/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180515.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 97
Headlines
2201 COLLINS: "Hayes" Suit Alleges FLSA and FMWA Violations
7-ELEVEN INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Haitayan" FLSA Suit
A-1 COLLECTION SERVICE: Hill Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Sued by Versetto over Deceptive Advertisement
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Debt Collections Wrongful, Rossi Says
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Laydon" Suit in C.D. California
AMERICAN BROKERS: Caniga Sues tor Quieting of Title
AMERICAN FILM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Woods" Suit Claims
AMN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Price" Suit Claims
ARIFUR REHMAN: "Gaffar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Security Guards, Jordan Claims
ASPLUNDH TREE: "Belloso" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
BAGEL CHALET: Underpays Cooks, "Lopez" Suit Claims
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: "Ellis" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
BARTELL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Duran" Suit Alleges
BELLA VICI: "Howell" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BIZQUALIFY LLC: Faces "Hu" Suit in N.D. California
BOKF N.A.: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dixon" Suit Alleges
BOMBARDIER MASS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Parks" Suit Says
BRUCE'S GOURMET: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Bulanov Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Furlough" Claims
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Removes "Parker" Suit to N.D. California
CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Rosas" Suit over Race Discrimination
CLIENT SERVICES: June 11 Deadline to Answer "Bucholz" Suit
COMCAST CABLE: Removes "Hodges" Suit to N.D. California
COSMOPOLITAN INTERIOR: Rosero Seeks to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Espinoza" Claims
DENT-A-MED INC: Accused by "Napoles" of Violating TCPA and FDCPA
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Faces Suit over Proposed "Keurig" Merger
EKSO BIONICS: "Bekhet" Suit Removed to N.D. California
ESA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Reid" Suit over Background Checks
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Redmond" Suit Over Illegal Access of Info
FEDERATED LAW: George Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FLORIDA CANCER: Faces Monmouth Antitrust Complaint
FIVESTAR HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cunningham Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued by Sanchez Over Defects in Oil Consumption
GOLDEN DAYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Viola" Suit Claims
GOOGLE LLC: Manigault-Johnson Sues over Children's Privacy
GRENIER ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Stone" Suit Alleges
HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Weston Says
HOUZZ INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Bieger" Suit Alleges
HTC CORP: Drobnick and Holman Sue over Defective Smartphones
ILLINOIS: Court Grants "Frazier" Plaintiffs' Injunction Bid
INTEL CORPORATION: East Sues over Sale of Defective CPUs
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Glamour Seeks to Enjoin Three Arbitrations
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Julina Sues over Sale of Talcum Products
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Bahamas"
LAKESIDE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aivazian Claims
LAQUE NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Cortes" Suit Alleges
LAS 3K USA: "Fajardo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
LC WARD: Filing of Complaint Supplement in "Jefferson" Directed
LEGACY RESERVES: Faces "Doppelt" Suit over C-Corp. Conversion
LINEN OUTLET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Masoud" Suit Alleges
MACBETH APARTMENT: Faces United AAA Club Class Suit
MARTINI CRAFT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Lopez" Suit Claims
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Martinez and Nolet Sue over Debt Collection
MERRILL GARDENS: Removes "Smith" Suit to C.D. California
METROWIRELESS 167: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Preston Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
MIDLAND CREDIT: Perea Calls Debt Collection Practices Wrongful
MISSOURI: Motion to Dismiss Pennell et al. Suit Underway
MIZUHO BANK: Faces "Babiak" Suit in E.D. Virginia
MONAT GLOBAL: May 31 JPML Hearing on Motion to Consolidate
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA: Faces "Taggart" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MOUNTAIN VIEW: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MQ RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, "Contreras" Suit Says
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Claims
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Upshaw" Suit Claims
NEW MEXICO: Court Approves $15K Settlement in "Apodaca"
NGD PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Cruz" Suit Claims
NIXON INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHLAND GROUP: Rodriguez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NY PAROLE BOARD: Commissioners Face Flores and Bartley Suit
ORGANIC CANDY: Court Dismisses Gummy Cubs Fraud Suit
OWENS CORNING: 3rd Cir. Affirms Denial of "Gonzalez" Class Cert
ORGANIC CANDY: Court Dismisses Gummy Cubs Fraud Suit
PGGS GOURMET: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Campis" Suit Claims
PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces "Badger" Suit over Access Barriers
PREFERRED HOTEL: "Knowles" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Faces "Nelsen" Suit over ERISA Violation
PURDUE PHARMA: Family Practice Clinic Sues over Opioid Drug Sales
QUAKER OATS: Eisenlord Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Rodriguez Sues over Debt Collection
RED ROOSTER: "Johnson" Suit Alleges FLSA and FMLA Violations
RITE-A-WAY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages, Valenzuela Claims
ROLLING FRITO-LAY: Fails to Pay Overtime, "White" Suit Claims
SALEHI KIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ehlert" Suit Claims
SCI DIRECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Romano" Suit Claims
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Ct. Won't Dismiss Morning Song Bird Food Suit
SDI FLORIDA: "Jenkins" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SIGNAL FINANCIAL: Wrongful Conduct over Fee Assessment
SO. NEV.: $295K FLSA Class Settlement Has Prelim Court Approval
SPECTRUM LABORATORY: Court Won't Dismiss TCPA Suit
SUNRISE CREDIT: McNamee Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SUPER ZEN: Underpays Delivery Drivers, "Allison" Suit Alleges
SYNCHRONY BANK: Settlement Reached in "Anderson" Suit
TOLL GLOBAL: Removes "Marquez" Suit to C.D. California
TOLTECA ENTERPRISES: Kordus Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Fairlie et al Sue over Insurance Premium Hike
TRINITY FINANCIAL: Macholtz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Greder" Suit over System Data Breach
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Until June 11 to Answer "Celestine" Suit
UBS SECURITIES: Court Denies Arbitration in "Zoller"
UNITED RENTALS: Ct. Narrows Claims in "Castillo" Wage & Hour Suit
UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in "Almanza" Suit
UNITED STATES POSTAL: Court Dismisses "Stewart" ADA Suit
UNIVERSAL VACATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moore" Suit Claims
UP INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Navarro" Claims
VB3 LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, "Insuasti" Suit Claims
VERISMA SYSTEMS: "Harris" Suit Alleges Unjust Enrichment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Nauheim"
VOLVO CARS: Sensus System Not Android-Compatible, Middien Says
WAFFLE HOUSE: Removes "Diamond" Suit to E.D. Kentucky
WAL-MART STORES: "Mays" Transferred to C.D. Cal.
WEST SHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Andrews" Suit Claims
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Burdette-Miller Sues over Debt Collection
WINDSOR SURRY: Court Narrows Claims in "Begley"
WYNDHAM VACATION: Underpays Marketing Reps, Babouchian Claims
*********
2201 COLLINS: "Hayes" Suit Alleges FLSA and FMWA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Hayes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. 2201 Collins Nightclub Management, LLC dba W Hotel,
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC and Marriott
International, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-21115 (S.D. Fla., March 23,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a Beach Server, which
involved greeting Hotel guests and serving guests at the Hotel's
restaurant and beach facilities, and also performed general
cleaning duties at the Hotel.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of operating the W
Hotel South Beach, located at 2201 Collins Ave, Miami Beach, FL
33139. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alberto Naranjo, Esq.
THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 942-8070
E-mail: an@anlawfirm.com
7-ELEVEN INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Haitayan" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins, Serge Haitayan and
Maninder Lobana filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-07454-JFW-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 10, 2018, the
Hon. John F. Walter granted a motion for judgment on the
pleadings filed by Defendant/Counterclaimant 7-Eleven, Inc.
7-Eleven owns, operates, and franchises convenience stores under
the trademarked name "7-Eleven," according to the Order. 7-
Eleven is one of the largest, well-known, and most-successful
franchise systems in the world. Currently, there are more than
7,800 7-Eleven stores operating in the United States,
approximately 1,500 of which are franchised to independent
business owners in California. Each of the franchised 7-Eleven
locations are governed by a written franchise agreement.
Plaintiffs Serge Haitayan, Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins and
Maninder Paul Lobana have for many years operated 7-Eleven stores
in various locations in California pursuant to franchise
agreements and in accordance with policies and procedures
contained in 7-Eleven's Operations Manual.
On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed this action against 7-
Eleven and on November 1, 2017, they filed a First Amended
Complaint alleging six claims against 7-Eleven, including failure
to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Federal Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code.
The appellate case is captioned as Serge Haitayan, et al. v. 7-
Eleven, Inc., Case No. 18-55462, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 9, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on June 8, 2018;
-- Appellants Jaspreet Dhillon, Robert Elkins, Serge Haitayan
and Maninder Lobana's opening brief is due on July 18,
2018;
-- Appellee 7-Eleven, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
August 17, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SERGE HAITAYAN, JASPREET DHILLON, ROBERT
ELKINS and MANINDER LOBANA, indiviudally, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation, is
represented by:
James Speyer, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 243-4141
Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
E-mail: james.speyer@apks.com
- and -
Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 615-6052
E-mail: ellen.bronchetti@dlapiper.com
- and -
Norman M. Leon, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 368-2192
E-mail: norman.leon@dlapiper.com
A-1 COLLECTION SERVICE: Hill Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. A-1 Collection Service, Inc., and Does 1
through 25, Defendants, Case No.2:18-cv-04368-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.,
March 27, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
According to an April 20, 2018 Order, the Court will hold an
initial conference (Rule 16) before Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor
in courtroom 4C on May 31 at 1:45 p.m. Local counsel must be
present. Parties are to submit a completed Pretrial Scheduling
Order found in the Notice of Judicial Preferences link to
chambers via email at CLW_Orders@njd.uscourts.gov no later than 3
days before the scheduled conference. Contact chambers with any
questions or concerns at (973) 776 7862.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Sued by Versetto over Deceptive Advertisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Adtalem Global Education Inc.,
f/k/a Devry Education Group, Inc.; and Devry University, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH04872 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April
13, 2018), alleges that the Defendants claim that 90% of their
students actively seeking employment had careers in their fields
of study within 6 months of graduation. The Defendants also
represented that their graduates obtained jobs with significantly
higher incomes than graduates of other colleges or universities.
The Defendants use these misleading claims as critical selling
points to get prospective students to enroll. Also, using these
sales tactics to leverage statistics, the Defendants are able to
charge significantly more for its services that other
universities.
Adtalem Global Education Inc., f/k/a Devry Education Group, Inc.
is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Sydney M. Janzen, Esq.
Michael Ovca, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North La Salle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
sjanzen@edelson.com
movca@edelson.com
- and -
Robert L. Teel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
207 Anthes Avenue, Suite 201
Langley, WA 98260
Telephone: (866) 833-5529
Facsimile: (855) 609-691
E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Debt Collections Wrongful, Rossi Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph E. Rossi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-06285-CJS (W.D.N.Y., April 11, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries
in the Unites States. Alltran Financial, LP was formerly known as
United Recovery Systems, LP and changed its name to Alltran
Financial, LP in July 2016. The company was founded in 1977 and
is based in Houston, Texas with facilities in Sartell, Minnesota;
Gaithersburg, Maryland; Woodridge, Illinois; Bryan and Houston,
Texas; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq.
DOUGLAS FIRM, P.C.
36 West Main Street, Suite 500
Rochester, NY 14614
Telephone: (585) 703-9783
E-mail: alex@lawroc.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Laydon" Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Airlines,
Inc. The case is captioned as Matthew Laydon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03098-DSF-FFM (C.D.
Cal., April 12, 2018).
American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The
company provides scheduled air transportation services for
passengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services.
The company operates hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and Phoenix,
as well as in Washington, D.C. As of December 31, 2017, it
operated a fleet of 948 mainline aircraft. The company was
founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
American Airlines, Inc. is a subsidiary of American Airlines
Group Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Anthony Piccuta, Esq.
Charles Albert Piccuta, Esq.
PICCUTA LAW GROUP LLP
400 West Franklin Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Telephone: (831) 920-3111
Facsimile: (831) 920-3112
E-mail: charles@piccutalaw.com
AMERICAN BROKERS: Caniga Sues tor Quieting of Title
---------------------------------------------------
Joan E. Caniga, Plaintiff v. American Brokers Conduit, and Does 1
to 10, Defendants, Case No. BC698580 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest at 10% per annum.
The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendant caused
to be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office, the
Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, without an authorized license
to conduct Residential Mortgage Loans in the State of California;
the Defendant also is a corporation that never existed as a
California corporation and never had authority to enter into any
type of contract nor licensed to conduct residential loans in
California.
The case is a class action.
American Brokers Conduit is an unknown, unlicensed, unregistered,
failed financial institution, conducting business in the County
of Los Angeles, State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Motaz M. Gerges, Esq.
18543 Devonshire Street #44
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 943-0707
Facsimile: (818)401-0711
E-mail: mgerges@aol.com
AMERICAN FILM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Woods" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Woods, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Film Institute, and Does 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC697649 (Cal. Super., March 20,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.
Ms. Woods was employed by the Defendants as volunteer on November
13, 2017, for the one week AFI Fest and AFI Docs Film Festival.
American Film Institute is an arts organization that is mandated
to preserve the art of the moving image. The organization
promotes film, television, video, and the digital arts. It also
advances the cause of education, training, exhibition,
preservation, and new technology. The Institute was founded in
1967 and is based in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SHERMAN LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
- and -
Richard Lloyd Sherman, Esq.
SHERMAN LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 246-0321
Facsimile: (310) 246-0305
E-mail: richard@shermanlawgroup.com
AMN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Price" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn-Lucy Price, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMN Healthcare Allied, Inc. and
Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00017996 (Cal. Super.,
San Diego Cty., April 11, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Ms. Price was employed by the Defendants as a credential analyst
from August 2016 to February 8, 2018.
AMN Healthcare Allied, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of AMN
Healthcare Services, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq.
Matthew Fisher, Esq.
Ted Mechtenberg, Esq.
DA VEGA|FISHER|MECHTENBERG, LLP
232 E. Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805)232-4471
Facsimile: (877)535-9358
E-mail: Mdavega@mdmflaw.com
ARIFUR REHMAN: "Gaffar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sazid Gaffar, and all others similarly situated v. Arifur Rehman,
Azmeri Begum, and Angelique Pham, Case 4:18-cv-00952 (S.D. Tex.,
March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sazid Gaffar, the Plaintiff, is a resident of Harris County,
Texas. The Plaintiff was an employee who worked as a gas station
or convenience store clerk at several businesses owned and
operated by the Defendants. [BN]
The Defendants jointly own and operate several related business
establishments engaged in interstate commerce or in the
production of goods for interstate commerce.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
One Arena Place
7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
Houston, TX 77074
Tel: (713) 223-1300
Fax: (713) 255-0013
E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com
ARRIAGA & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Security Guards, Jordan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Arriaga & Associates, Inc., and Does 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV3255441 ( Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., March 26, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Jordan was employed by the Defendants as security guard from
September 2017 to November 2017.
Arriaga & Associates, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of California, and has its principal place of
business in Campbell, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rita Leong, Esq.
Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
George Jordan, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619)692 0800
Facsimile: (619)692 0822
E-mail: rleong@grahamhollis.com
ghollis@grahamhollis.com
vcordero@grahamhollis.com
ASPLUNDH TREE: "Belloso" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Milton Antonio Belloso, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Asplundh Tree Expert, Co., and Asplundh
Tree Expert, LLC, Case 6:18-cv-00460 (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2018),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Asplundh conducts background checks on its job applicants as part
of a standard screening process. In addition, Asplundh conducts
background checks on existing employees from time-to-time during
the course of their employment. The Defendant procured a consumer
report for information on the Plaintiff in violation of the FCRA,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and worked
from August 2011 to September 27, 2017. The Plaintiff performed
the majority of his work for the Defendant in Orange County,
Florida.
The Defendant provides tree pruning and removal, right of way
clearing and maintenance, vegetation management, and emergency
storm work and support throughout the United States, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Adams, Esq.
N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
2300 East Concord Street
Orlando, FL 32803
Tel: (407) 835-8968
Fax: (407) 835-8969
E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
rlabar@labaradams.com
BAGEL CHALET: Underpays Cooks, "Lopez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Defendants Nick Argyros and Bagel Chalet, Inc. on May 11, 2018,
filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer re Complaint
in the case, Jose Lopez and Jose Molina, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bagel
Chalet, Inc., and Nick Argyros, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
01801-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2018).
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, and
affirmative relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on April 2, 2018, entered
an order setting an Initial Conference for June 1, 2018 at 10
a.m. before Tomlinson in Courtroom 910 at 100 Federal Plaza,
Central Islip, New York. No later than two business days before
the Initial Conference, counsel for the parties must submit, by
means of electronic filing on the court's ECF system, a Joint
Proposed Discovery Plan.
Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendants as chef or cook from the
year 2013 to September 2017.
Bagel Chalet, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
Ryan M. Eden, Esq.
ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
Bohemia, NY 11716
Telephone: (631) 589-7242
Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
E-mail: szabell@laborlawsny.com
reden@laborlawsny.com
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: "Ellis" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ellis, Robert L. Schmitz, and Gregory Surbeck, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Baptist
Memorial Health Care Corporation, Case 3:18-cv-00073 (N.D. Miss.,
March 26, 2018), seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
money damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Christopher Ellis is a resident of Lafayette County, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its location in
Oxford, Mississippi as an EMT.
Robert L. Schmitz is a resident of Yalobush County, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its located in
Oxford, Mississippi as a paramedic.
Gregory Surbeck is a resident of Lafayette County, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its location in
Oxford Mississippi as a paramedic.
Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation is a Tennessee non-
profit corporation regularly doing business in the State of
Mississippi as Baptist Memorial Hospital North Mississippi in
Oxford, Baptist Memorial Hospital-Union County in New Albany,
Baptist Memorial Hospital- Calhoun in Calhoun City, Mississippi,
and Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle in Columbus,
Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James D. Harper, Esq.
HARPER WHITWELL, PLLC
800 College Hill Road, Ste 5201
P.O. Box 3150
Oxford, MS 38655
Tel: (662) 234-0320
Fax: (662) 259-8464
BARTELL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Duran" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Duran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bartell Hotels Management Company, and
Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00018400-CU-OE-
CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., April 13, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Duran was employed by the Defendants from December 2014 to
October 2017 in California.
Bartell Hotels Management Company is one of San Diego's largest
independent hotel owners and operators. The Company owns and
operates 8 hotels in San Diego County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858)551-1232
BELLA VICI: "Howell" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE HOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLA VICI, L.L.C.; and PAIGE A.
SMILEY, Defendants, Case No. CJ-2018-1586 (Okla. Dist., Oklahoma
Cty., March 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendant Smiley
for breach of fiduciary duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Howell and the
Defendant Smiley are members of the Company, each with 50%
interest. On October 2017, the Plaintiff learned that the
Defendant Smiley had breached her fiduciary duties to the Company
by taking an interest in and promoting a competing business. The
Defendant Smiley has deleted the Company's records, including
invoices for a project known as the Brazeal project. As a result,
the Company will not receive payment on two to three outstanding
invoices.
The complaint further allege that the Defendant Smiley in her
capacity as a representative of the Company received a $20,000
check as payment for a project, but refuses to deposit it into
the Company's account. As a result, the Company has outstanding
debts and expenses it cannot pay.
Bella Vici, L.L.C. is a limited liability company formed under
the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The Company provide design &
construction consulting services to builders & home buyers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Keen, Esq.
Matthew Neill Davis, Esq.
DAVIS LAW, PLLC
302 N. Independence, Suite 1000
Enid, OK 73702-0346
Tel: (580) 237-5820
Fax: (580) 701-2448
E-mail: matt@mndavislaw.com
zachary@mndavislaw.com
BIZQUALIFY LLC: Faces "Hu" Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
Qiuzi Hu, Ewin Ramirez, Ivan Ronceria, Wenzhi Fei, individually
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bizqualify LLC,
and Jose M. Plehn-Dujowich, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01791-
EDL (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2018) is and action for damages,
penalties, and injunctive relief following Defendants' failure to
compensate hundreds of university students who Defendants
fraudulently convinced to work for them, by falsely promising to
provide them with educational instruction in the areas of
finance, accounting, and economics, a course certification from
University of California, Berkeley and/or University of
California, Los Angeles -- with which Defendants' program is not
sponsored, endorsed, or affiliated -- and a letter of
recommendation, in exchange for the students each paying
thousands of dollars to Defendants in the form of a "course fee"
and conducting dozens of hours of research for the benefit of
Defendants' business.
The Defendant is a California limited liability company with its
principal place of business in San Leandro or Newport Beach,
California. It engages in the business of selling financial data
and analysis. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
Krista L. Baughman, Esq.
Gregory R. Michael, Esq.
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 Post Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Facsimile: (415) 520-659
E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com
gmichael@dhillonlaw.com
BOKF N.A.: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dixon" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOKF, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
2171 (D. Kan., April 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime at one and one-half the regular rate
of pay, and all overtime hours worked.
Mr. Dixon was employed by the Defendant as a mortgage banker from
November 2014 to February 2018.
BOKF, National Association provides commercial and personal
banking, investment and trust, and mortgage origination and
servicing products and services. BOKF, National Association was
formerly known as Bank Of Oklahoma, National Association and
changed its name to BOKF, National Association in January 2011.
The company was founded in 1910 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
BOKF, National Association operates as a subsidiary of BOK
Financial Corporation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Telephone: (816) 221-7100
Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
BOMBARDIER MASS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Parks" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Parks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corporation;
Bombardier Aerospace Corporation; BBD Mass Transit Corp.; and
Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. RG188982910 (Cal. Super.,
March 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.
Mr. Parks worked for the Defendants from April 2017 to October
13, 2017, as a train operator.
Bombardier Mass Transit Corporation was founded in 1995. The
Company line of business includes manufacturing industrial
machinery. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 543-1305
Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
rspencer@kellergrover.com
BRUCE'S GOURMET: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRUCE'S GOURMET CATERING, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC 699552 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 27, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in California.
Bruce's Gourmet Catering, Inc. is a California corporation and
engaged in providing catering services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Bulanov Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
------------------------------------------------------------
Yuliya Bulanov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00408-JLR (W.D. Wash., March 19,
2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge James L.
Robart.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Clark Brubaker, Esq.
BRUBAKER LAW GROUP PLLC
11925 110th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98034
Telephone: (206) 335-8746
E-mail: michael@brubakerlawgroup.com
- and -
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
E-mail:yzelman@marcuszelman.com
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Furlough" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deandre Furlough, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capstone Logistics, LLC; and
Pinnacle Workforce Logistics, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV326521 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
April 13, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff Furlough was employed by the Defendants as freight
handler from February 13, 2015 to May 29, 2015, and from
September 14, 2017 to December 20, 2017.
Capstone Logistics, LLC provides performance workgroup services
for manufacturing operations and distribution centers in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Progressive
Logistics Services, LLC and changed its name to Capstone
Logistics, LLC in September 2011. Capstone Logistics, LLC was
founded in 1996 and is based in Norcross, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoff D. La Val, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619)692-0800
Facsimile: (619)692-0822
E-mail: glaval@grahamhollis.com
vcordero@grahamhollis.com
ghollis@grahamhollis.com
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Removes "Parker" Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Beatrice Parker, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cherne
Contracting Corporation, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
Alameda County (Case No. RG 18892816) to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-01912-HSG (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Cherne Contracting Corporation operates as a general, heavy
industrial, and mechanical contractor. Cherne Contracting
Corporation was formerly known as Cherne-Carlson Company and
changed its name to Cherne Contracting Corporation in 1960. The
company was founded in 1916 and is based in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Robert William Spencer, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 543-7861
Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
rspencer@kellergrover.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin R Buchwalter, Esq.
BAKER AND MCKENZIE LLP
2 Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 576-3000
Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
E-mail: ben.buchwalter@bakermckenzie.com
CHICAGO, IL: Faces "Rosas" Suit over Race Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
IRMA ROSAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL J. MADIGAN, Representative of
Illinois' 22nd Congressional District; CITY OF CHICAGO; COUNTY OF
COOK, IL; BRUCE V. RAUNER, Governor of Illinois; ADVOCATE HEALTH
CARE; TRINITY; ACESS COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK; JAWAD H. HAMDAN,
D/B/A PALCARE, INC./MEXICARE PHARMACY II; CITIGROUP; GRUPO
TELEVISA, S.A.B.; EAST AURORA SCHOOL DISTRICT #131; CHICAGO
TEACHERS' UNION, LOCAL 1; PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ANGKIT
M. PATEL, D/B/A PJ PIZZA COMPANY 1 & 2, INC.; AMYN ALI D/B/A
JAMAR GROUP PROPERTIES, LLC; DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.; CITY OF
BURBANK, ILLINOIS; STICKNEY TOWNSHIP, ILLINOIS; MCDONALD'S
CORPORATION; RANDY & KATHLEEN CONN D/B/A RED LOBSTER SEAFOOD CO.,
LLC; CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP; CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; COUNTY
OF BEXAR, TEXAS; GREGORY W. ABBOTT; AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT; HARLANDALE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; NORTH EAST
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; BALOUS MILLER; DOUGLAS MILLER; JOHN
MILLER; VIVIAN MILLER; LOUIS VANCE; AND VIVIAN VANCE D/B/A BILL
MILLER'S BAR-B-Q ENTERPRISES; NRP GROUP, LLC; UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD; RITA E. URQUIJO-RUIZ; NICHOLAS SANSON D/B/A A-TEX
ROOFING & REMODELING; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY BANK; TEXAS RIOGRANDE
LEGAL AID, INC.; TRINITY UNIVERSITY; DONALD J. TRUMP, President
of the U.S., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02706 (N.D. Ill., April
16, 2018) alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against
the Plaintiff due to her national origin, age, Chicana identity,
lesbian identity, weight, low-income status, Spanish language
identity, and level of education.
Illinois is a state in the Midwestern region of the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irma Rosas, Esq.
6333 S. Lavergne Ave.
Chicago, IL 60638
Telephone: (773) 627-8330
E-mail: irmarosaswebsite@gmail.com
CLIENT SERVICES: June 11 Deadline to Answer "Bucholz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gustav J. Bucholz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Client Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00354-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich., March 28,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
Defendant has until June 11 to answer the complaint.
The case is assigned the Hon. Paul L. Maloney.
Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. The company offers customized BPO solutions to
customers in financial services, automotive, government,
healthcare, higher education, insurance, retail,
telecommunications, utilities, technology, and travel and
hospitality industries. Client Services, Inc. was founded in 1987
and is based in Saint Charles, Missouri with additional locations
in Lenexa, Kansas, as well as Costa Rica. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181
E-mail: ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181 x110
E-mail: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8181 x113
E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
COMCAST CABLE: Removes "Hodges" Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Brandon Hodges, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comcast
Cable Communications, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
Alameda County (Case No. RG18893764) to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-01829-HSG (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing business as Xfinity,
provides cable operator services in the United States. It
develops, manages, and operates broadband communication networks.
The company offers various services over its cable communications
networks, including traditional analog video; digital cable; and
high-speed Internet service. The company was incorporated in 1981
and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Comcast
Corporation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ray Edwin Gallo, Esq.
Dominic R. Valerian, Esq.
GALLO LLP
1604 Solano Ave., Suite B
Albany, CA 94707
Telephone: (415) 257-8800
Facsimile: (415) 257-8844
E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law
dvalerian@gallo.law
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael James Stortz, Esq.
Matthew Jacob Adler, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
Telephone: (415) 591-7500
Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
E-mail: Michael.Stortz@dbr.com
matthew.adler@dbr.com
COSMOPOLITAN INTERIOR: Rosero Seeks to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON ROSERO, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated
v. COSMOPOLITAN INTERIOR NY CORPORATION, JLM DECO RA TING NYC
INC., JLM DECO RA TING, INC., and MOSHE GOLD, individually, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03145 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2018), alleges that,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from the Defendants:
(1) unpaid overtime compensation;
(2) liquidated damages;
(3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
(4) attorneys' fees and costs.
Cosmopolitan Interior NY Corporation is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York,
with a principal place of business in New York City. JLM
Decorating NYC, Inc., is a business entity organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place
of business in Brooklyn, New York.
JLM Decorating, Inc., is a business entity organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place
of business in Brooklyn, New York. Moshe Gold is an owner,
officer, director and/or managing agent of the Corporate
Defendants.
To the extent the Corporate Defendants are separate corporations,
each engage in related activities; namely, they operate general
contracting companies performing renovations and related work in
New York City, which shared the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, according to the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
pcooper@jcpclaw.com
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Espinoza" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ervin Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dave & Buster's Management
Corporation, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No.
18CV326529 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 13, 2018)
Mr. Espinoza was employed by the Defendants as an hourly non-
exempt employee from May 23, 2016 to February 16, 2018.
Dave & Buster's Management Corporation, Inc. is authorized to do
business within California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com
DENT-A-MED INC: Accused by "Napoles" of Violating TCPA and FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL NAPOLES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DENT-A-MED INC. dba HC PROCESSING; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-02994 (C.D. Cal., April 10,
2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently, knowingly and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Dent-a-Med Inc., doing business as HC Processing, is a dental
service company engaged in collection activity in connection with
debts allegedly owed to it. The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Faces Suit over Proposed "Keurig" Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN and
MAITLAND POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS RETIREMENT TRUST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.; MAPLE PARENT
HOLDINGS CORP.; SALT MERGER SUB, INC.; LARRY YOUNG; DAVID E.
ALEXANDER; ANTONIO CARRILLO; JOSE M. GUTIERREZ; PAMELA H.
PATSLEY; RONALD G. ROGERS; WAYNE R. SANDERS; DUNIA A. SHIVE; and
M. ANNE SZOSTAK, Defendants, Case No. 2018-0227 (Del. Ch., March
28, 2018) alleges that the Defendants are attempting to
manipulate the structure of a merger in order to deny
stockholders their appraisal rights.
According to the complaint, on January 29, 2018, the Board
announced that it agreed to sell control of Dr Pepper Snapple
Group, Inc. to Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig"). The deal
is structured in an unusual way. As a technical matter, the Board
is not asking stockholders to vote directly on the Proposed
Transaction. Instead, it is asking stockholders to approve an
amendment to Dr Pepper's charter so as to more than double its
shares outstanding, and to approve the issuance of 87% of the
Company's post-amendment authorized stock to Keurig stockholders
(the "Proposed Transaction").
Upon consummation, Dr Pepper's stockholders will receive a
$103.75 per share cash special dividend (the "Special Dividend")
and will collectively own a mere 13% of the post-closing Company.
Keurig's stockholders will own the remaining 87%. Keurig, which
will become the controlling stockholder of the Company after
consummation of the Proposed Transaction, is currently a private
company controlled by JAB Holding Company ("JAB").
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. manufactures and distributes non-
alcoholic beverages in the United States, Mexico and the
Caribbean, and Canada. It serves bottlers and distributors, and
retailers. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. was incorporated in 2007
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laina M. Herbert, Esq.
Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
John Vielandi, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMAN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
EKSO BIONICS: "Bekhet" Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Rimon Bekhet, and Ruth Hessen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ekso Bionics Holdings,
Inc.; Thomas Looby; and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin, Defendants,
was removed from the U.S District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 3:18-cv-01726-CRB) to the US District Court
for the Northern District of California, on March 20, 2018. The
District Court clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01726-CRB. The
case is assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, or failed to disclose that: (1) there was
a material weakness in Ekso's internal control over financial
reporting and Ekso's disclosure controls and procedures were not
effective; and (2) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. designs, develops, and sells
exoskeletons for use in the healthcare, industrial, military, and
consumer markets in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Richmond, California. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Magee Rehabilitation Hospital. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Melissa Ann Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kayvan Betteridge Sadeghi, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 West 55 Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468-8000
Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
E-mail: ksadeghi@mofo.com
- and -
Darryl Paul Rains, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 813-5600
Facsimile: (650) 494-0792
E-mail: drains@mofo.com
ESA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Reid" Suit over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
TRACY REID, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG18898705 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., March 27, 2018) alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants
routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer or consumer
credit reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and
other prospective, current and former employees and use
information from credit and background reports in connection with
the hiring process without providing proper disclosures and
obtain proper authorization in compliance with the law.
ESA Management, LLC operates and manages hotels under the
Extended Stay America brand name. It also offers administrative
services in the areas of executive management, accounting,
financial analysis, training, and technology. The company was
incorporated in 2013 and is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.
ESA Management, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Extended Stay
America, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
scott@setarehlaw.com
willima@setarehlaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Redmond" Suit Over Illegal Access of Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEN REDMOND; LINDSAY RATHERT; SALVADOR RAMIREZ; GERRY GALIPAULT;
KYLE WESTENDORF, ROBERT WOODS, and JORDAN HUNSTONE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC.;
GLOBAL SCIENCE RESEARCH LTD; ALEKSANDR KOGAN; SCL GROUP LIMITED;
SCL ELECTIONS LTD; SCL USA INC.; CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC;
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA HOLDINGS LLC; CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA COMMERCIAL
LLC; and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA POLITICAL LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00531-UNA (D. Del., April 10, 2018), is brought on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, who are registered users of
Facebook and whose personal information was improperly and
without authorization accessed and/or obtained by GSR, Kogan, SCL
Entities and Cambridge.
Facebook, contrary to the representations, obligations, and
promises made to the federal government in 2011, knowingly set up
its platform such that a third-party application developer, who
gained access to a user through an application could also access
the personal information and data of that user's friends in
violation of the Stored Communications Act, the Plaintiffs
allege.
Facebook, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal
executive offices in Menlo Park, California. From its inception
in 2004, Facebook has built the world's largest social media
platform. Facebook now has over two billion monthly active
users, with over 200 million in the United States alone.
