/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230419.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 19, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 79
Headlines
ADAM CRUM: Mousseau Sues Over Unconstitutional and Unlawful Conduct
ADOREME RETAIL: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALACRITY ADJUSTING: McCoy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLBIRDS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
ALTUGLAS LLC: Responsible for Chemical Spill, Class Action Claims
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Bello Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Tice Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMWARE FULFILLMENT: Motto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Boccongella Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
ARCONA INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASAP QUALITY CARE: Jill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AU NATURALE COSMETICS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AWIP LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BARRY'S BOOTCAMP: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEACHBODY LLC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKSTONE LABS: Tabai TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BODEGA LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOOKTRAIL AGENCY: O'Quinn Files TCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Appeals Panel Eyes Class Cert. in Tuition Suit
BUDDHA JEWELRY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CATCHES RESTAURANT: Parker Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Beltran Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CENTENNIAL BANK: Gomez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
CHELSEA MARKET: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COMMONWEALTH PIZZA: Shifflette Seeks Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
CONCENTRA INC: 9th Cir. Ruling Says Textedly App Not TCPA ATDS
CONIFER REVENUE: Fails to Take Cybersecurity Measures, Suit Says
CUTTING EDGE: Faces Reid Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DIRECT ENERGY: Motion to Transfer TCPA Class Suit Granted
DONOTPAY INC: Faridian Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
EAST LANSING, MI: Appellate Panel Overturns Ruling in Frachise Suit
ENBRIDGE US: Misclassifies Safety Specialists, Watson Claims
FLORIDA: To Take Appeal After Court Certified Medicaid Class Suit
GENERAL PARTS: Gilyard-Walker Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
GOOGLE LLC: Court Orders to Pay $79,000 Fine in Brown Privacy Suit
INDIANA: Faces K.C. Class Suit Over SEA 480 Banned Procedures
INTEGRITUS HEALTHCARE: Tefft Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
IOWA HEALTH: Tisdale Sues Over Security Officers' Unpaid Overtime
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Antitrust Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
JS LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Data Breach Affects 60,000 Patients, Suit Says
LPQ USA: Lambert FLSA Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Flores Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Kimmel
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Mulvey Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Nabong Suit
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Nadel Suit
MECCA HALAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Claims
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
META PLATFORMS: $725-M Data Privacy Deal Final Hearing Set Sept. 7
MONTREAL ROMAN CATHOLIC: Reaches $14.7-M Deal in Sex Abuse Suit
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Class Suit Over Sherman Act Violations
NEOCORTEXT INC: Commercially Exploits Names, Voices, Suit Says
NFI MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
OEI HOLDINGS: $397.5K Class Deal in Alcazar Suit Wins Prelim. OK
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Powell Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PLUG POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
PRECISION FRANCHISING: Shavin Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid OT
QG PRINTING: Partly Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Clark Suit
QUALTEK RECOVERY: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Class in Vecchio Suit Conditionally Certified
RICOH USA: Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SAN JOSE, CA: Bid to Certify Damages Class in NAACP Suit Denied
SAVE MART: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Baker ERISA Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Hill Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
STUBHUB INC: Customers Get Settlement Checks in Ticket Fees' Suit
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Cilluffo Sues Over Infotainment System Problems
TABLE TALK: Responds to Class Suit, Says it Prioritizes Employees
TMG MAIL: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Personal Info, Oltean Sues
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Rojas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Considers Hypothetical Claims in Tort Suit
UNION OF EUROPEAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over "Poor Refereeing"
UNITED NETWORK: Randall et al. Sue Over Racial Discrimination
UNITED STATES: Court Rejects Bid to Halt Student Loan Suit Deal
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Denied Disability Accommodations
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Allows $6-Bil. Student Loan Settlement
VERTEX ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Products' False Advertisements
[*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference
*********
ADAM CRUM: Mousseau Sues Over Unconstitutional and Unlawful Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mousseau and Randall Wolffe, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. ADAM CRUM, in his official
capacity as ALASKA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, and NIC DEHART, in his official capacity as UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY MANAGER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TREASURY DIVISION,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00075-SLG (D. Alaska, April 7, 2023), is brought
for declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, an accounting and other relief based on the
unconstitutional and unlawful conduct of Defendants through their
enforcement of the Alaska Uniform Unclaimed Property Act
("AUUPA").
The Plaintiffs and putative class members have had their property
seized without notice, sometimes sold, and generally mishandled by
the custodial Defendants. The purpose of the AUUPA is to reunite
people with their property but Defendants take private property
from people and businesses without meeting the basic threshold due
process requirements of the U.S. Constitution for escheatment
because they have not "abandoned" their property. This property
includes, but is not limited to, cash, uncashed checks, drafts,
state warrants, uncashed payroll checks, interest, dividends or
income, savings and checking accounts, retirement accounts, safe
deposit box contents, credit balances, customer overpayments,
unidentified remittances, securities, and other tangible and real
property.
The Defendants' actions in taking possession of private property
without adequate pre- and post-deprivation notice to Plaintiffs and
putative class members violated, and continues to violate, the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which
states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law." These actions directly caused
the injuries.
The Defendants' actions in retaining and using private property for
public purposes without adequate pre- and post-deprivation notice
to Plaintiffs and putative class members violated, and continues to
violate, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as
incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that no
state shall take private property without just compensation.
Defendants' enforcement of the AUUPA directly caused the injuries,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an Alaska citizen and has been a permanent
resident of Alaska since 2012.
Adam Crum was appointed Alaska Commissioner of Revenue by Governor
Mike Dunleavy on November 14, 2022, and still holds that
position.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Cooley, Esq.
EHRHARDT | ELSNER | COOLEY
215 Fidalgo Avenue, Suite 201
Kenai, AK 99611
Phone: (907) 283-2876
Fax: (907) 283-2896
Email: Josh@907legal.com
ADOREME RETAIL: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AdoreMe Retail, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AdoreMe Retail, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02940 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Adore Me -- https://www.adoreme.com/ -- is a direct-to-consumer
women's intimate apparel brand based in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
ALACRITY ADJUSTING: McCoy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Derek McCoy, Bobbie Graham, John Swanner, Leasa Knox, James
Henderson, Lashaunda Carlo, Vincent Gaines, Ronald Inman, Danny
Gandy, Rhonda Gandy, Brittanie Griffin, Ben Schexnider, Angela
Dustin, Branggie Jimenez, Anita Alexander, Montel Chase, Jean-Marc
Simeon, and Marc Henry Cherival, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Alacrity Adjusting Solutions, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-01206 (E.D. La., April 8, 2023), is brought to recover
liquidated damages for unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class members routinely worked more
than 40 hours per week, and Alacrity knew that. Nevertheless,
Alacrity persisted in undercompensating the FLSA Class, failed to
true up any earned but unpaid wages, and continued--and continues
to this day--to pay the FLSA Class on a daily rate without
compensating the FLSA Class for overtime wages. As a result of
Alacrity's conduct alleged here, it violated the FLSA by failing to
pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class for overtime wages at the rate of
time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a
work week. Alacrity's violations of the FLSA were willful,
repeated, knowing, intentional and without a good faith basis, and
they significantly damaged Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant.
Alacrity is an independent adjuster firm in the property,
commercial, and automobile insurance industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Lilly, Esq.
LILLY PLLC
4907 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70115
Phone: (504) 812-6388
Email: andrew@atlpllc.com
ALLBIRDS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm of BusinessWire reports that if you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 12, 2023
in a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Class A Common
Stock of Allbirds, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIRD) pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement in connection with the Company's
November 2021 IPO, and/or purchasers of Allbirds securities between
November 4, 2021 and March 9, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Allbirds 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 Allbirds class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12941 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 June 12, 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) Allbirds was overemphasizing
products that extended beyond the Company's core offerings; (2)
that the Company's non-core products had a narrower appeal and were
not resonating with customers as well as the Company's core
products; (3) that Allbirds was underinvesting in its core
consumers' favorite products to push the Company's newer products
with narrower appeal; (4) that underinvesting in Allbirds' core
products was negatively impacting the Company's sales; and (5) 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Allbirds class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12941 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contacts
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]
ALTUGLAS LLC: Responsible for Chemical Spill, Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that Philadelphia
residents sued Trinseo and a subsidiary, alleging a recent chemical
spill from the companies' Pennsylvania plant caused dangerous
chemicals to contaminate the Delaware River.
Plaintiffs Timothy McGraw, Emily Cohen and Danielle Byrd filed the
class action lawsuit against Altuglas LLC and Trinseo LLC on March
29 in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleging negligence.
According to the lawsuit, a latex emulsion product overflowed the
plant's onsite containment system and entered a storm drain. It
allegedly flowed into a creek and then to the Delaware River,
according to company officials. Between 8,100 and 12,000 gallons of
the solution was released, a mix of butyl acetate, ethyl acetate
and methyl methacrylate, the Trinseo class action states.
The Delaware River is the primary source of drinking water for
914,000 Philadelphia residents, it adds.
"The chemical spill and potential contamination of drinking water
prompted residents and businesses throughout Philadelphia to
immediately purchase bottled water and incur other economic damages
that they would not have otherwise incurred except for the spill,"
the Trinseo chemical spill class action states.
Not facility's first chemical spill, Trinseo class action states
The facility has had at least four previous leaks dating back to
2010, with the most recent being a methyl methacrylate leak in
early 2020, the plaintiffs say.
The leaked chemicals can cause headaches, nausea and irritation of
the skin, eyes and respiratory passages, among other medical
concerns, according to the complaint.
"Residents continue to live in fear that their tap water is not or
will no longer be safe, thus requiring residents to go to the store
and purchase bottled water or take other actions in response to the
chemical spill, that they would not have taken absent the chemical
spill," the Trinseo class action states.
The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone living in the area served
by the local Baxter Drinking Water Treatment Plant. They are suing
for negligence, private and public nuisance and seek certification
of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently
proposed maximum contaminant levels of four parts per trillion of
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid in drinking
water systems throughout the country—the first ever regulatory
limits on "forever chemicals" in water.
What do you think of the allegations in this Trinseo class action?
Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by Shanon J. Carson, Y. Michael
Twersky and Dena Young of Berger Montague PC; Daniel C. Levin,
Charles E. Schaffer and Nicholas J. Elia of Levin Sedran & Berman
LLP; and Joseph C. Kohn, William E. Hoese and Zahra R. Dean of Kohn
Swift & Graf PC.
The Trinseo chemical spill class action lawsuit is McGraw, et al.
v. Altuglas LLC, et al., Case No. 30303396, in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County. [GN]
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Bello Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCISCO BELLO, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., a Delaware
corporation; TAYLOR MARCUS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-7696, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00338 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts a single cause of action against
Defendants for violation of Private Attorney's General Act
penalties, based on alleged violation of the California Labor
Code.
The American Bottling Company bottles and distributes carbonated
soft drinks and new age beverages.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
Laura E. Heyne, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com
lheyne@seyfarth.com
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Tice Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gabriel Alejandro Rubiera Tice, as an individual
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. American Medical Response of Southern California, American
Medical Response of Inland Empire, American Medical Response of San
Diego, Inc., American Medical Response West, Does 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. CVRI2300916 was removed from the Riverside County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00611 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
American Medical Response of Southern California (AMR) provides
ambulance services. The Company offers fixed wing air ambulance,
emergency medical, personal care, non-emergency transportation,
onsite safety, security, health plans, wheelchair van, and critical
care transport services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael S Kun, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
1925 Century Park East Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
Phone: (310) 556-8861
Fax: (310) 553-2165
Email: mkun@ebglaw.com
AMWARE FULFILLMENT: Motto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Hernandez Motto, as an individual on behalf of The Plaintiff
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMWARE
FULFILLMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07785 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 10, 2023), is brought against the Defendants
for the recovery of unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages;
and as a result of the defendants' failure to provide meal periods
or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; violations of labor code; failure to
timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; failure to
reimburse business expenses and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants created a uniform set of
policies, practices and/or procedures concerning, inter alia,
hourly and overtime pay, time-keeping practices, meal and rest
periods, reimbursement of business expenses and other working
conditions that were distributed to, and/or applied to The
Plaintiff and the Class Members, and further that the Defendants
uniformly compensated and controlled the wages of The Plaintiff and
the Class Members in a uniform manner.
The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members
for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and
overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, the
Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and
failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during
unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or
improper meal periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
for three years through in or around September 2022.
The Defendants own, operate, and/or manage warehouses and/or
facilities that help other businesses fulfill/ship and/or process
e-commerce orders among other related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Boccongella Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GLADYS E. BOCCONGELLA, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC.,
an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 23CV411828, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on April 7,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-01698 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges 11 causes of action against the Defendant
including: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay
proper overtime wages; (3) failure to authorize or permit meal
periods; (4) failure to authorize or permit rest periods; (5)
failure to pay all accrued vacation and PTO wages; (6) failure to
provide sick pay; (7) failure to indemnify employment-related
losses and expenditures; (8) failure to pay timely wages during
employment; (9) failure to timely pay wages at separation of
employment; (10) failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements; and (11) unfair business practices.
The Anthem Companies, Inc. is a health benefits company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Weil, Esq.
J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: michael.weil@morganlewis.com
jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com
- and -
Jennifer Zargarof, Esq.
Anahi Cruz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com
ARCONA INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcona, Inc. The case
is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Arcona, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02951-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ARCONA skin care -- https://www.arcona.com/ -- is known and
respected for its nature-based, science driven formulations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
ASAP QUALITY CARE: Jill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASAP Quality Care
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Arreaga Jill a.k.a. Jill Cesar
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ASAP
Quality Care LLC, PABLO AN INDIVIDUAL ARTHUR STA. ANA, Case No.
23STCV07768 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
ASAP Quality Care -- https://asapqualitycare.com/ -- specialize in
care and daily living assistance to an array of individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dominic Mendoza, Esq.
D. MENDOZA LAW, APC
1411 Rimpou Avenue, Suite 202
Corona, CA 92879
Phone: 951-734-6170
AU NATURALE COSMETICS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Au Naturale
Cosmetics, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Au Naturale
Cosmetics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02949 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Au Naturale Cosmetics -- https://www.aunaturalecosmetics.com/ --
offers organic, non-toxic, and cruelty-free makeup free of
parabens, nano-particles, carmine, gluten, and sulfates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
AWIP LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AWIP, LLC. The case
is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AWIP, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02985 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
All Weather Insulated Panels (AWIP) -- https://www.awipanels.com/
-- is an innovator in the design, construction, and advancement of
insulated metal panel and roof deck systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BARRY'S BOOTCAMP: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barry's Bootcamp,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Barry's Bootcamp, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02636 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barry's -- https://www.barrys.com/ -- is a boutique fitness brand
offering high-intensity interval workouts consisting of alternating
sessions of cardio and strength training.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BEACHBODY LLC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beachbody, LLC. The
case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Beachbody, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02995-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beachbody, LLC -- https://www.beachbody.com/ -- operates as a
developer and online retailer of in-home fitness and weight loss
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BLACKSTONE LABS: Tabai TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carolina Tabai, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Blackstone Labs, LLC, Case No.
