.com
norm@bamlawca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 557-2900
Email: gknopp@proskauer.com
NABFLY INC: Renews Subscription Plan Automatically, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NABFLY, INC., d/b/a BESPOKE POST, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01162 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment/restitution,
conversion, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal automatic
renewal scheme with respect to its subscription plans for Bespoke
Post-branded products and services that are available exclusively
to consumers who enroll in the Defendant's auto-renewal membership
program through its website at https://www.bespokepost.com or its
mobile applications, Bespoke Post Apps. According to the complaint,
when consumers sign up for the Bespoke Post Subscription, the
Defendant actually enrolls consumers in a program that
automatically renews the Bespoke Post Subscription from
month-to-month and results in monthly charges to the consumer's
credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account. In doing
so, the Defendant fails to provide the requisite disclosures and
authorizations required to be made to California consumers under
California's Automatic Renewal Law, says the suit.
nabfly, Inc., doing business as Bespoke Post, is a lifestyle and
commerce company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
jvenditti@bursor.com
NELNET SERVICING: Hollenkamp Consolidated with Data Security Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hollenkamp v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03189 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:
1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
cancelled.
2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.
3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:
a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
(Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
designated as a "Member Case."
b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
(Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.
c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
(Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.
4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
consolidated amended complaint:
a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
so state.
b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
filed:
i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
response to Plaintiffs' motion; and
ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
against it until the claims against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC are resolved.
c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.
5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
instructed to file all further documents (except as
described below in subsections a) and b) of this
paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
response to the System's question whether to spread the
text.
a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
related to service of process; or to file notices of
appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
and therefore these documents must be separately filed
in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.
b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
must move for permission to file the document in a
limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
feature.
The Hollenkamp suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.
Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."
Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases
are currently pending.
The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.
On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.
Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40PNzKR at no extra charge.[CC]
NELNET SERVICING: Joaquin-Torres Merged with Data Security Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joaquin-Torres v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03196 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:
1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
cancelled.
2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.
3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:
a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
(Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
designated as a "Member Case."
b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
(Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.
c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
(Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.
4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
consolidated amended complaint:
a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
so state.
b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
filed:
i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
response to Plaintiffs' motion; and
ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
against it until the claims against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC are resolved.
c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.
5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
instructed to file all further documents (except as
described below in subsections a) and b) of this
paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
response to the System's question whether to spread the
text.
a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
related to service of process; or to file notices of
appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
and therefore these documents must be separately filed
in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.
b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
must move for permission to file the document in a
limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
feature.
The Joaquin-Torres suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases
Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC.
Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."
Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases
are currently pending.
The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.
On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.
Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YJfiLp at no extra charge.[CC]
NELNET SERVICING: Kitzler Consolidated with Data Security Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Neil Kitzler v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-03241 (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:
1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
cancelled.
2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.
3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:
a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
(Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
designated as a "Member Case."
b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
(Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.
c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
(Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.
4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
consolidated amended complaint:
a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
so state.
b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
filed:
i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
response to Plaintiffs' motion; and
ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
against it until the claims against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC are resolved.
c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.
5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
instructed to file all further documents (except as
described below in subsections a) and b) of this
paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
response to the System's question whether to spread the
text.
a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
related to service of process; or to file notices of
appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
and therefore these documents must be separately filed
in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.
b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
must move for permission to file the document in a
limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
feature.
The Kitzler suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.
Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been
designated by the court as "related."
Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases
are currently pending.
The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.
On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.
Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40IYd5Y at no extra charge.[CC]
NELNET SERVICING: Kohrell Consolidated with Data Security Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kohrell v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC et al (TV1), Case No. 4:22-cv-03267 (D. Neb.) the
Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:
1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
cancelled.
2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.
3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:
a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
(Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
designated as a "Member Case."
b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
(Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.
c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
(Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.
4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
consolidated amended complaint:
a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
so state.
b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
filed:
i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
response to Plaintiffs' motion; and
ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
against it until the claims against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC are resolved.
c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.
5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
instructed to file all further documents (except as
described below in subsections a) and b) of this
paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
response to the System's question whether to spread the
text.
a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
related to service of process; or to file notices of
appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
and therefore these documents must be separately filed
in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.
b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
must move for permission to file the document in a
limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
feature.
The Kohrell suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.
Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been
designated by the court as "related."
Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the
undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and
motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are
currently pending.
The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.
On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.
Kohrell provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YHk8c0 at no extra charge.[CC]
NELNET SERVICING: Kohrell Consolidated with Data Security Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kohrell v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC et al (TV1), Case No. 4:22-cv-03267 (D. Neb.) the
Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:
1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
cancelled.
2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.
3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:
a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
(Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
designated as a "Member Case."
b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
(Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.
c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
(Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.
4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
consolidated amended complaint:
a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
so state.
b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
filed:
i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
response to Plaintiffs' motion; and
ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
against it until the claims against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC are resolved.
c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.
5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
instructed to file all further documents (except as
described below in subsections a) and b) of this
paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
response to the System's question whether to spread the
text.
a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
related to service of process; or to file notices of
appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
and therefore these documents must be separately filed
in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.
b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
must move for permission to file the document in a
limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
feature.
The Scott suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.
Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."
Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases
are currently pending.
The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.
On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.
Kohrell provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YHk8c0 at no extra charge.[CC]
NEWREZ LLC: Case Management Deadlines Extended in Ricci Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW RICCI, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. NEWREZ LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-00650-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.
entered an order that the parties' "Joint Motion to Extend the Case
Management Deadlines" is granted and the deadlines are extended as
follows:
1. All discovery, including, but not limited to depositions,
pertaining to the opt-ins that have affirmatively joined
this FLSA collective and pertaining to Plaintiff's
anticipated motion for class certification of his Rule 23
PMWA claim shall be completed on or before May 10, 2023.
2. On or before April 10, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff shall
serve upon counsel for every other party all expert
reports and a curriculum vitae (if any) for each expert
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)
that Plaintiff may rely upon in opposing decertification
or moving for class certification.
3. On or before May 10, 2023, counsel for Defendant shall
serve upon counsel for every other party all expert
reports and a curriculum vitae (if any) for each expert
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)
that Defendant may rely upon in moving for decertification
or opposing class certification.
4. The Defendant's Motion for Decertification of the FLSA
Collective, if any, shall be due on or before June 12,
2023.
5. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of the Rule
23 PMWA Claim shall be due on or before June 12, 2023.
Newrez LLC is a nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xyzw9r at no extra charge.[CC]
NEXSTAR MEDIA INC: Rohlfs Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nexstar Media Inc.
The case is styled as Zachary Rohlfs, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Nexstar Media Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01050-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Other Contract.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. -- https://www.nexstar.tv/ -- is
America's largest local television and media company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (404) 797-9696
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Adam A Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Scott Adam Edelsberg, I, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Eisley Sues Over Train Derailment
---------------------------------------------------
Grayce Eisley and Jeffrey Zalick, individually and on behalf of a
Class of persons similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00250-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 8, 2023), is
brought against the Defendant arising from the catastrophic
derailment of a train hauling toxic chemicals in East Palestine,
Ohio, on February 3, 2023 ("Train Derailment").
The resulting fire and release of toxic chemicals, into the air,
soil, and water has caused and will continue to cause direct and
substantial damages to Plaintiffs and a Class of other people
similarly situated. At approximately 9:00 p.m. on the evening of
February 3, 2023, the Defendant was operating a train consisting of
approximately 150 train cars. The train was being operated in or
near the City of East Palestine, Ohio.
The Plaintiffs allege, based upon knowledge and belief that one of
the tram cars on the Defendant's train sustained a broken or
malfunctioning axel causing a tram derailment. Approximately 10 of
the derailed cars contained hazardous substances specifically,
Vinyl Chloride, Butyl Acrylate, and Benzene residue. Vinyl Chloride
is a known carcinogen.
A number of the rail cars caught fire and continued to bum for many
hours resulting in a toxic chemical fire that emitted dense clouds
of noxious smoke fumes and vapors into the air forcing the
evacuation of thousands of individuals residing near the area of
the train derailment. It is believed that the release of toxic
chemicals into the air may have also contaminated soil and ground
water. As a result of the derailment and the release of toxic
chemicals into the surrounding environment, Plaintiffs and members
of the proposed Class have suffered a decrease in the market value
of their properties.
Thousands of people in and near East Palestine were forced from
their homes and businesses as a result of the train derailment.
Shelters were opened by local governments and hundreds of people
spent the night in shelters. Others found their own accommodations
outside the area. Numerous businesses were closed and highways were
blocked in the area surrounding the evacuation zone. The Plaintiffs
allege that their properties may continue to be uninhabitable for
an extended period of time, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs resides in East Palestine, Ohio.
The Defendant is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of
business in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert R. sparks (0073573)
Ronald R. Pany (0053750)
STRAUSS TROY co., LPA
The Federal Reserve Building
150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Fir.
Cincinnati, OH45202
Phone: (513) 621-2120
Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
Email: npamv@strausstrov.com
nsparksastrausstrov.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Erdos Sues Over Train Derailment
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Erdos, David Anderson, and Valley View MHP LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN
CORPORATION, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, JOHN DOE(S) 1-20,
and ABC CORP(S). 1-20, Case No. 4:23-cv-00268-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Feb.
9, 2023), is brought seeking redress for residents and businesses
located in and around the February 3, 2023 Norfolk Southern Freight
Train 32N derailment and subsequent "controlled" release in East
Palestine, Ohio, that resulted in contamination of, and exposure
to, massive amounts of vinyl chloride and other toxic
chemicals--including butyl acrylate, benzene residue, and other
combustible liquids, resulting in the Class suffering, among other
things, loss of use and enjoyment of property, property damage,
emotional distress, and economic damages.
On Friday February 3, 2023, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Norfolk
Southern Freight Train 32N, consisting of 141 cars and operated by
NSRC, was carrying abnormally dangerous and ultrahazardous
chemicals including, but not limited to, vinyl chloride, while
traveling from Illinois to Pennsylvania. The train was backloaded
with 40% of its weight, the heaviest tanker cars, at the rear.
Lighter cars were loaded between the heavy rear tankers and the
front engine. The train was traveling from Madison County, Illinois
to Conway, Pennsylvania, which required a downhill route. In the
area of East Palestine, Ohio, approximately 50 of the train cars
derailed. The train was already ablaze when at 8:13 P.M it passed
through Salem, Ohio, 20 miles west of the eventual site of the
fiery derailment in East Palestine.
Shortly before the derailment, the crew was alerted by an alarm
indicating a mechanical issue with a malfunctioning railcar axle.
The railcar axle failed when a wheel bearing overheated on a
railcar. The overheating led to a fire, which then led to the
derailment. An emergency brake was then applied prior to the
derailment. Ten of the derailed cars carried hazardous materials,
with five of those derailed train cars containing vinyl chloride.
As a result of Defendants' negligent, careless, reckless, and/or
intentional conduct in connection with the February 3, 2023 train
derailment and resulting toxic chemical explosion, the Plaintiffs
have suffered damages, including, but not limited to, an increased
risk of cancer and organ damage from exposure to and inhalation of
toxic chemicals and contamination of his property by egregiously
high and plainly dangerous levels of toxic chemicals dispersed by
Defendants into the air and water, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania.
NSRC operates approximately 19,300 route miles (in 22 states and
the District of
Columbia) with 2,402 route miles (12%) in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania alone, and servesnevery major container port in the
eastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melanie. S. Bailey, Esq.
David C. Harman, Esq.
BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
201 East Fifth Street, Suite 1340
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-852-5600
Fax: 513-852-5611
Email: mbailey@burgsimpson.com
dharman@burgsimpson.com
- and -
Seth Katz, Esq.
BURG SIIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
40 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112
Phone: 303-792-5595
Fax: 303-708-0527
Email: skatz@burgsimpson.com
- and -
M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
Adam J. Gomez, Esq.
Tudor I. Farcas, Esq.
Adam l. Stoltz, Esq.
Caley DeGroote, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
123 S. Justison Street, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: 302-622-7000
Fax: 302-622-7100
Email: egraham@gelaw.com
agomez@gelaw.com
tfarcas@gelaw.com
astoltz@gelaw.com
gdegroote@gelaw.com
- and -
Douglas J. Olcott, Esq.
EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
600 Grant Street, 10th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-394-4420
Fax: 412-391-2386
Email: dolcott@edgarsynder.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Hall Sues Over Train Derailment
-------------------------------------------------
Ray E. Hall and Judith E. Hall, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., NORFOLK
SOUTHERN CORP., Case No. 4:23-cv-00257-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 9,
2023), is brought as a result of the Defendants' negligence,
nuisance, trespass, negligent infliction of emotional distress;
strict liability with regards to the Train Derailment which
contained toxic chemicals.
On February 3, 2022, at approximately 9:00 p.m., a train operated
by Norfolk Southern and traveling from Illinois to Pennsylvania
derailed in or about East Palestine, Ohio ("Train Derailment"). One
hundred train cars were derailed, including approximately 10 to 20
cars that were carrying hazardous materials, including, but not
limited to, vinyl chloride, a toxic chemical which, upon exposure,
can cause dizziness, difficulties with balance and walking,
fatigue, numbness and tingling of the extremities, eye irritation,
irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory tract irritation, and,
in some cases, death.
Upon derailment and/or prior to such derailment, the hazardous
materials, including the vinyl chloride, ignited and emitted toxic
fumes into the surrounding area for several days. Upon information
and belief, the Train Derailment and accompanying chemical spill
were caused by the negligence of Defendants in operating the
subject train, defects and/or deficiencies in the Norfolk Southern
railway system, and/or defects and/or deficiencies in one or more
of the subject train cars.
As a result, on February 3, 2022, at approximately 11:00 p.m.,
local authorities in the area recommended evacuation for residents
and/or businesses within a mile radius of the Train Derailment, via
door-to-door notification by police officers, without providing any
clear parameters for why the evacuation was ensuing and for how
long residents were required to evacuate the area.
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were adversely affected
by the Train Derailment, in that they were exposed to toxic
substances and fumes, including, but not limited to, vinyl
chloride, were forced to evacuate their residences and/or business,
and/or were prevented and have been prevented from returning to
their residences and/or businesses, all of which have resulted in
damages therefrom, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were residents located within the Danger Zone.
Norfolk Southern is a national transportation company that operates
one of the most extensive intermodal railroad networks in the
Eastern United States and serves every major container port in the
Eastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary A. Corroto, Esq.
Lee E. Plakas, Esq.
Kristen S. Moore, Esq.
PLAKAS | MANNOS
200 Market Avenue North, Suite 300
Canton, OH 44702
Phone: (330) 455-6112
Fax: (330) 455-2108
Email: gcorroto@lawlion.com
lplakas@lawlion.com
kmoore@lawlion.com
NORTHWEST FEDERAL: Patton Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Regina Patton, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Northwest Federal
Credit Union doing business as: Bayport Credit Union, Case No.
4:23-cv-00013-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va., Feb. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is state as Contract: Recovery/Enforcement for
Electronic Fees Transfer Act.
Northwest Federal Credit Union -- https://www.nwfcu.org/ -- offer
financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon James Munro, Esq.
MUNRO BYRD P.C.
120 Day Ave. SWFirst Floor
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540) 283-9343
Fax: (540) 328-9290
Email: dmunro@trialsva.com
NUTRIPAN COLOMBIAN: Faces Manzano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MISAEL LIBYS AGUIRRE MANZANO, ADULFO ALVARADO ROMERO, FRANKLYN
FIGUEROA ZAGARRA, and OSVALDO AGUIRRE RODRIGUEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUTRIPAN
COLOMBIAN BAKERY, CORP. and HUBER FIGUEROA, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01183 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023) is a
class action brought against the Defendants pursuant to both the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from
the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs minimum and overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premiums, and failure to
provide wage statements and wage notices.
The Plaintiffs are former kitchen and restaurant/bakery employees
at Defendants' restaurant and bakery located in Queens, New York.
Nutripan Colombian Bakery is a Colombian restaurant/bakery.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
O'LAMPIA D&D LLC: Bradshaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Lampia D&D LLC. The
case is styled as Gary Bradshaw, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. O'Lampia D&D LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01147 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
O'Lampia D&D LLC -- http://olampia.com/-- is a showroom displaying
handcrafted floor, ceiling & table lamps in unique, modern
designs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
OFFLIMITS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Offlimits, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Offlimits, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01152 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Offlimits, Inc. -- https://www.eatofflimits.com/ -- is a cereal and
culture brand breaking the rules, starting with breakfast.[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
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Hair Care Products' Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scott at legalscoops.com reports that popular hair care
product brand Olaplex is facing a new lawsuit, and significant
media attention after numerous women reported severe side effects,
including hair loss and skin reactions, allegedly caused by using
the products.
Olaplex, which claims to repair and strengthen hair bonds and
prevent damage during coloring and styling, has been marketed as a
high-end, salon-exclusive line that promises to deliver "salon
results at home."
The company raised $1.55 billion in an initial public offering in
September 2021 but has faced slowing sales growth and social media
backlash from some unhappy customers.
Several women have claimed to experience hair loss, bald spots, and
scalp irritation after using Olaplex products. One woman claimed
that her hair "was falling out in clumps" and that she had never
experienced anything like this before.
Some customers also reported developing blisters, hives, and rashes
on their scalp, neck, and face, which they attributed to an
allergic reaction to Olaplex's ingredients.
Complaints and personal injury lawsuits have emerged, both in the
UK and the US, against Olaplex and its parent company, Beauty
Industry Group (BIG).
The Olaplex Class Action Lawsuit
In 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Olaplex and its
parent company, Beauty Industry Group, on behalf of consumers who
purchased Olaplex products and suffered from hair loss or scalp
irritation.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Olaplex falsely advertised
its products as safe and effective, concealed known risks and side
effects, and failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
The plaintiffs claim that Olaplex's products contain harsh and
harmful chemicals, including bis-aminopropyl diglycol dimaleate,
which is not approved by the FDA for use in hair care products and
can cause allergic reactions, hair damage and scalp burns.
The class action also claims that Olaplex engaged in deceptive and
unfair business practices by charging exorbitant prices for its
products, creating a false impression of exclusivity and luxury,
and failing to disclose the risks and limitations of its products.
The class action plaintiffs seek damages for economic losses,
emotional distress, medical expenses, and injunctive relief to stop
Olaplex from making deceptive claims.
The Recent Olaplex Hair Loss Lawsuit in Los Angeles
As of February 2023, online court records show that the class
action case is still pending in the US District Court for the
Central District of California and that several motions and orders
have been filed, including a motion to dismiss by the defendants
and an opposition by the plaintiffs.
The court has not yet ruled on these motions or set a trial date.
The case outcome could have significant implications for Olaplex
and other hair care companies.
A Dallas-based lawyer, Amy Davis, brought a lawsuit on behalf of
about 30 women who claim that Olaplex's hair products caused them
hair loss, breakage, and scalp injuries. The lawsuit, filed in a
federal court in California, accuses Olaplex of false advertising
and deceptive marketing.
The plaintiffs allege that Olaplex's products have left their hair
dry, brittle, frizzy, and dull, and they have experienced scalp
irritation and sensitivity. They also claim that Olaplex has
knowingly used ingredients that can cause harm to the hair and
scalp.
Olaplex has denied the allegations and defended the safety and
efficacy of its products, which it says are tested by independent
laboratories. The company also noted that many factors could affect
hair health, such as lifestyle, medical conditions, medications,
and Covid-19.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to
stop Olaplex from making false claims about its products. It also
names Cosway Co., Olaplex's largest manufacturer, as a defendant.
Olaplex, Cosway, and BIG have all denied the allegations and
defended the safety and quality of Olaplex products. The company
claims that it "has performed extensive clinical testing on all of
its products, which demonstrates their safety and efficacy."
However, some experts have questioned the validity and transparency
of Olaplex's testing and ingredients.
The controversy surrounding Olaplex highlights the potential risks
and pitfalls of the booming beauty industry and social media
marketing, which is mainly self-regulated.
While most hair care products are generally considered safe and
harmless, they can contain chemicals and allergens that may cause
adverse reactions in some people. Customers should always read and
follow the label instructions, do a patch test before using a new
product, and consult a dermatologist or hair specialist if they
experience any unusual symptoms or changes.
Moreover, manufacturers should be transparent and accountable for
their products' ingredients, testing, and marketing claims, and
regulatory agencies should enforce and update safety standards
based on scientific evidence and consumer feedback.
The Lawsuits
Albahae et al. v. Olaplex Holdings, 2:23-cv-00982, US District
Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
A class action lawsuit from the District of Montreal in Canada
(copy of the complaint is forthcoming) [GN]
OLD COPPER: Carranza Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CARRANZA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLD COPPER COMPANY, INC. f/k/a J. C. PENNEY
COMPANY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, PENNEY OPCO LLC, a Virginia
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00276-L-NLS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2023) arises from
the Defendants' dissemination of false, misleading, and deceptive
pricing scheme in violation of the California's Unfair Competition
Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more
products through jcpenney.com that were deceptively represented as
discounted from a false reference price. The Plaintiff seeks to
halt the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive
pricing scheme, to correct the perception it has created in the
minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have
purchased products tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme.
The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendants from using false and
misleading misrepresentations regarding former price comparisons in
its labeling, marketing, and advertising permanently. Furthermore,
Plaintiff seeks to obtain actual, statutory, and punitive damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees, and other appropriate relief in the amount by which
Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of its sales offered
at a false discount.
Old Copper Company, Inc. owns and operates department stores. The
Company offers family apparel, jewelry, shoes, accessories, and
home furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
OLD COPPER: Faces Suit Over Alleged Use of False Reference Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleges JCPenney has misled consumers by
advertising products on its website with false "original" prices
and corresponding illusory discounts, giving an impression of "deep
discount" savings.
A proposed class action lawsuit alleges JCPenney has misled
consumers by advertising products on its website with false
"original" prices and corresponding illusory discounts, giving an
impression of "deep discount" savings.
The 26-page lawsuit claims that Old COPPER Company, Inc. and Penney
OpCo -- who do business as JCPenney -- use false reference pricing
to fool shoppers into thinking they are buying a product with a
higher market value than it really has. In truth, however, the
"deep discount[s]" seen on JCPenney.com are misrepresentations, as
the items listed on the website are "never sold at the [original]
price consumers are led to presume," the suit charges.
"All while fully aware of their deception," the case reads,
"Defendants have achieved, and might continue to achieve, their
ultimate, continuing purpose of driving sales with sham
markdowns."
Per the complaint, the defendants list products on their website
with false "original" prices crossed out, implying that the
products were sold previously at these "strikethrough" prices. The
discount percentage appears in italics next to the sale price,
which is displayed in red italics to draw the eye, the filing
says.
According to California law, a retailer can only offer a discount
on an item for 90 days, after which either the product's price must
revert back to its original cost, or the seller may maintain the
discount provided that it discloses the date on which the original
price was previously offered, the lawsuit explains. In addition,
federal law requires a product's advertised original price to have
been in regular use by the retailer and for a reasonable amount of
time, the case says.
The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased a Cooks-brand
two-quart air fryer from JCPenney.com in September 2022, the suit
relays. When she saw the original price of $60 crossed out next to
the $39.99 sale price, the plaintiff believed she was getting a
substantial discount, the complaint states.
Subsequent investigation by her legal counsel revealed that the air
fryer had been listed under the same original and discounted prices
for more than the 90-day period allowed by state law, the filing
alleges.
What's more, the investigation showed that the "false reference
pricing scheme was uniform" across JCPenney.com and that, as of
July 2022, more than 1,990 products listed on the website were
discounted for periods beyond the 90 days permitted, the case
claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased from
JCPenney.com one or more products at discounts from an advertised
reference price and has not received a refund or credit for their
purchase(s) during the applicable statute of limitations period.
Carranza v. Old COPPER Company, Inc. f/k/a J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. et al.
FILED: FEBRUARY 13, 2023 Case No. 3:23-CV-00276-L-NLS [GN]
ORNUA FOODS: Winans Sues Over Kerrygold Butter Sticks' False Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN WINANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORNUA FOODS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01198 (E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the New York
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Kerrygold Salted
and Unsalted Butter Sticks. The Defendant labeled the product as
containing "PURE IRISH BUTTER" when, in fact, the product contains
per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, a category of synthetic
chemicals that are, by definition, artificial. The presence of PFAS
is entirely inconsistent with the Defendant's uniform
representations that the product only contains "PURE IRISH BUTTER."
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and
putative Class members have suffered injury in fact, including
economic damages, says the suit.