Facebook is now one of the world's leading and most extensive
repositories of personal data.
GSR was incorporated as a private limited company in England.
Aleksandr Kogan is a founding director of GSR and now lives in
the Bay Area, in Northern California.
SCL Group, formerly known as Strategic Communications
Laboratories Ltd, is a British company registered with the UK
Companies House in 2005 and headquartered in London. SCL Group
also has multiple U.S. affiliates, including SCL Group Inc. with
offices in New York, and SCL USA Inc. with offices in Washington,
DC. SCL Elections is a British company incorporated in 2012.
SCL USA Inc. is a privately held company incorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware, and is a wholly owned subsidiary
of SCL Elections with an address in New York City. Alexander Nix
is listed as the CEO.
Cambridge Analytica is a privately held limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its
principal offices located in New York City. Cambridge Analytica
also has offices in Washington, DC. Cambridge Analytica
Holdings, LLC, is a privately held limited liability company
organized under the laws of Delaware.
Cambridge Analytica Commercial LLC is a privately held limited
liability company organized under the laws of the Delaware.
Cambridge Analytica is owned in part (19%) by SCL Elections Ltd,
a British company owned by SCL Analytics Limited, which is owned
in part by Defendant SCL Group. Cambridge Analytica Political
LLC is a privately held limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
David G. Holmes, Esq.
CROSS & SIMON, LLC
1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
Telephone: (302) 777-4200
Facsimile: (302) 777-4224
E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com
dholmes@crosslaw.com
- and -
Robert F. Ruyak, Esq.
Korula T. Cherian, Esq.
Richard Ripley, Esq.
Rebecca Anzidei, Esq.
RUYAK CHERIAN LLP
1700 K Street NW, Suite 810
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 838-1560
E-mail: robertr@ruyakcherian.com
sunnyc@ruyakcherian.com
rickr@ruyakcherian.com
rebeccaa@ruyakcherian.com
- and -
Richard W. Fields, Esq.
FIELDS PLLC
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 810
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (800) 878-1432
E-mail: Fields@fieldslawpllc.com
- and -
Matthew Jury, Esq.
MCCUE & PARTNERS, LLP
158 Buckingham Palace Road, Fourth Floor
London, United Kingdom
E-mail: matthew.jury@mccue-law.com
FEDERATED LAW: George Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Federated Law Group, PLLC; CACH of NJ,
LLC, and John Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06567-
WHW-CLW (D.N.J., April 12, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants'
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge William H. Walls, and referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy L.
Waldor.
Federated Law Group, PLLC, a multi-jurisdictional law firm,
specializes in various areas of civil litigation. The company is
hired by banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, and
creditors to attempt to resolve consumer or commercial debt. The
company was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Juno Beach,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
FLORIDA CANCER: Faces Monmouth Antitrust Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
County of Monmouth, New Jersey, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Florida Cancer Specialists, P.L.,
21st Century Oncology, LLC, Dr. William N. Harwin, and Dr. Daniel
Dosoretz, Case No. 2:18-cv-00201 (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act.
The lawsuit arises from an unlawful agreement between the two
cancer treatment centers in Southwest Florida to restrict
competition and monopolize the market for Oncology Services.
County of Monmouth, New Jersey is a county and public entity
organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New
Jersey. The Plaintiff manages operations of sixty county
departments comprised of more than 2,700 employees to deliver
services to its residents.
Florida Cancer Specialists, P.L. is a Florida professional
limited liability corporation with its principal place of
business located at 4371 Veronica South Shoemaker Blvd. Fort
Myers, FL 33916. The Defendant is a full service cancer care
provider that provides Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology
services. However, it does not provide Radiation Oncology
services in Southwest Florida from Tampa to Marco Island.
21st Century Oncology, LLC is a Florida limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 2234 Colonial
Blvd. Fort Myers, Florida 33907. The Defendant is a full service
cancer care provider that provides Medical Oncology and Radiation
Oncology services. However, it does not provide Medical Oncology
services in Southwest Florida from Tampa to Marco Island. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence A. Farese, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
711 Fifth Avenue South, Ste 201
Naples, FL 34102
Tel: (239) 430-7070
E-mail: lfarese@robinskaplan.com
FIVESTAR HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cunningham Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHYNIECIA CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVESTAR HEALTHCARE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01223-MLB (N.D. Ga., March 23, 2018)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the minimum
wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime premium
rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Cunningham was employed by the Defendant as personal care
aide from August 8, 2017 to November 2017.
Fivestar Healthcare, LLC is a Georgia corporation based in Henry
County, and whose principal place of business is located at 245
Country Club Dr., Suite 300F, Stockbridge, GA, 30281. The Company
is engaged in the healthcare business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 961-7639
Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued by Sanchez Over Defects in Oil Consumption
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK SANCHEZ, MARK STAUBER, and SALLY STAUBER, JACOB ROSS-
DEMMIN, and JENNIFER HERRINGTON on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-02536 (N.D. Ill.,
April 10, 2018), arises from the alleged Oil Consumption Defect
in certain vehicles made by the Defendant.
GM designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and
leased Model Year 2010-2017 Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain
vehicles with 2.4-liter engines ("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles")
to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiffs contend that these engines were denominated within
GM as the "LAF" and "LEA" engines (also referred to herein as the
"EcoTech 2.4L" engine).
The Plaintiffs allege that prior to 2010, GM knew that the Class
Vehicles contained one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects, including defects contained in the Class Vehicles'
engines that cause them to be unable to properly manage the
engine oil and, in fact, cause them to improperly burn off and/or
consume abnormally high amounts of oil (the "Oil Consumption
Defect"). The Plaintiffs assert that GM has failed to recall the
Class Vehicles to address the Oil Consumption Defect.
General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.
The sole member and owner of General Motors LLC is General Motors
Holding LLC. General Motors Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Michigan.
GM, through its various entities, including Chevrolet, designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells its vehicles in
this District and multiple other locations in the United States
and worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
hunter@wbmllp.com
- and -
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 589-6272
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
rlm@wexlerwallace.com
GOLDEN DAYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Viola" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Marie Kathleen Viola, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Golden Days Senior Care
Services, Inc.; Adeline Timbol; and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. BC698908 (Cal. Super. Los Angeles Cty.,
March 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.
Ms. Viola was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver.
Golden Days Senior Care Services, Inc. is a California
corporation conducting business in Los Angeles County,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Eanet, Esq.
EANET PC
550 S. Hope Street, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (310) 775-2495
Facsimile: (310) 593-2589
E-mail: matt@eanetpc.com
GOOGLE LLC: Manigault-Johnson Sues over Children's Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
Sirdonia Lashay Manigault-Johnson and her child R.R.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Google, LLC; Alphabet, Inc.; and Youtube, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1032-BHH (D.S.C., April 16, 2018)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleged that during the Plaintiff viewed videos on
the Defendants' websites or through their apps, the Defendants
collected, disclosed, or used personal information and persistent
identifiers of the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not collect the
Plaintiff's personal information to provide support for the
internal operations of the Defendants, but instead to profile the
Plaintiff for commercial gain.
Google LLC develops technology products and provides services to
organize the information. Google LLC was formerly known as Google
Inc and changed its name to Google LLC in August 2015. The
company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California. Google LLC operates as a subsidiary of Alphabet
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Akim A. Anastopoulo, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, Esq.
Matthew Nall, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: info@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
matt@akimlawfirm.com
GRENIER ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Stone" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Grenier Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Jack's
Hollywood Diner; and Steven Grenier, Defendants, Case No. CACE-
18-008726 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 12, 2018) is brought
against the Defendant to recover unpaid compensation for all
hours worked and compensation at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Stone receive $7.79 per
hour for each hour worked during 2013; $7.93 per hour for each
hour worked in 2014; $8.05 per hour for each hour worked in 2015
and 2016; $8.10 per hour for each hour worked in 2017; and $8.25
per hour for each hour worked in 2018.
Grenier Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Jack's Hollywood Diner is a
Florida corporation boing business in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stem, Esq.
Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
One Flagler
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305)901-1379
Facsimile: (561)288-9031
E-mail: emplovlaw@keithstern.com
- and -
Richard Celler, Esq.
CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954)337-2771
E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawver.com
HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Weston Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew W. Weston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Highway Emergency Local Patrol,
LLC, and Sameera Tillman, Defendants, Case No.5:18-cv-00124-MTT
(M.D. Ga., April 17, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Weston was employed by the Defendants as a roadside emergency
assistance technician.
Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC is a Georgia corporation
engaged in owning and operating a business providing roadside
assistance to motorists. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
152 New Street, Suite 109B
Macon, GA 31201
Telephone: (404) 944-3128
E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com
HOUZZ INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Bieger" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesseca Bieger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Houzz Inc., and Does 1 through
25, Defendants, Case No. 18CV325624 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara
Cty., March 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.
Ms. Bieger was employed by the Defendants as an account
coordinator, customer service coordinator, support specialist,
and sales representative, from September 2015 to November 2017.
Houzz Inc. owns and operates a platform that connects homeowners,
home design enthusiasts, and home improvement professionals
around the world. Houzz Inc. was incorporated in 2008 and is
based in Palo Alto, California. The company has additional
offices in Palo Alto, Irvine, and San Diego, California; London,
United Kingdom; Berlin, Germany; Sydney, Australia; Moscow,
Russian Federation; and Tokyo, Japan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
SODERSTROM LAW PC
3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 667-4700
Facsimile: (949) 424-8091
E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com
HTC CORP: Drobnick and Holman Sue over Defective Smartphones
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Drobnick, and Robert Holman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HTC Corporation; and
HTC America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-565124 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., March 20, 2018) is a class action
against the Defendants from defects affecting the HTC Bold
smartphones.
According to the complaint, the HTC Bolt was marketed as a
speedy, durable device with a 5.5" high-definition display and a
large battery. However, the HTC Bolt was plagued by irreparable
design and manufacturing defects, which cause the failure of the
device's display.
HTC Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, assembles, processes, and sells smart mobile
devices in Taiwan and internationally. It offers PDA phones,
smartphones, and handheld and virtual reality devices, as well as
related accessories and other Internet of Things. The company
also provides marketing, repair, and after sales services;
online/download media services; smart mobile devices examination
and technique consultation services; and building cleaning
services, as well as human resources management services. HTC
Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Taoyuan, Taiwan.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 789-6390
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
- and -
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street Northeast, Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
enafisi@classlawdc.com
ILLINOIS: Court Grants "Frazier" Plaintiffs' Injunction Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
March 27, 2018, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction in the case of Robin
Frazier; Brandi Edwards; Jennifer Tyree; Celina Montoya and
Sharon Frazier individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. John Baldwin, in his official capacity as
Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01991 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2018). The case is
assigned to Honorable Gary Feinerman.
The Court ordered that appropriate personnel from IDOC or the
parole department shall contact the Plaintiffs' mother and
daughter by the close of business on April 27, 2018, to confirm
that the daughter is willing to accept a call from Plaintiff and
that the mother is agreeable to such a call taking place. The
first call shall take place no later than the close of business
on March 28, 2018, and may be supervised by IDOC personnel or the
parole officer.
The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) is the code
department of the Illinois state government that operates the
adult state prison system. The IDOC is led by a director
appointed by the Governor of Illinois, and its headquarters are
in Springfield. The IDOC was established in 1970, combining the
state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services. The
juvenile corrections system was split off into the Illinois
Department of Juvenile Justice on July 1, 2006. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and -
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
3612 North Tripp
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (312) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Sarah Hughes Newman, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 814-6131
E-mail: snewman@atg.state.il.us
- and -
Thomas A. Ioppolo, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 814-7198
E-mail: tioppolo@atg.state.il.us
INTEL CORPORATION: East Sues over Sale of Defective CPUs
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew East, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Intel Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01733-EMC (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2018) alleges that Intel
breached its implied warranties by selling the Plaintiffs and
Class members defective Intel central processing units.
Intel's Defective CPUs suffer from a security defect that causes
the CPUs to be exposed to troubling security vulnerabilities by
allowing potential access to extremely secure kernel data The
only reported way to fix or patch this vulnerability requires
extensive changes to the root levels of the Operating System
which will dramatically reduce performance of the CPU. The Defect
renders the CPUs unfit for their intended use and purpose.
Intel Corporation is a citizen of the state of Delaware and of
the state of California, as it is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its
principal place of business in California. For at least 10 years,
Intel has marketed, distributed, and warranted these defective
Intel CPUs in Indiana and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916)924-1829
Email: carnold@justice4you.com
jwatson@justice4you.com
- and -
John Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
pbarthle@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON
MARTIN PLLC
2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
Wilmington, North Carolina
Telephone: (910) 292-6676
E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com
- and -
Christopher Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Glamour Seeks to Enjoin Three Arbitrations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tejinder Singh Glamour and Maninder Pal Glamour solely in their
Capacity as trustees for the Tejinder S. Glamour & Maninder P.
Glamour Revocable Living Trust, Huzaifa Husain, Sukhminder Pannu
and Prabhjot Dhillon, Plaintiffs v. Interactive Brokers, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02565-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2018)
is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 2201 to stay three separate arbitrations and
enjoin the Defendant from continuing these arbitrations so that
the claims may be heard and adjudicated as part of the pending
class action captioned Heather Hauptman, and Timothy Moss v. IB,
LLC, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Case No. 17-cv-9382 (the "Class Action") pending before
the Honorable George B. Daniel of the Southern District of New
York.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant
agreed to arbitrate disputes that arise between them under the
rules of the arbitral forum, the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority ("FINRA"), and other FINRA rules applicable to broker-
dealers such as the Defendants. The FINRA rules explicitly
preclude broker-dealers who are members of FINRA, such as the
Defendant, from interfering with class certification and
participation by putative class members, such as the Plaintiffs,
in class action litigation involving claims based on the same
facts and law as are at issue in the arbitration and the same
defendants. Moreover, the FINRA rules provide for a party to a
class action to ask the court hearing the class action to resolve
disputes as to whether a claim in the arbitration is part of a
class action.
Interactive Brokers LLC offers brokerage services. The company
executes and clears securities and commodities transactions. It
also offers the online trading of futures, options, forex, and
stocks. The company was incorporated in 1993 and is based in
Greenwich, Connecticut. Interactive Brokers LLC operates as a
subsidiary of IBG LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean C. Sheely, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 513-3538
Facsimile: (212) 385-9010
E-mail: sean.sheely@hklaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Julina Sues over Sale of Talcum Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JULINA, as personal representative of the estate of Susan
Julian, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 18CV326451
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 4, 2018) alleges that
Defendants' talcum-based products cause cancer.
The Plaintiff Susan Julian developed ovarian cancer, and suffered
effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result
of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum
powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants talcum based
products.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. produces and markets over-the-
counter (OTC) products to families, children, healthcare
professionals, and other consumers in the United States and
internationally. The company offers TYLENOL product line that
consists of products across various pain categories, including
arthritis pain, pain with accompanying sleeplessness, and
symptoms of cold and flu in the adult and pediatric categories';
BENADRYL, ZYRTEC, and ZYRTEC-D allergy medicines; IMODIUM anti-
diarrheal products; and SUDAFED PE nasal decongestants. It
provides OTC products for relief of pain and fever, cold and flu,
sinus and allergy, digestive health, sleeplessness, hair/scalp
care, and children care. The company was founded in 1879 and is
based in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. McNEIL-PPC, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Cirsch, Esq.
Michael Akselrud, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (310) 277-5100
Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Bahamas"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Case No. No. 2:14-cv-08390-
DMG-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is a California consumer class action relating to the sale of
surgical gowns.
The appellate case is captioned as BAHAMAS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, a
California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, DBA Bahamas Surgery Center, Plaintiff-
Appellee v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, and HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-55478, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- May 11, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;
-- June 11, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
reporter;
-- July 20, 2018 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
9th Cir. R. 32-1;
-- August 20, 2018 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts
of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
9th Cir. R. 32-1;
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and
-- Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule
Order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.
See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.[BN]
LAKESIDE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aivazian Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Aivazian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lakeside Medical Group, Inc.;
Heritage Provider Network, Inc.; Regal Medical Group, Inc., and
Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC701224 (Cal. Super.,
April 11, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff Aivazian was employed by the Defendants from
November 2017 to January 2018 in Los Angeles, California.
Lakeside Community Healthcare is one of the largest networks of
physicians and specialists in Southern California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
- and -
Romina Keshishyan, Esq.
RK LEGAL, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 1-323-744-4124
Facsimile: 1-323-763-7770
LAQUE NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Cortes" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Kharym Ornelas Cortes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Laque Nail Bar and Beauty Lounge
Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC702330 (Cal.
Super., April 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff Cortes was employed by the Defendants as nail
technician in California.
Laque Nail Bar and Beauty Lounge Inc. is a California corporation
conducting business in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher B. Ellison, Esq.