CACE-23-002290 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
April 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-60671-RS to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Blackstone Labs -- https://blackstonelabs.com/ -- makes the most
hardcore supplements for gaining mass, building muscle, lean gains,
cutting, and getting big.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jen@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Zachary Leo Catanzaro, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ZACHARY L. CATANZARO, PA
301 Yamato Road, Suite 1240
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 247-3242
Email: zachary@zlclaw.com
BODEGA LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bodega, LLC. The case
is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bodega, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03006
(S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bodega -- https://bdgastore.com/ -- has been curating the finest
selection of footwear, apparel, and accessories for men and women
from over 100 brands since 2006 .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BOOKTRAIL AGENCY: O'Quinn Files TCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Booktrail Agency,
LLC. The case is styled as Emily O'Quinn, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Booktrail Agency, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-10754 (D. Mass., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
BookTrail Agency -- https://www.booktrail-agency.com/ -- is a
publishing, market and book endorsement firm based in the USA with
its production and fulfillment site in Missouri and New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan John Quinn, Esq.
INDEGLIA LUTRARIO, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
300 Centerville Road, Suite 320 East
Warwick, RI 02886
Phone: (401) 886-9240
Email: brendan.quinn@indeglialaw.com
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Appeals Panel Eyes Class Cert. in Tuition Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a federal
appeals panel has undone class certification in a lawsuit demanding
tuition refunds from Bradley University for allegedly breaching its
contract with students when it closed the Peoria campus to
in-person learning during the early days of the Covid pandemic.
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, issued April 12,
follows a July 2022 opinion from the same court reviving litigation
facing Loyola University and a March opinion doing the same with
respect to Illinois Institute of Technology. Unlike those actions,
which focused more on the factual disputes between students and
schools, the Bradley opinion turned on the federal judge's approach
to class certification.
District Judge Michael Mihm, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois, certified two classes for the claims
of Orion Eddlemon, a Bradley undergraduate in the spring 2020
semester. His claims echoed those of the Loyola and IIT students:
halting in-person classes breached the contract the school had with
its students and unjust enrichment for failing to issue adequate
refunds following a shift to online education. He also noted the
school never made up a canceled week of classes.
According to Eddlemon's complaint, Bradley's 2019-2020 course
catalog specifically stated it "serves as a contract between a
student and Bradley University." He said the school did give
prorated refunds for room and board to students forced to leave
on-campus housing, but didn't refund any of the $17,100 tuition it
charged for in-person students in the spring semester or the $85
activity fee. Judge Mihm certified one class for tuition payors and
a second for those who paid the activity fee.
"The district court's certification order does not reveal whether
the court examined the record," Flaum wrote. "What is evident,
however, is that the district court repeatedly referred to
Eddlemon's allegations without addressing his proffered evidence
(e.g., the academic catalog) or examining how he would prove his
allegations with common evidence."
The panel said Judge Mihm was obligated to go beyond a claim all
class members suffered the same legal injury and didn't fully
scrutinize whether there were common questions among all putative
class members or a series of individual issues. Doing so requires
breaking down claims into their constituent elements, Flaum
explained, which Mihm didn't attempt.
"The court should have identified the elements of Eddlemon's two
claims and separately analyzed them to better understand the
relationship between each claim's common and individual questions,"
Flaum wrote. "Instead, it listed one common question for each class
without explaining that question's 'relative importance' to each
claim, whether any individual questions exist, or how the common
question predominates over individual ones."
Flaum explained Mihm "repeatedly and heavily relied" on an opinion
from federal court in Arizona that didn't establish a precedent
when he should've conducted requried analysis.
"The court did not confront Bradley's key arguments," Flaum wrote.
"It did not address the university's assertion that Eddlemon's
breach of contract claim would lead to many individual questions
regarding damages, and it dismissed Bradley's related arguments
regarding Eddlemon's unjust enrichment claim by stating, without
explanation: 'The court is confident that … it will be able to
fashion an appropriate formula for damages.' "
Delivering such an incomplete analysis, the panel said, established
an abuse of judicial discretion that warranted a remand.
However, the panel disagreed with Bradley's position that Judge
Mihm was wrong to reject its challenge to the adequacy of
Eddlemon's allegations as "more closely related to the merits" of
his claims. Specifically, the dispute over whether the course
catalog actually established an enforceable contract isn't germane
to class certification, so Mihm was right to disregard that
contention, Flaum explained.
Eddlemon has been represented in the action by attorney Matthew T.
Peterson, of the firm of Varnell & Warwick, of Tampa, Florida.
Bradley University has been represented by attorneys Gregory E.
Ostfeld, Tiffany S. Fordyce and Kara E. Angeletti, of the firm of
Greenberg Traurig, of Chicago. [GN]
BUDDHA JEWELRY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buddha Jewelry, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Buddha Jewelry, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02984 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Buddha Jewelry, LLC -- https://www.buddhajewelry.com/ -- offers
gold piercing jewelry crafted in Solid 14kt Gold.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CATCHES RESTAURANT: Parker Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK PARKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY LOWE, MICHAEL LOWE, SCOTT LOWE,
JEFFREY LOWE, CATCHES RESTAURANT, LLC, and CAPTAIN JACKS OF TARPON,
LLC Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00758 (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Parker was employed by the Defendants at Catches
Waterfront Grille as an assistant kitchen manager in Florida from
October 2022 to January 14, 2023. He asserts that Defendants
classify AKMs as exempt from overtime pay requirements under the
FLSA. He further contends that Defendants did not pay him and other
AKMs wages for any overtime hours worked.
Catches Restaurant, LLC operates a restaurant in Pasco County,
Florida owned by individual Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brien V. Squires, Esq.
SQUIRES & RYAN, PLLC
100 South Ashley Drive Suite 600
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 922-2803
E-mail: brien@squiresryan.com
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Beltran Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN BELTRAN AND LISA REINGOLD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM AND CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV04041, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02626 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' 10-count complaint purports to challenge
Cedars-Sinai's routine on-line practices as various invasions of
privacy, including alleged violations of the (1) California
Invasion of Privacy Act; (2) Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act; (3) California's Constitutional right to privacy; (4)
California Unfair Competition Law; (5) negligence; (6) negligence
per se; (7) breach of implied contract; (8) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (9) breach of fiduciary
duty; and (10) breach of duty.
Cedars-Sinai Health System is a California nonprofit public benefit
corporation with its principal place of business in Los
Angeles.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
avitruk@bakerlaw.com
CENTENNIAL BANK: Gomez Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Bank. The
case is styled as Obed Gomez, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Centennial Bank doing business as:
Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:23-cv-00333-BRW (E.D. Ark., April 10,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad
range of commercial and retail banking and related financial
services to businesses, investors, individuals and
municipalities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 372-1300
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
CHELSEA MARKET: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Market
Baskets, Ltd. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chelsea Market
Baskets, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-02640 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chelsea Market Baskets, Ltd. --
https://www.chelseamarketbasket.com/ -- is a gift company featuring
baskets for filling with gourmet foods, candy, housewares &
beer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
COMMONWEALTH PIZZA: Shifflette Seeks Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY SHIFFLETTE, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH PIZZA, INC., and
REBECCA LYNN MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00020-MFU (W.D.
Va., April 10, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime hours owed to himself and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
They employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However,
instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants
use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides
such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation
of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses
cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during
some or all workweeks, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January
2021 to December 2022 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store located in Waynesboro, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
CONCENTRA INC: 9th Cir. Ruling Says Textedly App Not TCPA ATDS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of The Czar of TCPAWorld reports that no surprise
here but I figured I would write this up for everyone ahead of the
weekend.
As TCPAWorld readers know the Ninth Circuit now has the most
restrictive ATDS definition in the nation. It might be a trap but,
either way, there is no way a Plaintiff can bring a successful TCPA
ATDS suit in the Ninth Circuit right now unless a company is truly
just random blasting people (although it has been tried.)
Earlier this week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed its
Borden ruling in a case involving text platform Textedly. The
ruling provided:
Textedly did not store or produce randomly or sequentially
generated telephone numbers, Concentra's text message was not sent
to Pascal via use of an autodialer in violation of the TCPA.
The case is: Pascal v. Concentra, 2023 WL 2929685 (9th Cir.
2023)(Not published.) [GN]
CONIFER REVENUE: Fails to Take Cybersecurity Measures, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
claims Conifer and Tenet Healthcare Corporation are responsible for
a January 2022 data breach that impacted potentially thousands of
consumers in a case - captioned Kolb v. Conifer Value-Based Care,
LLC.
A proposed class action claims Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions and
parent company Tenet Healthcare Corporation are responsible for a
January 2022 data breach that impacted potentially thousands of
consumers.
The 36-page case says that Conifer, which provides revenue cycle
management to healthcare providers, conducts its business by
storing sensitive data belonging to current and former patients of
its clients. According to the lawsuit, cybercriminals were able to
infiltrate Conifer's network and access consumers' personal and
health information on January 20 last year due to the defendants'
failure to implement adequate cybersecurity measures.
Although affected individuals have never directly done business
with Conifer, the complaint contends that the data breach exposed
their full names, home addresses, dates of birth, medical and
treatment information, health insurance information and billing and
claims details. The cyberattack may have also compromised
third-party consumers' Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers and financial account information, the filing says.
It wasn't until April 14 that Tenet and Conifer discovered that
they had been hacked by an unauthorized actor, who reportedly
gained access to a Microsoft Office 365-hosted business email
account, the suit relays.
"In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent,
detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of their systems—thereby
allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to patients' Sensitive
Information," the case reads.
Tenet and Conifer then waited until August 12, 2022 to begin
notifying their client healthcare providers, and then the companies
finally informed data breach victims on September 30 that their
information had been stolen, the complaint claims.
Per the suit, the defendants' negligence has subjected impacted
individuals to a "present, continuing, and significant" risk of
identity theft and fraud, as their private information may be
traded on the dark web for years to come.
The lawsuit alleges that Tenet and Conifer were obligated to
protect third-party consumers' sensitive information in accordance
with their own internal policies and state and federal law.
Specifically, the companies were required under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to employ
necessary technical safeguards to ensure that consumers' protected
health information remained confidential, the filing states.
The case goes on to note that another Conifer entity, Conifer
Value-Based Care, LLC, fell victim to a separate cyberattack in
March 2022. In its August 2022 notice letter, Conifer told
consumers that the incident involved their names, addresses, dates
of birth, health insurance information, medical information and
Social Security numbers, the suit relays.
"The proximity of these two serious data breaches make [sic] clear
that Defendants were not adequately protecting the sensitive
information it possessed," the complaint asserts.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States whose
personally identifiable information or protected health information
was compromised in the data breach discovered by Tenet and Conifer
in January 2022. [GN]
CUTTING EDGE: Faces Reid Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Destiny K. Reid, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Cutting Edge Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Domino's,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00231-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla., March 31,
2023) is an action to recover money damages for Defendant's unpaid
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff had a schedule of work of 5 days per week from noon
to 8 pm but instead she worked from noon to 10 pm. Therefore,
Plaintiff worked approximately 50 hours weekly. However, she was
only paid for 40 hours or less, the suit says.
Plaintiff Reid was employed by the Defendant from August 11, 2022,
through March 6, 2023 or 30 weeks as a delivery driver. She was
fired on March 6, 2023, due to discriminatory reasons. The
Plaintiff is in the process of filing her Charge of Discrimination
with U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Cutting Edge Pizza, Inc. is a retail business operating a chain of
pizza restaurants under the common name of "Domino's."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DIRECT ENERGY: Motion to Transfer TCPA Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
tcpaworld.com reports that home field advantage can often be a REAL
advantage in TCPAWorld. Well here's a good tool to keep in mind to
leverage a transfer when you get sued outside of your home state.
In Newman v. Direct Energy, 2023 WL 2914788 (D. Md. April 12,
2023), a court granted a Defendant's motion to transfer venue on a
TCPA class action noting uncertainty over personal jurisdiction.
The Defendant had previously been sued by the same law firm in a
different class action. Apparently just days after the Court
refused to certify the TCPA suit in that action, counsel filed a
TCPA second case–this time in a different jurisdiction and with a
slightly different class definition.
While this conduct may seem ridiculous–and it is–that's not
what drove the Court's decision here.
The Defendant moved to transfer venue to have the second case heard
in the same district as the first case but the Court noted it was
NOT transferring the case because of the earlier case.
Instead, the Court noted that following the Supreme Court's Bristol
Myers Squibb ruling it has been a little unclear whether
out-of-state class members can assert TCPA claims against a
defendant outside of the defendant's home jurisdiction. The Newman
court found it is "uncertain" whether jurisdiction exists over
non-Maryland claimants since DE was not headquartered in Maryland:
[T]his Court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over
claims against Direct Energy by unnamed, non-Maryland-based class
members is uncertain.
While very few cases have suggested they cannot, Newman is
interesting for determining the controversy on the issue alone is
sufficient to justify a transfer to the Defendant's home venue.[GN]
DONOTPAY INC: Faridian Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JONATHAN FARIDIAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DONOTPAY, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. CGC-23-604987, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01692 to the proceeding.
On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant
DoNotPay for alleged violations of the California Business and
Professions Code. In summary, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that
DoNotPay has violated the law by (a) holding itself out to be an
attorney to residents of the State of California; and (b) engaging
in the unlawful practice of law by selling legal services to
California residents without a law license.
DoNotPay, Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers an
online robot lawyer that allows anyone to automatically claim.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dale Bish, Esq.
Allie M. Fellows, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com
afellows@wsgr.com
- and -
Eli B. Richlin, Esq.
Paul C. Gross, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 999-5800
Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
E-mail: erichlin@wsgr.com
pgross@wsgr.com
EAST LANSING, MI: Appellate Panel Overturns Ruling in Frachise Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Palmer of Lansing State Journal reports that an appellate panel
has overturned a lower court finding that the franchise fee paid to
East Lansing by the Lansing Board of Water & Light is illegal.
In a written opinion dated April 13, 2023, the state Court of
Appeals said Ingham County Circuit Judge Wanda Stokes erred in
finding the franchise fee amounts to an illegal tax and should not
have granted class-action status to resident James Heos' 2020
lawsuit against the city.
The judges remanded the case back to circuit court for dismissal.
"We are grateful that the Michigan Court of Appeals has issued its
ruling in favor of the City of East Lansing this week," Interim
City Manager Randy Talifarro said in a news release. "The
collection of this franchise fee helps to ensure that the City
continues to provide a high-level of service to our residents."
Heos contended the franchise fee amounted to a new local tax levied
without voter approval and violated the Headlee Amendment and the
Foote Act. The appeals panel said his claim under the Headlee
Amendment was barred because it was not filed within a year after
the franchise ordinance was adopted. They also rejected his
arguments regarding the Foote Act, saying it applies only to
electric utility providers.
An attorney for Heos could not immediately be reached for comment
on April 14, 2023, and it was unclear if he will seek an appeal to
the state Supreme Court.
East Lansing officials also did not respond to a request for
comment but issued a brief news release on April 14, 2023
afternoon.
BWL began collecting a 5% franchise fee from East Lansing customers
in 2017 and passes the money on to the city to put in its general
fund. The fees collectively amount to about $1.4 million a year.