Ornua Foods North America Inc. is a food manufacturer headquartered
in Evanston, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Russell Busch, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
Zoe T. Aaron, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
E-mail: rbusch@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
zaaron@milberg.com
PERSONAL SERVICING: Paramo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Personal Servicing
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gilbert Paramo,
RoseMarie Santos, as individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Personal Servicing Solutions LLC, WEEE
Logistics, Inc., WEEE! Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001129 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 9, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Personal Solutions, L.L.C. provides family counseling
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
PIZZA PACK: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pizza Pack LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Pizza
Pack LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01112 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pizza Pack -- https://pizzapack.com/ -- is a collapsible pizza
container that perfectly stores a number of pizza slices.[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
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Marquez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Clifford Marquez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20543-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
PREMIER LOGISTICS: Rico Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Logistics &
Transportations, et al. case is styled as Richard Rico, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. Premier Logistics &
Transportations, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
34-2023-00334466-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
8, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Premier Logistics & Transportations --
https://www.applianceinstalls.net/ -- masters delivering and
installing kitchen appliances at our customers homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201
La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583
Phone: 818-230-8380
Fax: 818-230-0308
Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Koch Files Suit in D. New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Direct
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Dillon Koch, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive
Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00118-LF-KK (D.N.M.,
Feb. 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company -- http://www.progressive.com/
-- operates as an insurance company. The Company underwrites auto,
fire, marine, and casualty insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corbin Hildebrandt, Esq.
CORBIN HILDEBRANDT, P.C.
1400 Central Ave. S.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: (505) 998-6626
Fax: (505) 998-6628
Email: corbin@hildebrandtlawnm.com
- and -
Geoffrey R. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY R. ROMERO
4801 All Saints Road, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87120
Phone: (505) 247-3338
Fax: (505) 271-1539
Email: geoff@geoffromerolaw.com
- and -
Kedar Bhasker, Esq.
KEDAR BHASKER
2741 Indian School Rd. NE, Ste. 208
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: (505) 720-2113
Fax: (505) 709-3279
Email: kedar@bhaskerlaw.com
PROVIDENT BANCORP: Rosen Law Probes Firm Over Securities Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Provident Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: PVBC) resulting
from allegations that Provident may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Provident securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10252 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 15, 2022, Provident filed a Form NT
10-Q Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2022. The Form NT 10-Q stated the delay
was due to "estimates that [Provident] will report net loss of
approximately $27.5 million for the quarter ended September 30,
2022, compared to net income of $5.1 million for the quarter ended
September 30, 2021."
On this news, Provident's stock price fell $2.20, or over 21%, to
close on November 16, 2022 at $7.90 on unusually high trading
volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.[GN]
QUAD STUDIOS INC: Chin Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Oshay Chin and Edidiong Essien, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUAD STUDIOS, INC., ADVANCED STUDIO
LEARNING, LLC, QUAD ACOUSTICS LLC, TINO PASSANTE, and RICKY HOSN
(A/K/A RICKY ABOULHOSN), Case No. 1:23-cv-01155 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10,
2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
spread of hours, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").
The Plaintiffs worked as unpaid interns for the Defendants at their
music studio, "Quad Recording Studios NYC." Despite paying nothing
and misclassifying these unpaid workers as "interns," the
Defendants required unpaid interns to clean, run errands, operate
elevators, and do maintenance work and a variety of other tasks
that displaced the work of paid employees. The unpaid interns were
provided minimal, if any, educational benefits, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as unpaid interns.
Quad Recording Studios NYC provides facilities for recording music,
vocals, audio, and sound effects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Phone: 718-269-2243
Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
QUALCOMM: Opposes Lawyers' Attempt to Obtain Contracts With Apple
-----------------------------------------------------------------
fosspatents.com reports that about a month ago, Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California further narrowed the class-action lawsuit
against Qualcomm that sought to piggyback on FTC v. Qualcomm. By
now, the case is down to exclusive-dealing claims under California
state laws. There are no more Sherman Act claims, and no more
claims that are specifically about the licensing of FRAND-pledged
standard-essential patents (SEPs).
The question is where to go from here. Qualcomm would obviously
like to get rid of the remnants of that litigation at the earliest
opportunity, and I could easily picture a summary judgment motion
succeeding. The class-action lawyers' last chance to extract any
fees from Qualcomm is to make the continuation of this litigation
costly for Qualcomm in different ways. A filing that was made about
an hour ago shows that they are now primarily betting on Qualcomm's
desire to keep the terms of its 2019 settlement with Apple under
wraps. Here's the joint case management statement the parties just
filed to state their divergent positions:
In Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation (case no. 3:17-md-2773-JSC,
N.D. Cal.): Joint Case Management Statement
The class-action lawyers have made an about-face in the sense that
the case was originally about Qualcomm allegedly charging
supra-FRAND SEP royalties, and now it's about Qualcomm's discounts
to Apple (and potentially other device makers, but the plaintiffs
can't name any) that were subject to certain exclusivity
arrangements. The class-action lawyers say those discounts were
actually just "loyalty penalties" (meaning that Qualcomm could claw
them back in the event of disloyalty).
The following sentence shows how the focus has changed:
"Specifically, Plaintiffs' experts are likely to focus on the
chipset overcharge caused by Qualcomm's exclusive dealing, instead
of the overcharge caused by Qualcomm's licensing practices, which
heretofore had been the focus in both Plaintiffs' and the FTC's
case."
After all these years, they now ask for "limited, additional
discovery related to their exclusive dealing claim and to submit
expert reports, which will focus entirely on Plaintiffs' exclusive
dealing claims and the antitrust impact those exclusive deals had
on consumers." As Qualcomm puts it, "Plaintiffs request to re-open
fact discovery for nine months, followed by several months of
expert reports and expert discovery, and eventually briefing on the
certification of some class, in an attempt to manufacture a claim
where none currently exists."
This is how the class-action lawyers seek to justify that request:
"Qualcomm's 2019 Agreement with Apple: Plaintiffs request that
Qualcomm produce its 2019 agreements with Apple (including its
settlement agreement, license agreement, and chipset supply
agreement). Among other things, based on the public statements
describing this agreement, it appears relevant to showing the
extent to which Intel was truly foreclosed by Qualcomm's prior
exclusive dealing, thereby requiring Apple to return to Qualcomm
for chipset supply even after initially awarding some of its
chipset business to Intel."
To me that passage is a non sequitur. What I suspect is that they
primarily hope Qualcomm doesn't want to take the risk of that
agreement being discussed in public filings and potentially a
trial. A secondary motive may be that they hope to find something
in those 2019 Apple-Qualcomm contracts that would enable them to
develop a new theory, such as in a whole new complaint. They are
also talking about the possibility of a third amended complaint,
though--as Qualcomm notes--Judge Corley already said last year that
the Second Amended Complaint was going to be the last one.
I'd certainly be curious to find out more about the terms of the
Apple-Qualcomm settlement, but I think Qualcomm has strong
arguments against a reopening of discovery in this multi-year
litigation, given that the contract was concluded AFTER the class
period. [GN]
RAVEN CONCEPTS: Faces Siriwangchai Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISDA SIRIWANGCHAI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAVEN CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a CORVINO
SUPPER CLUB & TASTING ROOM, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00104-GAF
(W.D. Mo., February 13, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and
illegal tip pool in violation Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri
law and for unjust enrichment.
Mr. Siriwangchai worked for the Defendant as a server, a tipped
employee, from approximately August 10, 2018, to December 20,
2022.
Raven Concepts, LLC, doing business as Corvino Supper Club &
Tasting Room, is an operator of a dining establishment in Jackson
County, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tim J. Riemann, Esq.
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 860
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 348-3003
Facsimile: (816) 895-6351
E-mail: tim@injurylit.com
REALPAGE INC: Kramer Sues Over Residential Real Estate Lease Cartel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; MID-AMERICA
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; AVALONBAY
COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY
TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES,
LLC; PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP; SARES REGIS GROUP OPERATING,
INC.; and MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00198
(W.D. Wash., Feb. 10, 2023) challenges a cartel among lessors of
multifamily residential real estate leases to artificially inflate
the prices of multifamily residential real estate in the United
States above competitive levels.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have formed a cartel to
artificially inflate the price of and artificially decrease the
supply and output of multifamily residential real estate leases
from competitive levels. By staggering lease renewals to
artificially smooth out natural imbalances of supply and demand,
RealPage and participating Lessors also eliminate any incentive to
undercut or cheat on the cartel.
Accordingly, RealPage's and participating Lessors' coordinated
efforts have been effective at driving anticompetitive outcomes:
higher prices and lower physical occupancy levels (output).
RealPage advertises that the Lessors that participate in this
cartel experience "[rental rate improvements, year over year,
between 5% to 12% in every market," the ability to "outperform the
market by up to 5%," and "drive up to an additional 150-200 basis
points of hidden yield" that would not otherwise be attainable to a
Lessor utilizing independent pricing, rather than coordinated
pricing. The alleged combination and conspiracy was fraudulently
concealed by the Defendants by various means and methods, including
sharing non-public data via YieldStar/AI Revenue Management, secret
meetings, surreptitious communications between the Defendants by
the use of telephone or in-person meetings at trade association
meetings in order to prevent the existence of written records,
limiting any explicit reference to competitor or supply restraint
communications on documents, and concealing the existence and
nature of their competitor supply restraint and price discussions
from non-conspirators. The conspiracy was by its nature
self-concealing, says the suit.
From May 2015 to May 2018, Ms. Kramer rented a unit in a
multifamily residential building managed by Lessor Defendant Equity
Residential in New York.
RealPage provides software and services to the residential real
estate industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
Eva Kane, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
ekane@radicelawfirm.com
REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Fike Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE FIKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC., LAKESIDE MEDICAL
ORGANIZATION, ADOC MEDICAL GROUP, and GREATER COVINA MEDICAL,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03136 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, and violations of the
California Consumer Privacy Act and the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
the Defendants' information network following a data breach on or
around Dec. 1, 2022. The Defendants also failed to provide timely
and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and Class members about the
discovered data breach. As a result of the Defendants' negligence
and omissions, the PHI/PII of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party, says the suit.
Regal Medical Group Inc. is a healthcare network with a principal
place of business located in Marina Del Rey, California.
Lakeside Medical Organization is an affiliate of Regal Medical
Group, with its principal place of business in Marina Del Rey,
California.
ADOC Medical Group, also known as ADOC Acquisition Co., is an
affiliate of Regal Medical Group, with its principal place of
business in Marina Del Rey, California.
Greater Covina Medical, also known as Greater Covina Medical Group,
Inc., is an affiliate of Regal Medical Group, with its principal
place of business in Northridge, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Larue Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY LARUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC., LAKESIDE MEDICAL
ORGANIZATION, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; ADOC ACQUISTION CO., A MEDICAL
GROUP, INC.; and WEST COVINA PLAN IPA, INC., A MEDICAL GROUP,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03019 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract, and violations of the California
Customer Records Act, Consumer Privacy Act, and Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' protected health
information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII)
stored within the Defendants' information network following a data
breach on or around Dec. 1, 2022. The Defendants also failed to
timely inform the Plaintiff and Class members about the discovered
data breach. As a result of the Defendants' negligence and
omissions, the PHI/PII of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party.
Regal Medical Group Inc. is a healthcare network with a principal
place of business located in Marina Del Rey, California.
Lakeside Medical Organization, A Medical Group, Inc. is a
healthcare network with its principal place of business in Marina
Del Rey, California.
ADOC Acquisition Co., A Medical Group, Inc. is a healthcare network
with its principal place of business in Marina Del Rey,
California.
West Covina Plan IPA, Inc., A Medical Group is a healthcare network
with its principal place of business in Covina, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
Carolin K. Shining, Esq.
Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq.
Jesenia Martinez, Esq.
Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jmann@wilshirelawfirm.com
cshining@wilshirelawfirm.com
jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com
jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: Suit Filed in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regents of the
University of California. The case is styled as Jane Doe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Regents of the University of California doing business as: UCSF
Medical Center, Case No. 3:23-cv-00598-WHO (N.D. Cal., Feb. 9,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Property.
The Regents of the University of California --
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/-- is the governing
board of the University of California, a state university system in
the U.S. state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Matthew Wagstaffe, Esq.
Frank H. Busch, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 357-8900
Fax: (415) 357-8910
Email: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
avitruk@bakerlaw.com
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAITLYN VICKERS, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. REVELETTE
ENTERPRISES, LLC, REVELETTE HOSPITALITY, LLC, ARJN, LLC, ARJN No.
3, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE – GREEN HILLS, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE
– HENDERSONVILLE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE – SPRING HILL, LLC,
JONATHAN'S GRILLE – MURFREESBORO, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE –
PROVIDENCE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE – EAST RIDGE, LLC, JONATHAN'S
GRILLE – CLIFT FARMS, LLC, THE RUTLEDGEmRESTAURANT, LLC, THE
RUTLEDGE – FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE, LLC,
MASON REVELETTE, and CURTIS REVELETTE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00967 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Parties file a joint motion and stipulation for
conditional class certification and notice to putative collective
action members; and joint motion to extend deadline to file answer
and to reset initial case management conference.
The Parties jointly move the Court for an order conditionally
certifying a class of individuals and authorizing the notice to be
sent by mail, electronic mail, and Short Message Service (SMS) /
text message to these individuals in accordance with Section 16(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendants seek to preserve their right to move to decertify
this class at an appropriate time in this litigation. However, by
agreeing to resolve the issue of conditional class certification
and notice, the Parties submit that they are preserving judicial
resources and ensuring the efficient litigation of Plaintiffs'
claims.
On December 1, 2022, the Plaintiff Vickers filed a Collective
Action Complaint under the FLSA seeking minimum wages and overtime
wages for Tipped Employees who worked at Defendants' Jonathan's
Grille and The Rutledge restaurants.
Tipped Employees is defined in Plaintiff's Collective Action
Complaint as current and former servers and bartenders of
Defendants at their Jonathan's Grille and The Rutledge restaurant
locations who earned less than $7.25 per hour and received customer
tips.
The lawsuit alleges Defendants violated the “tip credit”
provisions of the FLSA by:
(1) requiring their Tipped Employees to share their tips with
non-tipped back-of-house employees who have no or
insufficient interaction with customers;
(2) required Tipped Employees to spend more than 20% of each
shift performing non-tip producing work tasks while being
paid less than $7.25 per hour; and
(3) shifting their business expenses to their Tipped
Employees by requiring them to pay for uniforms and
equipment.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jUVHJj at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON , LLC
Philips Plaza, 414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rocklan W. King, Esq.
Margaret R.T. Myers, Esq.
Adams and Reese LLP
1600 West End Ave., Suite 1400
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 259-1450
Facsimile: (615) 259-1470
E-mail: margaret.myers@arlaw.com
rocky.king@arlaw.com
SCHIPHOL AIRPORT: Faces Baggage Workers Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
ANP of NL Times reports that the FNV labor union will move forward
with a class-action lawsuit against the baggage handling businesses
and cargo companies operating at Schiphol Airport. The union is
alleging that the work has been far too physically demanding for
years. FNV opened a hotline in September for workers to report
specific complaints, and received over 400 individual complaints
including from employees who load and unload suitcases in the
baggage areas.
In addition to compensation, FNV said that it mainly wants the
working process at Schiphol to change. "Because the physical strain
is still too heavy," said FNV representative David van de Geer. In
September, the Labor Inspectorate determined that employees of
baggage and cargo handlers at the airport still are required to do
a great deal of heavy lifting. Already 12 years ago, the baggage
handlers, Schiphol and the Inspectorate agreed that employees would
not have to continue to perform excessive heavy lifting work.
The union said it is now coordinating with the complainants, and
making preparations for the legal case. It is not yet clear when
the matter will go to court. "We will now first collect all the
details about the complaints, which is a time-consuming job," said
FNV lawyer Daphne van Doorn.
In the past six months, employees reported to the union with health
complaints regarding the back, shoulders, neck and knees. "The
complaints are caused by a combination of heavy work and enormous
understaffing, resulting in a tremendous workload," said FNV.
At the beginning of February 2023, Schiphol Airport announced that
it might be forced to again implement a limit to the maximum number
of airline passengers allowed to depart during the busy May
holidays and summer vacation periods. This is because there is
still a significant shortage in the number of baggage handlers.
[GN]
SEQUIUM ASSET: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Velez-Aguilar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARET VELEZ-AGUILAR, On Behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Appellant v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS LLC
INC; CACH LLC, Case No. 22-1109 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's
dismissal of Velez-Aguilar's putative class action for failure to
state a claim based on alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
In 2009, a judgment in the amount of $4,052.78 was entered against
Velez-Aguilar in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Relevant to this
appeal, that money judgment included $93.05 in attorneys' fees
awarded pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 22A:2-42 (2009).
Velez-Aguilar originally incurred her debt from use of a credit
card issued by Maryland National Bank, N.A., and the debt was later
purchased by Appellee CACH, LLC.
A few months after that judgment was entered, and on motion of
CACH, the Superior Court of New Jersey issued a writ of execution
for CACH to collect on the judgment for the new amount of
$4,518.78, inclusive of additional court fees. A few years later,
in May 2011, the Superior Court issued a second writ of execution,
this time for $4,687.79, again including additional court fees. In
2015, the same court issued a third and final writ of execution for
$4,733.99, inclusive of some final court fees.
Several years later, Velez-Aguilar received a one-page debt
collection letter dated March 24, 2021, sent by Appellee Sequium
Asset Solutions, LLC on behalf of Appellee CACH, describing CACH as
"the Current Creditor-Debt Purchaser." More specifically, the
collection letter indicated a total amount due of $4,424.60 and
listed Maryland National Bank, N.A. as the "Original Creditor" and
CACH as the "Current Creditor."
The collection letter further contained a "Settlement Offer,"
indicating that "Our Client [CACH] will Forgive 35% of Your
Balance." In the body of the letter, Sequium stated that they are
willing to settle Velez-Aguilar's account for 65% of the balance
due as stated. The letter went on to explain that if Velez-Aguilar
could not "take advantage of this opportunity at this time,"
Sequium could offer a payment plan. Velez-Aguilar does not deny
owing the debt. Instead of paying, however, she filed the class
action suit under the FDCPA.
In October 2021, Velez-Aguilar filed the operative amended class
action complaint, which the Appellees moved to dismiss with
prejudice. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and dismissed the action but did not
indicate whether it was with or without prejudice. The timely
appealed followed.
Velez-Aguilar makes four arguments on appeal, all of which are
unavailing, according to the Third Circuit.
First, Velez-Aguilar argues that the Appellees provided her with
false, inaccurate, and misleading information about the character
and the amount of the debt due on the face of their collection
letter, in violation of sections 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA, as
codified.
The Third Circuit agrees with the District Court that, as a matter
of law, Velez-Aguilar failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted as to the alleged violations of sections 1692e and 1692g
by supposedly referencing two debt amounts in the collection letter
and not itemizing the debt. While the collection letter referenced
the previous 2009 judgment, it did not list a conflicting amount
owed in the letter. Nothing in the statutory text also requires a
debt collector to itemize the debt being collected, and
Velez-Aguilar has pointed to no cases suggesting otherwise.
Second, Velez-Aguilar claims that the Appellees did not notify her
about whether interest was accruing on the debt. The Appellees'
response is simple: they said nothing about interest accruing on
the debt because it was not, and Velez-Aguilar has not adequately
pleaded to the contrary.
The Appellees' point is well taken. The Third Circuit holds that
Velez-Aguilar does not state a plausible claim that the Appellees
were deceptive in their collection letter by not informing her of
the static character of the debt.
Third, Velez-Aguilar insists that, because the statutory attorneys'
fees assessed pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 22A:2-42 (West
2009) were owed to CACH's attorney, and not to CACH itself, the
Appellees violated the FDCPA by including that amount in the
collection letter amount.
The Third Circuit holds that the Appellees were not deceptive when
they listed a total amount owed in the collection letter that, by
statute, included "taxed" attorneys' fees from a prior state
judgment. Moreover, Velez-Aguilar has not challenged, appealed, or
sought to vacate the 2009 state judgment. The least sophisticated
debtor would not be deceived or confused that part of the total
amount owed for their debt might consist of properly included legal
fees potentially payable to attorneys on the back end. The
collection letter clearly and simply instructs the debtor to issue
payment directly to the debt collector, not any additional parties.
There was in that no violation of the FDCPA.
Finally, Velez-Aguilar argues that there is a clear question as to
who owns the debt at issue because the current creditor listed in
the collection letter does not match the name of the creditor who
commenced the earlier state collection action. Therefore, she
argues, because the District Court dismissed her FDCPA claims
without prejudice she should be allowed to file a second amended
complaint.
Not so, the Third Circuit finds. The Appellees' collection letter
clearly delineates CACH, LLC as the creditor and Sequium as "a
collection agency" -- in the first sentence of the letter.
Consequently, Velez-Aguilar's final claim of an alleged FDCPA
violation, like her others, fails as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/vz479c4z from Leagle.com.
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: FTX Investors File Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Zach Anderson at blockchain.news reports that according to reports,
users of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX have taken aim
at financiers who marketed the platform, arguing that their efforts
provided a "air of legitimacy" to the now-defunct exchange in a
situation that has been described as "tricky" by a cryptocurrency
attorney.
According to a story that was published by Bloomberg on February
15th, FTX investors had filed a class-action lawsuit on February
14th against the venture capital company Sequoia Capital as well as
the private equity companies Thoma Bravo and Paradigm.
The investors said that the companies were promoting "their own
investments" in FTX, which amounted to hundreds of millions of
dollars.
It was stated that the companies participated in a promotional
marketing campaign in 2021, which the investors said gave the
discredited cryptocurrency exchange a "air of credibility."
The three companies were all investors in FTX's $900 million Series
B round, which took place in July 2021. This was the biggest raise
in the history of cryptocurrency, and individual partners at each
of the three companies spoke favorably of former FTX CEO Sam
Bankman-Fried at the event.
Matt Huang, one of the co-founders of Paradigm, issued a statement
in the wake of the fundraising announcement in July 2021, in which
he referred to Bankman-Fried as a "unique" entrepreneur who is
"stunningly ambitious."
He went on to say that despite the fact that Sequoia did not do its
due diligence to a particularly high standard, the company is not
"liable to others."
The fact that there is no evidence to imply that Sequoia wasn't
"playing within the regulatory guidelines" led Hennessy to assume
that it was a matter of "buyer beware."
According to a separate report published by Bloomberg on February
15, it was revealed that in the same court filing, Sam
Bankman-Fried and his father, along with former executives of FTX
and Alameda Research named Caroline Ellison, Nishad Singh, and Gary
Wang, were all served with a subpoena, which is an order compelling
a person to appear in court in order to provide additional
evidence.
It was said that Sam Bankman-Fried is likely to show up in court on
February 17, while Joseph Bankman, Ellison, Wang, and Singh are
scheduled to appear in court on February 16. [GN]
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Court Sustains Allegations Over Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action against The Sherwin-Williams Company for alleged
deceptive and misleading surcharges, a federal judge sustained, in
part, the allegations of the plaintiffs' class. The company
allegedly took part in a bait-and-switch scheme by failing to
notify customers about a "Supply Chain Charge" added to purchases.
The Honorable Judge David N. Hurd of the Northern District of New
York found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that The
Sherwin-Williams Company engaged in misleading acts and contractual
violations by adding the surcharge and failing to disclose it.
Nematzadeh PLLC looks forward to litigating these claims on behalf
of the plaintiffs' class with co-class counsel at Kaliel Gold PLLC
and Shamis & Gentile, P.A.
Nematzadeh PLLC is a civil and commercial litigation practice
headquartered in New York City that handles matters across the
globe. Our acclaimed lawyers have helped recover over $3.53 billion
on behalf of litigants. We regularly represent plaintiffs and
defendants in class actions, collective actions, individual
actions, mass actions, multi-district litigation, and arbitration
arising from laws concerning antitrust, securities, contracts,
consumer protection, corporate fiduciary duties, deceptive business
practices, mass torts, mergers and acquisitions, whistleblower and
qui tam matters, intellectual property, real estate, and other
litigation.
The Firm is equipped with a demonstrated track record of results
through a wealth of experience -- especially in trials -- on behalf
of a diversity of clients, whether they are individuals, classes,
businesses of all sizes, entrepreneurs, asset managers, financial
institutions, government entities, and public or private
institutional investors. We have been respected by judges, honored
with prestigious awards, and above all, praised by our clients.
[GN]
SPEAR PHYSICAL: Faces Marino Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVANO MARINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SPEAR PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, Case No.