ELLISON & ASSOCIATES APC
8117 West Manchester Avenue Suite #158
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Telephone: (310) 882-6239
Facsimile: (310) 882-6237
E-mail: cellison@eaalawfirm.com
LAS 3K USA: "Fajardo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Anibal Fajardo, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Las 3K USA, LLC, Luisa Nives and Jairo
Avellaneda, Case 1:18-cv-21140 (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Anibal Fajardo is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
Plaintiff became employed on or about April 2017 at Las 3K USA as
a maintenance man responsible for cleaning the kitchen and
restaurant and repairing or maintaining the sound system and
appliances at the establishment. The Plaintiff remained employed
at Las 3K USA until on or about December 2017.
Las 3K USA is a Florida limited liability company engaged in
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant owned and
operated Que Chulada. When the Defendant closed Que Chulada, the
Defendant began to operate El Capo Brickell restaurant and/or
bar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ena T. Diaz, Esq.
ENA T. DIAZ, P.A.
999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste 720
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 377-8828
Fax: (305) 356-1311
E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com
LC WARD: Filing of Complaint Supplement in "Jefferson" Directed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin directed Plaintiff in the case captioned WILLIE
JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. L.C. WARD, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-650-wmc (W.D. Wis.), to file a supplement to his complaint
following a bid to dismiss the complaint.
Pro se plaintiff Willie Jefferson, an inmate at Oxford Federal
Correctional Institution (FCI-Oxford), is proceeding in this
lawsuit against multiple FCI-Oxford employees on a claim under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb-1
(RFRA) based on his alleged inability to pray in accordance with
his Muslim faith.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the plaintiff's entire action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on the
ground that because the plaintiff's complaint seeks only
declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, his
claims construed both as an individual claim and a class claim
are moot.
The question becomes whether the plaintiff's amendment to his
complaint, which clarifies that he is proceeding against all
defendants in their official and individual capacities, saves his
claims from dismissal. Since the plaintiff has not explicitly
requested monetary damages from the defendants in either his
complaint or motion to amend the answer appears to be "No"
because his only requested relief is no longer available to him.
That said, perhaps the plaintiff omitted monetary damages in his
request for relief as an oversight, and his amendment is an
attempt to assert that form of relief, both of which are
understandable given his pro se status. If this is the case,
then dismissal would be inappropriate because the plaintiff may
be entitled to monetary damages under the RFRA.
While the court will not amend the plaintiff's request for
relief, it will give the plaintiff two weeks to supplement his
complaint to include monetary damages as an additional request
for relief. If the plaintiff fails to supplement his complaint,
the court will likely grant the defendants' motion as to his
individual claim.
The court also must defer ruling on the defendants' class claim
argument until the plaintiff clarifies whether he still wishes to
pursue a class claim. Indeed, while the defendants argue that the
plaintiff's putative class action claim is moot, the plaintiff
cites Richardson v. Bledsoe, 829 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2016), in
which the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recognized a
mootness exceptions in the context of a prisoner whose claim for
relief was acutely susceptible to mootness. That court further
acknowledged that this principle permits a plaintiff "to
represent, or seek to represent, a class of similarly situated
persons despite no longer having a justiciable claim for
individual relief."
Therefore, in addition to clarifying whether he is seeking
monetary damages, the plaintiff also must report whether he
continues to pursue his class claim. Once the court learns the
plaintiff's intentions for this lawsuit, it can set it on course
for next steps.
The Plaintiff must file a supplement to his complaint that
clarifies whether (1) he is seeking monetary damages, and (2)
wishes to pursue his class claim. If plaintiff does not file a
supplement by a certain date, then the court will take
defendants' motion to dismiss under advisement and likely dismiss
this action.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8lxy9sw from
Leagle.com.
Willie Jefferson, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.
L.C. Ward, Warden Federal Correctional Institution / Federal
Prison Camp Oxford; sued in official capacity, David B.
Christensen, Camp Administrator Federal Prison Camp Oxford; sued
in official capacity, E. Harris, Associate Warden of Programs;
sued in official capacity & Ryan Willis, Supervisory Chaplain;
sued in official capacity, Defendants, represented by Leslie K.
Herje, U.S. Attorney's Office & Richard Davis Humphrey, U.S.
Attorney's Office.
LEGACY RESERVES: Faces "Doppelt" Suit over C-Corp. Conversion
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY L. DOPPELT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY RESERVES LP; LEGACY
RESERVES GP, LLC; and LEGACY RESERVES INC., Defendants, Case No.
2018-0225, (Del. Ch., March 28, 2018) alleges Defendants' breach
of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing
in connection with a proposed transaction in which the Defendants
will be converted from a partnership to C-Corporation and the
Preferred Units of the Defendants will be converted into shares
of common stock of the corporation.
According to the Plaintiff, the proposed conversion violates the
partnership agreement under which the Defendant Legacy Reserves
LP is organized. The Defendants have no right under that
agreement to convert the Preferred Units because the conversion
transaction is not a "change of control" under that agreement and
the agreement does not allow the partnership to compel the
holders of the Preferred Units to convert those units.
Legacy Reserves LP acquires and develops oil and natural gas
properties primarily in the Permian Basin, East Texas, Rocky
Mountain, and Mid-Continent regions of the United States. Legacy
Reserves LP was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Midland,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
Citizens Bank Center
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 656-4433
- and -
CSS Legal Group PLLC
1 Great Neck Road, Suite 7
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (646) 517-4399
LINEN OUTLET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Masoud" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Masoud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Linen Outlet, and Bassam Khalil,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03249-PAC (E.D.N.Y., April 18,
2018), is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.
The Plaintiff Masoud was employed by the Defendants as retail
worker from June 2016 to November 2016.
Linen Outlet is a New York corporation with office address at
Brox, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
MACBETH APARTMENT: Faces United AAA Club Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macbeth Apartment
Systems. The case is captioned as United African Asian Abilities
Club; David Singletary; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Macbeth Apartment Systems; Dirk
H. Needman; Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00634-R-MRW (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge Manuel L. Real, and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R.
Wilner.
Other named defendants are Stanley A Sirott and Charles Macbeth.
Macbeth Apartment Systems is committed to providing the highest
possible return to investors and believes this is achieved by
hands-on management, effective cost controls and operational
excellence. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C Wakefield, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C WAKEFIELD
10620 Treena Street Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92131
Telephone: (619) 241-7112
Facsimile: (619) 342-7755
E-mail: dcw@dmwakelaw.com
MARTINI CRAFT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Lopez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio C Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Martini Craft LLC d/b/a Martini Craft;
Anthony Scott Harmening; Karen Harmening; Michele Anne Harmening;
and Fernando Mendez, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02240-MKB-LB
(E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2018), is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Lopez was employed as a general assistant at the Defendant's
food catering company in Brooklyn, New York, from September 2012
to December 14, 2017.
Martini Craft LLC d/b/a Martini Craft is a New York corporation
owning and operating a food catering company at Brooklyn, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Martinez and Nolet Sue over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores Martinez and Loralie Nolet, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Merchants & Medical
Credit Corporation, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-485 (E.D.
Wis., March 27, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. was founded in 1960.
The company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MERRILL GARDENS: Removes "Smith" Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of William D Smith, by and through his
Attorney-In-Fact William E. Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merrill Gardens, LLC,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, Santa Barbara Couty (Case No.
18CV01260) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03078-R-SK (C.D. Cal.,
April 12, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real,
and referred to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim.
Merrill Gardens, LLC owns and operates senior living communities
in Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Nevada, and Washington.
The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Seattle,
Washington. Merrill Gardens, LLC operates as a subsidiary of R.D.
Merrill Company, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C Borison, Esq.
LEGG LAW FIRM LLC
1900 S Norfolk Street Suite 350
San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (301) 620-1016
Facsimile: (310) 620-1018
E-mail: borison@legglaw.com
- and -
Ronald Wilcox, Esq.
WILCOX LAW FIRM PC
2021 The Alameda Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
Telephone: (408) 296-0400
Facsimile: (408) 296-0486
E-mail: ronaldwilcox@gmail.com
- and -
Tad D Draper, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TAD D DRAPER PC
12339 South 800 East Suite 101
Draper, UT 84020
Telephone: (801) 553-1700
The Defendant is represented by:
Pamela Madeliene Ferguson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
333 Bush Street Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104-4431
Telephone: (415) 362-2580
Facsimile: (415) 434-0882
E-mail: pamela.ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Howard R Weber, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
333 Bush Street Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104-2872
Telephone: (415) 362-2580
Facsimile: (415) 434-0882
METROWIRELESS 167: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MetroWireless 167 Inc., and John Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03242 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages at the
minimum wage rate, unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff Garcia was hired by the Defendants as a sales
representative from February 2016 to October 2016, in New York.
MetroWireless 167 Inc. is a New York corporation with place of
business in Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James F. Sullivan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 374-0009
Facsimile: (212) 374-9931
E-mail: Jsullivan@jfslaw.net
MIDLAND CREDIT: Preston Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
Neal Preston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02017 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector,
assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations
through various education and payment plans. The company was
founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Vlahakis, Esq.
Ahmad T. Sulaiman
Omar T. Sulaiman
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD .
2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 581-5456
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Perea Calls Debt Collection Practices Wrongful
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Perea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02647 (N.D. Ill., April 12, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendants' unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector,
assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations
through various education and payment plans. The company was
founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312)726-6160
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
MISSOURI: Motion to Dismiss Pennell et al. Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anne L. Precythe,
in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department
of Corrections. The case is captioned as Linda Pennell; Rebecca
Funk; and Tonya Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Anne L. Precythe, in her
official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of
Corrections; Chris McBee, in his official capacity as Warden of
the Chillicothe Correctional Center; and Does 1- 10, Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-06034-ODS (W.D. Mo., March 23, 2018). The case
is assigned to Judge Ortrie D. Smith.
On April 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim on April 23. The Plaintiffs opposed the Motion to Dismiss
in pleadings filed April 30. The Defendants have until May 14 to
respond.
Judge Smith on April 20 signed a Rule 16 Notice setting this
timeline:
Rule 26 conference due by June 4
Proposed scheduling order due by June 18
Corporate disclosures due by May 7
The Missouri Department of Corrections is a state agency of
Missouri that operates state prisons. It is headquartered in
Jefferson City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph LaCome, Esq.
LACOME LAW
3025 E. Hawkins Street
Springfield, MO 65804
Telephone: (415) 847-1944
E-mail: lacomelaw@gmail.com
MIZUHO BANK: Faces "Babiak" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mizuho Bank, Ltd.
The case is captioned as Scott Babiak, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mizuho Bank,
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00352-LO-JFA (E.D. Va., March
28, 2018). The case is assigned to District Judge Liam O'Grady,
and referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson.
Mizuho Bank, Ltd. provides financial products and services to
individual and corporate clients. As of December 31, 2016,
company had 421 branches and 41 sub-branches in Japan; and 25
relevant offices and 17 representative offices internationally.
The company was formerly known as Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd. and
changed its name to Mizuho Bank, Ltd. in July 2013. The company
was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Mizuho
Bank, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Olin Wilson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 337-8000
Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
E-mail: rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com
MONAT GLOBAL: May 31 JPML Hearing on Motion to Consolidate
----------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation will convene a
hearing on May 31, 2018, to consider, among others, the Motion of
plaintiffs Amber Alabaster and Crystal Merritt to transfer
various lawsuits against MONAT Global Corp. in MDL No. 2841 to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma or the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
Plaintiffs Alabaster and Merritt have moved for an order to
consolidate and transfer the pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma or the
Northern District of Texas, of these actions:
-- Dana Sohovich v. Monat Global Corp. and Alcora Corporation
a/k/a Alcora Group., USDC for Southern District of Florida
(Miami), Case No. 1:18-cv-20624-MGC;
-- Trisha Whitmire and Emily Yanes de Flores v. Monat Global
Corp., USDC for Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case
No. 1:18-cv-20636-DPG;
-- Andrew McWhortor and Deborah McWhortor v. Monat Global
Corp., USDC for Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case
No. 1:18-cv-20870-JLK;
-- Amber Alabaster v. Monat Global Corp., USDC for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City), Case No. 5:18-cv-
00224-M;
-- Crystal Merritt v. Monat Global Corp., USDC for the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas), Case No. 3:18-cv-
00657-L.
Monat Global sells consumer goods. The Company sells its products
through a network of independent business owners. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA: Faces "Taggart" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montgomery County
of Common Pleas. The case is captioned as Kenneth Taggart,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Montgomery County of Common Pleas; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; and Does, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01409-GJP
(E.D. Pa., March 25, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Gerald
J. Pappert.
Montgomery County of Common Pleas is a county court in
Pennsylvania which has five divisions: Civil, Criminal, Family,
Juvenile, and Orphans. [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
MOUNTAIN VIEW: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Anderson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Mountain View Pizza Co., Black Hills Pizza, Inc., and
Choose the Right Pizza, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00058 (D. Mont.,
March 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Montana Minimum Wage and
Overtime Compensation Act.
The Plaintiff Mike Anderson, has been employed by Defendants from
approximately January 2015 to present as a delivery driver at
their Papa John's Pizza store at 305 24th Street West, Billings,
Montana.
The Defendants together own and operate approximately 17 Papa
John's Pizza franchise stores in Montana, Colorado, Idaho, South
Dakota and Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William A. D'Alton, Esq.
D'ALTON LAW FIRM, P.C.
222 North 32nd Street, Suite 903
P.O. Drawer 702
Billings, MT 59103-0702
Tel: (406) 245-6643
Fax: (406) 245-6693
E-mail: bill@daltonlawpc.com
MQ RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, "Contreras" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Issis Contreras, and Esvin F. Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MQ
Restaurants LLC d/b/a Pommodori Pizza & Pasta, and Roberto C. De
Queiroz, Defendants, Case No. 69551771 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty, March 20, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Contreras was employed by the Defendants as a
cashier from February 2015 to February 16, 2108.
The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a pizza
maker from year 2013 to February 16, 2018.
MQ Restaurants LLC d/b/a Pommodori Pizza & Pasta is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Florida, engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS A. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00462-DEJ (E.D. Wis., March 23, 2018)
is an action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory or injunctive relief.
Mr. Hodges was employed by the Defendant as parts maker and lead
from July 13, 2010 to February 28, 2018.
National Technologies, Inc. manufactures and markets computer
numerical control (CNC) machining components. The company also
offers screw machining, computer numerical control turning, and
vertical and short run machining services. National Technologies,
Inc. was founded in 1959 and is based in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Upshaw" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL UPSHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01203-CAP (N.D. Ga., March 21, 2018)
alleges that Defendant has made unsolicited calls in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made unauthorized text messages
and calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the
cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class without their prior express written consent.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven H. Koval, Esq.
THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
3575 Piedmont Road,
Bldg. 15, Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 513-6651
Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
E-mail: Steve@KovalFirm.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
Email: jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com
- and -
John T. Spragens, Esq.
222 2nd Avenue S., Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
- and -
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 729-5288
Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
Email: aburke@burkelawllc.com
dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com
- and -
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
Broderick & Paronich, P.C.
125 Summer St., Suite 1030
Boston, MA 02360
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
anthony@broderick-law.com
- and -
Matthew McCue, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW MCCUE
1 South Ave, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net
- and -
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
NEW MEXICO: Court Approves $15K Settlement in "Apodaca"
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement in the case
captioned VICTOR APODACA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO ADULT
PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., Defendants, No. 13-cv-0113JB/SMV
(D.N.M.).
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued various Defendants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging claims under the
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. He alleges that officers entered the
residence where he was staying and injured him by use of
excessive force. He further alleges that, once detained at the
Curry County Detention Center, he was denied necessary medical
treatment.
The parties agreed to settle the case for $15,000, with the total
amount (minus $312 in costs) going to the Plaintiff.
The Court make the following findings:
(1) the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly
negotiated;
(2) serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the
ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt;
(3) the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere
possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive
litigation; and
(4) the parties believe the settlement is fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court agree with the guardian ad litem's
assessment that the settlement of the Plaintiff's claims is fair,
reasonable, and in his best interest. The Court recommend that
the settlement be approved.
Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement be granted and the
settlement be approved.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Findings
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8vwlwu9
from Leagle.com.
Victor Apodaca, Plaintiff, represented by F. Michael Hart,
Martinez, Hart & Thompson, P.C., 1801 Rio Grande Blvd NW, Suite
A, Albuquerque, NM 87104
Timothy Hillis, Dr. & Nancy Lueras, Nurse, Defendants,
represented by Alfred A. Park, Park & Associates, LLC & Lawrence
M. Marcus, Park & Associates, LLC, 6100 Uptown Blvd, NE Suite
350. Albuquerque, NM, 87110.
Esq Gabrielle Valdez, Guardian ad Litem, Miscellaneous,
represented by Gabrielle M. Valdez -- gabrielle@youtzvaldez.com -
- Youtz & Valdez, PC.