It was unclear what impact the appeals court ruling might have
outside of East Lansing.
BWL is owned by the city of Lansing and pays the city 6.1% of its
total revenue in lieu of taxes. That amounted to about $25 million
last year.
Besides East Lansing, the utility has franchise agreements with
Lansing Township, Meridian Township, DeWitt Township and Watertown
Township and pays various amounts back to those communities. BWL
once paid a franchise fee to Delhi Township but no longer has a
franchise agreement with the municipality.
In 2020, an Eaton County judge ruled that a franchise fee BWL
charged customers in Delta Township was illegal. A class-action
lawsuit was settled, and the township owed BWL customers more than
$2 million.
BWL serves about 89% of East Lansing electricity customers, while
Consumers Energy serves the remainder. Consumers declined to
collect a fee from its customers after the city requested it in
2017.[GN]
ENBRIDGE US: Misclassifies Safety Specialists, Watson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WYATT WATSON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01296 (S.D. Tex., April 6,
2023) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from Enbridge under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Mr. Watson and the other workers like
him regularly worked for Enbridge in excess of 40 hours each week
but these workers never received proper overtime rate for hours
worked. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA,
Enbridge improperly classified Watson and those similarly situated
workers as exempt employees and paid them a daily rate with no
overtime compensation.
Mr. Watson has worked as a safety specialist for Enbridge from
approximately November 2017 until November 2020.
Enbridge is an energy transportation company that employs
inspectors and safety specialists to perform its work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, 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
cfitz@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
FLORIDA: To Take Appeal After Court Certified Medicaid Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders at chronicleonline.com reports that agency for Health
Care Administration Secretary Jason Weida said the state is
considering options, including a possible appeal, after a federal
judge cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit about the Medicaid
program denying coverage for incontinence supplies for adults with
disabilities.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard on March 27 certified as
a class action a lawsuit alleging that the Medicaid program has
violated federal laws by denying the coverage. The ruling came in a
lawsuit, filed in July, on behalf of Duval County resident Blanca
Meza and St. Johns County resident Destiny Belanger, who are
incontinent and unable to care for themselves.
While it is not clear how many people the case could affect,
Morales Howard's class-action decision cited one estimate that at
least 480 Medicaid beneficiaries a year turn 21 and lose coverage
for incontinence supplies that they received as children. The state
provides the supplies, such as briefs, diapers and underpads, for
Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 and for certain adults,
including people in nursing homes.
Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book, D-Plantation, asked Weida about
the issue as he appeared before the Senate Health Policy Committee
for a confirmation hearing.
"How are we going to do better for Floridians with disabilities at
AHCA?" Book asked. "How are we going to make it easier for people
to get the services and the supplies and the things that they
need?"
Weida, a lawyer who was appointed secretary early this year by Gov.
Ron DeSantis, said the agency could appeal Morales Howard's order
to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or file a motion to
decertify the class action after more facts emerge in the case.
Another possibility would be to file a motion for summary judgment,
which, if successful, would essentially short-circuit the case.
While some states have decided to provide incontinence supplies to
adult Medicaid beneficiaries, Weida said it is not required by the
federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees
Medicaid rules.
He also indicated, however, that the agency has discussed the
possibility of changing the policy.
"I can tell you that from lawsuits in the past when we have been
sued and we're in the middle of litigation, sometimes we decide to
change a policy which would essentially give the plaintiffs some or
all of what they wanted, and sometimes those lawsuits tend to
become moot or just go away," Weida, who previously worked for the
U.S. Department of Justice, told the Senate committee. "I can't
tell you exactly how we're going to shake out on that right now.
But what I can tell you is that we're looking at it not just from a
litigation strategy of how we're going to defend ourselves, but
also from a perspective of, is it the right thing to do? And if we
ultimately decide that it is the right thing to do, we'll do it."
The Senate committee recommended that the full Senate confirm
Weida's appointment.
While the lawsuit is moving forward as a class action, it remains
far from being resolved, Morales Howard, who was appointed to the
bench by former President George W. Bush, issued an order in
February that said a trial is scheduled in January 2024.
Along with Meza and Belanger, the organization Disability Rights
Florida is a named plaintiff in the case. [GN]
GENERAL PARTS: Gilyard-Walker Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHEILA GILYARD-WALKER, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated Missouri citizens, Plaintiff v. GENERAL
PARTS INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AUTOPARTS, Defendant, Case No.
2316-CV05727, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-00237-FJG to the proceeding.
The class action petition filed by the Plaintiff alleges unlawful
pay inequality, unlawful sex and/or race discrimination, and
individual claim of constructive discharge in violation of the
Missouri Human Rights Act against Defendant.
General Parts Inc. retails replacement parts for automobiles,
trucks, buses, and farm and industrial vehicles.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle B. Russell, Esq.
Joshua J. Cervantes, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
7101 College Blvd, Suite 1200
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (913) 981-1018
Facsimile: (913) 981-1019
E-mail: Kyle.Russell@jacksonlewis.com
Joshua.Cervantes@jacksonlewis.com
GOOGLE LLC: Court Orders to Pay $79,000 Fine in Brown Privacy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a federal judge in
California sanctioned Google for the second time after ruling the
company again failed to meet discovery deadlines for a class action
lawsuit arguing it secretly tracked people who used its browser's
Incognito mode.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen levied a $79,000 fine
against Google and approved a motion for additional discovery
sanctions, adding more individuals to a list of witnesses Google
cannot use during trial.
Judge van Keulen ruled Google violated the previous sanctions order
that required it to disclose the terms the company used in its
Chrome's incognito mode to produce traffic logs.
Google is accused of misleading users by allegedly dishonestly
telling them they are in control of what data they share when using
incognito mode.
Three Google Chrome users have filed a class action lawsuit
accusing Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc., of
collecting user data even when they browse in private mode.
The Google class action lawsuit was filed by Chasom Brown, Maria
Nguyen and William Byatt, who say they all are Google subscribers
who browsed the internet in "private browsing mode" sometime
between June 1, 2016, and the present.
They allege Google collected their data while they were browsing in
private mode, and say Google similarly collected the data of many
other consumers who were browsing in private mode.
According to the plaintiffs, data is collected even when browsing
in Google incognito mode, or when consumers control privacy
settings. Allegedly, this violates consumer privacy as well as
federal wiretap laws.
The Google tracking class action lawsuit asserts Google effectively
tricks users into thinking they have control over how much of their
data is shared with Google and other parties.
Brown, Nguyen and Byatt argue that Google does this by giving users
the option to browse the web in "incognito" or "private" mode, a
mode in which the site will not intercept communications or
information.
Similarly, Google allegedly offers users the opportunity to edit
their privacy settings to determine how much information is being
shared, or delete past browser history.
However, the users assert that this representation is a false one,
because users have no real control over how their data is used.
Allegedly, Google does not turn off Google tracking when users
browse in private mode.
Some info that Google tracking captures reportedly includes IP
address, browser information, information about the user's device
and content from the webpage being viewed.
Allegedly, Google makes money by collecting and selling data. The
Chrome browser users explain many sites use Google Analytics, a
tool that tells website managers about their site traffic,
including how often their site is visited and the demographics of
people using their site.
Though there is a free version of Google Analytics, users of the
program can purchase a premium version that gives them access to
more specific information about their users.
To use Google Analytics, a user must embed Google's code into the
site's existing code. Then, when the site is loaded through a
browser like Google Chrome, the site's information is sent to
Google and its servers in California. Allegedly, this information
includes the user's IP address, URL address and the particular page
of the website that is being visited.
According to customers, this is almost always done without the web
user's knowledge.
Allegedly, Google does not require websites to tell users they are
using Google Analytics, nor do they require sites to inform
customers about how that data will be then used.
The Google Chrome privacy class action lawsuit then goes on to
explain that not only do customers usually not know that Google
Analytics is collecting their data, there is no effective way for
users them to avoid it being used.
Similarly, Ad Manager also allegedly runs automatically, and
involves Google code being embedded into a website's own code. The
users say that Google's code is the site's own code. This makes ads
pop up for Google's ad customers. Additionally, Ad Manager
reportedly sends personal information from site users to Google,
allowing Google to track visitors and website traffic.
Brown, Nguyen and Byatt say this data is sent to Google every time
a user opens a site using Ad Manager code. They claim Ad Manager
functions much like Google Analytics in this way. Similarly, Google
does not require sites to inform users that they are using Ad
Manager, the Google tracking class action lawsuit says.
The users argue Google justifies these policies by saying it acts
as a vendor for websites running Google Analytics and Ad Manager.
However, Brown, Nguyen and Byatt assert this is not true.
Allegedly, Google owns the data collected, and not the website on
whose behalf Google purportedly collects this data.
Brown, Nguyen and Byatt argue Google Analytics and Ad Manager are
just two components of Google tracking users' information without
their knowledge.
In related legal news, a class action lawsuit alleging similar
claims has been filed in Canada.
The Google users are represented by Mark C. Mao, Sean P. Rodriguez,
Alexander J. Konik, James Lee and Rossana Baeza of Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP.
The Google Incognito Mode data collection class action lawsuit is
Chasom Brown, et al. v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv03664,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
[GN]
INDIANA: Faces K.C. Class Suit Over SEA 480 Banned Procedures
-------------------------------------------------------------
K.C., a minor child by her parents and next friends Nathaniel and
Beth Clawson; NATHANIEL and BETH CLAWSON; M.W., a minor child by
his parents and next friends Ryan and Lisa Welch; RYAN and LISA
WELCH; A.M., a minor child by her mother and next friend Emily
Morris; EMILY MORRIS; M.R., a minor child by his parent and next
friend, Maria Rivera; MARIA RIVERA; CATHERINE BAST, M.D.; MOSAIC
HEALTH AND HEALING ARTS, INC.; all plaintiffs on their own behalf
and on behalf of classes and sub-classes similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD
OF INDIANA, in their official capacities; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INDIANA PROFESSIONAL LICENSING AGENCY, in her official capacity;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, in his official capacity;
SECRETARY, INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, in
her official capacity; INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00595-JPH-KMB (S.D.
Ind., April 5, 2023) arises out to block the passage of the Indiana
Senate Enrolled Act 480 (SEA 480), which has sustained objection
and concern of medical professionals.
SEA 480 prohibits transgender minors from receiving what the law
labels as "gender transition procedures." These prohibited
interventions are evidence-based and medically necessary medical
care essential to the health and well-being of transgender minors
who are suffering from gender dysphoria, a serious condition that
can lead to depression, anxiety, and other serious health
consequences when untreated. By denying this medically necessary
treatment to minors, the State of Indiana has displaced the
judgment of parents, doctors, and adolescents with that of the
government. In so doing, the State has intruded on the fundamental
rights of parents to care for their minor children by consenting to
their receipt of doctor-recommended and necessary care and
treatment. This violates due process. SEA 480 allegedly prohibits
the provision of essential services that would otherwise be
authorized and reimbursed by Medicaid, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claim that the state law violates the
federal requirements of the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care
Act and it also intrudes on the First Amendment rights of doctors
and other practitioners. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
Stevie J. Pactor, Esq.
ACLU OF INDIANA
1031 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 4602
Telephone: (317) 635-4059
Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org
grose@aclu-in.org
spactor@aclu-in.org
- and -
Chase Strangio, Esq.
Harper Seldin, Esq.
ACLU
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
E-mail: cstrangio@aclu.org
hseldin@aclu.org
INTEGRITUS HEALTHCARE: Tefft Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARY TEFFT, individually and for others similarly situated v.
INTEGRITUS HEALTHCARE, INC. f/k/a BERKSHIRE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-30037 (D. Mass., April 3, 2023) arises from
the Defendant's auto-deduction policy that violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Massachusetts wage laws by depriving
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members of wages, including
overtime pay, for all hours worked, including those worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Ms. Tefft worked for Integritus as a licensed practice nurse at
several nursing homes, including Integritus' Charlene Manor
Extended Care Facility in Greenfield, Massachusetts, from
approximately May 2017 until February 2022.
Integritus Healthcare, Inc. provides post-acute care, long-term
healthcare, and senior housing throughout Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
585 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
khurley@gordonllp.com
- and -
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: mjoesphson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
IOWA HEALTH: Tisdale Sues Over Security Officers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM TISDALE, individually and for others similarly situated v.
IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH, Case No.
1:23-cv-01142-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., April 6, 2023) is a class and
collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid
overtime wages, other wages, and damages from the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiff Tisdale works for UnityPoint as a security officer at
UnityPoint facilities in Illinois since approximately November
2021. He asserts that throughout his employment, UnityPoint
classified him as non-exempt and paid him on an hourly basis. He
asserts that he was deprived of proper premium overtime rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Iowa Health System is a network of hospitals, clinics and home care
services in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
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
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Antitrust Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that in 2017, three indirect-purchaser
antitrust class actions were filed against Johnson & Johnson and
Janssen Biotech, Inc., alleging that they engaged in
anticompetitive conduct relating to the sale and marketing of J&J's
REMICADE (infliximab).
The class actions were brought by employee welfare benefit plans,
specifically the National Employees Health Plan, the Welfare Fund
of Plumbers Local Union No. 200, and the Local 295 IBT Employer
Group Welfare Fund.
The class action cases brought by the welfare benefit plans
followed an earlier antitrust complaint filed by Pfizer against J&J
and Janssen. The class action plaintiffs alleged that J&J "worked
to suppress competition and raise prices to purchases of [REMICADE]
by imposing a web of exclusionary contracts on both health insurers
and healthcare providers." Further, the complaints alleged that,
when Pfizer launched its competing INFLECTRA (infliximab-dyyb) in
2016, J&J "deployed improper exclusionary tactics to maintain the
dominance of its flagship product."
Discovery in the indirect-purchaser antitrust actions were
consolidated with discovery in the antitrust action brough by
Pfizer. As we previously reported, the Pfizer antitrust action
settled in 2021.
In April 2022, the parties in the indirect-purchaser antitrust
class action stipulated to a settlement wherein Defendants were to
deposit $25 million into a settlement fund with attorneys' fees and
expenses and the like to be subtracted from that fund. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement in August 2022. In March
2023, the court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement, Plan of Allocation and Distribution, Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Service Awards, which among other
things, awarded class counsel $7 million in attorneys' fees and
$2.3 million in expenses. [GN]
JS LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JS LANDSCAPING SERVICES, LLC, aka JS
LANDSCAPING, LLC, aka J&S LANDSCAPING, LLC, and JORGE SANCHEZ
SILVA, Individually, and ANABEL ORTIZ PEREZ, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01930 (D.N.J., April 5, 2023) alleges
that the Defendants violated the Labor Standards Act, the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and associated provisions of the New
Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law.
Allegedly, the Defendants violated the FLSA and the New Jersey wage
and hour laws by failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and those
similarly situated employees, for all overtime hours worked in a
work week.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from in or about June 2021,
until in or about September 2022. He was employed as a full-time
landscaper. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Data Breach Affects 60,000 Patients, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of DataBreaches.Net reports that Lamoille Health
Partners Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it
negligently failed to protect the personal information of 60,000
people that was exposed in a data breach.