1:23-cv-01180 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
violated the requirement that manual workers be paid within seven
days after the end of the workweek in accordance with the New York
Labor Law, and the requirement that employees "be paid on the
regular pay day" under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective, and the
Class worked unpaid time and unpaid overtime "off-the-clock" for
Defendant's benefit and without compensation. The Plaintiff and
other Manual Workers also worked through unpaid, 30-minute lunch
breaks to assist therapists and perform other projects assigned by
the Defendant, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff seeks for damages, liquidated damages, and interest,
due to Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective and Rule 23 Class for all time worked.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a physical therapy
technician in Brooklyn, New York from February 2019 to December
2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
Loren Donnell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Motion to Dismiss Landfill Waste Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattie Davis of WVTM13 reports that Judge denies dismissal of
lawsuit against operators of St. Clair County landfill.
As crews continue to work to put out the fire burning in a Saint
Clair County landfill, a judge denied motions to dismiss a lawsuit
filed against the property owner.
In December, two residents nearby the landfill filed a class-action
lawsuit against the owners and operators of Environmental Landfill,
Inc., which owns the site. The lawsuit cites inspection reports
from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management noting the
presence of unauthorized waste at the landfill.
A hearing was held February 13, 2023 on motions by the defendants
to dismiss the class action lawsuit. A status conference for
another lawsuit filed by two other families against the landfill
operators was also held.
The motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit was denied and both
lawsuits are now in the discovery process. Plaintiffs claim their
health has suffered from the fire.
"There's health concerns," said attorney Mark Econen with Heninger
Garrison Davis, LLC, who is representing the plaintiffs in the
class-action suit. "There's also been property issues that the
plaintiffs and members of the class are going to be dealing with
for months, if not years, to come." [GN]
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: PFM's Shareholder Class Action Receives Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that
Woodsford is funding a class action run by Phi Finney McDonald in
the Victorian Supreme Court against Star Entertainment. It is the
third in a series of claims alleging that the company misled the
market, breached continuous obligation laws and wiped billions of
dollars from the company's value. The lawsuit aims to recover
losses on behalf of investors who purchased or held shares between
26 March 2016 and 13 June 2022.
Phi Finney McDonald (PFM) has filed a class action lawsuit against
The Star Entertainment Group Ltd. in the Victoria Supreme Court on
behalf of shareholders.
The lawsuit aims to recover losses on behalf of investors who
purchased or held shares between 26 March 2016 and 13 June 2022.
The shareholders alleged that breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations and misleading and deceptive conduct inflated the price
during this period.
PFM director Tim Finney said the firm launched the case after an
extensive investigation into the proceeding. "We have conducted
detailed due diligence into the proceeding, including the Bell
Review in NSW, the Gotterson Review in Queensland, the AUSTRAC
proceeding against Star and the ASIC proceeding against current and
former directors of Star."
Star is an Australian integrated resort company that owns and
operates The Sydney Star, The Star Gold Coast, and Treasury
Brisbane. The company has also acquired the Sheraton Grand Mirage
on the Gold Coast in a joint venture and manages the Gold Coast
Convention and Exhibition Centre on behalf of the Queensland
Government.
The lawsuit claimed that Star failed to inform investors of
systemic non-compliance with anti-money laundering and
counter-terrorism law, conduct disguising gambling money as hotel
expenses, and other contraventions of the law.
Jowene Pty Ltd., as trustee for Biro Citer Souvenirs Pty Limited
Pension Fund, acted as representative plaintiff for the
shareholders. Global ESG engagement and litigation finance business
Woodsford funded the class action lawsuit.
Woodsford and PFM have previously partnered to bring the ongoing
class actions against ANZ, Nuix and Macquarie. They also brought a
class action against Westpac, likewise alleging systemic
infringements of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism
obligations.
PFM specialises in complex and large-scale litigation, focusing on
shareholder, environmental, and social justice class actions. The
firm has offices in Melbourne, Sydney and London. [GN]
SYNGENTA CROP: Jenkins Filed Antitrust Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Neeley of Progressive Farmer reports that an antitrust lawsuit
filed by a Texas farmer alleging Syngenta Crop Protection and
Corteva Inc. paid distributors to block competitors from selling
less-expensive generic products to farmers has been transferred to
a federal court in North Carolina where the Federal Trade
Commission and 10 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit.
Hankamer, Texas, farmer Justin W. Jenkins filed an anti-trust
lawsuit against the companies in October 2022 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Southern Indiana in Indianapolis.
In that lawsuit, Jenkins alleged he and similarly situated farmers
suffered losses because they were forced to "purchase CPPs (crop
protection products) at prices that were inflated due to
defendants' anticompetitive conduct."
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina approved the transfer of Jenkins' case.
Jenkins said in the lawsuit that the companies used loyalty
programs to make "substantial payments to their wholesalers and in
certain cases, also retailers," in exchange for the wholesalers and
retailers agreeing to "strictly limit their purchases of -- and
thereby prevent widespread distribution of -- generic versions of
defendants' CPPs."
In his original complaint, Jenkins' attorneys told the court the
farmer and others in similar situations are entitled to "recover
damages reaching back even beyond four years" of the filing of the
complaint.
"Plaintiff and members of the class had no knowledge of the
defendants' unlawful, self-concealing scheme and could not have
discovered the scheme and conspiracy through the exercise of
reasonable diligence more than four years before the filing of this
complaint." Jenkins' complaint said.
As was the case with the lawsuit filed by the FTC and the 10
attorneys general from California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa,
Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin, Jenkins'
action alleges the companies have violated the Sherman Act and its
anti-monopoly provisions.
Syngenta and Corteva recently filed motions to dismiss the FTC and
states' lawsuit. In filing the motions, the companies defended the
legality of the loyalty programs.
The FTC and the states have alleged distributors only get paid if
they limit business with competing manufacturers. Such
arrangements, the complaint said, are "cutting off" competition and
allowing the companies to "inflate their prices and force American
farmers to spend millions of dollars more for their products."
In particular, the lawsuit alleged Syngenta has monopoly and market
power on the fungicide azoxystrobin, and the herbicides mesotrione
and metolachlor. The suit cites Corteva's herbicides rimsulfuron
and acetochlor and the insecticide and nematicide oxamyl.
Syngenta and Corteva are two of the largest pesticide manufacturers
operating in the United States. Syngenta, based in Switzerland, is
a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Corteva,
headquartered in Indianapolis, is the company formed as part of a
merger between DuPont and Dow Chemical Company.
The FTC and states' complaint alleges Syngenta and Corteva take
"illegal" steps to stop generic pesticides from eating into their
profits. The loyalty programs include making payments to
distributors -- as long as the distributors keep their purchases of
competing generic pesticides beneath a certain threshold.
The FTC said the complaint was part of a "broader push to unlock
competition and innovation in the American economy" as well as to
"protect consumers and small businesses and crack down on unfair
tactics by dominant companies."
The complaint also alleges the companies violated state-competition
and consumer protection laws in California, Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin.
[GN]
TCF CO: Wiretaps Electronic Communication, Lightoller Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE LIGHTOLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TCF CO. LLC, d/b/a The Cheesecake Factory,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00272-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 10,
2023) is a class action brought against TCF for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.thecheesecakefactory.com, in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, TCF procures third-party vendors, such
as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer
code on TCF's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
Internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications with the TCF website,
including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, URLs of web
pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time.
These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code
at TCF's request. After intercepting and capturing the website
communications, TCF and the session replay providers use those
website communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit
to www.thecheesecakefactory.com, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all California citizens whose website communications were
intercepted through TCF's procurement and use of session replay
code embedded on www.thecheesecakefactory.com, as well as its
subpages, and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of
action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory,
and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
TCF Co. LLC is an American restaurant company and distributor of
cheesecakes based in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W. Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
Thomas M. Beh, Esq.
THE MURRAY LAW FIRM
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
E-mail: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com
TIKTOK INC: Moody Sues Over Invasion of User Data & Usage Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK, Inc. (f/k/a) MUSICAL.LY, Inc., and BYTEDANCE,
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01075 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2023) is a
proposed class action brought against the Defendants arising from
their long-standing and ongoing invasion of the privacy of
consumers who downloaded TikTok, a video-sharing social media app
which used in-app website browsers that intercepted valuable data
and information of such consumers, such as the Plaintiff and the
Class, without their consent.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants flagrantly violate the
App Users' privacy even though consumers want to keep their User
Data private, and expect and demand control over their own such
data, out of an increasing concern that companies are using such
information without their knowledge or permission, and, worse yet,
profiting from such exploitative tracking, interception and usage.
The Plaintiff is an individual who used the App to visit websites
external to the App via TikTok's "In-App Browser". As a
consequence, the Plaintiff's User Data and usage privacy was
tracked, intercepted, recorded, invaded, and violated by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff did not grant permission or authorization
-- expressly or impliedly -- for the Defendants to collect, share
and/or otherwise utilize or exploit the Plaintiff's User Data and
certainly did not provide consent or authorization for the
Defendants to share such information with third parties and
otherwise monetize such activities.
The Defendants' tracking and hoarding of the User Data of the
Plaintiff and all other Class Members, and collecting and
monetizing their User Data without their consent, is a violation of
law for which they are liable and for which the Plaintiff seeks all
civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including
compensatory, statutory and/or punitive damages, and attorney's
fees and costs, says the suit.
Mr. Moody downloaded the TikTok App and created an account in May
2022.
TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for
creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
TRANS UNION: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Okpala Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDE OKPALA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRANS UNION LLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-00584
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to
implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that
resulted in a data breach of its systems, which was reported on
November 7, 2022.
The Plaintiff contends that the breach affected nearly 200 million
TransUnion customers throughout the United States. The information
compromised in this unauthorized cybersecurity attack involves
sensitive personal identifying information. As a direct result of
TU's negligent failure to implement and maintain reasonable data
security procedures and practices and the resultant breach of its
systems, the Plaintiff and all class members, have suffered harm in
that their sensitive personal information has been exposed to
cybercriminals and they have an increased stress, risk, and fear of
identity theft and fraud, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this class action to redress injuries related
to the data breach, on behalf of himself and a nationwide class and
California subclass of similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff
asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, common law
invasion of privacy, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages,
punitive and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
and costs of suit.
Trans Union is one of the three largest credit bureaus in the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Deducts Labor Depreciation, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson at insurancejournal.com reports that two Trumbull
Insurance customers who believe they were short-changed on claims
payments have filed a proposed class action suit against the
insurer, alleging Trumbull has been incorrectly calculating some
property claim payments by deducting labor depreciation.
The complaint (Grawe v Trumbull) estimates there are "hundreds of
thousands" of claimants in 15 states who have potentially been
underpaid more than $5 million because of what the plaintiffs
allege is an error in actual cash value (ACV) payments.
Property owners from Carylyle, Illinois -- Betty and Daniel Grawe
-- filed the proposed class action in federal court in Connecticut
against Trumbull, a subsidiary of The Hartford.
The Hartford declined to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by
Insurance Journal.
The complaint notes that 15 states by court decision, statute or
regulatory order preclude property insurers from depreciating labor
in calculating ACV when using the replacement cost value
methodology, unless the property insurance forms expressly state
that labor is to be depreciated. The states are Arizona,
California, Connecticut, , Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington and Wisconsin, according to the lawsuit.
The Grawe policy did not have a "labor depreciation permissive"
form. Thus, the complaint maintains, Trumbull should depreciate
only material costs, not labor, for purposes of determining ACV.
The suit claims "it is reasonable to assume" there are "hundreds of
thousands" of other insureds who have been underpaid and that the
total amount underpaid likely tops $5 million.
The Grawes submitted a property damage claim in May, 2021, one that
Trumbull agreed was covered by its policy. Trumbull calculated a
replacement cost value of $11,307.51, which included the cost of
new materials and labor to repair the damage. To arrive at the ACV,
it then deduced the $1,000 deductible plus an additional amount of
$1,504.70 for depreciation, resulting in a net payment of
$8,802.81, according to the complaint.
The Grawes contend that the $1,504.70 depreciation included labor
as well as materials but they cannot tell the exact amount of the
labor depreciation without access to the software Trumbull uses.
According to the complaint, Trumbull uses a software, Xactimate (a
Verisk product) which allows for the depreciation of materials
only, or the depreciation of both materials and labor.