NGD PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Cruz" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hamill Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NGD Property Management, LLC, and Harvey
Hernandez, Defendants, Case No. 69549458 (Fla Cir., Miami Dade
Cty., March 20, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Cruz was employed by the Defendants as assistant chief
engineer, from January 1, 2017 to October 2, 2017.
NGD Property Management, LLC is a Florida limited liability
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
NIXON INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed against Nixon, Inc. The case
is captioned as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nixon, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02218-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2018).
Nixon Inc. manufactures and sells apparel, watches, bags, audio
products, and accessories for men and women. It offers tees,
sweatshirts and sweaters, shirts, and jackets; and wallets, hats
and beanies, and iPhone cases. The company serves athletes, rock
stars, retailers, and loyalists. It sells its products online, as
well as through dealers in the United States. Nixon Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is based in Encinitas, California with
additional offices in Europe, Australia, and Asia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
Facsimile: (212)444-1030
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
NORTHLAND GROUP: Rodriguez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northland Group, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-07692-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., April 16, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Judge Freda L. Wolfson, and
referred to Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.
As of November 16, 2016, Northland Group, Inc. was acquired by
Radius Global Solutions LLC. Northland Group, Inc. provides
accounts receivable management and collection services to
national credit grantors, debt buyers, and student loan lenders
and servicers. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Edina, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
- and -
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (347) 526-4093
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
NY PAROLE BOARD: Commissioners Face Flores and Bartley Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS FLORES, and LAWRENCE BARTLEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TINA M. STANFORD,
as Chairwoman of the New York State Board of Parole; WALTER W.
SMITH, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole;
SALLY THOMPSON, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of
Parole; JOSEPH P. CRANGLE, as Commissioner of the New York State
Board of Parole; ELLEN E. ALEXANDER, as Commissioner of the New
York State Board of Parole; MARC COPPOLA, as Commissioner of the
New York State Board of Parole; EDWARD SHARKEY, as Commissioner
of the New York State Board of Parole; TANA AGOSTINI, as
Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole; CHARLES
DAVIS, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole;
CAROL SHAPIRO, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of
Parole; ERIK BERLINER, as Commissioner of the New York State
Board of Parole; OTIS CRUSE, as Commissioner of the New York
State Board of Parole; TYCEE DRAKE, as Commissioner of the New
York State Board of Parole; CARYNE DEMOSTHENES, as Commissioner
of the New York State Board of Parole, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-
cv-02468-VB (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018), is an action on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons eligible for release to parole
supervision who were convicted of crimes committed when they were
children under the age of 18 and sentenced to indeterminate life
sentences with the possibility of parole in the custody of the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision.
Mr. Flores, 54, has been incarcerated since he was 17. He was
convicted of felony murder after participating in a robbery in
January 1981.
Mr. Bartley, 45, has been incarcerated since he was 17. In
December 1990, he was involved in a gunfight that erupted at a
local movie theater.
The New York State Division of Parole is an agency of the
government of New York within the Executive Department
responsible for parole, the supervised release of a prisoner
before the completion of his/her sentence. The Board of Parole
consists of up to 19 members. Each member is appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Senate for a six-year term. One
member is designated by the Governor to serve as Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Division. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Damaris Hernandez, Esq.
Antony L. Ryan, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eight Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
E-mail: aryan@cravath.com
dhernandez@cravath.com
- and -
Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Esq.
127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (347) 856-6376
E-mail: issa.kohler-hausmann@yale.edu
- and -
Avery Gilbert, Esq.
15 Shatzell Avenue, Suite 232
Rhinecliff, NY 12574
Telephone: (845) 380-6265
E-mail: avery@agilbertlaw.com
ORGANIC CANDY: Court Dismisses Gummy Cubs Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned LIZA ARABIAN, as an individual, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
v. THE ORGANIC CANDY FACTORY, a business entity, form unknown;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05410-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.).
The Defendant manufactures and markets gummy candies called,
Gummy Cubs. The Plaintiff alleges a consumer class action
relating to Defendant's illegal and deceptive practices of
misrepresenting that its products include peach, boysenberry,
blackberry, and raspberry ingredients.
The Plaintiff's FAC alleges claims for: breach of express
warranty (Count I), breach of implied warranty (Count II), breach
of contract (Count III), common law fraud (Count IV), intentional
misrepresentation (Count V), negligent misrepresentation (Count
VI), violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) (Count VII), violation of the California Unfair
Competition Act (UCL), Business and Professions Code Sec 17200,
et seq. (Count VIII), violation of the California False
Advertisement Law (FAL), Business Professions Code Section 17500,
et seq. (Count IX), and quasi-contract/restitution/unjust
enrichment (Count X).
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC on several
grounds: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) lack of standing to
pursue entitlement to relief; and (3) lack of standing to pursue
claims on behalf of a national class.
Failure to State a Claim
Here, all claims arise from the unified course of conduct: the
Defendant fraudulently misrepresenting that its products contain
Real Flavors. Although fraud is not an element of some of the
claims, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in a
unified course of fraudulent conduct. Therefore, all ten claims
are grounded in fraud, and subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading requirement.
The Plaintiff does not claim to have undertaken a pre-complaint
investigation into why the statements on the packaging of the
Class Products are false to assure that the charges of fraud are
supported. This heightened pleading standard attempts to protect
defendants from the harm that may come to their reputations or to
their goodwill when they are charged with wrongdoing: It has been
said that the requirement is necessary to safeguard potential
defendants from lightly made claims charging the commission of
acts that involve some degree of moral turpitude. The Defendant's
reputation may be harmed from the allegation of fraud; both
retailers and consumers may be unwilling or less inclined to
purchase products from a business that is being charged of
unlawful acts that involve some degree of moral turpitude.
Each of the Plaintiff's ten claims rely on her claim that the
Defendant's packaging contains false statements, and those
allegations must be pleaded with particularity. The Plaintiff
did not adequately plead how the Defendant's statement was
fraudulent.
The Court grants the Defendant's Motion, with respect to all
claims, with leave to amend.
Economic Harm
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to allege
cognizable economic harm for two reasons: (1) the Plaintiff
mistakenly alleges that the Gummy Cubs she bought had no value,
and (2) the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts demonstrating
that the Gummy Cubs she bought are worth less than what she paid
for them.
The Plaintiff argues she is not asserting two legal theories of
economic harm, as stated by the Defendant, but rather is
asserting a general request for restitution, as defined by the
Ninth Circuit.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff adequately pleaded facts
establishing her claim that the Gummy Cubs she bought were worth
less than what she paid for them. The Plaintiff alleges that she
and the putative class members would not have purchased, or would
have paid less for, the Defendant's products had they known about
the lack of Real Ingredients.
In addition, the Plaintiff states that, absent the Defendant's
misrepresentation, she would have purchased other specific
products, such as those from Annie's, Black Forest, or Ritter
Sport, which either included Real Ingredients, or did not include
the Real Ingredients, but cost less than the Defendant's
products. The Court finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently
pleaded a reasonable basis of computation of damages with regard
to her purchase of the Gummy Cubs.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded economic harm.
Economic Loss Doctrine: Common Law Fraud, Intentional
Misrepresentation, and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims
The Defendant argues that the economic loss doctrine precludes
the Plaintiff's claims for common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation under
California law.
The Plaintiff argues that because she alleges that the contract
was fraudulently induced, under California law, she is permitted
recovery of tort damages in a contract case.
The economic loss rule generally bars tort claims for contract
breaches, thereby limiting contracting parties to contract
damages. The rule "prevents the law of contract and the law of
tort from dissolving into one another."
The FAC alleges that the Defendant fraudulently induced the
Plaintiff to enter into contract for the purchase of the Gummy
Cubs, by affirmatively misrepresenting the Class Products to
contained Real Ingredients. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant
committed a fraud during the contract formation and, therefore,
has properly elected to recover in contract and tort. It has long
been the rule that where a contract is secured by fraudulent
representation, the injured party may elect to affirm the
contract and sure for fraud. Therefore, the Court finds the
Plaintiff's tort claims for common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation are not barred
by the economic loss rule.
Implied Warranty
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's implied warranty claim
should be dismissed because the Class Products provide for a
minimum level of quality, were safe for consumption and were not
contaminated or contain[ing] foreign objects. The Plaintiff
contends that she has stated a claim for breach of the implied
warranty because in addition to a product being suitable for its
intended use to eat the implied warranty provides that the
product pass without objection in the trade under the contract
description and conform to the promises or affirmations of fact
made on the container or label if any.
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Class Products did not
conform to the affirmations of fact made by Candy Factory in its
labeling of Class Products because they did not contain the Real
Ingredients listed on the container. For these reasons, the
Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for breach of implied
warranty.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
with leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybermxk5 from Leagle.com.
Liza Arabian, as an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Hovanes Margarian -- hovanes@margarianlaw.com --
The Margarian Law Firm.
The Organic Candy Factory, a business entity, form unknown,
Defendant, represented by Brandon C. Fernald --
brandon@fernaldlawgroup.com -- Fernald Law Group LLP.
OWENS CORNING: 3rd Cir. Affirms Denial of "Gonzalez" Class Cert
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued
affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned JAIME GONZALEZ;
PATRICIA WRIGHT; KEVIN WEST; GERALD BOEHM; EDWARD MAAG; DIANE
MAAG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Appellants, v. OWENS CORNING; OWENS CORNING SALES LLC, No. 16-
2653 (3rd Cir.).
This appeal involves a putative class action brought by consumers
in four states who alleged that Appellees Owens Corning and Owens
Corning Sales, LLC, sold defective roof shingles and
misrepresented the shingles' expected useful life.
The Plaintiffs propose that the Nationwide Class proceed under
Rule 23(b)(1)(B) or Rule 23(b)(2), and that it include all
individuals and entities that own a building or structure
physically located in the United States on which Owens Corning's
Oakridge-brand shingles are currently installed, where those
shingles were purchased on or before September 26, 2006.
The Plaintiffs moved for certification of the Four-State and
Nationwide Classes. On March 31, 2016, the District Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion. With respect to the Four-State Class,
the District Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had not met
their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to show that questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members nor was it persuaded that
certifying a class under Rule 23(c)(4) to decide issues of
liability was appropriate.
The District Court concluded that the Nationwide Class could not
satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) because the
only common question it presented was not justiciable. The
Plaintiffs filed a timely petition for Rule 23(f) review, which
this Court granted.
In this appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the District Court
denied certification of the Nationwide Class based on an
erroneous understanding of the requirements for justiciability
under Article III of the Constitution, and that its denial of
certification of the Four-State Class was, among other errors,
improperly grounded in its assessment of the merits, as forbidden
by the Supreme Court in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement
Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013).
Every putative class action must satisfy the four requirements of
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
The Plaintiffs first argue that the District Court erred when it
failed to certify the Nationwide Class under Rule 23. Rule 23(a)
requires that the named plaintiffs share with the rest of the
putative class at least one question of law or fact.
In this appeal, the Plaintiffs must establish the justiciability
of the following question: what legal standard governs the
dischargeability of claims against Owens Corning? Failing that,
the Nationwide Class cannot satisfy the commonality requirement
and certification is inappropriate under either Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
or (b)(2).
This Court is not persuaded that the judgment Plaintiffs seek on
behalf of the Nationwide Class would be of any utility to them
beyond what the Third Circuit held in Wright, 679 F.3d at 108-09
(3d Cir. 2012). Contrary to the Plaintiffs' suggestion, such a
judgment would not adjudicate the rights of the parties, since it
would not decide whether, under Frenville, (Avellino & Bienes v.
M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir.
1984) a particular class member's claims had been discharged. It
would merely repeat, on a larger scale, what this Court has
already held. The Third Circuit understood the Plaintiffs'
concern that Wright's preclusive effect might be left to the
discretion of a distant tribunal in a hypothetical future case,
but the Plaintiffs do not cite, and the Third Circuit cannot
find, any support for the proposition that this fact alone
suffices to create a justiciable question.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the sole common
question the Nationwide Class asked the District Court to answer
was not justiciable under Article III. The District Court
rightly concluded that the Plaintiffs could not satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) and therefore did not err
when it denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Nationwide
Class.
The Court turn next to the District Court's decision regarding
the Four-State Class. The predominance requirement of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) tests whether proposed classes
are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation. Predominance requires issues common to the class
to predominate over individual issues, a far more demanding
standard than the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).
The Plaintiffs proffer numerous claims, but each can be
categorized as one of the following: breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of state
consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.
Owens Corning argued that the Plaintiffs' admission that a
significant proportion of Oakridge shingles may in fact last the
length of their warranties, lack any defect, distinguishes this
case from the defective-products cases the Plaintiffs cited in
which courts certified a class after finding a predominant common
question.
In response, the Plaintiffs argued that their theory of defective
design did not require them to show that all Oakridge shingles
were prone to fail during their warranty periods. Because this
theory of defect applies to the entire class, the Plaintiffs
argued, a predominant common question existed and Rule 23(b)(3)
was satisfied.
The Plaintiffs' theory of design defect which absolves them of
the need to identify any particular problems with their shingles
is the focus of the Plaintiffs' appeal. According to the
Plaintiffs, the District Court's rejection of this theory was an
abuse of discretion because the District Court: (1) misread
product-defect cases in this circuit and others; (2) improperly
excluded expert testimony; and (3) contravened Amgen by assessing
the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims at the class certification
stage.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs argue that the District Court
should have certified a liability-only class under Rule 23(c)(4)
because that resolution of the common liability issues would
materially advance the litigation. The Court will address these
arguments in turn.
The Plaintiffs argue that, because customers were playing
roulette in assuming that Oakridge shingles will last for the
full warranty period they did not get the benefit of their
bargain, regardless of their shingles' actual performance.
In this case, instead of alleging a defect common to the class
that might be proved by classwide evidence, the Plaintiffs invite
the Third Circuit to equate the existence of a defect with the
mere possibility that one might exist. The Third Circuit finds no
support in Rule 23 or caselaw for class certification on such a
speculative basis. Far from abusing its discretion, the District
Court properly concluded that the Plaintiffs' novel reformulation
of the concept of a product defect could not be permitted to work
an end run around the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs argue that the District Court also abused its
discretion by ruling inadmissible the testimony proffered by
Rutila based on his testing of Oakridge shingles.
The Court ruled that Rutila could not testify because, among
other reasons, the results were tainted by selection bias and
statistically insignificant in light of the millions of Oakridge
shingles installed during the class period.
The Plaintiffs make several arguments as to why the Court's
ruling on Rutila's testimony was erroneous, but the Third Circuit
need not address them, because its Rule 23 analysis is unaffected
by the outcome. Even if all of the testimony offered by Rutila
were admissible, the Plaintiffs would not have been able to cure
their inability to identify a meaningful defect in Oakridge
shingles susceptible to classwide evidence. As the District Court
noted, Rutila's testing did not enable him to identify when a
shingle crosses the line and becomes defective.
Nor would it have negated Rutila's own admissions that (1) one
can identify a shingle as defective, however that term is
defined, only after examining it individually, and (2) even
shingles designed at the low end of Owens Corning's
specifications will not necessarily fail before the end of their
warranty periods. The fundamental problem thus remains: the
Plaintiffs cannot identify what is defective about their
shingles, let alone how the unidentified defect is susceptible to
proof common to all class members.
It is therefore unnecessary for the Third Circuit to undertake a
Daubert analysis to determine whether the District Court abused
its discretion in holding Rutila's testimony inadmissible.
The Plaintiffs argue that, to the extent the District Court had
reservations about their theory of defect, the Supreme Court's
decision in Amgen (Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and
Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013)) required it to set them
aside for purposes of the class certification decision: the
district court may not have liked this theory, but class
certification was not the place to adjudicate it.
In this context, the District Court was not bound by Amgen or
otherwise to deem sufficient for certification the question of
defect as the Plaintiffs presented it. It is incongruous to argue
simultaneously, as the Plaintiffs do, that their theory of defect
is central to their claims and that its coherence and legal
foundation are irrelevant to the certification decision. By
rejecting the Plaintiffs' theory, the District Court did not find
as a matter of fact that Oakridge shingles are not defective. It
merely applied Rule 23's predominance requirement, under which
the Plaintiffs were required at the certification stage to
identify a defect that affected all class members' shingles,
regardless of whether the defect will ultimately be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence at the merits stage.
Because the Plaintiffs cannot show that liability for defective
design is susceptible to class-wide evidence, they are equally
unable to show the same in support of their misrepresentation
claims. They are thus unable to show that common questions of law
or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, as Rule 23(b)(3) requires. The Third Circuit's
conclusion that predominance is lacking makes it unnecessary for
it to discuss whether Plaintiffs have satisfied the other
requirements of Rule 23. The District Court did not abuse its
discretion in denying certification of the Four-State Class under
Rule 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the District Court
abused its discretion in denying certification of the Four-State
Class as a liability-only issue class under Rule 23(c)(4), which
provides that when appropriate, an action may be brought or
maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.