Lamoille Health wasn't entitled to immunity from suit under the
Public Health Service Act because the lawsuit's data breach
allegations weren't interwoven with the provision of medical care,
a requirement for immunity under the act, Judge William K. Sessions
III of the US District Court for the District of Vermont said on
April 13, 2023.
DataBreaches had reported the Lamoille breach from the time it
first appeared on BlackByte's leak site in July, 2022 through
several updates to the situation. A check of HHS's public breach
tool indicates that HHS has not closed any investigation into this
incident. [GN]
LPQ USA: Lambert FLSA Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES LAMBERT, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LPQ USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
654253/2022, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02934-KPF to the proceeding.
In the Plaintiff's complaint, he seeks relief for himself and
others similarly situated for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law.
LPQ USA, LLC is a chain of bakery-restaurants based in New York
City.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Felice B. Ekelman, Esq.
Joseph Anci, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 545-4000
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Flores Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Flores v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01076 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug.
14, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing
the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Flores case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Kimmel
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimmel v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00695 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May. 29,
2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the
hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Kimmel case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Mulvey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mulvey, et al., v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00518 (W.D.N.Y., Filed
April 19, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order
continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the
California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June
1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Mulvey case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Nabong Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nabong, et al., v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00668 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May 22,
2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the
hearing on the motion for class certification of the California
class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Nabong case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Nadel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel, et al., v.
Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y., Filed
June 14, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order
continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the
California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June
1, 2023.
-- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude
expert opinions is also extended.
-- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with
counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response
deadlines
as appropriate.
The Nadel case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2903).
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among
other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in
a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants
will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and
torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants'
advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading,
and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was
deficient.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East
Aurora, New York.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo,
California. The company has presence in 35 countries and
territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC]
MECCA HALAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, ANDREUDIZ PEREZ, RONALD DOMINGUEZ, DEIVIS
AGUSTIN DEOLEO, XAVIER MARTINEZ, and DANNY TEJADA, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MECCA HALAL
MEAT INC. (DBA AMERICAN HALAL MEATS INC.) AND OMAR MADY Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01839 (D.N.J., April 1, 2023) arises from the
Defendants alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiffs, proper overtime compensation.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work at their
butcher shop in Newark, New Jersey. They are still currently
working for the Defendants except for Plaintiff Brito who ceased
working in January 2023.
Mecca Halal Meat Inc., d/b/a American Halal Meats Inc., wholesales
food products. The Company distributes meats and meat
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Sward v. Medical
Properties Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-03070, on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Medical
Properties Trust, Inc. ("MPT" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPW)
securities between March 1, 2022 and February 22, 2023, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until June 12, 2023 to
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
On February 23, 2023, before the market opened, MPT issued a press
release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2022 financial
results. Therein, MPT disclosed an impairment of about $171 million
on four properties leased to Prospect as well as a write off of
about $112 million in unbilled rent for the same client.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.80, or 8.7%, to
close at $11.14 per share on February 23, 2023, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Prospect was facing significant pressures
affecting the profitability of its Pennsylvania properties; (2)
that, as a result, there was a significant risk that Prospect would
be unable to meet its rental obligations owed to MPT; (3) that,
"given the elongated timing of the Pennsylvania recovery," the
Company was reasonably likely to record an impairment charge to the
real estate value of the Pennsylvania properties; (4) and that as a
result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased MPT securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than June 12, 2023 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased MPT securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased
[GN]
META PLATFORMS: $725-M Data Privacy Deal Final Hearing Set Sept. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Carroll of InsideHook reports that the final approval
hearing for the settlement is set to take place on September 7,
2023. Members of the class in the lawsuit have until July 26 to
file or postmark their comments or objections according to the
dedicated website set up for the settlement.
If you're reading this, it's very likely that Facebook's parent
company Meta owes you money. That is what’s known as "the good
news." Where things get a little trickier is when it comes to the
actual sums of money involved. Late last year, as you may recall,
Meta announced that it would pay $725 million to settle a class
action lawsuit related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where
Facebook users' personal information was improperly shared.
A description of the class action settlement notes that eligibility
comes down to questions: did you use Facebook between May 24, 2007
and December 22, 2022? And were or are you based in the United
States? Then you qualify. But if everyone who qualifies files a
claim, that $725 million is going to be drained relatively
quickly.
Jason Kint, the CEO of Digital Content Next -- a trade organization
focusing on digital content -- addressed the announcement on
Twitter. "Just a heads up if you do it, your reward will likely
cover a free meal while Facebook built one of the largest and most
influential media properties in history by growth hacking off of
your personal data mined across your life and then covered it up,"
he wrote.
Kint also pointed out what the settlement did not have. "No
accountability for Zuckerberg or Sandberg. No admission of
liability," he stated. "No public awareness to users if their data
went to hostile countries."
Can a settlement in the high nine figures be described as
"underwhelming"? If there's a lack of transparency around it, it
might just be more accurate than Meta would like. [GN]
MONTREAL ROMAN CATHOLIC: Reaches $14.7-M Deal in Sex Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee at The Canadian Press reports that a
$14.7-million settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit
brought against the Montreal Roman Catholic archdiocese, and a
judge will be asked to sign off on the deal in the coming weeks,
the plaintiffs' lawyer said.
The lawsuit, filed in 2019 and authorized by Quebec Superior Court
in 2021, covered victims of sexual abuse committed by priests and
lay employees of the archdiocese since 1940.
The lead plaintiff in the class action was a victim of Brian
Boucher, a since-defrocked priest who was convicted of sexually
abusing two boys under his supervision. He was sentenced to eight
years in prison in 2019.
The settlement agreement covers abuse by diocesan priests but not
priests who belong to specific religious orders, said Alain
Arsenault, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
He said the settlement will now need to be approved by Quebec
Superior Court in the coming weeks and that a delay will likely be
requested to permit a maximum number of victims to come forward.
There will be a limit for people to sign up and people will need to
know that after the specified date, no one will be able to get an
indemnity from the archdiocese.
"What's important to say is that victims of priests from the
Montreal archdiocese should contact us quickly, don't wait until
the last minute," Arsenault said in an interview. "It's also to
tell victims other than those of the Montreal diocese to also
contact us, to sign up."
Arsenault said his law firm has 18 open cases involving other
dioceses and religious congregations. The Montreal agreement is the
first time in Quebec a diocese has settled a class-action lawsuit,
he said.
The agreement covers a maximum of 123 victims, Arsenault said, a
number extrapolated from those who have come forward to date. But
he said the number could be much higher. If more victims come
forward, the agreement will be reopened to negotiate extra funds,
he said.
An adjudicator — a retired judge — will eventually decide how
the money will be disbursed among victims who have suffered
different types of abuse and are living with different long-term
impacts.
Arsenault said the archdiocese was open to a settlement from the
beginning and credited the collaboration to Archbishop Christian
Lépine, who has shown a willingness to deal with historic abuse.
The Montreal archdiocese said it welcomes the settlement.
"We hope that this agreement will be approved by the court, and we
hope that it will allow the victims to continue the difficult
healing process more serenely," it said in a short statement.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 13,
2023. [GN]
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Class Suit Over Sherman Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Beaumont of BollyInside reports that the National
Association of Realtors and various brokerages are facing a class
action lawsuit for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit
revolves around the issue of who should compensate the real estate
agent assisting a buyer in the transaction. The current business
model involves the agent who had the employment contract with the
seller sharing a portion of their commission with the agent who
brings the buyer to the deal. The Multiple Listing Services (MLS)
also allows listing agents to share their listings and offer
compensation to buyers' agents. The lawsuit claims that this system
puts pressure on sellers to offer higher commissions to the buyer's
agent, increasing the cost of selling their home. If the lawsuit
wins, the entire business model would need to change.
As mentioned in a recent article from The News-Enterprise, the real
estate industry is currently facing a class action lawsuit that
accuses the National Association of Realtors and various brokerages
of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. The issue at hand is the
question of who should compensate the real estate agent assisting a
buyer in a transaction.
To understand the current controversy, it's helpful to take a step
back in time. Over a century ago, the real estate business model
was established. When someone wanted to sell their home, they would
employ a real estate agent to find a willing and able buyer. The
agent would then network with other agents to see if they had a
potential buyer. In return for their participation in completing
the transaction, the agent who had the employment contract with the
seller would share a portion of their commission with the agent who
brings the buyer to the deal.
This is why, for anyone who has used a buyer's agent to buy a home,
it appears as if the agent who helped you worked for free. To give
sellers maximum exposure to the broadest number of buyers, all real
estate agents join networks called Multiple Listing Services,
commonly called the MLS. The MLS allows listing agents to share
their listings and offer compensation to buyers' agents.
However, the point of contention for the current lawsuit is the
unilateral commission offer to the buyer's agent. When a home is
listed on the MLS, there is a commission offer to the buyer's
agent. The commission is typically a percentage of the home's sale
price and could be either 50/50 of the total commission or
variable, wherein one agent receives more than the other.
The issue brought forward in the lawsuit is the offer to pay the
buyer's agent. The sellers represented in the lawsuit claim this
system puts pressure on them to offer higher commissions to the
buyer's agent. These higher commissions are not to attract the
buyer but the buyer's agent, increasing the cost of selling their
home.
If this lawsuit were to win, the entire business model would need
to change. On the face of the suit, it would appear buyers would
become responsible for paying for their agent. However, when you
factor in the amount of money needed for a down payment, loan fees,
closing costs, and other expenses associated with buying a home,
this could be a significant burden for buyers.
As mentioned in the article, the National Association of Realtors
has stated that they believe the lawsuit is without merit and that
they will defend themselves vigorously. However, the outcome of
this case could have a significant impact on the real estate
industry and how it operates in the future. Only time will tell how
this lawsuit will play out and what changes, if any, will come to
the real estate business model. [GN]
NEOCORTEXT INC: Commercially Exploits Names, Voices, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP of JD Supra reports that
Generative AI (GAI) applications have raised numerous copyright
issues. These issues include whether the training of GAI models
constitute infringement or is permitted under fair use, who is
liable if the output infringes (the tool provider or user) and
whether the output is copyrightable. These are not the only legal
issues that can arise. Another GAI issue that has arisen with
various applications involves the right of publicity. A recently
filed class action provides one example.
Kyland Young filed a class action lawsuit against NeoCortext, Inc.
("NeoCortext") for commercially exploiting his and thousands of
other actors, musicians, athletes, celebrities, and other
well-known individuals' names, voices, photographs, or likenesses
to sell paid subscriptions to its smartphone application, Reface,
without their permission. Reface is a deep-fake software that
allows users to swap their faces with individuals they admire or
desire in scenes from popular shows, movies, and other viral
short-form internet media.
The complaint alleges violations of the class members' rights under
the California Right of Publicity statute, which states that, "
[a]ny person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature,
photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . for purposes of
advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of . . . services,
without such person's prior consent . . . shall be liable for any
damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result
thereof." Cal. Civ. Code Sections 3344(a).
GAI is a powerful tool and has many applications. Many uses will be
fine, but many will cross a legal line. Some will do so based on
intentional design. Others will do so inadvertently. The Reface app
appears to consciously use celebrity images. With some other GAI
apps, the models are trained on huge quantities of images,
including some images of celebrities. This leads to the possibility
that some user prompts may cause the output to include the name,
image or likeness (NIL) of a celebrity. This may be the case, even
if the GAI tool is not specifically designed to output celebrity
images.
Responsible companies are taking proactive steps to minimize the
likelihood that their GAI tools inadvertently violate the right of
publicity. Some examples of these steps include attempting to
filter out celebrity images from those used to train the GAI models
and filtering prompts to prevent users from requesting outputs that
are directed to celebrity based NIL. [GN]
NFI MANAGEMENT: Navarrete Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ZUBAN ISIDOR NAVARRETE, an Individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NFI MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; OTS
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ON TIME
MANAGEMENT & STAFFING; a California company; NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION
CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; NFI INDUSTRIES,
INC., an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV04505, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01701 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint asserts the following claims for relief
against the Defendants for: 1) failure to pay overtime wages; 2)
failure to pay minimum wages; 3) failure to provide meal periods;
4) failure to provide rest periods; 5) waiting time penalties; 6)
wage statement violations; 7) failure to timely pay wages; 8)
failure to indemnify; and 9) unfair competition.
NFI Management Services, LLC is a third-party logistics
provider.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
E-mail: awallin@littler.com
- and -
Alvin Arceo, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
E-mail: aarceo@littler.com
OEI HOLDINGS: $397.5K Class Deal in Alcazar Suit Wins Prelim. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Angela Alcazar, et al., Plaintiffs v. OEI Holdings,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01209-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California approves the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminarily approval of the unopposed proposed settlement of the
class action.
In its prior order, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' previous motion for preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement, finding three deficiencies in the proposed settlement.
It found the prior proposed settlement did not: (1) specify what
FLSA claims are subject to release nor discuss the value of these
claims, (2) explain the Court's authority to approve a settlement
that releases FLSA claims without first certifying a collective
action, and (3) include an opt-in notice for the FLSA claims in
their notice of settlement.
The Plaintiffs have submitted a renewed motion for preliminary
approval of class and collective action settlement. For settlement
purposes, the class members for both the Rule 23 class and the FLSA
collective action number approximately 539 agricultural packing
workers who were employed by the Defendants between June 28, 2015,
and June 1, 2018. The parties estimate the total value of the
Plaintiffs' claims to be $815,477.
The parties' settlement agreement provides a Gross Settlement
Amount (GSA) of $397,500 -- roughly 49% of the Plaintiffs'
estimated value -- with an escalator provision providing the GSA
may be increased based on the total number of workweeks. The
parties agree certain amounts will be subtracted from the GSA:
$132,500, or one-third, will cover attorneys' fees, $12,000 will
cover litigation costs, and $7,500 will be paid to each of the six
named Plaintiffs as service awards. They further allocate $10,000
to administer the settlement and $50,000 toward the PAGA action.
The GSA amount also covers "FLSA Claim Payments to all
Participating Class Members who return FLSA Opt-In forms."
Overall, the proposal provides a net settlement amount of
approximately $160,500. This amount will be distributed on a pro
rata basis based on the number of workweeks worked by each class
member. The parties estimate the average distribution to each class
member will be "just under" $300. Unclaimed funds will be
distributed cy pres to Legal Aid at Work.
If the Court approves the settlement, Rule 23 class members will
release all non FLSA claims. Members of the putative class may also
opt out or object. Class members who timely return their FLSA
opt-in forms will also release their FLSA claims in return for a
FLSA claim payment. Membership in the PAGA subclass is automatic
under California law. The parties' proposed notice of settlement
informs the recipients about the FLSA collective action and the
related opt-in procedures.
The Plaintiffs move the Court to preliminarily approve the
settlement. The motion is unopposed. The Court heard argument on
March 10, 2023.