The case is similar to one decided by the Arizona Supreme Court
last September in Walker v. Auto Owners. That court held that under
the Walker's' homeowners policy from Auto Owners, the insurer could
not depreciate the cost of labor in determining the ACV because of
the ambiguity in the policy language over labor depreciation and
the reasonable expectations of the insured .
The Arizona court noted that courts have differed on this issue,
with some courts ruling labor can be depreciated when determining
actual cash value and others saying labor may not be depreciated
for various reasons.
In a commenting on that Arizona ruling, Patrick Gorman, a partner
with Jones Skelton & Hochuli, suggested that an insurer is unlikely
to be able to depreciate labor if the policy language is ambiguous
but exactly what language would suffice is unclear. "The language
necessary to inform an insured that the insurer may depreciate
labor with an ACV payment is still an open question. Future cases
might need to answer that question," Gorman wrote of the Arizona
situation.[GN]
UMG RECORDINGS: Waite Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WAITE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their motion for class certification in lawsuit entitled John
Waite, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UMG Recordings, Inc., doing business as
Universal Music Group, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01091-LAK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this class action against UMG for copyright infringement,
declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated recording artists who have sent Notices
of Termination to UMG with an effective date of termination on or
after January 1, 2013.
According to the complaint, Waite, Ely, and hundreds of other
recording artists have served Notices of Termination upon UMG
pursuant to the provisions set forth in 17 U.S.C. section 203, but
UMG has routinely and systematically refused to honor them. These
refusals are made, in every instance, on similar legal grounds, the
first and foremost of which is UMG's position that the sound
recordings created by recording artists under contract with UMG (or
its affiliated or predecessor companies) are "works made for hire,"
and, therefore, not part of the subject matter of section 203. UMG
claims that the recordings are works made for hire because of
contractual language that is found in every UMG recording
agreement. As a result of UMG's policy, UMG has refused to
acknowledge that any recording artist has the right to take over
control of the sound recordings or enter into an agreement with a
different label for the exploitation of recordings, after the
effective date of termination.
In many instances, says the complaint, UMG has continued to exploit
the recordings after the effective date, thereby engaging in
willful copyright infringement of the United States copyright in
those recordings. As a result of UMG's actions, UMG has effectively
stymied any chance that the class plaintiffs have of entering into
a new agreement with a third party, or even exploiting the
recordings themselves, as is their right. As a result, these
actions by UMG have effectively destroyed the very salability of
the post-termination rights in the recordings that the Copyright
Act expressly guarantees.
On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for an order certifying two
proposed classes.
The first, "Class A," seeks actual and statutory damages, and is
defined as: All recording artists (and statutory heirs and personal
representatives of those recording artists, if applicable) who have
served Defendants with Notices of Termination pursuant to the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 203, describing an
effective date of termination for a particular sound recording (i)
occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2013, and (ii) occurring no later
than the date the Court grants certification of Class A.
The second, "Class B," seeks declaratory relief, and is defined as:
All recording artists (and statutory heirs and personal
representatives of those recording artists, if applicable) who have
served Defendants with Notices of Termination pursuant to the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 203, describing an
effective date of termination for a particular sound recording (i)
occurring on or after the date the Court grants certification of
Class A, and (ii) occurring no later than Dec. 31, 2031.
On Jan. 27, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class through an Order entered by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
The Court agreed with the Defendants' arguments that the Plaintiffs
have failed to meet their burden on multiple grounds based on the
individualized nature of the relevant inquires and the evidence in
the record. Judge Kaplan said the Plaintiffs' claims raise issues
of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extend beyond their
own grievances. However, the individualized evidence and
case-by-case evaluations necessary to resolve those claims make the
case unsuitable for adjudication on an aggregate basis. Therefore,
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied in all
respects.
The appellate case is captioned Waite v. UMG Recordings, Inc., Case
No. 23-0194, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on February 10, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOHN WAITE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
501 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 932-2814
Defendants-Respondents UMG RECORDINGS, INC., DBA UNIVERSAL MUSIC
GROUP, et al. are represented by:
Ariel Atlas, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 839-5477
UNITED PRODUCTION: Calderon Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SALVADOR RAMIREZ CALDERON, an individual, on behalf
of himself an all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
PRODUCTION FRAMING LLC, a California limited liability company;
UNITED PRODUCTION FRAMING, INC., a California corporation; BFS
GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2300137, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County Riverside, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 13, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00234 to the proceeding.
In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:
(1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed
rest period premiums; (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay
missed meal period premiums; (5) failure to maintain accurate
employment records; (6) failure to pay wages timely during
employment; (7) failure provide all wages due at separation; (8)
failure to reimburse for business expenses; (9) failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; and (10) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.
United Production Framing LLC is a full-service production framing
contractor.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
Daniel J. Corbett, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
E-mail: mgolper@brgslaw.com
dcorbett@brgslaw.com
UNITED STATES: Anastopoulo Law Files Water Contamination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaylen Holloway at wect.com reports that the past water
contamination at Camp Lejeune has been a recurring topic for 40
years. Many lives have been lost, creating a permanent scar on
Veterans and families.
"Our servicemen, when they serve our country and give up their
time," said Paul Doolittle, Class Action and Mass Tort Director,
"They expect that their families are going to be taken care of."
According to data, people have developed all sorts of health
problems from drinking the toxic water.
Poulin, Willey, and Anastopoulo Law Firm said it wants to help
victims after claiming to have filed the first Camp Lejeune
class-action lawsuit at a press conference in Jacksonville.
"This was not something God intended," Doolittle said. "This is
something that came about as an act of just contaminated water so
it's a privilege and honor to be able to represent those
individuals."
The South Carolina law firm says it filed the lawsuit under the
Camp Lejeune Justice Act signed by President Biden in August.
The act gives victims two years to first file an administrative
claim with the Navy Judge Advocate General Corps. The JAG
department can then act on the claim.
If they don't after six months, the lawsuit can be taken to federal
court. Doolittle encourages all victims to do something.
"We think they're a lot more people that haven't heard yet and
we're looking to get the word out," Doolittle said. "Find somebody
to help you because if you have an issue that's plenty caused by
the contaminated water, you definitely need to look into it."
According to Doolittle, more than 100 administrative lawsuits have
been filed so far in North Carolina's Eastern District.
The law firm says it was also the first to file an administrative
claim on behalf of Camp Lejeune victims last year.[GN]
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Discriminated From USDA Loan System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ximena Bustillo, writing for WGCU, reports that Lucious Abrams is
the third generation to take over the family Georgia farm, an
operation that has long grown cotton, corn, and soybeans. When he
did not receive a loan in time to buy the seeds and supplies he
needed, he joined the Pigford v. Glickman class action lawsuit
against the USDA.
The 1999 lawsuit alleged that in myriad ways the agency
discriminated against Black farmers resulting in uneven
distribution of farm loans and assistance. This caused many Black
farmers to lose their land and farms to foreclosure.
Pigford plaintiffs, like Abrams, were supposed to receive payments
after the case was settled in 1999. However, tens of thousands
missed out due to confusing paperwork and filing deadlines and what
neared attorney malpractice, advocates say.
In 2010, Congress appropriated an additional $1.2 billion in a
second round of payouts. But still, many did not receive them due
to more denials of claims and deadline and processing issues.
But in addition, many say there has to be a larger culture shift at
the department because farmers do not trust their loan applications
will be processed fairly -- if they can even file.
Indeed, an NPR analysis of USDA data found that Black farmers
receive a disproportionately low share of direct loans given to
farmers leaving them behind in a program that is important to their
livelihoods. The department itself has long tried to fix these
systemic problems, but many farmers and advocates remain skeptical
that its efforts will ultimately benefit those who need it most.
The USDA's lending process, for the last century, is not set up to
support nontraditional growers including the farmers of color who
face high rejection and withdrawal rates as a result, said Zach
Ducheneaux, the Farm Service Agency Administrator at USDA.
"So it might be you're a Black farmer that's operating on heirship
property who hasn't had the benefit of a cooperator technical
assistance provider right there on the ground with them to help
them navigate this," Ducheneaux said of Black farmers who have
owned land for generations but may not know how to navigate USDA's
processes. "By virtue of the lack of support structure around them,
they're going to come to the application process less prepared."
Black farmers still receive the lowest amount of loans
In 2022, the department granted direct loans to only 36% of farmers
who identified as Black, according to an NPR analysis of USDA data
that looked at how many direct loan applications were accepted,
rejected or withdrawn per each racial group. Direct loans are
supposed to be among the easiest to get at USDA. They are meant for
farmers who can't get credit elsewhere and can be used to get land,
farming equipment or other operational costs needed to keep the
business afloat.
In contrast, 72% of white farmers who applied were approved.
Perhaps some of the biggest gaps in the loan demographics can also
be seen in the rejection numbers, where 16% of Black farmers were
rejected -- the highest amount; the corresponding figure for white
farmers was 4%. And 48% of Black farmers withdrew their
applications, also the highest amount tied with Asian farmers and
compared to 24% of white-identifying applicants.
By and large, across the first two years of the Biden
administration, Black and Asian-identifying farmers were the least
successful in acquiring a direct loan, data shows.
And it is not just about direct loans. Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack has long made the point that farmers of color received less
than 1% of coronavirus pandemic farming aid, despite making up 5%
of all farmers.
The denials and withdrawals are high
Advocates for farmers of color have argued that rejections and
withdrawals often happen because the multi-step application process
is too cumbersome and confusing. Those whose families have
generational experience and long-standing outside resources to
navigate the federal bureaucracy sail through.
Hmong farmers in Minnesota, for example, may often lease land but
they are not given a written contract that they need to qualify for
loans, said Janssen Hang, executive director and co-founder of the
Hmong American Farmers Association.
Farmers keep records and file taxes, but not in a way suitable for
the Farm Service Agency, USDA's lending branch. And it's all
complicated by the lack of bilingual federal employees, documents
and training materials.
In some cases, language barriers are a major issue, including for
Hmong American farmers and Hispanic farmers.
"They can enroll in a farm business management course, but it's all
conducted in English. And this particular constituency here does
not read, read or write English fluently or understand, so they can
sign up for the farm business course, pay $2,000 a year just for
this course here and what did they walk out with? Stress," Janssen
said. "They walk out without any adequate information to really
enhance or fund operations here because it is done in a language
that they're not familiar with."
Farmers are also often denied for having low or no credit, despite
USDA being considered the "lender of last resort" for producers who
cannot get credit elsewhere.
The way people are farming is also changing. Urban farms, farms
with multiple crops, hemp farms, and others also challenge the loan
system which was originally designed for large, one-crop farms.
The USDA is seeking to address the issue
Advocates argued that Vilsack did not do enough to help provide
equity and fairness to USDA loan processes during his first term as
agriculture secretary under Obama. A 2019 investigation by The
Counter found that the department distorted data on Black farmers
to paint a rosier picture.
The Biden administration vowed to fix the department's history,
starting with the appointments.
The Farm Service Agency is led by Ducheneaux, a member of the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the first Native American in the
role. Prior to being at the department, he served as the executive
director of the Intertribal Agriculture Council, an advocacy group
for Native American farmers. Indigenous farmers were also a part of
their own lawsuit alleging discrimination against USDA and they
have long been left out of programs despite having high direct loan
acceptance rates.
"I take that very personally because I've been trying to get them
in the door since way before I got here," Ducheneaux said regarding
barriers to access to the department that spans across race groups.
"My personal goal is to get all of these to as close to 100% as we
can."
He credits lessons learned in Indian Country for some of the
department's solutions including working closer with cooperative
groups. Using agreements with organizations on the ground that
represent different producers, USDA is trying to work through them
to get information to farmers.
"We see this as a chance to leverage the trust that we don't have
in these communities. In many cases, rightfully so," Ducheneaux
said. Agreements spread across young and veteran farmer groups,
Hmong American Farmers Association, the Intertribal Agriculture
Council and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives.
As a result of the agreements, these organizations report being
able to increase staff, expand outreach, and increase their ability
to give feedback to USDA.
"Step one of rebuilding trust is acknowledging the fact that we
have treated people poorly in the past, and discriminated in the
past, and still have practices that feel like active discrimination
today," he said. "There is that inherent, intrinsic trust in that
NGO or that nonprofit that probably in our lifetime, we're never
going to rebuild it at the agency or department level. So we've got
to start somewhere, and that's a great place to begin."