Unlike a situation in which a Rule 23(c)(4) class might be
appropriate because liability is capable of class-wide treatment
but damages are not, the Plaintiffs offer no theories of
liability for which class-wide treatment is apt. The District
Court therefore correctly determined that a Rule 23(c)(4) class
would not materially advance resolution of the underlying claims,
any more than would a class under Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the
Third Circuit cannot conclude that the District Court's denial of
certification of the Four-State Class under Rule 23(c)(4) was an
abuse of discretion.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, accordingly, the
Third Circuit will affirm.
A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's March 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8a4d3ch from Leagle.com.
Robert H. Klonoff [Argued], Jordan D. Schnitzer Professor of Law,
Lewis & Clark Law School, 10015 Southwest Terwilliger Boulevard,
Portland, OR 97219.
Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran &
Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Lawrence Deutsch --
ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Charles J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca LLP, 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Michael A. McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners,
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP, 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55401, Attorneys for Appellants.
Carter G. Phillips -- CPHILLIPS@SIDLEY.COM -- [Argued], Sidley
Austin, 1501 K Street, N.W.
ORGANIC CANDY: Court Dismisses Gummy Cubs Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned LIZA ARABIAN, as an individual, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
v. THE ORGANIC CANDY FACTORY, a business entity, form unknown;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05410-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.).
The Defendant manufactures and markets gummy candies called,
Gummy Cubs. The Plaintiff alleges a consumer class action
relating to Defendant's illegal and deceptive practices of
misrepresenting that its products include peach, boysenberry,
blackberry, and raspberry ingredients.
The Plaintiff's FAC alleges claims for: breach of express
warranty (Count I), breach of implied warranty (Count II), breach
of contract (Count III), common law fraud (Count IV), intentional
misrepresentation (Count V), negligent misrepresentation (Count
VI), violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) (Count VII), violation of the California Unfair
Competition Act (UCL), Business and Professions Code Sec 17200,
et seq. (Count VIII), violation of the California False
Advertisement Law (FAL), Business Professions Code Section 17500,
et seq. (Count IX), and quasi-contract/restitution/unjust
enrichment (Count X).
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC on several
grounds: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) lack of standing to
pursue entitlement to relief; and (3) lack of standing to pursue
claims on behalf of a national class.
Failure to State a Claim
Here, all claims arise from the unified course of conduct: the
Defendant fraudulently misrepresenting that its products contain
Real Flavors. Although fraud is not an element of some of the
claims, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in a
unified course of fraudulent conduct. Therefore, all ten claims
are grounded in fraud, and subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading requirement.
The Plaintiff does not claim to have undertaken a pre-complaint
investigation into why the statements on the packaging of the
Class Products are false to assure that the charges of fraud are
supported. This heightened pleading standard attempts to protect
defendants from the harm that may come to their reputations or to
their goodwill when they are charged with wrongdoing: It has been
said that the requirement is necessary to safeguard potential
defendants from lightly made claims charging the commission of
acts that involve some degree of moral turpitude. The Defendant's
reputation may be harmed from the allegation of fraud; both
retailers and consumers may be unwilling or less inclined to
purchase products from a business that is being charged of
unlawful acts that involve some degree of moral turpitude.
Each of the Plaintiff's ten claims rely on her claim that the
Defendant's packaging contains false statements, and those
allegations must be pleaded with particularity. The Plaintiff
did not adequately plead how the Defendant's statement was
fraudulent.
The Court grants the Defendant's Motion, with respect to all
claims, with leave to amend.
Economic Harm
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to allege
cognizable economic harm for two reasons: (1) the Plaintiff
mistakenly alleges that the Gummy Cubs she bought had no value,
and (2) the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts demonstrating
that the Gummy Cubs she bought are worth less than what she paid
for them.
The Plaintiff argues she is not asserting two legal theories of
economic harm, as stated by the Defendant, but rather is
asserting a general request for restitution, as defined by the
Ninth Circuit.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff adequately pleaded facts
establishing her claim that the Gummy Cubs she bought were worth
less than what she paid for them. The Plaintiff alleges that she
and the putative class members would not have purchased, or would
have paid less for, the Defendant's products had they known about
the lack of Real Ingredients.
In addition, the Plaintiff states that, absent the Defendant's
misrepresentation, she would have purchased other specific
products, such as those from Annie's, Black Forest, or Ritter
Sport, which either included Real Ingredients, or did not include
the Real Ingredients, but cost less than the Defendant's
products. The Court finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently
pleaded a reasonable basis of computation of damages with regard
to her purchase of the Gummy Cubs.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded economic harm.
Economic Loss Doctrine: Common Law Fraud, Intentional
Misrepresentation, and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims
The Defendant argues that the economic loss doctrine precludes
the Plaintiff's claims for common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation under
California law.
The Plaintiff argues that because she alleges that the contract
was fraudulently induced, under California law, she is permitted
recovery of tort damages in a contract case.
The economic loss rule generally bars tort claims for contract
breaches, thereby limiting contracting parties to contract
damages. The rule "prevents the law of contract and the law of
tort from dissolving into one another."
The FAC alleges that the Defendant fraudulently induced the
Plaintiff to enter into contract for the purchase of the Gummy
Cubs, by affirmatively misrepresenting the Class Products to
contained Real Ingredients. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant
committed a fraud during the contract formation and, therefore,
has properly elected to recover in contract and tort. It has long
been the rule that where a contract is secured by fraudulent
representation, the injured party may elect to affirm the
contract and sure for fraud. Therefore, the Court finds the
Plaintiff's tort claims for common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation are not barred
by the economic loss rule.
Implied Warranty
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's implied warranty claim
should be dismissed because the Class Products provide for a
minimum level of quality, were safe for consumption and were not
contaminated or contain[ing] foreign objects. The Plaintiff
contends that she has stated a claim for breach of the implied
warranty because in addition to a product being suitable for its
intended use to eat the implied warranty provides that the
product pass without objection in the trade under the contract
description and conform to the promises or affirmations of fact
made on the container or label if any.
Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the Class Products did not
conform to the affirmations of fact made by Candy Factory in its
labeling of Class Products because they did not contain the Real
Ingredients listed on the container. For these reasons, the
Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for breach of implied
warranty.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
with leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybermxk5 from Leagle.com.
Liza Arabian, as an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Hovanes Margarian -- hovanes@margarianlaw.com --
The Margarian Law Firm.
The Organic Candy Factory, a business entity, form unknown,
Defendant, represented by Brandon C. Fernald --
brandon@fernaldlawgroup.com -- Fernald Law Group LLP.
PGGS GOURMET: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Campis" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Armando Campis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PGGS Gourmet, Inc. d/b/a
Columbus Gourmet Deli, and Phuman Singh, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-2478 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs.
The Plaintiff Campis was employed by the Defendants as
dishwasher, food delivery worker, salad preparer, stock person,
and porter, from January 2016 to March 3, 2018.
PGGS Gourmet, Inc. d/b/a Columbus Gourmet Deli is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is
engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces "Badger" Suit over Access Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSIE BADGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPMC d/b/a THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00383-MRH (W.D. Pa.,
March 23, 2018) alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and its implementing regulations, in connection
with accessibility barriers in the parking lots and paths of
travel at various public accommodations owned, operated,
controlled or leased by Defendant.
UPMC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical center is an
integrated global health enterprise, and one of the leading
nonprofit health systems in the United States. The company
operates more than 30 hospitals, 600 doctors' offices and
outpatient sites, various long-term care facilities,
rehabilitation facilities, retirement facilities, and a major
health insurance services division. UPMC serves the health needs
of approximately 4 million people per year. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin S. Sweet, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
& CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412)322-9243
Facsimile: (412)231-0246
PREFERRED HOTEL: "Knowles" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Preferred Hotel Group Inc. dba Boston Harbor Hotel,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10558 (D. Mass., March 23, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
This class action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights
violations committed by the Defendant against the blind in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and across the United States. The
Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United
States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant
provides to its non-disabled customers through
http://www.bhh.com,notes the complaints.
Carlton Knowles is a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina. The
Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class
under the ADA.
The Defendant owns and operates hotels, resorts, and serviced
residences worldwide, including the Boston Harbor Hotel, which is
a place of public accommodation located in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Faces "Nelsen" Suit over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Nelsen, Roody Jasmin, and Joellyn Williams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Principal Global Investors Trust Company, Delaware Charter
Guarantee & Trust Company d/b/a Principal Trust Company,
Principal Global Investors, LLC and Principal Management
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00115-SBJ (S.D. Iowa.,
April 16, 2018) seeks to recover the losses caused by the
Defendants' fiduciary breaches, and to prevent further
mismanagement of the Principal LifeTime Hybrid Collective
Investment Funds, and obtain equitable and other relief as
provided by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Principal Global Investors, LLC provides investment management
services. The Company offers real estate, multi-asset, fixed
income, and equity services. Principal Global Investors operates
in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jill Zwagerman, Esq.
NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone: 515-883-2000
E-mail: jzwagerman@newkirklaw.com
- and -
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-256-3200
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
E-mail: krichter@nka.com
lukas@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
bmcdonough@nka.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Family Practice Clinic Sues over Opioid Drug Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY PRACTICE CLINIC OF BOONEVILLE, INC., and FAMILY HEALTH
CARE CLINIC, PSC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-
MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.;
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLS;
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a
WATSON PHARMA, INC.; DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; AND COLLEGIUM PHARMACEUTICAL,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00087-GFVT (March 21, 2018),
is an action to recover monetary losses that have been incurred,
and will continue to be incurred by the Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of Defendants' false, deceptive, and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.
According to the complaint, the Defendants aggressively pushed
highly addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to
practitioners that patients would only rarely succumb to drug
addiction. The Defendants aggressively advertised to and
persuaded practitioners to prescribe highly addictive, dangerous
opioids, and turned patients into drug addicts or dependents for
their own corporate profit. The Defendants unlawfully breached
their legal duties under federal law to monitor, detect,
investigate, refuse, and report suspicious orders of prescription
opiates.
Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company offers a portfolio of medical products in
various categories, including prescription opioids, sleep,
laxatives, antiseptics, and dietary supplement. It serves
healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in the United
States and internationally. The company has a strategic research
collaboration agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was
formerly known as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its
name to Purdue Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was
founded in 1892 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jaron P. Blandford, Esq.
McBRAYER, McGINNIS, LESLIE
& KIRKLAND, PLLC
201 E. Main Street, Suite 900
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 231-8780
Facsimile: (859) 231-1175
QUAKER OATS: Eisenlord Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Darren Eisenlord, Barbara Gates, Kevin Phung, Courtney
Drey, Mario Aliano, Matthew Perkins and Sophia Saenz filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled
Darren Eisenlord, et al. v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No.
2:16-cv-01442-PSG-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
The lawsuit is part of the consolidated lawsuit styled In re:
QUAKER OATS MAPLE & BROWN SUGAR INSTANT OATMEAL LITIGATION. The
consumer class action arises out of Quaker Oats' alleged
misbranding and false advertising of its line of products sold as
Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal. The Plaintiffs
contend that Quaker Oats' statements representing the Products as
containing maple syrup or maple sugar were false, deceptive, and
misleading.
The appellate case is captioned as Darren Eisenlord, et al. v.
The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 18-55467, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Mario Aliano, Courtney Drey, Darren Eisenlord,
Barbara Gates, Matthew Perkins, Kevin Phung and Sophia
Saenz's opening brief is due on June 8, 2018;
-- Appellee The Quaker Oats Company's answering brief is due
on July 9, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DARREN EISENLORD, BARBARA GATES, KEVIN
PHUNG, COURTNEY DREY, MARIO ALIANO, MATTHEW PERKINS and SOPHIA
SAENZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
David C. Parisi, Esq.
PARISI & HAVENS LLP
212 Marine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (818) 990-1299
Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by:
Matthew Allan Hoffman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7584
E-mail: MHoffman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8657
E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Rodriguez Sues over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Receivables Performance
Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07778-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., April 16, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Freda L. Wolfson, and referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H.
Goodman.
Receivable Performance Management, LLC is an accounts receivable
management company. The company was incorporated in 2002 and is
based in Lynnwood, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue
Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
- and -
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (347) 526-4093
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
RED ROOSTER: "Johnson" Suit Alleges FLSA and FMLA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Campus Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Red Rooster Harlem LLC and Marcus Samuelsson, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02589 (S.D. N.Y., March 23, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Plaintiff started working for Red Rooster as porter in 2014.
In 2015, he became a barback. In 2016 he became a bartender.
The Defendant Red Rooster Harlem LLC is a New York corporation
that operates Red Rooster and Street Bird restaurants in
Manhattan.
The Defendant Marcus Samuelsson is an owner and manages Red
Rooster Restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 688-5640
Fax: (212) 688-2548
RITE-A-WAY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages, Valenzuela Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rite-A-Way Services, Inc., and
Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC701588 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Valenzuela was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly employees in California.
Rite Way Service, Inc. provides janitorial and commercial
services. The company offers various green cleaning services; and
waste removal, recycling, pest control, painting, temporary
services, interior plant care, carpet care and maintenance, snow
removal, lawn and landscaping maintenance, general maintenance
and repairs, grounds and parking deck maintenance, electrical
service and light bulb maintenance, and hard-surface floor repair
and enhancement services. The company was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. As of March 21, 2014, Rite
Way Service, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Diversified
Maintenance Systems, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hugo Gamez, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF HUGO GAMEZ
1999 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424)442-0623
Facsimile: (310)693-2538
E-mail: Hugo@hgamezlaw.com
- and -
Andrew L. Treger, Esq.
BAER TREGER LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 226-7570
Facsimile: (310) 226-7571
E-mail: ATreger@baertreger.com
ROLLING FRITO-LAY: Fails to Pay Overtime, "White" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip White and Ricardo Hiciano, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rolling Frito-Lay
Sales, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02470-AJN (S.D.N.Y.,
March 20, 2018) seeks to recover all unpaid overtime
compensation, for hours in excess of 40 in the workweek, for
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Mr. White was employed by the Defendant as a route sales
associate in New York, from June 28, 2017 to February 12, 2018.
Mr. Hiciano was employed by the Defendant as a route sales
associate in New York, from year 2009 to September 2017.
Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP operates as a subsidiary of Pepsico,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
23 Green Street, Suite 303
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (631) 458-1010
E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
SALEHI KIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ehlert" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ehlert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kian Salehi, and Arash Allaei,
owners of KASA Delivery, LLC, d/b/a Bitesquad.com, Defendants,
Case No. 27-CV-18-5008 (Minn. Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty.,
March 27, 2018) alleges that the Defendants participated in any
tip-sharing arrangements with the Plaintiff, and did not provide
the Plaintiff with any portion of the delivery fee charged to
customers, but instead retained the entire amount, in violation
of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Ehlert was employed by the Defendants as driver from the year
2013 to October 2017.
KASA Delivery, LLC, d/b/a Bitesquad.com is a Minnesota
corporation that operates a food delivery service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Reace Williams, Esq.
Tim M. Phillips, Esq.
2836 Lyndale Avenue S., Suite 160
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Tel: (612) 486-5540
Fax: (612) 605-1944
SCI DIRECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Romano" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCI Direct, Inc.,
and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.2:18-cv-02377
(C.D. Cal., March 23, 2018) alleges that the Defendants, jointly
and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate
indifference and conscious disregard of the rights of all
employees in, among other things, failing to provide
reimbursement and indemnification for necessary business
expenses incurred in the course of employment, as a result of
misclassifying employees so as to avoid payment of such expenses,
and failing to keep statutorily required payroll records.
The Plaintiffs Romano and Bono were employed by the Defendants as
sales representatives. Ms. Romano worked from May 2014 to April
2017. Mr. Bono worked from the year 2012 to June 2017.
In a March 26 order, the case was decreed as related to Case No:
2:17-cv-03537 ODW(JEMx), and transferred from Magistrate Judge
Charles F. Eick and Judge Consuelo B. Marshall to Judge Otis D.
Wright, II and Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott for all further
proceedings.
SCI Direct, Inc. is a Florida corporation with principal place of
business in Florida, which regularly does business throughout the
State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 877-206-4741
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Ct. Won't Dismiss Morning Song Bird Food Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Defendants The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (SMG)
and The Scotts Company LLC's (Scotts LLC)'s Motion to Dismiss the
case captioned IN RE MORNING SONG BIRD FOOD LITIGATION, Lead Case
No. 12cv01592 JAH-AGS (S.D. Cal.).
The Scotts Defendants move to dismiss the out-of-state
Plaintiffs' and class member's claims, including Counts V-VII and
IX in their entirety and Counts I, VII, X and XI in part for lack
of personal jurisdiction based upon the holding in Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773
(2017). In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants
have waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction, and, even
assuming there is no waiver, Bristol-Myers is not applicable.
The Court finds Bristol-Myers is not an intervening change in
controlling law. In reaching its decision, the Court explicitly
stated settled principles regarding specific jurisdiction
controlled the case and further described its holding as a
straightforward application of those settled principles. The
Court noted the California court's use of a sliding scale was not
supported by precedent, including the Supreme Court's decision in
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915
(2011), which required a connection between the forum and
underlying controversy to support specific jurisdiction.