Judge Mueller grants preliminary approval of the Rule 23 class and
proposed FLSA collective for settlement purposes only, but cautions
the issues identified must be addressed before the parties seek
final approval. Specifically, at the final approval hearing the
parties must be prepared to address the reasonableness of the
settlement negotiation, the reasonableness of the proposed
attorneys' fees, including in light of a lodestar analysis, and the
reasonableness of the named Plaintiffs' incentive award. When
filing the motion for final settlement approval, the parties should
also lodge, in camera, the relevant mediation briefs.
Judge Mueller approves and appoints (i) Phoenix Settlement
Administrators as the Settlement Administrator; (ii) Plaintiffs
Angela Alcazar, Rosa Cazarez, America Duarte, Maria Teresa
Valdovinos, Maria Juana Zaragoza and Lilian Anguianoas as the Class
Representatives; and (iii) Mallison & Martinez to represent the
Settlement Class as the Class Counsel.
Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, Judge Mueller orders the
following:
a. The Defendants will provide the Settlement Administrator
with the names, most recent known mailing address and telephone
number, social security number and the respective number of
workweeks that each class member worked for defendants during each
respective class period in .pdf format, within 14 days from entry
of the Order.
b. The Settlement Administrator will mail the class notice
packet to the class members via first-class regular U.S. Mail
within 14 days after receipt of the contact information.
c. The class members will have 45 days from the mailing of
notice packets to opt-out. Collective members will have 45 days
from the mailing of notice packets to opt-in.
d. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval and attorneys'
fees and costs will be filed 40 days in advance of the final
approval hearing.
e. The final approval hearing is set for Oct. 13, 2023, at
10:00 a.m.
Judge Mueller's Order resolves ECF No. 61.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4kpnr8dw from Leagle.com.
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Powell Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK POWELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00085-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss., April 3, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from the Defendant
liquidated damages for unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Powell is an adult citizen of the State of Mississippi,
he was employed as an "Adjuster Team Lead" for Pilot during the
period April 3, 2020 to present, and he performed work for Pilot in
Mississippi and throughout the United States.
During the Class Period, Powell worked at least 84 hours per week
(44 hours of overtime) for 35 weeks. In other words, Powell worked
at least 1,540 hours for which he should have been paid overtime.
Therefore, Powell was entitled to at least $144,375 in overtime
wages, which Pilot refused or failed to pay him, says the suit.
Pilot Catastrophe Services is an independent adjuster firm in the
property, commercial, and automobile insurance industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chadwick M. Welch, Esq.
HEIDELBERG PATTERSON WELCH WRIGHT
368 Highland Colony Parkway
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 790-1588
Facsimile: (601) 707-3075
E-mail: cwelch@hpwlawgroup.com
- and -
C. Maison Heidelberg, Esq.
HEIDELBERG PATTERSON WELCH WRIGHT
368 Highland Colony Parkway
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 790-1588
Facsimile: (601) 707-3075
E-mail: mheidelberg@hpwlawgroup.com
- and -
Judson M. Lee, Esq.
JUDSON M. LEE, PLLC
2088 Main Street, Suite A
Madison, MS 39110
Telephone: (601) 707-9711
Facsimile: (601) 707-7509
E-mail: jlee@ms-lawyer.net
PLUG POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm PA of GlobeNewswire reports that if you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June
12, 2023 in a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
common stock of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) between August 9,
2022 and March 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
A class action lawsuit has already been filed.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Plug Power 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 Plug Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1011 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 June 12, 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: The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts,
about Plug's business and operations. Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that Plug was unable to
effectively manage its supply chain and product manufacturing,
resulting in reduced revenues and margins, increased inventory
levels, and several large deals being delayed until at least 2023,
among other issues. As a result, defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, prospects, and ability to
effectively manage its supply chain and production lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Plug Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1011 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in
any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
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]
PRECISION FRANCHISING: Shavin Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM SHAVIN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PRECISION FRANCHISING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-169 (E.D.N.C., April 1, 2023) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff due to the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by
failing to pay proper overtime for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a technician
from June 1, 2021 to the present. Despite the fact that Plaintiff
and Collective and Class Members worked more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation at the
rate of time and a half their actual regular hourly rate of pay for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff.
Precision Franchising, Inc. owns and operates over 30 Precision
Tune Auto Care service centers across North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Heydt Philbeck, Esq.
BAILEY & DIXON, LLP
434 Fayetteville Street Suite 2500
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 828-0731
Facsimile: (919) 828-6592
E-mail: hypilbeck@bdoxon.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
QG PRINTING: Partly Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Clark Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLARK, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QG PRINTING
II, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; QUAD/GRAPHICS,
INC., a Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00899-AWI-PAUL (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
Clark is suing Defendants Quad/Graphics, Inc. ("QG") and QG
Printing II, LLC for alleged violations of the California Labor
Code at four commercial printing facilities in California,
including claims relating to meal periods, rest periods,
off-the-clock work, business expenses and wage statements. The
operative complaint is the SAC, which was filed on Sept. 6, 2019.
QG is a Wisconsin corporation with commercial printing facilities
throughout the United States. QG Printing is a Connecticut limited
liability company and a QG subsidiary. QG Printing operates four
facilities in California: Merced, West Sacramento, Riverside --
Jurupa Valley, and Riverside -- Box Springs. The Plaintiff was a
non-exempt, hourly-paid press assistant in the press production
area at QG Printing's Merced facility.
The Plaintiff filed the class action in Merced County Court on May
29, 2018, seeking to represent an overarching class of several
hundred non-exempt, hourly employees who worked in QG Printing's
California facilities in the four-year period prior to the filing
of the action. The Defendant removed the action to this judicial
district on June 29, 2018, id., and it was assigned to this Court
on July 2, 2018.
The SAC alleges claims for violations of: (i) Labor Code Sections
510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); (ii) Labor Code Sections 1182.12,
1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (iii) Labor
Code Sections 226.7, 512(a), and 1198 (Failure to Provide Meal
Periods); (iv) Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 1198 (Failure to
Provide Rest Periods); (v) Labor Code Sections 226(a), 1174(d), and
1198 (Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll
Records); (vi) Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203 (Wages Not
Timely Paid Upon Termination); (vii) Labor Code Section 2802
(Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (viii) Labor Code Sections 551,
552, and 558 (Failure to Provide One Day of Rest in Seven); (ix)
Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. (Civil Penalties Under PAGA for
Violations of Labor Code); (x) California Business & Professions
Code Sections 17200, et seq. (Unlawful Business Practices); and
(xi) California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.
(Unfair Business Practices).
On Nov. 8, 2019, the Plaintiff brought a motion pursuant to Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
certify an overarching class comprising approximately 1,200 members
and seven subclasses pegged to alleged Labor Code violations,
including a First Meal Break Subclass, a Second Meal Break
Subclass, a Rest Break Subclass, a Meal Break Waiver Subclass, an
Off-the-Clock Work Subclass, a Business Expense Subclass and a
Derivative Claims Subclass. Certification was granted with respect
to the Meal Break Waiver Subclass and the Business Expense
Subclass, and denied as to the other five subclasses.
The Third Cause of Action in the SAC alleges various meal period
violations under sections 226.7, 512(a), and 1198 of the Labor
Code. The Plaintiff asserts, in particular, that he and the class
members did not sign valid meal period waivers on days that they
were entitled to meal periods and that prospective meal break
waivers signed in advance (as opposed to on a specific workday) are
invalid and unenforceable, because the Defendants' obligation to
provide employees with meal breaks does not arise until it has
employed them for a full five hours. The Defendants seek summary
judgment on the Third Cause of Action to the extent it is
predicated on the contention that their prospective meal break
waivers are unlawful.
Judge Ishii finds that the Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on the Third Cause of Action to the extent it is
predicated on the theory that their meal period waivers were
unlawful and to summary judgment on the Meal Break Waiver Subclass.
It is settled law that mere failure on the part of a signatory to
read a document does not negate the document's contents or effect
and the Plaintiff sets forth no facts from which a jury could infer
that he was pressured or mislead in connection with the waiver. The
waiver form at issue involves a voluntary, rescindable waiver and
otherwise appears to comport with applicable law.
The Plaintiff's Seventh Cause of Action alleges that the
Defendants, on a company-wide basis, mandated that the Plaintiff
and the class members purchase special safety shoes such as
steel-toed boots, which they were required to wear while at work
and that "Plaintiff purchased steel-toed boots totaling
approximately $202, but was not reimbursed for these costs. The
Defendants contend that this claim fails as a matter of law
because: (1) employers are not required to supply generic
non-uniform apparel; (2) it is undisputed that Defendants provided
employees with $50 every year for safety shoes; and (3) the
Defendants are unaware of facts suggesting that the purchase of
shoes costing more than $50 is reasonably necessary.
Judge Ishii finds that the Plaintiff makes no showing that the
Defendants required footwear that was "part of a uniform" or that
was not "usual and generally usable" in other manufacturing
contexts. The Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment
on the Plaintiff's Seventh Cause of Action. In light of this
ruling, Judge Ishii need not address the Defendants' other
arguments as to the Seventh Cause of Action.
The Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action is for civil penalties under
PAGA based, among other things, on: (i) failure to provide all
required overtime pay; (ii) failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees with at least minimum wages for all hours
worked; (iii) failure to provide meal and/or rest periods; (iv)
failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements; and (v)
failure to maintain payroll records. The Defendants' various
arguments as to why partial summary judgment should be granted on
certain portions of the Plaintiff's PAGA claim.
Judge Ishii holds, among other things, that (i) the Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on corresponding portions of the PAGA
claim because the Plaintiff fails to show that he satisfied the
administrative prerequisites for claims under sections 6401 and
6403; (ii) no portion of the PAGA claim can be based on the Tenth
Cause of Action or the Eleventh Cause of Action because they allege
UCL violations, not violations of the Labor Code; and (iii) the
Plaintiff is not barred from seeking civil penalties under PAGA for
continuing Labor Code violations that occurred after Plaintiff
furnished notice to the LWDA on Dec. 7, 2018.
The Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action alleges rest break
violations under sections 226.7 and 1198 of the Labor Code.
Specifically, he alleges that the Defendants failed to schedule
rest breaks and prevented him and others from being relieved of all
duty to take compliant rest breaks. The Defendants seek partial
summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's individual claim for rest
break violations and the portion of the PAGA claim relating to rest
break violations to the extent such claims are based on the theory
that employees were not permitted to leave the premises during rest
breaks.
Judge Ishii agrees with the Plaintiff that to the extent actionable
Labor Code violations occurred after his last day of work,
corresponding portions of his PAGA claim are not barred by the
one-year statute of limitations applicable to PAGA claims.
Reviewing the record, he sees no indication that the Plaintiff was
himself adversely affected by -- or even aware of -- the
Defendants' alleged policy barring employees from leaving QG
Printing premises during a rest break.
The Defendants are therefore entitled to partial summary judgment
on the Plaintiff's individual Labor Code claim for rest break
violations to the extent it is predicated on "the theory that
employees were not permitted to leave the premises during rest
breaks." And they are entitled to summary judgment on all portions
of the PAGA claim predicated on the rest break violations alleged
in the Fourth Cause of Action.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ishii grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr8yyfey from Leagle.com.
QUALTEK RECOVERY: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
-------------------------------------------------------
QUINTEN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUALTEK RECOVERY LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01305
(E.D. Pa., April 5, 2023) alleges that Qualtek Recovery violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff proper
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.
Plaintiff Jones worked for Qualtek in September 2021 as a recovery
logistics worker. Workers like Jones are sent into recovery areas
after natural disasters. Instead of paying overtime as required by
the FLSA, QualTek improperly classified these workers as
independent contractors and paid them the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, says the Plaintiff.
QualTek Recovery Logistics LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company. QualTek's Recovery Logistics operations service clients in
business continuity and disaster recovery operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Class in Vecchio Suit Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MARIA VECCHIO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC, Defendants. MARIA
VECCHIO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., EXAMONE WORLD
WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 16 Civ. 5165
(ER), 19 Civ. 5194 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York:
a. grants Vecchio's unopposed motion for conditional
certification of a class, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, and collective, under Section 16(b) of the
FLSA, for settlement purposes only; and
b. denies Vecchio's motion for preliminary approval of a class
and collective action settlement without prejudice.
Vecchio brought the action on June 29, 2016, alleging that the
Defendants, her former employers, had failed to pay her, and those
similarly situated, minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
(the "NYLL").
ExamOne LLC -- a wholly owned subsidiary of ExamOne World Wide,
Inc., which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Quest
Diagnostics, Inc -- provides medical examinations to individuals
applying for life insurance policies. ExamOne employs mobile
medical examiners to perform these exams, including some as
independent contractors. Medical examiners employed as independent
contractors are either paid a fixed fee per examination or a
percentage of the revenue earned by ExamOne.
Vecchio, a medical examiner, began working for ExamOne in November
2013, as an independent contractor. During this time, she earned
38% of the amount ExamOne billed for each examination. In June
2014, ExamOne hired Vecchio as a part-time employee; she then
earned a set fee per examination performed, as well as an overtime
rate of $26.54 per hour.
Vecchio filed complaint 16-cv-5165 on June 29, 2016, alleging,
inter alia, that ExameOne failed to pay her minimum wage or
overtime in violation of provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL. After
approximately one year of discovery, the parties stipulated to the
dismissal without prejudice of the NYLL claims on Oct. 10, 2017.
Six months after the dismissal of the state law claims, on April
30, 2018, the Court issued an opinion and order conditionally
certifying an FLSA collective, i.e., all persons employed by
defendants as mobile examiners, whether designated as independent
contractors or employees, at any time in the three years prior to
the filing of the complaint on June 29, 2016. It further authorized
the issuance of a nationwide notice to the collective. By the end
of the 90-day notice period notice period, approximately 2,700
plaintiffs had opted in to the collective.
The following year, on April 9, 2019, Vecchio filed the previously
dismissed NYLL claims against defendants in a separate action
before the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, Index No.
652069/2019. The Defendants subsequently removed the action to this
District on June 3, 2019. The following week, the case was assigned
to the Court as related to 16-cv-5165.
On Feb. 21, 2020, the Defendants filed motions for decertification
and partial summary judgment. Docs. 3174; 3179 (16-cv-5165). An
opinion and order issued on Sept. 18, 2020 granted the motions.
Specifically, the Court decertified the class because Vecchio
failed to show that the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated
to her in any material respect; dismissed with prejudice Vecchio's
minimum wage claims, along with the overtime wage claims of 32
specific opt-in plaintiffs; and dismissed without prejudice the
claims of all remaining opt-in plaintiffs.
On Nov. 9, 2020, the parties filed a joint letter, requesting that
the Court holds all of the proceedings in connection with the two
related cases in abeyance, pending the outcome of mediation. The
following day, the Court issued an order staying the cases, in
accordance with the parties' request. On Dec. 17, 2020, the parties
participated in a second mediation before Marc Isserles, at which
they reached a preliminary settlement agreement.
Over the ensuing nine months, the parties worked to finalize the
terms of the settlement agreement and on Sept. 17, 2021, they
advised the Court via letter that they had a reached a written
settlement, resolving both the cases. This letter further provided
that Vecchio would file an amended complaint -- which would serve
as the operative complaint in both actions and which would include
both state law and FLSA claims -- in accordance with the terms of
the settlement agreement. It also asked the Court to lift the stay
on the cases. The Court did so that same day. Two weeks later, on
Oct. 1, 2021, Vecchio filed an amended complaint.