In order to reduce the paperwork, speed up decisions and get
payments out the department announced this month its plan to
shorten the applications from 29 pages to 13.
Last year, the department also launched an online program to help
producers understand which loans they may qualify for in an effort
to reduce the rates of denials and withdrawals. A separate USDA
Equity Commission, born out of a Biden executive order calls for
federal departments to address racial equity and underserved
communities.
The group met earlier this month to vote on over 30 recommendations
ranging from reducing the number of years of experience needed to
participate in conservation programs to making the language in FSA
loans more accessible – actions they believe the department can
get a head start on. A final report is due by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, farmers say they need help and change now.
Black farmers are looking for debt relief
Black farmers who should have gotten relief from Pigford say not
all the settlements made it into their hands.
And as time passed, interest, delinquent payments and more stacked
up against their businesses.
"We haven't gotten any relief as far as these lawsuits or debt
relief, and that will impact me severely," said Rod Bradshaw, a
farmer in Kansas, adding that the rising costs of fuel and
production are thinning his margins.
As a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrat-led spending
bill, members slipped in a provision that created a $3.1 billion
debt relief program for "economically distressed borrowers."
According to Ducheneaux, the department completed automatic
payments towards about 11,000 distressed borrowers who were 60 days
or more delinquent on direct and guaranteed USDA loans as of Sept.
30 of last year. USDA data analyzed by NPR shows over 13,000
producers have received a payment on their accounts as of Jan. 30.
These payments, however, are to all "distressed farmers," including
some white farmers. They may not include all Black farmers. The
race-neutral program is an alternative to a lawsuit-blocked
race-targeted program first passed by Congress.
The bill did include $2.2 billion to the department for farmers who
have specifically faced discrimination in USDA lending programs.
This money is mandated by Congress to be disbursed by third parties
or nongovernmental organizations.
"We have to be open-minded enough to see if there are some
solutions that can be brought to the table that help address some
of those cumulative impacts of prior discrimination," said Dewayne
Goldmon, the first Senior Advisor for Racial Equity to the
Secretary of Agriculture at USDA. "That has to be an important part
of the process."
In October, the USDA launched a request for information to gather
public comments on how to create and implement the program. The
comment period closed in November and the department is currently
reviewing those submitted.
"I would consider [the efforts] successful when my position is no
longer needed. When you don't need an adviser for racial equity,"
Goldmon said. "And I'm not being naive, but I have to keep that as
a goal." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders HHS to Stop Termination of Medicaid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie reports a federal court judge in
Connecticut ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services must stop enforcing a Trump-era rule which terminated
Medicaid benefits for some enrollees during the COVID-19 public
health emergency.
Judge Michael Shea issued a nationwide injunction that required HHS
to reach out to state agency Medicaid directors to make sure they
comply and reinstate individuals kicked off the Medicaid rolls
during the pandemic. However, advocates are worried the
announcement was less than straight-forward.
In a Feb. 7 letter, HHS Deputy Administrator and Director Daniel
Tsai said: "Please consider this letter notification that HHS is
fulfilling the requirements of the Court's order. HHS will refrain
from enforcing the challenged portion of the IFR with respect to
the members of the certified class, through the close of business
on March 31, 2023, and HHS reinstates its previous guidance with
respect to the class members. "
Sheldon Toubman, an attorney with Disability Rights Connecticut,
worries that the states haven't really been told exactly what this
means even if HHS technically complied with Shea’s order.
He said the states need to reinstate people retroactively to the
date of termination.
"They were not told in a way that explicitly tells them there's a
duty to reinstate people," Toubman said.
There's potentially 13,000 individuals impacted here in
Connecticut, and an unknown number of individuals nationwide.
The original lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in
Connecticut by three Connecticut plaintiffs in early August. Two of
the three plaintiffs received a temporary reprieve when the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services temporarily restored
benefits pending a court hearing which is scheduled for Sept. 27.
Without these services, Deborah Carr, one of the named plaintiffs,
will be unable to dress, transfer from her wheelchair or out of
bed, use the toilet, bathe and eat. Similarly, absent these
services, Brenda Moore, another plaintiff, will be unable to bathe,
dress, transfer, clean herself after using the bathroom and prepare
meals, and will be subject to harmful falls, as have happened in
the past.
And Mary Ellen Wilson, the third plaintiff, has Multiple Sclerosis
and many dental problems. Her dental work is no longer covered and
she has had to pay for cabs to get to medical appointments, even
though Medicaid has paid for this in the past.
The nationwide class covered by the ruling consists of all
individuals who were enrolled in Medicaid in any state or the
District of Columbia on March 18, 2020 or later and had their
Medicaid eligibility terminated or reduced to a lower level of
benefits on or after November 6, 2020, or will have their Medicaid
eligibility terminated or reduced to a lower level of benefits
prior to a redetermination conducted after the end of the Public
Health Emergency, for a reason other than moving out of the state
or the District (including through death) or voluntarily
disenrolling from benefits. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $4.5M Deal in Tuition Suit Granted OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Forastieri, writing for The Daily Pennsylvanian, reports that
a $4.5 million settlement will officially be distributed to some
Penn students for online learning fees charged during the spring
2020 semester.
On Jan. 19, a court granted final approval to a settlement of a
class action lawsuit against Penn, according to the Penn Covid
Refund Settlement website. The settlement addressed claims of a
breach of contract by Penn for fees imposed during the remote
learning transition at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In
return, Penn and the lawsuit's plaintiffs agreed to a partial
refund of tuition and fees for all students who participated in a
transition to online learning during the spring 2020 semester.
Students enrolled in the University in a course that was not
originally meant to be online before March 17, 2020, are considered
"Settlement Class Members" affected by the lawsuit. These class
members are eligible for reimbursement and do not need to do
anything to receive the settlement. If no appeals are filed before
Feb. 21, then distribution of funds will occur in April 2023.
The lawsuit's plaintiffs also alleged that "Penn's shift to remote
learning gave rise to claims of unjust enrichment and conversion,"
according to the lawsuit website. The court had previously
dismissed the plaintiff's accounts in April 2022, but one of the
plaintiff's claims was resolved based on a "fee-based breach of
contract."
Penn had previously not been found guilty of any liability on court
and denied all allegations. The University notified some students
of the initial settlement proposal in November 2022, in which it
cited the "interest of both Penn and its students in prompt
resolution of the matter."
In response to a request for comment, a University Spokesperson
directed The Daily Pennsylvanian to the updated version of the
notice of proposed class action settlement.
Class Board 2023 President Derek Nhieu told the DP in November that
he agreed that Penn should not have charged additional fees for the
spring 2020 semester.
"If we ever transition online again, those fees are just not
applicable. I feel like [the fees] are very much a disservice to
students, when you try to charge them for these types of things,"
Nhieu said.
Nhieu said that he received a letter in the mail detailing the
class action lawsuit. Although he said he was happy that money
would be refunded, he hoped that the proposed settlement had been
more informative.
The refund of fees for impacted students who are still at Penn will
be delivered directly to their student accounts as early as April
2023. Non-continuing students will receive a mailed check or
digital payment if requested. Individuals who had opted out before
the deadline of Dec. 19 will not receive a settlement. [GN]
VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Sells Unregistered Securities, Pelham Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PARKER PELHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., VBIT MINING LLC,
ADVANCED MINING GROUP, DANH CONG VO a/k/a DON VO, PHUONG D VO a/k/a
KATIE VO, SEAN TU, JIN GAO, LILLIAN ZHAO, and JOHN DOE INDIVIDUALS
1-10, and DOE COMPANIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00162-UNA (D. Del., February 13, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment/restitution and
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the trade
of unregistered securities in the form of investment contracts
promising the sales, leasing, and servicing of specialized computer
hardware to produce Bitcoins for customers. These investment
contracts were securities that were not properly registered with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or state regulators. To
make matters worse, rather than using the proceeds from the
unregistered securities to truly mine Bitcoin and pay it out to the
Plaintiff and Class members, the Defendants instead operated a
massive Ponzi scheme that paid out the promised Bitcoin as new
Class members and victims bought in. The Plaintiff seeks rescission
of the investment contracts he entered into with the Defendants as
well as for damages suffered due to their fraudulent conduct.
VBit Technologies Corp. is a company that sells bitcoin mining
hardware based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
VBit Mining LLC is a company that sells bitcoin mining hardware
based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Advanced Mining Group is a software company based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP
1000 N. West St., Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 212-4330
Email: joe@christensendougherty.com
- and -
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
W BBQ: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON WALDEMAR CARDONA LOPEZ a/k/a CARDONA LOPEZ, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. W BBQ
HOLDINGS, INC. THREE AND SEVENTY-THREE GOURMET, LLC d/b/a DALLAS
BBQ, TWO AND EIGHT GOURMET LTD, d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, BROADWAY & 166TH,
L.L.C. d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, 23RD & 8TH LLC, d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, 180
BKLYN LIVINGSTON LLC, d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, 49TH BROADWAY LLC, d/b/a
DALLAS BBQ, WEST FORDHAM BBQ LLC, d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, REGO
ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, BAY PLAZA ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a
DALLAS BBQ, NOSTRAND ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, JAMAICA BBQ
LLC., d/b/a DALLAS BBQ, GREGOR WETANSON, and STUART J. WETANSON
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit and unpaid
wages due to timeshaving under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, compensation for improperly deducted meal
credits, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs contend that they, the Tipped Subcollective, and the
Tipped Subclass, were paid below the minimum wage at an invalid
"tip credit" minimum wage.
The Plaintiffs and the Tipped Subclass suffered from the
Defendants' failure to pay the proper minimum wage and the proper
overtime due to Defendants' invalid tip credit allowance because
Defendants
(i) failed to properly provide tip credit notice at hiring and
with every change in rate of pay thereafter,
(ii) claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite having
caused tipped employees to engage in non-tipped duties for
hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each
workweek,
(iii) implemented an invalid tip pooling scheme in which
managers participated in the tip pool, and
(iv) failed to accurately keep track of daily tips earned and
maintain records thereof.
Accordingly, the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying the FLSA minimum wage or the
New York State minimum wage, and the proper overtime rate for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, to the Plaintiff, the Tipped
Subcollective, and Tipped Subclass members, says the suit.
In or around April 2019, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants
as a runner/busser at Defendants' "Dallas BBQ", located at 89-14
Parsons Blvd, Queens, NY 11432, until July 2020, when Plaintiff
quit. In or around February 2022, the laintiff was re-hired by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff's employment was then terminated in or
around October 3, 2022.
W BBQ owns and operates a chain of restaurants under the trade name
"Dallas BBQ."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
WALMART INC: Bid to Dismiss DeMaso Suit Granted With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Eugene DeMaso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant,
Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
DeMaso brings the lawsuit against the Defendant, individually and
on behalf of a putative classes of consumers from 26 states
including Illinois alleging they were deceived by the words,
"fudge" and "mint" on the front label of the Defendant's Fudge Mint
Cookies.
The Plaintiff brings claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practice Act ("ICFA"), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.
505/2; the state consumer fraud laws of the other 25 states;
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability
and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
2301; and common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
and unjust enrichment. He requests class-wide injunctive relief as
well as damages and restitution.
The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells cookies
covered in fudge and flavored by mint ingredients identified as
Fudge Mint Cookies under the Great Value brand. The Plaintiff
alleges that reasonable consumers are misled by the statements
"Fudge Mint Cookies" and the picture of the cookie coated with what
appears to be fudge. Reasonable consumers expect fudge to be made
from dairy ingredients, the Plaintiff asserts, but the product does
not contain any dairy ingredients or milk fat and contains
vegetable shortening for its fat content.
The Plaintiff alleges that by labeling the product in this manner,
the Defendant gained an advantage against other companies and
misled consumers seeking to purchase a product that contained fudge
and mint ingredients. He additionally alleges that the value of the
product was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has
sold more of the product and at higher prices than it would have in
the absence of the alleged wrongdoing, providing the Defendants
with additional profits at consumers' expense. He seeks to
represent a class of consumers from 26 states.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and also
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the
Plaintiff lacks standing to assert injunctive relief. It argues
that its labeling is not deceptive or misleading and so the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the ICFA and other state
consumer fraud statutes. It further contends that the Plaintiff's
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims
should also be dismissed.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's labeling of its product
as containing "fudge" misleads consumers because he expects
milkfat, an essential ingredient in fudge, to be present in the
listed ingredients. As this fudge is made with a vegetable
shortening and not milkfat, it is not "fudge", according to him.