Vecchio filed a joint stipulation of settlement and release, the
"Original Settlement Agreement," on Nov. 22, 2021. On Dec. 10,
2021, Vecchio filed an unopposed motion for conditional
certification of the class and collective and for preliminary
approval of the class and collective action settlement. The Court
held a conference to discuss the Original Motion on Aug. 5, 2022.
During the Conference, it denied it without prejudice.
On Oct. 1, 2022, Vecchio filed the instant amended motion for
conditional certification of the class and collective, and for
preliminary approval of the class and collective action settlement.
Also on Oct. 1, 2022, she filed an amended joint stipulation of
settlement and release, the "Amended Settlement Agreement"; an
amended notice of class action settlement, the "Amended Proposed
Notice"; an amended proposed order and judgment, the "Amended
Proposed Order"; and an amended formula to calculate individual
settlement payments, the "Amended Proposed Formula."
Vecchio seeks conditional certification of the class and FLSA
collective for the purposes of facilitating a settlement. Both the
class and collective consist of all persons who (a) contracted or
otherwise arranged with any defendant or any related or affiliated
entity to perform services as a mobile examiner (b) in New York at
any time between June 29, 2010 and the date of the Preliminary
Approval Order.
Judge Ramos holds that Vecchio satisfies Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)(1) because numerosity is presumed at a level of 40
members and there are approximately 2,700 class members. She also
satisfies the requirements of commonality and typicality. As
explained by Vecchio, the case also involves common issues of law
and fact, namely that all members are current or former employees
of Quest Diagnostics who were paid less than minimum wage and are
owed overtime. Vecchio further satisfies the "adequacy of
representation" inquiry of Rule 23(a)(4). Her interests are not
antagonistic to or at odds with those of the settlement class
members.
Certification is also proper under Rule 23(b)(3), as common factual
allegations and a common legal theory predominate over any factual
or legal variations among the class members. Additionally, class
adjudication of the case is superior to individual adjudication
because it will conserve judicial resources and is more efficient.
Vecchio also seeks conditional certification of an FLSA collective
action. As Judge Ramos discussed, Vecchio has shown that she is
similarly situated to the class. The class is therefore entitled to
conditional certification as an FLSA collective action.
Finally, Judge Ramos holds that the Amended Settlement Agreement
cures some, but not all, of the deficiencies highlighted by the
Court during the Conference with regards to the Original Settlement
Agreement. The following issues remain:
a. Section 4.6(b) of the Amended Settlement Agreement
improperly suggests that a class member, simply by virtue of
cashing his check, would join the settlement and release his
independent right to bring FLSA claims, even if he had not filed
written consent to join the collective, as required by the FLSA.
The parties are directed to bring Section 4.6(b) of the Amended
Settlement Agreement in line with Section 7 of the Amended Proposed
Notice, by making clear that a claimant must file written notice
with the Court to opt in and release his FLSA claims.
b. The Amended Settlement Agreement ostensibly still permits
the parties to ask the Court to hold a fairness hearing before the
expiration of the deadline for the collective members to opt in.
The parties are directed to revise the Amended Settlement Agreement
to make clear that no fairness hearing will be held, and no final
settlement agreement will be issued, until such time as the
deadline has expired for members of the class to opt in.
c. The deadlines to opt out specified in the Amended Proposed
Notice and the Amended Settlement Agreement are still inconsistent.
The parties are directed to make these deadlines consistent.
d. The Amended Proposed Order still incorrectly contains
language dismissing 16-cv-5165 and 19-cv-5194 with prejudice,
which, as noted by the Court during the Conference, is premature at
that this preliminary stage. The parties are directed to delete
this dismissal language.
In light of outstanding issues specified, Judge Ramos denies the
motion for preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement
without prejudice.
For these reasons, the motion to conditionally certify the class
and collective for purposes of settlement is granted. As
stipulated, the motion for conditional approval of the Amended
Settlement Agreement is denied without prejudice. The parties are
instructed to file a further revised settlement reflective of the
directions given by the Court The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 3245 in case 16-cv-5165, and
Doc. 55 in case 19-cv-5194.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4m35b2h6 from Leagle.com.
RICOH USA: Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Leticia Lopez, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RICOH USA, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV0465, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 7,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02636 to the proceeding.
The complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on
behalf of a putative class for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages;
(2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay
wages upon separation; and (7) unfair business practices in
violation of California's Business and Professions Code.
Ricoh USA, Inc. produces and distributes printing equipment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
Christopher J. Taylor, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
christopher.taylor@morganlewis.com
SAN JOSE, CA: Bid to Certify Damages Class in NAACP Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAACP OF SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY, et al., Plaintiffs
v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01705-PJH
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California:
a. denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to
both the proposed damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), as
well as the proposed injunctive relief class under
Rule 23(b)(2);
b. grants the Defendants' discovery request to preclude
evidence based on Acosta's future lost income; and
c. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
seal.
The lawsuit is a civil rights case arising out of the May 2020
protests in response to the killing of George Floyd by police.
Specifically, on May 29 and 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs participated
in protests in San Jose to express their view that police brutality
and institutionalized racism must end. They now seek redress for
the violation of their constitutional rights to assemble, protest,
and be free from racial discrimination, disability discrimination,
excessive force, and wrongful arrest.
There are two organization Plaintiffs and 11 Individual Plaintiffs
in the case. The organization Plaintiffs are (1) the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People of San
Jose/Silicon Valley and (2) the San Jose Peace and Justice Center.
There are 11 Individual Plaintiffs, not all of whom are proposed
class representatives.
The first proposed class representative is Joseph Canas. Canas was
at the protest on May 29, 2020, playing a guitar, when he was shot
in the eye by an impact munition (also referred to as "projectile
impact weapon," or "PIW").
The second proposed class representative is Leslie Vasquez. Vasquez
attended the May 29, 2020 protest and was shot in the groin,
thighs, and genital area, and bludgeoned in the stomach with a
baton as she stood with her hands up.
The third proposed class representative is Peter Allen. Allen
attended the protest on May 29, 2020, and was pushed to the ground
and repeatedly shot with impact munitions. He alleges that he was
backing away when he was shoved to the ground by an officer with
his baton, then shoved to the ground again when he tried to get up
and back away. Allen alleges that he was again attempting to
retreat when he was shot in the thigh and in the chest with PIW.
The fourth proposed class representative is Shaunn Cartwright.
Cartwright was shot in the knee, calf, and finger with PIW on May
30, 2020.
The fifth proposed class representative is Yessica Riles. On May
29, Riles was shot with PIW in the abdomen while her hands were up
in a 'don't shoot' gesture.
The sixth proposed class representative is Gustavo Flores. Flores
was present at the May 29, 2020 protest, and tried to warn the
other demonstrators, walking down the front line of demonstrators
suggesting that they put their hands up in a gesture of 'don't
shoot' to show they were unarmed and did not pose a threat. While
Flores was doing so, a San Jose police officer shot him in the
groin and testicle with an impact munition. Flores fell to the
ground, and as he got up, he saw the officer reloading his gun. As
Flores was trying to walk away, someone warned that the officer was
aiming at him again, and when Flores turned to look, the officer
shot him in his left collarbone with another impact munition.
The seventh proposed class representative is Cindy Cuellar. Cuellar
attended the May 29, 2020 protest and saw officers shoot impact
munitions into the crowd, hitting a friend of hers who is a
journalist. When Cuellar went to her friend's aid, an officer shot
her in her left calf.
There are four other Plaintiffs who are proceeding only as
individuals, not as class representatives: Michael Acosta, Joseph
Maldonado, Mahmoudreza Naemeh, and Megan Swift.
The Defendants are as follows: the City of San Jose, David Sykes
(city manager of San Jose), Edgardo Garcia (police chief of the
SJPD), Christopher Knopf (SJPD assistant chief of police), Jason
Dwyer (SJPD caption and the 'special operations commander' during
the May 2020 protests), Brian Matchett (SJPD lieutenant), Steve
Lagorio (SJPD lieutenant), Ronnie Lopez (SJPD sergeant), Lee Tassio
(SJPD sergeant), Jaren Yuen (SJPD officer), Bill Nguyen (SJPD
officer), Clifford Grodin (SJPD officer), Stephen Michael Curry
(SJPD officer), Michael Simonini (SJPD officer), Victor Ayala (SJPD
officer), James Adgar (SJPD officer), Steve Gaona (SJPD officer),
Tyler Moran (SJPD officer), John Lynch (SJPD sergeant), Larry Situ
(SJPD officer), Frank Orabuena (SJPD officer), Gerardo Silva (SJPD
officer), and Chris Weber (SJPD officer).
The complaint purports to assert eleven causes of action, though
the first is for "injunctive relief" and the second is for
"declaratory relief," which are types of remedies rather than
standalone causes of action. That leaves nine substantive causes of
action:
(1) violation of First Amendment rights under section 1983,
asserted by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants;
(2) excessive force in violation of Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, under section 1983, asserted by all Plaintiffs against
City of San Jose, Garcia, Knopf, Dwyer, Matchett, and Tassio; and
further asserted by Acosta against Yuen, Nguyen, Grodin, Lopez, and
Lynch; by Naemeh against Orabuena, Weber, Situ, and Lopez; by Swift
against Curry, Silva, and Ayala; by Canas against Yuen and Lopez;
by Vasquez against Yuen, Simonini, and Lopez; by Allen against Yuen
and Lopez; by Riles against Simonini; by Flores against Gaona and
Grodin; by Cuellar against Simonini, Adgar, Nguyen, Grodin, Moran,
and Lynch; and by Maldonado against Lagorio;
(3) failure to intervene under section 1983, asserted by all
Plaintiffs against all Defendants;
(4) violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, asserted by Cartwright against City of San Jose;
(5) violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
asserted by Cartwright against City of San Jose;
(6) violation of the California Bane Act, asserted by all
Plaintiffs against all Defendants;
(7) violation of the California Ralph Act, asserted by all
Plaintiffs against City of San Jose, Garcia, Knopf, Dwyer,
Matchett, and Tassio; and further asserted by Acosta against Yuen,
Nguyen, Grodin, Lopez, and Lynch; by Naemeh against Orabuena,
Weber, Situ, and Lopez; by Swift against Curry, Silva, and Ayala;
by Canas against Yuen and Lopez; by Vasquez against Yuen, Simonini,
and Lopez; by Allen against Yuen and Lopez; by Riles against
Simonini; by Flores against Gaona and Grodin; by Cuellar against
Simonini, Adgar, Nguyen, Grodin, Moran, and Lynch; and by Maldonado
against Lagorio;
(8) assault and battery, asserted by all Plaintiffs against
City of San Jose, Garcia, Knopf, Dwyer, Matchett, and Tassio; and
further asserted by Acosta against Yuen, Nguyen, Grodin, Lopez, and
Lynch; by Naemeh against Orabuena, Weber, Situ, and Lopez; by Swift
against Curry, Silva, and Ayala; by Canas against Yuen and Lopez;
by Vasquez against Yuen, Simonini, and Lopez; by Allen against Yuen
and Lopez; by Riles against Simonini; by Flores against Gaona and
Grodin; by Cuellar against Simonini, Adgar, Nguyen, Grodin, Moran,
and Lynch; and by Maldonado against Lagorio; and
(9) negligence, asserted by all Plaintiffs against City of
San Jose, Garcia, Knopf, Dwyer, Matchett, and Tassio; and further
asserted by Acosta against Yuen, Nguyen, Grodin, Lopez, and Lynch;
by Naemeh against Orabuena, Weber, Situ, and Lopez; by Swift
against Curry, Silva, and Ayala; by Canas against Yuen and Lopez;
by Vasquez against Yuen, Simonini, and Lopez; by Allen against Yuen
and Lopez; by Riles against Simonini; by Flores against Gaona and
Grodin; by Cuellar against Simonini, Adgar, Nguyen, Grodin, Moran,
and Lynch; and by Maldonado against defendant Lagorio.
The Plaintiffs now move for certification on the following proposed
classes:
Damages class: The direct force damages class is defined as
all persons present at protests regarding the killing of George
Floyd in the city of San Jose on May 29, 2020 or May 30, 2020 who
were struck by either Projectile Impact Weapons (including 37mm and
40mm projectiles and bean-bag shotguns), batons, or otherwise
physically struck by a San Jose Police Department officer.
Injunctive relief class: The injunctive relief class is
defined as all persons who have in the past participated, presently
are participating, or may in the future participate in, or be
present at, demonstrations within the city of San Jose in the
exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly, association,
petition, and of the press, in general, and particularly as it
relates to protesting police violence and discrimination against
people of color.
In order to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), the
Plaintiffs must show that the four Rule 23(a) requirements are met,
and must also show that common questions of law or fact common to
the class predominate and that a class action is superior to other
methods available for adjudicating the controversy at issue.
Because Judge Hamilton finds the matter can be determined on the
basis of the Rule 23(b) showing alone, she does not reach the Rule
23(a) showing.
Because the case involves not only common claims regarding the
authorization of force, but also individual claims arising out of
each individual application of force, Judge Hamilton finds that the
reasoning of MIWON is distinguishable, and accordingly, she
concludes that the Plaintiffs have not shown that common issues
would predominate over individual issues as required by Rule
23(b)(3). For that reason, she denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a damages class. She need not address the Rule
23(a) factors as they relate to the proposed damages class.
Judge Hamilton also denies the Plaintiffs' motion for certification
of an injunctive relief class. She finds that the Plaintiffs did
not focus their claims in a similar manner. Rather than bringing
suit against only command personnel and focusing on their
authorization of force, the Plaintiffs challenge both the
authorization of force by command personnel as well as the
application of force by line officers. The number of individual,
non-overlapping claims brought by different sets of plaintiffs
against different sets of defendants prevents Judge Hamilton from
concluding that the Defendants' conduct applies generally to the
class. She need not address the Rule 23(a) factors as they apply to
the proposed injunctive relief class.
Also before the Court is a discovery dispute between the parties.
The discovery dispute is a request by the Defendants to preclude
Acosta's claim for future income loss based on documents the
Plaintiffs did not provide in initial disclosures or during
discovery. The essence of the Defendants' argument is that the
Plaintiffs waited until after the close of discovery to reveal that
Acosta would be pursuing damages based on lost future income.
Overall, Judge Hamilton finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown
that their failure to timely disclose was substantially justified
or harmless. Essentially, they argue that Acosta was aware of his
own limitations, but was not aware that his supervisor had noticed
until the performance review in October 2022. First of all, the
fact discovery cutoff was not until Nov. 14, 2022, so the
Plaintiffs still could have made the disclosure before the close of
discovery. Accordingly, the Defendants' request to preclude the
claim of future income loss and the late-produced documents is
granted.
In connection with the discovery letter brief, the Plaintiffs filed
a motion to seal. Because the motion sought the sealing of entire
exhibits, rather than seeking limited redactions of truly sensitive
information, Judge Hamilton denies the motion to seal without
prejudice.
The Plaintiffs have filed a revised motion to seal, but in addition
to seeking the sealing of medical and mental health information,
they also seek the sealing of information related to plaintiff's
employment, such as salary information and the names of products
that plaintiff worked on.
To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek the sealing of medical
and/or mental health information, Judge Hamilton grants the motion
to seal. However, to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek the
sealing of information related to Acosta's employment, she denies
the motion to seal. The Plaintiffs are directed to re-file the
exhibits with only medical or mental health information redacted
from public filing.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mv75ymys from Leagle.com.
SAVE MART: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Baker ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHERINE BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAVE MART
SUPERMARKETS, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04645-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies Save Mart's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' class action complaint.
Save Mart moves to dismiss a class action complaint filed by
Plaintiffs Katherine Baker, Jose Luna, Edgar Popke, and Denny
Wraske, former employees of the grocery store chain who allege that
Save Mart breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by misrepresenting the
medical benefits provided to non-union retirees. Baker, Luna,
Popke, and Wraske worked for Save Mart for 28, 33, 39, and 46
years, respectively. Each worked in a non-union role by the end of
their careers with the grocery store chain.
The Save Mart Select Retiree Health Benefit Plan provides health
care benefits to eligible non-union retirees and their spouses.
Beginning in 2016, it modified the Plan to provide funding to a
Health Reimbursement Account ("the HRA benefit") in lieu of premium
contributions. According to the FAC, the HRA benefit was a monthly
$500 contribution to an HRA for each eligible employee, plus $500
for their spouse. The retired employee and their spouse could then
use the money accrued in their HRA accounts to pay for certain
qualifying medical expenses. The FAC alleges that Save Mart's human
resources department repeatedly told employees that the HRA benefit
could accumulate until the retiree's death.
The FAC also alleges that Save Mart repeatedly represented that it
would provide non-union employees with benefits--including
retirement benefits--that were "as good as or better than" those
provided to union employees. According to the FAC, Save Mart said
this to convince employees not to join the union.
When Save Mart amended the Plan to implement the HRA benefit in
2016, it told retirement-eligible employees that if they retired
before Dec. 31, 2017, they would be able to keep the HRA benefit
for their spouses for the retiree's life -- but if they retired
after that date, the spousal benefit would not be available. The
Plaintiffs all retired on or before that date -- earlier than they
had planned -- to retain the HRA spousal benefit.
In April 2022, Save Mart announced that it would terminate the HRA
benefit as of June 2022, which the FAC alleges eliminated all
retiree medical benefits for non-union retirees. Save Mart
allegedly told these retirees that after June, no medical expenses
would be covered and the funds accumulated in the HRA accounts
would revert to Save Mart. According to the FAC, the Plan terms
allowed Save Mart to modify or terminate the Plan at any time for
any reason. As a result of this policy change, the Plaintiffs
allege that they and class members -- other non-union retirees and
their beneficiaries—lost their health benefits.
The Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint in August
2022, followed by the FAC in November. The FAC asserts a single
claim: breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The FAC alleges that
Save Mart breached its fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence in
violation of ERISA, and seeks relief in the form of a surcharge,
reformation of the Plan, and an injunction.
Save Mart first challenges whether the Plaintiffs' ERISA claim
plausibly alleges a remediable wrong. It argues that the FAC fails
to allege a breach of fiduciary duty because it does not allege:
(1) an affirmative misrepresentation under either Rule 9(b) or Rule
8(a); (2) actionable omissions; and (3) that the Plaintiffs relied
upon Save Mart's statements before 2017.
Judge Orrick holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
two types of misrepresentations by Save Mart that plausibly support
their breach of fiduciary duty claim. Many of Save Mart's attacks
under Rule 8(a) raise factual disputes that will prove out at a
later stage of litigation, including whether it was reasonable for
the plaintiffs to believe that Save Mart would always provide
beneficiaries with specific benefits and how certain language on
pamphlets describing the Plan should be interpreted. And whether
Save Mart's alleged statements were consistent with the language of
the Plan documents does not undermine the Plaintiffs' claim.
Save Mart next argues that the Plaintiffs fail to allege actionable
omissions implicating the fiduciary duty to disclose. It contends
that the Plaintiffs cannot allege an omission because (1) they
received a Plan document and Summary Plan Description ("SPD"),
which disclosed that Save Mart could modify or terminate the Plan
at any time, and (2) they fail to allege Save Mart promised them
additional information or updates on the Plan.
Neither point is compelling, Judge Orrick holds. It finds that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Save Mart's
representations contained omissions about the HRA benefit that
support their claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The FAC alleges
various examples of Save Mart's assertions that the HRA benefit
would last for the life of the retiree, including in response to
questions from employees.
Save Mart next contends that the Plaintiffs fail to allege
detrimental reliance on its alleged misrepresentations. The
Plaintiffs argue that they need not plead detrimental reliance but
that even if they must, they have plausibly done.
Although the FAC does not expressly allege that Luna, Popke, and
Wraske relied on Save Mart's statements about the union benefits as
compared to non-union benefits in deciding to accept non-union
jobs, Judge Orrick determines that it plausibly alleges that Baker
did. It also plausibly alleges that each of the named Plaintiffs
relied on Save Mart's representations about the HRA benefit in
deciding to retire when they did. Reliance is sufficiently pleaded
and the Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded a remediable wrong under
ERISA.
Save Mart challenges the plausibility of the Plaintiffs' claim to
"appropriate forms of equitable relief" -- reformation, surcharge,
and an injunction -- under ERISA.
Judge Orrick states that the Supreme Court has explained that
appropriate equitable relief refers to a remedy traditionally
viewed as equitable. Three types of traditional equitable remedies
may be available under section 1132(a)(3) of ERISA: the reformation
of plan terms in order to remedy false or misleading information,
equitable estoppel, and surcharge.
Judge Orrick finds that (i) Save Mart ignores the test for
reformation under a fraud theory, where reformation is available
when: (1) a trust was procured by wrongful conduct, such as undue
influence, duress, or fraud, or (2) a party's assent to a contract
was induced by the other party's misrepresentations as to the terms
or effect of the contract and he was justified in relying on the
other party's misrepresentations; and (ii) because the Plaintiffs
have plausibly shown they are entitled to appropriate equitable
relief in the form of reformation or a surcharge, they have
plausibly stated their claim.
Finally, Save Mart argues that the Plaintiffs' sole cause of action
is time-barred.
Judge Orrick holds that the Plaintiffs' ERISA claim is timely under
the three-year statute of limitations. As alleged, the Plaintiffs
did not have actual knowledge of Save Mart's ability to eliminate
the HRA benefit until April 2022, when Save Mart announced that it
was doing so. They filed the suit in August of the same year --
well within the three-year statute of limitations. As alleged, the
Plaintiffs' claim is timely.
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ms347t2y from Leagle.com.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Hill Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAULA HILL, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 37-2023-00000474-CU-BC-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00633-BTM-BGS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Southwest "failed to maintain proper
software and computer systems to track reservations and to
administer proper flight information so that customers could
complete their travel plans, or would have alternatives to complete
their travel plans," and "knew that it had made reservations far
beyond its ability to serve its customers, but failed to notify its
customers because it wanted the financial advantage of being able
to retain customer purchase funds so that Southwest Airlines could
garner interest on those funds and could otherwise burden its
customers by having to request the return of their funds or to
bring litigation to recover their damages." From these allegations,
the Plaintiff asserts two purported causes of action against
Southwest: (1) breach of contract and (2) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Southwest Airlines Co. is an airline based in the United States and
the world's largest low-cost carrier.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
600 Anton Blvd, Suite 900
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7221
Telephone: (714) 754-6600
Facsimile: (714) 754-6611
E-mail: mpearson@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETER LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 332-1380
Facsimile: (206) 624-7317
STUBHUB INC: Customers Get Settlement Checks in Ticket Fees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Honaker at topclassactions.com reports that StubHub
customers from California are receiving settlement checks from a
class action lawsuit over undisclosed ticket fees.
The settlement benefits individuals who purchased at least one
ticket from StubHub in California between Sept. 1, 2015, and Sept.
1, 2019.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim StubHub charged hidden
fees on ticket purchases on its website and app. These undisclosed
fees, charged at the very end of online transactions, allegedly
violated California law.
StubHub agreed to pay up to $2.5 million in cash and provide $20
million in credits toward future transactions. Consumers could
receive a cash payment of up to $20 or a credit of up to $133. Top
Class Actions readers received cash payments of $20 and credits of
$548.70.
The deadline to file a claim with the settlement was June 25,
2022.
The StubHub class action lawsuit is Susan Wang, et al. v. StubHub
Inc., Case No. GCG18564120, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. [GN]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Cilluffo Sues Over Infotainment System Problems
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that Subaru infotainment
system problems have caused a class action lawsuit that alleges the
Starlink head units fail and leave drivers without important
features.
According to the lawsuit, the infotainment system problems cause
Starlink head units to freeze and become unresponsive in these
Subaru vehicles.
2019-2023 Subaru Outback
2019-2023 Subaru Legacy
2019-2023 Subaru Forester
2019-2023 Subaru WRX
The Starlink infotainment systems allegedly suddenly shut off,
restart, suffer from so-called phantom inputs and can fail without
warning. The Subaru systems also allegedly cause drivers to become
distracted, presenting a serious safety risk while driving.
The class action lawsuit describes Starlink as a "touchscreen
multimedia and video interface," which is another name for an
infotainment system.
Various functions are operated by and through the Starlink systems,
including "the visual for the backup camera, controls for the audio
and radio system, cell phone connectivity, weather information, the
navigation system, and more."
In addition to the infotainment system problem of rebooting and
other malfunctions, the lawsuit alleges a feature called EyeSight
can fail.
Subaru says EyeSight "scan[s] the road for unanticipated dangers,"
"monitors traffic movement, optimizes cruise control, and warns you
if you sway outside your lane." EyeSight also, "appl[ies] full
braking force in emergency situations, helping you avoid or reduce
frontal impacts."
According to the four plaintiffs who sued, the Subaru infotainment
system problems can only be fixed by replacing the display screen.
The lawsuit alleges replacement Starlink head units fail because
they are as defective as the originals.
But when the Subaru vehicles suffer infotainment system problems
and technicians inspect the Starlink systems, repairs and software
updates allegedly fail to repair the problems.
The class action further alleges Subaru knows about the
infotainment system problems because the automaker settled a
previous Starlink class action lawsuit. That infotainment system
class action lawsuit, Udeen v. Subaru, was settled for owners of
2017-2018 Subaru vehicles.
This new class action picks up where the previous lawsuit left off,
with this newest class action targeting 2019-2023 models.
However, the Starlink head units involved in the previous class
action were manufactured by Harman. Subaru switched to Starlink
head units built by Denso, but these four plaintiffs allege the
Denso Starlink head units are just as defective as the earlier
Harman infotainment systems.
Marco Cilluffo / New Hampshire / 2021 Subaru WRX
Jeffrey Quarles / Washington / 2019 Subaru Forester
Pamela Doze / Arizona / 2022 Subaru Outback
Carl Jean-Louis / New York / 2019 Subaru WRX
The Subaru Starlink infotainment system class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey:
Cilluffo, et al., v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. [GN]
TABLE TALK: Responds to Class Suit, Says it Prioritizes Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trea Lavery at masslive.com reports that in response to a class
action lawsuit filed by a former employee who claims that Table
Talk pies underpaid its workers, the company says it has always put
its employees first.
"The well-being of our employees has always been a top priority at
Table Talk Pies," the company said in a statement to MassLive.
"Throughout our nearly century in business, we are constantly
looking for ways to improve what we offer to those who make Table
Talk successful: our workforce, some of whom have been with us for
almost 30 years."
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, claimed that because Table
Talk's payroll system rounded employees' hours to the nearest
quarter hour, and employees were not allowed to clock in more than
seven minutes before the start of their shift, they were
consistently paid for less time than they worked. [GN]
TMG MAIL: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TMG MAIL SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a THE
MILLENNIUM GROUP, and JOANNA RAMIREZ, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02506 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Laws, and any other cause
of action which can be inferred from the facts herein.
The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendants to pay
Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs overtime wages of one
and one-half times the regular hourly rates of pay or the minimum
wage; failure to pay the required minimum wages; failure to pay
spread of hours wages; failure to pay all of earned wages on a
weekly basis; failure to provide with a payroll notice; and failure
to furnish wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an operator from January
2020 until April 8, 2022. His primary job duties were to operate
the machines in the warehouse, prepare and distribute contents of
packages, and make sure that the merchandise was in good condition
for shipping.
TMG Mail Solutions, Inc. d/b/a The Millennium Group, provides
various business services. The Company offers on-site mail, print,
and office services outsourcing to business enterprises. TMG Mail
Solutions serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
TMX FINANCE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Personal Info, Oltean Sues
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA OLTEAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00085-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 5, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's breach of implied contract, negligence,
and unjust enrichment.
On or about March 30, 2023, TMX announced that it had been the
recipient of a hack and exfiltration of sensitive personal
information (SPI) involving approximately 4,822,580 individuals who
have used Defendant's services in the past. In her complaint,
Plaintiff Claudia Oltean alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly implement basic data security practices. She claims the
Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures
to protect against unauthorized access to consumer SPI constitutes
an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at 15 Bull Street, Suite 200,
Savannah, GA. It is an affiliate company of TitleMax, TitleBucks,
and InstaLoan, title loan lenders and title pawn lenders who do
business in sixteen states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Franklin Harris, Esq.
FRANKLIN LAW, LLC
2250 E. Victory Dr., Suite 102
Savannah, GA 31404
Telephone: (912) 335-3305
Facsimile: (912) 335-3305
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
David J. Worley, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
Facsimile: (404)205-8395
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
dworley@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Rojas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEX ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; JAMES M. KAPENSTEIN, an
individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV05239, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 7, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02652 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA). On March 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint which added two new causes of action, including
the twelfth cause of action for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is an American film
production company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen L. Berry, Esq.
Blake R. Bertagna, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
695 Town Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924
Telephone: (714) 668-6200
Facsimile: (714) 979-1921
E-mail: stephenberry@paulhastings.com
blakebertagna@paulhastings.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Considers Hypothetical Claims in Tort Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professionals Australia reports that the Uber group of companies
has sumbitted an amended defence that rejects substantial sections
of the class action claim lodged by law firm Maurice Blackburn on
behalf of a Melbourne taxi driver, Nikos Andrianakis and others in
the taxi industry across four states on the basis that it relies on
"hypothetical allegations".
The class action by almost 8,000 taxi drivers cites the alleged
cause of action as the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful
means, causing loss and damage to members of the class action
group. It alleges that seven Uber group companies are responsible
for introducing UberX services into Australia and then operating
them in unlawful competition with Andrianakis and others in the
class action group.
The case is due back before Justice Cameron Macauley in the
Victorian Supreme Court on November 4. [GN]
UNION OF EUROPEAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over "Poor Refereeing"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli and their fans are not happy about how things turned out at
San Siro last night, as AC Milan won the game 1-0. In fact, a group
of Napoli fans have now launched a class-action lawsuit against
UEFA.