Similarly, the Plaintiff argues that the product label misleads
consumers into believing that the product contains actual "mint."
Judge Rowland opines that the Plaintiff does not allege that the
front label of the product states, immediately next to word "fudge"
or "mint", the phrase "Natural & Artificial Flavor." He has not
sufficiently pled that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the
label, requiring dismissal of the ICFA claim. Hence, the
Plaintiff's State Consumer Fraud Acts claims and the stand-alone
common law fraud claim are similarly based on a legally
unreasonable interpretation of the product's front label and do not
survive the dismissal motion.
The negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims are
based on the same theory. Negligent misrepresentation requires a
false statement of material fact. The Plaintiff concedes that the
Defendant is correct that his claim of unjust enrichment 'will
stand or fall' with his other claims.
Judge Rowland explains that where an unjust enrichment claim rests
on the same improper conduct alleged in another claim, then the
unjust enrichment claim will be tied to this related claim -- and,
of course, unjust enrichment will stand or fall with the related
claim. Accordingly, the warranty, MMWA, negligent misrepresentation
and unjust enrichment claims are dismissed.
For the stated she reasons, Judge Rowland grants the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. She gives the Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint, if he has a good faith basis for doing so. Otherwise,
the dismissal of the complaint will convert to dismissal with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5atmd9dz from
Leagle.com.
WESTCHESTER PREMIER: Faces Casco Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE CASCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER PREMIER BUILDERS INC. (D/B/A
WESTCHESTER PREMIER BUILDERS INC.) and ANTHONY QUATTRONE,
Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-01187 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023) is
brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law due to Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide written wage notice, failure to
furnish accurate wage statement, and failure to reimburse
business-related expenses.
Plaintiff Casco was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter and
painter from August 15, 2022 until December 12, 2022.
Westchester Premier Builders Inc. is a construction company based
in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
WESTJET AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss Westgate Labor Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Dear, K.C. and Sarah-Jade Bilodeau, articling student, of
Clyde&Co report that the Court granted WestJet its motion to
dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to fulfill the
conditions of Section 29.1 of the Act in the case-captioned
Westgate vs. WestJet Airlines Ltd.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice makes it clear that a class
action must be dismissed for delay if a representative plaintiff
does not meet certain legal requirements within a year from the
start date of a proceeding.
On July 18, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered
its decision in Westgate vs. WestJet Airlines Ltd. on the mandatory
dismissal for delay of a class action pursuant to the amendments
brought to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (the "Act") on October
1, 2020, by the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act.
More particularly, Section 29.1 of the Act lists the steps that
need to be taken within one year from the first day of the
proceeding -- this generally corresponds to the date on which the
associated statement of claim is submitted -- to prevent the Court
from dismissing a class action for delay. Within this period,
either (i) the representative plaintiff must have filed a final
motion record, (ii) the parties must have agreed in writing to a
timetable for the service of the representative plaintiff's motion
record (or for other steps required to advance the proceeding) and
have provided the timetable to the Court, or (iii) the Court must
have established such a timetable. Moreover, other steps,
occurrences or circumstances might be necessary according to some
regulations.
The plaintiff Michael Westgate -- a former employee of the
defendant WestJet Airlines --filed a statement of claim on May 15,
2020. Acting as a representative, Westgate sought to commence a
class action on the basis that WestJet had violated employment
contracts and the Canada Labour Code.
On April 11, 2022, WestJet requested the Court to dismiss the class
action on the grounds that the plaintiff had not taken the
necessary steps to keep the action active -- a motion to which the
plaintiff remained unopposed.
The Court noted that the parties had not reached a standstill
agreement, that no certification motion had been delivered within
the one-year period as per Section 29.1 of the Act and that no
timetable had been agreed to by the parties. The Court indicated
that since the amendments to provisions of the Act came into force
on October 1, 2020 -- which was after the plaintiff had filed his
statement of claim -- this date represented the starting point of
the one-year period for the plaintiff to satisfy the conditions set
out in Section 29.1.
Therefore, the plaintiff had until October 1, 2021, to fulfill the
conditions for the class action to be carried out, which he failed
to do. While several communications regarding the replacement of
the plaintiff as a representative and the possibility for the
parties to attempt mediation were exchanged between the plaintiff,
the plaintiff's counsel and the defendant's counsel up until
January 29, 2021, the Court noted that the class action became
inactive thereafter. In addition, the plaintiff's attorney-client
relationship came to an end, and he did not attend the case
management conference held on May 30, 2022.
As a result, the Court granted WestJet its motion to dismiss on the
basis that the plaintiff had failed to fulfill the conditions of
Section 29.1 of the Act. [GN]
WIN WASTE: Won't Use Declarations Obtained by Cogliano in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie McKenna, writing for Itemlive.com, reports that at the
request of Board of Selectmen Chair Anthony Cogliano, WIN Waste
Innovations will not use declarations obtained by Cogliano in
defending itself in a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court that alleges its Salem Turnpike facility spewed noxious odors
and created dust that reduced property values in the area.
Cogliano had come under fire following the recent revelation that
he signed a number of declarations on behalf of residents living
near the facility. At WIN's request, he had contacted residents to
ask if they experienced any negative effects due to the
waste-to-energy plant. He did so by phone, signing declarations for
those who claimed they had no issue with the facility.
When WIN's attorneys learned that Cogliano had signed the documents
himself, they asked him to collect the actual signatures, which he
then did.
The attorneys representing the plaintiff in the suit, Brenda
Sweetland and other residents living near the facility, had asked a
federal judge to toss the declarations due to the method Cogliano
had used to obtain them. However, the company agreed to do so at
Cogliano's behest before a judge could rule.
"We have made this decision at the request of Selectman Cogliano
and because of the confusion surrounding the initial gathering of
the declarations," the company said in a statement.
"If I could have done it over, I would have had them sign the first
time around," Cogliano, himself a lifelong resident of the area of
Saugus closest to the facility, wrote in a statement. "My apologies
to you all."
The company acknowledged that "mistakes were made" in obtaining the
signatures, but contended that the signed declarations should have
been admissible regardless of the initial error in obtaining them,
which it argued was rectified.
"The record is replete with sworn testimony confirming the accuracy
of the statements contained in the Signed Declarations," the
company's attorneys wrote in a court filing.
The motion filed by Sweetland's attorneys sought both to invalidate
the declarations and for the plaintiff to be awarded more than
$4,000 in out-of-pocket costs, used in the discovery of how
Cogliano obtained the signatures.
On that front, the company was unwilling to budge.
"Plaintiff's motion -- brimming with inaccuracies and
mischaracterizations -- is a side show that wrongly seeks to smear
[the company] and its counsel right before class certification
briefing begins," a response filed in court reads. "Plaintiff is
not entitled to an award of costs based on her decision to waste
counsel's time and resources (not to mention the Court's) pursuing
a moot issue."
Cogliano has been a vocal advocate for working with the company,
creating and chairing a landfill committee that crafted a Host
Community Agreement (HCA) with WIN that he says would bring the
town upwards of $1 million annually via free tipping. The HCA is
set to come before the Board of Selectmen for a second vote at its
Feb. 21 meeting.
"We value our relationship with the town and look forward to
continuing the productive discussions that we are confident will
result in formalizing ways in which the town and the company can
enjoy a mutually beneficial partnership," the company said in a
statement. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends Personal Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley
Stoker Corporation (Riley) and the acquisition of Hercules in
November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers
contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other
companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a
limited industrial market.
"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The
methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is
based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and
settlement rates, disease mix, open claims and litigation defense.
The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately
compared to the results of previously conducted third party
epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to
develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, Gnarus
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed,
as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving
those claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xoYb5J
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Technology Defends PI Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Technology Corporation, like many other manufacturing
companies in recent years, from time to time, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace such as
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a
loss is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably
estimable. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the
Company's future results of operations and liquidity cannot be
predicted because any such effect depends on future results of
operations and the amount and timing (both as to recording future
charges to operations and cash expenditures) of the resolution of
such matters. While it is not feasible to determine the outcome of
these matters, management believes that the total liability from
these matters will not have a material effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows over the
long-term. However, there can be no assurance that an increase in
the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims,
proceedings or investigations will not be material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a
particular future quarter or year.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EeZGr5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $9.7MM Est. Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has reported an estimated net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $5,300,000 and $9,700,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 38 years from December 31, 2022, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $7,067,000. The Company has reflected the liability
gross of insurance recoveries of $8,289,000 as a liability in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2022. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately $2,900,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.
Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting
with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range
of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables
in light of additional information in order to identify trends that
may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of
liability that is probable and estimable.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3XOKkRj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Co. Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company, along with other vehicle manufacturers, have
been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a
defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted
from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches,
and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Plaintiffs in
these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a
result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in
older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our
facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We
believe that we are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits
because many previously targeted companies have filed for
bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for
such claims.
"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared
to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence
confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk
of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of
asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of
our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very
difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and
punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not
specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the
dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast
majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. Some of these
cases may also involve multiple plaintiffs, and we may be unable to
tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against
us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense
costs may become significant in the future. Our accrual for
asbestos matters includes probable losses for both asserted and
unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YSSGrT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Reports $67MM Restricted Cash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc, at December 31, 2022 and
September 30, 2022, has held a restricted cash of approximately $67
million and $35 million, respectively, which relates to amount
restricted for payment of asbestos liabilities and certain
litigation and environmental matters, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company estimates the asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and related defense costs on a discounted basis.
In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable.
The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance
recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based
on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the
number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be
filed and is discounted to present value from 2068 (which is the
Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined
time period through which asbestos-related claims will be paid by
Company affiliates). Estimated asbestos-related defense costs are
included in the asbestos liability. The Company's legal strategy
for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company
considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period
of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and
settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims
reasonably projected to be paid through 2068. Annually, the Company
assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and
future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience
regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in
settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the
Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the
Company's defense strategy. The Company also evaluates the
recoverability of its insurance receivable on an annual basis. The
Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a
change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted.
The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's
strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available
information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key
variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims
that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims,
the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with
insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with
respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors
are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or
assumption may impact one or more of the others, and no single
variable or assumption predominately influences the determination
of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related
assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's
liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary
significantly from actual results.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3KbLgvz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $43MM Estimated Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation, as of December 31, 2022, had
approximately $21 million to $43 million estimated range of total
liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future
asbestos claims through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Because no amount within the range of
estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded
the minimum amount of $21 million and $22 million as of December
31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, which is principally recorded in
Other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the
Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will
continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately $5 million, which is
principally recorded in Other assets on our Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021.
"As previously disclosed, we have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing
component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current
products, certain of our historical products have contained
components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A
substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by
insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate as of, and for the years ended,
December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YQjNUq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., including its subsidiaries, have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all
cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our
products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed
from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The
uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to
predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That
uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or
new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our
experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations.
We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In
connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims, and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances,
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so. We do not believe
these liabilities will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition, or results of operations.
"In many countries we provide a limited intellectual property
indemnity as part of our terms and conditions of sale and at times
in other contracts with third parties. As of December 31, 2022, we
were not aware of any material indemnification claims that were
probable or reasonably possible of an unfavorable outcome.
Historically, claims that have been made under the indemnification
agreements have not had a material impact on our business,
financial condition, or results of operations; however, to the
extent that valid indemnification claims arise in the future,
future payments by us could be significant and could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or
results of operations in a particular period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xtk5oK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 920 Active Cases as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of December 31, 2022, was a
defendant in approximately 920 active cases involving approximately
2,510 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. About
1,545, or approximately 62 percent, of these plaintiff claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2021, U. S. Steel
was a defendant in approximately 915 cases involving approximately
2,505 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such
cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who
ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small
fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.
Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
This analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YOka1C
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UCC Has $947MM Future Asbestos Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), at December 31, 2022, had total
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including
future defense and processing costs of $947 million ($1,016 million
at December 31, 2021), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). Each
year, Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") performs a review for
UCC based upon historical asbestos claims and resolution activity
and historical defense spending. UCC compares current asbestos
claim, resolution and defense spending activity to the results of
the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to
determine whether the asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims, including future defense and processing costs,
continues to be appropriate.
Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3YKx54S
*********
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 ***