The away side started the game really well but their dominance
eventually cooled down and Milan thus managed to take the lead just
before the break. And in the second half, things went from bad to
worse for the Partenopei as Znaguissa was sent off.
The midfielder received his second yellow card (totally justified
as per the rules) and the Napoli players were quick to express
their disappointment. Shortly after, Kim was also carded for
dissent and that means he will miss the return leg. Safe to say
tempers were running high at that moment.
In fact, as stated by Giovanni Capuano, the groups Noi Consumatori
and Napoli Club Maradona have launched a class-action lawsuit
against UEFA with the lawyer Angelo Pisano at the helm. They are
asking for €150m in damages due to the 'poor refereeing' which
risks 'breaking the dream of an entire city'.
Of course, it's all nonsense and nothing will come out of it. [GN]
UNITED NETWORK: Randall et al. Sue Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY RANDALL, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING;
CEDARS SINAI HEALTH VENTURES, Defendant, Case No.
2-23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Unruh Civil Rights Act of the California Civil Code, the
California's Unfair Competition Law, and breach of fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)
has engaged in racial discrimination by allowing and encouraging
the use of the race-based coefficient to artificially inflate Black
American patients' eGFR scores, thus delaying their accrual of wait
time, and prejudicing their chances of receiving a donor kidney.
UNOS's policy concerning the race-based coefficient to eGFR scores
was racially discriminatory before UNOS ever acknowledged the
problem, and instead of making immediate changes, UNOS allowed
member transplant hospitals approximately 18 months to identify and
attempt to correct falsely-calculated wait times, says the suit.
Plaintiff Anthony Randall is one such Black American that is
currently on UNOS's national kidney transplant waitlist. Plaintiff,
having suffered previous symptoms of kidney failure, took monthly
eGFR tests for years, until such time as his eGFR score, despite
continued application of the race-based coefficient, was low enough
for him to begin accruing wait time on the national kidney
waitlist, alleges the suit.
In December 2022, Plaintiff received a call from Cedars Sinai
telling him to rush to Cedars Sinai because a donor kidney was
located. Plaintiff was held at the hospital for 17 hours, prepped
for surgery, including not eating or drinking, only to be told that
the donor kidney had been awarded to and implanted into another
patient. Cedars Sinai only then explained that Plaintiff had been
requested to rush to the hospital as an alternate, and that the
kidney had been given to the first choice.
At this time, Plaintiff's accrued wait time had not been
recalculated to account for the delay caused by use of the
race-based coefficient. Despite UNOS's clear admission in June 2022
that the race-based coefficient is not racially discriminatory
towards Black Americans, UNOS nor Cedars Sinai had taken any steps
by December 2022 to recalculate Plaintiff's wait time calculation,
the suit further asserts.
The United Network for Organ Sharing is a non-profit, scientific
and educational organization that administers the only Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Venezia, Esq.
George B. A. Laiolo, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: mvenezia@bgrfirm.com
glaiolo@egcfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Court Rejects Bid to Halt Student Loan Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stratford at politico.com reports that the Supreme Court
rejected an effort by three colleges to halt a class-action
settlement that's set to cancel more than $6 billion of federal
student loan debt owed by borrowers who say they were defrauded.
At least five of the justices voted to turn down the colleges'
effort to stop the settlement and challenge the Education
Department's powers to cancel large amounts of federal student loan
debt.
The request was made to Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency
matters from the 9th Circuit. Kagan referred the matter to the
entire court, which voted to turn down the request. It's unclear
how any individual justices voted, but none recorded any dissent.
Conservatives had seized on the case as a way to rein in Joe
Biden's efforts to cancel student debt and attack a potential
backup plan to enact mass loan forgiveness if the Supreme Court
strikes down his debt relief program in two other pending cases.
The three college operators were challenging the same law -- the
Higher Education Act's "compromise" authority -- that is widely
seen as a fallback option for Biden. The administration's existing
student debt relief program is tied to the Covid-19 national
emergency under a 2003 law known as the HEROES Act.
Everglades College Inc., Lincoln Educational Services Corporation
and American National University argued that the settlement
unfairly maligns them. About 3,800 of the colleges' former students
who said they were defrauded are set to receive relief under the
settlement, but the schools note that those allegations were never
proven.
The settlement, which the Education Department agreed to last year,
came after years of litigation that accused the agency of
mishandling and delaying applications by borrowers seeking loan
forgiveness based on the misconduct of their college.
The deal is aimed at wiping out a backlog of hundreds of thousands
of those applications, which are known as "borrower defense"
claims. Some have languished at the department for years.
The Biden administration and attorneys who represent the student
loan borrowers had argued that the three colleges lacked standing
to challenge the settlement in the first place, dismissing the
schools' claims of reputational harm as too speculative.
In its brief earlier, the Justice Department pushed back on the
idea that the class-action settlement is related to Biden's broader
debt cancellation program, calling them "entirely distinct." The
settlement "does not reflect any 'en masse' cancellation of
outstanding debt, nor an assertion by the Secretary of the power to
discharge the Department's entire $1.6 trillion loan portfolio,"
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote.
The decision by the Supreme Court sends the case back to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already set a briefing schedule
to hear the colleges' appeal of the settlement.
It's possible the case could return to the high court after that.
The justices' ruling addressed only emergency relief.
But in the meantime it clears the Education Department to continue
processing loan discharges for tens of thousands of borrowers.
The Biden administration reported that it had already wiped out the
debts of about 78,000 borrowers out of the roughly 200,000
borrowers who qualify for immediate relief under the settlement.
Beyond the immediate loan forgiveness, the settlement also requires
the Education Department to set up a streamlined process for tens
of thousands of additional borrowers to obtain loan forgiveness.
Eileen Connor, president and director of the Project on Predatory
Student Lending, which represents the class of student loan
borrowers in the case welcomed the court's decision.
"Today's swift and decisive action from the highest court should
end, once and for all, any ongoing debate about the legitimacy of
this settlement," she said in a statement. "The message is clear:
the rights of student borrowers will not falter, even in the face
of well-funded, politically-motivated attacks masquerading as legal
argument."
Josh Gerstein contributed to this report. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Denied Disability Accommodations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Christ at hrdive.com reports that a claim alleging the U.S.
Air Force denied disability accommodations for civilian employees
and applicants who are deaf will move forward as a class-action
case, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Office of
Federal Operations ruled April 5. The office hears federal-sector
appeals.
The complaint alleges the Air Force didn't provide employees with
American Sign Language interpreters, videophones and other
translation services and accommodations. The class is made up of
more than 700 civilian employees and applicants who are deaf at Air
Force bases throughout the country.
"Employers with far fewer resources than the Air Force regularly
provide such accommodations, but the Air Force's process for
accommodating Deaf applicants and employees is profoundly broken,"
Sean Betouliere of Disability Rights Advocates, a not-for-profit
disability rights legal center, and Wendy Musell of the Law Offices
of Wendy Musell, counsel for the class, said in a joint statement.
Dive Insight:
EEOC regularly challenges private-sector companies that don't
provide reasonable accommodations for those who are deaf or hearing
impaired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And
in March, EEOC updated its ADA guidance on how the law applies to
applicants and employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, notably
as they navigate pre- and post-job offers and new technologies like
videoconferencing.
"Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have other hearing
conditions can perform successfully on the job and, under the ADA,
should not be denied opportunities because of stereotypical
assumptions about those conditions," EEOC said in its guidance.
"Some employers assume incorrectly that workers with hearing
conditions will cause safety hazards, increase employment costs or
have difficulty communicating in fast-paced environments. In
reality, with or without reasonable accommodation, individuals with
hearing conditions can be effective and safe workers."
The agency has enforced its position several times in recent years.
A grocer, for example, agreed to pay $28,000 in October 2021 to
settle charges that it failed to bring in American Sign Language
interpreters during the hiring process for applicants who were deaf
and requested such accommodations.
Similarly, in June 2021, EEOC filed a lawsuit against a staffing
agency that allegedly "routinely refused" to provide sign language
interpreters to employees who were deaf. That litigation is
ongoing. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Allows $6-Bil. Student Loan Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
nbcnews.com reports that a settlement that will allow thousands of
student loan debts to be canceled will go into effect after the
Supreme Court declined to block it.
The Supreme Court in a brief order rejected a request made by
colleges challenging the settlement.
The case is unrelated to President Joe Biden's broader effort to
forgive student loan debt, which is also before the justices, with
a ruling due in the next two months.
The class-action settlement concerns loans that borrowers claim
should be canceled because they were taken out based on
misrepresentations made by their schools, many of which are
for-profit. The settlement could be worth more than $6 billion.
The case arises from a settlement that California-based U.S.
District Judge William Alsup approved in November in a case brought
by borrowers. The government has already started implementing the
settlement.
The application at the Supreme Court was filed by Everglades
College, Lincoln Educational Services Corp. and American National
University. Lincoln and American National are for-profit
enterprises, while Everglades is not-for-profit. All three operate
colleges the federal government placed on a list of more than 150
institutions that it said are linked with claims of "substantial
misconduct."
The colleges object to that characterization. The Justice
Department says about 3,800 of the affected loans involve the three
colleges and approximately 400 of them have already been
discharged.
The federal Higher Education Act allows debt cancellations in
specific circumstances, but the challengers say Education Secretary
Miguel Cardona has exceeded his authority.
"The secretary's claimed authority amounts to nothing less than the
power to cancel, en masse, every student loan in the country," the
challengers said in court papers. [GN]
VERTEX ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers or acquirers
of Vertex Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: VTNR) securities between April 1,
2022 and August 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned
Passmore v. Vertex Energy, Inc., No. 23-cv-00128 (S.D. Ala.), the
Vertex Energy class action lawsuit charges Vertex Energy and
certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. No other securities class action lawsuit is
currently pending against Vertex Energy.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-vertex-energy-inc-class-action-lawsuit-vtnr.html
You can also contact attorneyJ.C. Sanchezof Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Vertex Energy class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than June 12, 2023.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Vertex Energy is an energy company focused on the
production and distribution of conventional and alternative fuels.
In early 2021, Vertex Energy announced that it had reached an
agreement to acquire an oil refinery located in Mobile, Alabama and
a key component of the acquisition was Vertex Energy's plan to
convert a portion of the refinery's 91,000 barrel-per-day output to
renewable diesel fuel, which was expected to generate higher
profits than the refinery's conventional gasoline and diesel fuel
outputs.
But as the Vertex Energy class action lawsuit alleges, unbeknownst
to investors, immediately prior to the closing of the Mobile
acquisition, defendants had entered into, or were a party to, a
series of transactions that dramatically capped the new plant's
profitability and would, in fact, lead to significant losses
immediately following the acquisition. These transactions, which in
some instances were required pursuant to the financing arrangements
Vertex Energy had entered into, resulted in over $125 million in
losses during the Class Period.
On August 9, 2022, Vertex Energy disclosed a net loss of $63.8
million during the second quarter of 2022. Vertex Energy also
revealed that adjusted earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") for the Mobile refinery,
even after adjusting for certain incurred losses, was only $63.6
million, compared to the guidance given just three months prior for
EBITDA of $120-$130 million in the second quarter, a total
shortfall of 50%. Vertex Energy also withdrew its financial
guidance for the remainder of fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year
2023. On this news, the price of Vertex Energy common stock fell by
approximately 44%, damaging investors. The stock price continued to
fall in subsequent days as the market digested the news, reaching a
low of just $7.05 per share on August 11, 2022, roughly 50% below
the closing price on August 8, 2022.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Vertex Energy securities during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff of the Vertex Energy class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Vertex Energy class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Vertex Energy class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Vertex Energy class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading complex class action firms representing
plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the
most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for
recovering more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 - the
third year in a row Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those
three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for
investors, more than double the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is
one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. [GN]
WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Products' False Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher at topclassactions.com reports that Walmart markets and
sells "bamboo" products that are actually made of rayon fibers,
according to a class action lawsuit filed March 30 in Massachusetts
federal court.
Plaintiff Grace Toledo says she purchased a pillow product that was
advertised as being made "with Bamboo" from a Walmart Supercenter.
She believed the product was made with fibers taken directly from
bamboo plants, the class action lawsuit alleges.
Had she known the bamboo product was actually made with rayon,
Toledo says she would not have purchased the product or would not
have paid as much for it.
Walmart bamboo products advertised as 'eco-friendly' even though
hazardous chemicals are used to create rayon, plaintiff says
Walmart allegedly advertises some of its products as being
"eco-friendly & sustainable" because they are made with bamboo.
However, Walmart bamboo products are actually made with rayon, a
type of regenerated or manufactured fiber made from cellulose,
Toledo explains.
Rayon is manufactured by taking purified cellulose from a plant
source such as cotton, wood pulp or bamboo.
"Regardless of the source of the cellulose, the manufacturing
process involves the use of hazardous chemicals, and the resulting
fiber is rayon — not cotton, wood, or bamboo fiber," according to
the class action lawsuit.
FTC ordered $3 million penalty for Walmart bamboo deceptive
marketing
Toledo notes that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took legal
action against Walmart over nearly identical allegations in April
2022. The agency has reportedly alerted companies such as Walmart
of the need to label and advertise their textile products
accurately and to inform consumers "bamboo" is not an acceptable
description for manufactured rayon textile fibers.
The FTC has already hit Walmart with $3 million in penalties for
marketing some of their rayon-based products as "eco-friendly."
Toledo filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of consumers who purchased Walmart "bamboo" products
that were made with rayon.
The class action lawsuit asserts claims for violation of the
Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment,
fraud, fraudulent omission and breach of express warranty.
What do you think of the claims that Walmart bamboo products are
not made with bamboo fibers? Tell us about it in the comments!
Toledo is represented by James J. Reardon Jr. of Reardon Scanlon
LLP and Julian C. Diamond and Matthew A. Girardi of Bursor & Fisher
PA. [GN]
[*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference
------------------------------------------------------------
Catch Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at the 7th Annual Class Action
Money & Ethics Conference on May 8, 2023.
Senator Gillibrand will serve as Keynote Luncheon Speaker at CAME
2023.
Senator Gillibrand, who was first elected to Congress in 2006,
among others, helped lead the fight to pass the PACT Act, which
ensured veterans exposed to toxins during their service would get
the care and benefits they earned. Senator Gillibrand is chair of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, and also
serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate
Agriculture Committee and Senate Aging Committee.
Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie
Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8, 2023.
This year's event boasts of an All-Star lineup of speakers:
* Michael P. Canty, Partner, Labaton Sucharow LLP
* Neil Kornswiet, CEO, Optium Capital LLC
* Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP
* Edward E. Neiger, Esq., Co-Managing Partner, Ask LLP
* Graham Newman, Partner, Chappell, Chappell & Newman
* Bola Oyesanya, Managing Director and Private Banker, Citi
Law Firm Group
* Paige Richardson, Director of Operations, Milestone
* Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP
* Daniel Stefany, Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
* Thomas R. Waskom, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Oyesanya is this year's conference chair.
The value-packed event features special presentations from keynote
speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and
networking with other professionals.
Contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
(240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more
information.
The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc.
*********
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 ***