Contrary to the Defendants' assertion, the Court did not change
personal jurisdiction jurisprudence but applied settled
principles in reaching its decision.
Furthermore, the Defendants were not prevented from asserting
lack of jurisdiction as to the named nonresident Plaintiffs prior
to the ruling in Bristol-Myers. Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co.,
165 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1107 n.5 (C.D.Cal. 2001) notwithstanding the
relaxation of venue and personal jurisdiction requirements as to
unnamed members of a plaintiff class, it is by now well settled
that these requirements to suit must be satisfied for each and
every named plaintiff for the suit to go forward.
Therefore, the defense was available to them at the time they
filed their original motion.
The Defendants have waived a personal jurisdiction challenge by
failing to raise the issue in their initial motion to dismiss.
Bristol-Myers does not afford the Defendants any new relief under
specific jurisdiction jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for a judgment
on the pleadings is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yazve7xj from Leagle.com.
David Kirby, Plaintiff, represented by Alex R. Lumaghi --
alex@dowdlaw.net -- Dowd & Dowd, PC, pro hac vice, Brian E.
Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd,
LLP, Douglas P. Dowd -- doug@dowdlaw.net -- Dowd & Dowd, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey H. Schultz -- jeff@thedriscollfirm.com --
The Driscoll Firm, PC, Jennifer N. Caringal --
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, John
J. Driscoll, IV -- john@thedriscollfirm.com -- The Driscoll
Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Kevin Lane -- Kevin@dowdlaw.ner.com --
Dowd & Dowd, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Albert --
malbert@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Paul William
Johnson -- paul@thedriscollfirm.com -- The Driscoll Firm, PC,
pro hac vice, Rachel A. Cocalis -- rcocalis@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Rachel L. Jensen --
rjensen@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP, Regis C.
Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Christopher J. Quinn -- chris@thedriscollfirm.com --
The Driscoll Firm, pro hac vice, Gregory J. Pals --
greg@thedriscollfirm.com -- The Driscoll Firm, pro hac vice &
Jason A. Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company & The Scotts Company LLC,
Defendants, represented by Allison E. Haedt --
aehaedt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Casteel Elizabeth Borsay --
cborsay@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Edward P. Swan,
Jr. -- pswan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Irene Fiorentinos --
ifiorentinos@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, James Todd
Kennard- jtkennard@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey J. Jones -- jjjones@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Marjorie P. Duffy -- mpduffy@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro
hac vice &Ashley E. Goff -- agoff@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.
SDI FLORIDA: "Jenkins" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Sean Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. SDI Florida LLC dba Sonic Drive-In and
SDI Restaurant Group LLC dba Sonic Drive-In, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00393 (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid, non-exempt First Assistant
Manager employed by the Defendants at their Sonic Drive-In
restaurant located at 908 Blanding Blvd. in Orange Park, Florida.
The Plaintiff was hired in August 2016 and his employment ended
on November 27, 2017.
SDI Restaurant Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
that is known in its home state as SDI Florida LLC. SDI owns and
operates franchised Sonic restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil L. Henrichsen, Esq.
HENRICHSEN SIEGEL, PLLC
301 W. Bay Street, 14th Floor
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Tel: (904) 381-8183
Fax: (904) 212-2800
E-mail: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com
SIGNAL FINANCIAL: Wrongful Conduct over Fee Assessment
------------------------------------------------------
Purba Mukerjee, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Signal Financial Federal Credit
Union, Defendant, Case No. 2018CA001935 (D.C. Super., March 20,
2018) is an action against the Defendant for its unfair and
unconscionable conduct in giving assessment.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant automatically defaulted
the Plaintiff and the class into receiving paper statements,
against their wishes, and then the Defendants charged them $2
monthly e-Statement Opt Out fees. Moreover, the Defendant also
charged inactivity fees even though the account of the Plaintiff
and the class were still active.
Signal Financial Federal Credit Union provides specialized
financial services. The company was formerly known as Washington
Telephone Federal Credit Union and change its name to Signal
Financial Federal Credit Union in April 2007. The company was
founded in 1947 and is based in Kensington, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
SO. NEV.: $295K FLSA Class Settlement Has Prelim Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted Parties' Joint Motion to Approve and Amended Joint Motion
to Approve Settlement in the case captioned DANIEL ACUNA and
JERRY SHAFFER, as individuals and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co., a Nevada
corporation, doing business as Ted Wiens Tire & Auto Centers,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00457-GWF (D. Nev.).
Plaintiffs Daniel Acuna and Jerry Schaffer alleged in their
amended complaint that Defendant So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co.,
doing business as Ted Wiens Tire & Auto Centers (Ted Wiens), had
a company-wide policy of deducting $7.50 from employees'
paychecks for cleaning their company-issued uniforms. The
Plaintiffs allege that this policy violates Nevada Revised
Statute (NRS) Section 608.165 which states: "All uniforms or
accessories distinctive as to style, color or material shall be
furnished without cost, to employees by their employer. If a
uniform or accessory requires a special cleaning process, and
cannot be easily laundered by an employee, such employee's
employer shall clean such uniform or accessory without cost to
such employee."
The parties seek preliminary certification and approval of the
proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective action settlement
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the proposed class action
settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Before approving the settlement of an FLSA collective action, the
court must undertake an inquiry similar to that required for Rule
23 class action settlements.
Before evaluating a proposed settlement under Rule 23(e), the
court must determine whether the settlement class meets the
requirements of Rule 23(a) applicable to all class actions: (1)
numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of
representation.
Assuming that the Defendant's employees are paid on a semi-
monthly basis as required by Nevada law, a member of the Uniform
Subclass who was subjected to the Laundry Policy for the entire
Class Period of 46 months would have a potential claim of $690.00
($7.50 times 92 paychecks), plus interest. The small potential
recovery for each member of the Uniform Class also favors class
action treatment.
The commonality requirement is met with respect to the Uniform
Subclass which involves the common contention that Defendant
required employees to pay for the cleaning of their uniforms in
violation of NRS Section 608.165, and unlawfully deducted $7.50
from their paychecks. The Plaintiffs' argument that the
Defendant was required to pay for the cleaning of employee
uniforms because they became soiled with grease and chemicals
appears to apply to all of the class members who were automobile
mechanics and technicians.
At this preliminary stage there is no clear conflict between the
interests of the plaintiffs and the class members they purport to
represent. Mr. Acuna and Mr. Shaffer are represented to be
members of the Uniform Class. They are also respectively members
of the FLSA Mechanics and Technicians subclasses.
Here, the parties assert that certification is proper under Rule
23(b)(3) which requires that (i) common questions of law and fact
predominate over individual questions, and (ii) that a class
action is a superior method for a fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy.
In this case, the primary injuries to the class members are
identical in that they were subjected to a disputed policy that
required them to pay for the cleaning of their uniforms. Although
the scope of allegedly improper cleaning charge deductions will
vary from class member to class member, the determination whether
the policy violated Nevada law "will answer the bulk of the
inquiry before the Court."
With respect to whether a class action is superior, Rule 23(b)(3)
requires the court to consider (A) the class members' interests
in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of the
separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation
concerning the controversy already begun by or against class
members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating
the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the
likely difficulties in managing the class action.
All of the class members were employed by the Defendant in Nevada
and this is likely the only federal forum in which the actions
could be brought. Because the parties have entered into a
settlement agreement, management of the class action is not an
issue at this time. The Court, therefore, finds that common
issues predominate and that a class action is a superior method
for adjudicating and resolving the claims arising out of
Defendant's uniform laundering policy.
In this case, the parties have stipulated to the creation of two
FLSA subclasses for settlement purposes. The Mechanics Subclass
is comprised of Defendant's present and former employees who
performed automobile maintenance and repair during the Class
Period, and who were and are paid mostly by commissions, and as
to whom Defendant claims the retail/service commission exemption
under the FLSA and Nevada law.
The Technicians Subclass consists of Defendant's present and
former employees who performed commercial tire repair and
servicing and those who performed specific types of automotive
servicing, but not the same work as Mechanics, during the Class
Period.
As stated, putative members of the Mechanics and Technician
Subclasses must return signed consents to join the FLSA
collective action and participate in the settlement with respect
to those subclasses. The extent to which putative class members
join the class will be a significant indicator as to whether the
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. It may well be that
the proposed settlement is preferable to the expenditure of
substantial sums by both sides to further litigate the case. The
fact that the settlement was achieved during a mediation
conference presided over by a neutral mediator is a factor
supporting the reasonableness of the proposed settlement.
Based on the information presently available to the Court and the
liberal standard for conditional certification of an FLSA class
at this stage of the proceeding, the Court will conditionally
certify the two FLSA subclasses and permit notice to be served on
the putative class members based on the proposed settlement.
The Plaintiffs' counsel request an attorney's fee award of
$97,350.00 which represents 33 percent of the total maximum
recovery.
In this case, the Plaintiffs' counsel have also not submitted,
and apparently do not have, contemporaneous hourly billing
records. They have provided only estimates of the hours each
attorney spent on the case. Based on the declarations of the
Plaintiffs' counsel, there appears to be considerable overlap and
probable duplication in the estimated hours expended in
performing particular tasks. For example, for drafting and
reviewing the complaint, Mr. Rempfer spent 12 hours; Mr. Parsons
spent 4.5 hours; and Mr. Mott spent 6 hours for a total of 22.5
hours. Likewise, Mr Rempfer spent 5 hours drafting and reviewing
the mediation brief and 10 hours for attending the mediation. Mr.
Parsons spent 3 hours preparing for the mediation. Mr. Mott spent
15 hours preparing for and participating in the mediation, and
Mr. Lundy spent 10 hours preparing for and participating in the
mediation.
Thus, four lawyers spent 43 hours in preparing for and attending
the mediation. Similar duplication appears in the performance of
other litigation tasks generally described in the declarations.
No real effort has been made to demonstrate the reasonableness
and necessity of these hours. Without the ability to review well-
documented hourly billing records, the Court cannot determine
whether attorneys' estimates are, in fact, close to the actual
hours that they worked on the case, whether there was an
appropriate division of labor, and whether the hours billed were,
in fact, reasonable.
The Plaintiffs' counsel have failed provide adequate support for
their proposed lodestar fee calculation. Therefore, it cannot
serve as the basis for a fee award or as a cross-check on the
Plaintiffs' counsels' request for a 33 percent contingent fee
award. While the Court accepts that the Plaintiffs' counsel spent
considerable time on this case, they have not demonstrated that
there was anything special in the circumstances, either in the
nature of the services provided or the results achieved, that
justifies an upward departure from the 25 percent benchmark. A
contingent fee of $73,750.00, based on 25 percent of the gross
settlement value, therefore appears adequate to reasonably
compensate Plaintiffs' counsel for their efforts in this case.
Accordingly, the settlement, as amended, is preliminarily
approved. The gross settlement amount of $295,000.00 is within
the range of reasonableness necessary for preliminary approval,
and is a fair, adequate, and reasonable amount to compensate all
potential members of the settlement classes when balanced against
the expense and potential outcome of further litigation, and
ultimately relating to liability and damages. It is also
reasonable for Defendant to pay the settlement proceeds in ten
(10) equal monthly installments, with a variance in any total
monthly payment of five (5) percent above or below the monthly
payment of $29,500.00 so long as the total of all payments does
not exceed the maximum settlement amount of $295,000.00.
The Court conditionally certifies the following collective action
subclasses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Section 216:
(a) The Mechanics Subclass consisting of those persons who
worked for Defendant as Mechanics, otherwise known as Auto
Technicians, during the Class Period of March 2, 2013 through
January 31, 2017, and who file a timely, valid Claim/Consent
Form, consenting to be a party in the FLSA claims in the action
and to release those claims subject to Court approval.
(b) The Technicians Subclass consisting of those persons who
worked for Defendant as either a Tire Technician or a General
Services Technician, during the Class Period of March 2, 2013
through January 31, 2017, and who file a timely, valid
Claim/Consent Form, consenting to be a party in the FLSA claims
in the action and to release those claims subject to Court
approval.
The Court preliminarily certifies the "Uniform Subclass" pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The "Uniform
Subclass" consists of those persons employed by Defendant during
the Class Period of March 2, 2013 through January 31, 2017, and
who paid through payroll deductions fees to cover the costs of
laundering their uniforms, and who file a timely, valid Uniform
Claim form, if required under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
Plaintiff Daniel Acuna is appointed as class representative of
the Mechanics Subclass and Uniform Subclass. Plaintiff Jerry
Shaffer is appointed as class representative of the Technicians
Subclass and Uniform Subclass, and the Court preliminarily
approves an enhancement or service payment to the named
Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.00 each.
The Law Firm of Rempfer Mott Lundy PLLC, is appointed as Class
Counsel and the Court preliminarily approves their request for
attorney's fees up to $73,750.00, for all current and future
attorney's fees, and $14,600.00 for costs incurred in the action,
which includes the payment of $10,000.00 to the Claims
Administrator for its services.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y988zxny from Leagle.com.
Daniel Acuna & Jerry Schaffer, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
L. Rempfer -- Andrew@SJPIawver.com -- Law Offices of Steven J.
Parsons, Joseph Nathan Mott -- Joey@SJPlawyer.com -- Law Offices
of Steven J. Parsons & Steven J. Parsons -- Steve@SJPlawyer.com -
- Law Office Of Steven J. Parsons.
So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co., doing business as Ted Wiens Tire &
Auto Centers, Defendant, represented by Carol Davis Zucker --
ecf@kzalaw.com -- Kamer Zucker & Abbott & Nicole Ann Young, Kamer
Zucker Abbott, 3000 West Charleston Boulevard Suite 3Las Vegas,
NV 89102- 1990
SPECTRUM LABORATORY: Court Won't Dismiss TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied Defendant Spectrum Laboratory Products, Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Class Allegations in the case
captioned CASSO'S WELLNESS STORE & GYM, L.L.C., v. SPECTRUM
LABORATORY PRODUCTS, INC., Civil Action No. 17-2161 (E.D. La.).
Casso alleges that Spectrum violated the TCPA and the regulations
promulgated under the Act by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to advertise
their goods and/or services to the Plaintiff and members of the
Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant
blasted junk faxes without complying with the mandatory Opt-Out
Notice Requirements, in direct violation of the TCPA, JFPA, and
the FCC's regulations.
Casso purports to bring a class action on behalf of a Plaintiff
Class that includes:
All persons and entities that are subscribers of telephone
numbers to which within four years of filing of the Complaint,
Defendant sent facsimile transmission with content that
discusses, describes, promotes products and/or services offered
by Defendant, and does not contain the opt-out notice required by
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C)(iii), (b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E), (d)(2)
or 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)-(vii).
Because Casso's claim is based on the TCPA, which does not
provide for nationwide service of process, and Louisiana's long-
arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the full limits of
the due process clause, the Court's focus is solely on whether
the exercise of its jurisdiction in this case satisfies federal
due process requirements
Due process is satisfied when (1) the defendant has purposefully
availed itself of the benefits and protections of the forum by
establishing "minimum contacts" with that state, and (2) the
exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant does not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Courts have repeatedly held that sending a message or fax
advertisement into the forum state in violation of the TCPA, the
conduct giving rise to the litigation, is sufficient to confer
specific jurisdiction over the defendant. Drawing inferences in
the Plaintiff's favor, the Court finds that Spectrum's alleged
sending of prohibited faxes to Casso's Louisiana fax number,
which is the focus of this TCPA litigation, is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case for specific personal jurisdiction.
Next, Spectrum moves the Court to strike Casso's class
allegations for failure to satisfy the class certification
requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court finds that Spectrum's argument challenging
the appropriateness of Casso's class allegations is premature:
Spectrum has not answered the Complaint, discovery has not
commenced, and a motion for class certification has not been
filed.
Accordingly, Spectrum's motion to strike the class allegations as
inappropriate for class treatment is denied without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y76h5xgg from
Leagle.com.
Casso's Wellness Store & Gym, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian
Recile, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum &
Hayes, LLP, Matthew Arthur Sherman, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, Patrick R. Follette,
Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP,
Preston Lee Hayes, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, & Ryan Paul Monsour, Chehardy, Sherman,
Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, One Galleria Blvd.,
Ste. 1100. Metairie, LA 70001
Spectrum Laboratory Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Nancy Scott Degan -- ndegan@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Jennifer Burrows McNamara =-
jmcnamara@barkerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Katie L. Dysart -- kdysart@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.
SUNRISE CREDIT: McNamee Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colleen McNamee, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18cv2251 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.
Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services for credit grantors in the United
States. It offers third party accounts receivable management
programs; cash flow early out/cure programs; account receivables
billing programs; skip tracing solutions; over-the-limit calls
and reminder solutions; attorney network solutions; and credit
and collections training services. The company also provides
credit investigation services, including credit reports and
diversified real estate products and services. Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc. was founded in 1974 and is based in Farmingdale,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Mauro, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
306 McCall Ave.
West Islip, NY 11795
Telephone: (631) 669-0921
SUPER ZEN: Underpays Delivery Drivers, "Allison" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Allison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Super Zen, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV325672 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
March 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.
Mr. Allison was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver
from April 1, 2017 to September 27, 2017. He worked as a manager,
or business consultant from September 28, 2017 to December 31,
2017.
Super Zen, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
the State of California. The Company is a FedEx contractor and
provides commercial and residential mail package delivery
services in San Jose and Santa Clara. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-0800
Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
E-mail: nroysdon@grahamhollis.com
ghollis@grahamhollis.com
vcordero@grahamhollis.com
SYNCHRONY BANK: Settlement Reached in "Anderson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Nalani Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synchrony Bank, and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01895-SK (N.D. Cal.,
March 27, 2018) alleges that the Defendants violated, and
continue to violate, the Penal Code by secretly recording and/or
monitoring the Plaintiff's telephone conversations with
California residents using cellular and/or cordless telephones.
An Initial Case Management Scheduling Order was entered on March
28. A Joint Case Management Statement is due by June 18 and the
Initial Case Management Conference is set for June 25 at 1:30
p.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor.
On April 20, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.
Synchrony Bank provides banking products and services. It
provides certificates of deposit, money market and savings
accounts, and IRAs, as well as online and mobile banking options.
Synchrony Bank was formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank and
changed its name to Synchrony Bank in June 2014. The company was
founded in 1988 and is based in Draper, Utah. Synchrony Bank
operates as a subsidiary of Synchrony Financial. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
TOLL GLOBAL: Removes "Marquez" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Carlos Marquez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toll Global
Forwarding (USA) Inc.; TGF Management Group Holdco, Inc.;
Insperity Expense Management, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03054-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal., April 11,
2018) filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
BC693823) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03054-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal.,
April 11, 2018).
Toll Global Forwarding (USA) Inc., doing business as, Baltrans
Logistics Inc. operates as a freight forwarding and logistics
company. The company is based in Wood Dale, Illinois. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Baltrans Holdings Ltd. [BN]
The Defendants is represented by:
William J. Dritsas, Esq.
Eric E. Hill, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415)397-8549
E-mail: ehill@seyfarth.com
wdritsas@seyfarth.com
TOLTECA ENTERPRISES: Kordus Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Kordus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tolteca Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Phoenix
Recovery Group; Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America
d/b/a Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America; and John
and Jane Does Number 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00326-OLG (W.D. Tex., April 12, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is
assigned to Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia.
Tolteca Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Phoenix Recovery Group is a
collection agency which specializes in adjustment and collection
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
- and -
William Maurice Clanton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C.
926 Chulie Drive
San Antonio, TX 78216
Telephone: (210) 226-0800
Facsimile: (210) 338-8660
E-mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Fairlie et al Sue over Insurance Premium Hike
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Fairlie and Odis Wright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Transamerica Life
Insurance Company and Transamerica Premier Life Insurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00032-LTS (N.D. Iowa, March
29, 2018) seeks injunctive and equitable relief, as well as
ancillary damages, to halt and reverse the Defendants' massive
increase in the Monthly Deductions that are withdrawn from its
policyholders' accounts.
The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that beginning in August
2015, the Defendants suddenly, unilaterally, and massively began
increasing monthly deductions withdrawn from the Policies'
accumulation accounts, falsely stating the increases were
permitted by the terms of the Policies. Despite its
representations to policyholders, the Defendants' true reasons
for imposing the drastic increases were to: (a) subsidize the
Defendants' cost of meeting its interest rate guarantees under
the Policies; (b) recoup past losses in violation of the terms of
the Policies; and (c) induce Policy terminations by
policyholders.
Transamerica Life Insurance Company offers life and health
insurance products. It offers traditional, interest sensitive
whole, term, universal, and single premium life insurance
products; Medicare supplement, hospital indemnity, cancer, AD and
D, accident and health, heart, ICU, and disability insurance
policies; and annuities. The company was founded in 1961 and is
based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Transamerica Life Insurance Company
operates as a subsidiary of Commonwealth General Corporation.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jenna L. Green, Esq.
HUPY AND ABRAHAM, S.C., P.C.
6600 Westown Parkway, Suite 270
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: (515) 984-0091
Facsimile: (515) 777-3399
E-mail: jgreen@hupy.com
- and -
Thomas W. Kyle, Esq.
HUPY AND ABRAHAM, S.C., P.C.
111 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1100
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 223-4800
Facsimile: (414) 469-0646
E-mail: tkyle@hupy.com
- and -
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
Raymond N. Barto, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
raymond@sfclasslaw.com
TRINITY FINANCIAL: Macholtz Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony A. Macholtz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trinity Financial Services, LLC,
and Benjamin W. Pourcho d/b/a/ Newport Law Group, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00420-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich., April 13, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
Trinity Financial Services LLC was founded in 2001. The company's
line of business includes the underwriting of life insurance.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq.
WESTBROOK LAW PLLC
6140 28th St., SE, Ste. 115
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Telephone: (616) 288-9548
E-mail: twestbrook@westbrook-law.net
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Greder" Suit over System Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Greder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Uber Technologies Inc.; Rasier, LLC; and
Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03171-PSG-GJS (D.
Minn., Jan. 16, 2018) alleges that the Defendants committed
massive data breach on the Plaintiff and the Class's personal
data stored in the Defendants' servers, and has created a
substantially increased risk of identity theft.
In November 2017, Uber announced that over a year earlier in
October 2016, hackers gained access and had stolen information
relating to 57 million driver and rider accounts for the Uber
rideshare service. Because of this breach, Plaintiff and the
millions of individuals whose personal data were exposed now face
serious risk of further injury from identity theft, credit and
reputational harm, false tax claims, and even extortion.
Uber Technologies, Inc. develops, markets, and operates a
ridesharing mobile application which allows consumers to submit a
trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced taxi drivers. Its
smartphone application connects drivers with people who need a
ride. The company was formerly known as UberCab Inc. and changed
its name to Uber Technologies, Inc. in October 2010. Uber
Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in San
Francisco, California, with an engineering center in Bengaluru,
India and a regional office in Singapore. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Eric S. Taubel , Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
etaubel@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustafsongluek.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Until June 11 to Answer "Celestine" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Celestine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00216-DGK (W.D. Mo., March 20, 2018)
class action against Uber for its failure to secure and safeguard
the private information of approximately 57 million riders and
drivers who use its service and for Uber's concealment and
refusal to provide notification for over a year to individuals
affected by the data breach.
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on May 11, 2018, approved a Stipulation
extending the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint
from May 10, until and including June 11.
Uber Technologies, Inc. develops, markets, and operates a
ridesharing mobile application which allows consumers to submit a
trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced taxi drivers. It
serves customers in North, Central, and South Americas, as well
as Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The
company was formerly known as UberCab Inc. and changed its name
to Uber Technologies, Inc. in October 2010. Uber Technologies,
Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in San Francisco,
California, with an engineering center in Bengaluru, India and a
regional office in Singapore. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
UBS SECURITIES: Court Denies Arbitration in "Zoller"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned SHANNON ZOLLER and ALEXANDER
BEIGELMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBS SECURITIES LLC, UBS FINANCIAL
SERVICES INC., and UBS AMERICAS INC., Defendants, Case No. 16 C
11277 (N.D. Ill.).
UBS has moved to compel arbitration for one plaintiff and to
dismiss the claim of the other plaintiff, who has already begun
to arbitrate a separate set of claims concerning his termination.
UBS terminated two of its employees as part of what it contends
was a reduction in force. The former employees contend their
termination was part of a more sinister program: by terminating
its employees before it had to pay out bonuses, UBS was able to
reap the benefits of their labor without having to provide the
substantial compensation that it was otherwise obligated to pay.
The plaintiffs argue that the Court should not compel arbitration
of their claims because FINRA precludes arbitration of class or
collective actions before FINRA arbitrators.
FINRA Rule 13204 states that a member may not enforce any
arbitration agreement against a member of a certified or putative
class action with respect to any claim that is the subject of the
certified or putative class action, until one of four conditions
are met, such as the decertification of the class.
First, UBS contends that, for a provision to override the FAA
policy favoring arbitration, the provision must be a contrary
congressional command and FINRA Rule 13204 is not such a command.
Second, UBS argues that Beigelman and Zoller both waived the
right to bring a class or collective action claim.
The threshold problem with UBS's argument, however, is that the
parties' agreement incorporates FINRA's rules, which include the
prohibition on arbitration of class and collective actions. In
other words, FINRA Rule 13204 is effectively part of the parties'
arbitration agreement. Both UBS and the plaintiffs agreed to
arbitrate their claims under FINRA rules. The Court therefore
overrules UBS's contention that FINRA Rule 13204 must be a
contrary congressional command in order to apply.
UBS argues that FINRA Rule 13204 cannot aid plaintiffs in their
effort to avoid arbitration, because they waived their right to
participate in a class or collective action. Plaintiffs contend
that these waivers are unenforceable.
Zoller and Beigelman argue that, under Lewis v. Epic Systems
Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S.Ct.
1809 (2017), the waivers are unenforceable. In Lewis, the Seventh
Circuit considered the relationship between the FAA and the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA states that
employees shall have the right to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, including
litigation.
The class and collective action waivers that UBS presents are
among the types of agreement that Lewis declares to be unlawful.
Whether Beigelman is covered by Lewis and the NLRA
UBS contends Beigelman may not avail himself of Lewis or the
protections of the NLRA because he is a supervisor as the NLRA
defines that term, not an employee protected by the NLRA
To qualify as a supervisor under the NLRA, a party must have
authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or
discipline other employees if in connection with the foregoing
the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
The meager evidence offered by UBS is insufficient to show that
Beigelman used the sort of independent judgment required to
establish that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the NLRA.
Thus Beigelman is not outside the class of workers covered by
Lewis, and the Court need not address plaintiffs' argument
regarding
UBS argues that Beigelman cannot proceed with this lawsuit
because of his pending parallel FINRA arbitration claim against
UBS.
UBS also argues that FINRA Rule 13209 bars Beigelman from
bringing another suit that concerns the matters raised in the
arbitration. FINRA Rule 13209 states that no party may bring any
suit against any other party that concerns or that would resolve
any of the matters raised in the arbitration. The purpose of this
rule, it appears, is to require a party involved in FINRA
arbitration to bring all of his claims in the arbitration rather
than engaging in piecemeal litigation. But FINRA Rule 13204,
discussed earlier, precludes FINRA arbitration of the class and
collective claims that Beigelman has brought in the present suit.
Thus Beigelman cannot assert his present claims at least so long
as they are brought on behalf of a putative class or collective
group in the pending arbitration.
The Court denies UBS's motion to compel arbitration of Zoller's
claims and to dismiss Beigelman's claims.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydb7j494 from Leagle.com.
Shannon Zoller & Alexander Beigelman, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
Jason Singer, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd. & Linda Debra Friedman,
Stowell & Friedman, Ltd,. 303 W Madison St Ste 2600. Chicago, IL,
60606-3395
UBS Securities LLC, UBS Financial Services Inc. & UBS Americas
Inc., Defendants, represented by Eugene Scalia --
escalia@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Llp, pro hac
vice, James L. Komie -- jkomie@howardandhoward.com -- Howard and
Howard Attorneys PLLC, Laurie Amber Perez --
lperez@howardandhoward.com, Perkins Coie LLP, Michael F. Braun --
mbraun@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard PLLC & Molly T.
Senger -- msenger@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Llp, pro hac vice.
UNITED RENTALS: Ct. Narrows Claims in "Castillo" Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned RICARDO
CASTILLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED RENTALS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. C17-1573JLR (W.D. Wash.).
Mr. Castillo brings both an opt-in collective action asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and an opt-out
class action asserting violations of Washington state law
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Specifically, Mr.
Castillo alleges that United Rentals: (1) failed to compensate
employees with minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA
(2) failed to pay employees minimum wage as required by the
Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMWA) (3) failed to pay employees
overtime wages as required by the WMWA; (4) failed to permit
employees to take meal and rest breaks; (5) failed to pay all
wages due upon termination in violation of RCW 49.46.090; (6)
willfully refused to pay wages owed in violation of RCW
49.52.050; and (7) violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act (CPA), through its unfair and deceptive wage practices.
First, United Rentals argues that Mr. Castillo's FLSA and state
law claims regarding minimum wage and overtime pay violations
consist entirely of conclusory allegations and thus fail to meet
the pleading standard set by the Ninth Circuit in Landers v.
Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638.
Second, United Rentals contends that Mr. Castillo's CPA claim
independently fails as a matter of law, as a CPA claim cannot
rest solely on alleged wage-and-hour violations.
Minimum Wage and Overtime Claims
Mr. Castillos brings three claims concerning United Rentals's
alleged violations of minimum wage and overtime pay laws: one
under the FLSA and two under Washington state law.
In Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d at 641-42,
the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed the pleading standard
for wage and hour claims. Landers held that a plaintiff asserting
a violation of the FLSA overtime provisions must allege that she
worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being
compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty hours during
that week.
The court need not decide the question of whether Mr. Castillo is
required to plead a specific calendar week, however, because even
adopting Mr. Castillo's standard, the court finds that he has
provided only conclusory and thus, insufficient allegations.
Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C16-1554JCC, 2017 WL 881384
(W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2017), is instructive.
Mr. Castillo relies on several cases to argue that his assertions
are sufficient. The court disagrees. The cases Mr. Castillo cites
stand for the proposition that a plaintiff need not identify
precisely the dates and times she worked overtime. But, as the
court stated above, it does not need to reach the question of
whether a complaint must specifically identify dates and times.
And even the cases cited by Mr. Castillo agree that sufficient
detail is needed to support a reasonable inference that the
violations occurred in a given week.
Mr. Castillo does not include any allegations of this kind.
Instead, his allegations state an indefinite number of hours
worked; an unspecified length of time for which Equipment
Associates worked those hours; and allegations that apply to all
class members generally rather than to certain plaintiffs
specifically.
Mr. Castillo's complaint is inadequate because he does not allege
the necessary detail regarding a given workweek when he worked in
excess of forty hours and was not paid overtime for that given
workweek and/or was not paid minimum wages that Landers plainly
requires.
In summary, because Mr. Castillo does not provide the sufficient
detail required by Landers the court must dismiss his minimum
wage and overtime claims under both federal and state law for
failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the court grants United
Rentals's motion to dismiss Mr. Castillo's first, second, and
third claims.
Meal and Rest Break Claim
Turning to Mr. Castillo's meal and rest break claim, the parties
present the same disagreement over the adequacy of the pleadings.
United Rentals maintains that Mr. Castillo's claim must be
dismissed because he fails to specify any instance in which he
experienced any of the meal and rest period violations he
alleges.
Mr. Castillo reiterates that he need only allege he worked
sufficient hours to be entitled to a meal or rest break, and that
he was denied such a break.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires: "Employees
shall be allowed a meal period of at least thirty minutes which
commences no less than two hours nor more than five hours from
the beginning of the shift. Meal periods shall be on the
employer's time when the employee is required by the employer to
remain on duty on the premises or at a prescribed work site in
the interest of the employer."
Given that under Washington law, an employer may not intrude upon
the mandatory thirty-minute break to any extent without
compensation, and drawing all inferences in Mr. Castillo's favor,
the court finds Mr. Castillo's factual content sufficient to
create a reasonable inference that United Rentals failed its meal
break obligations on at least one occasion. At this stage, these
allegations are enough to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal United Rentals's liability.
In sum, the court finds Mr. Castillo sufficiently states a claim
under WAC Section 296-126-092. Accordingly, the court denies
United Rentals's motion to dismiss Mr. Castillo's fourth claim.
Both parties agree that Mr. Castillo's fifth and sixth claims
unpaid wages upon termination and willful refusal to pay wages
are derivative of Mr. Castillo's first four claims. United
Rentals's sole argument regarding these claims rests on the
insufficiency of Mr. Castillo's first four claims. Because the
court finds that Mr. Castillo's meal and rest break claim is
sufficiently pleaded, the derivative claims survive as well.
Accordingly, the court denies United Rentals's motion to dismiss
Mr. Castillo's fifth and sixth claims.
CPA Claim
The CPA prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce. A CPA claim involves: (1) unfair deceptive act[s] or
practices; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public
interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business
or property; and 5 causation.
First, Mr. Castillo's claim is not a per se violation. The
Washington Supreme Court has been clear that a per se unfair
trade practice exists when a statute which has been declared by
the Legislature to constitute an unfair or deceptive act in trade
or commerce has been violated. Thus, the court rejects Mr.
Castillo's argument that a violation of any statute suffices.
Second, Mr. Castillo does not sufficiently plead that United
Rentals's alleged violations have the capacity to deceive
substantial portions of the public. To fall within this category,
the plaintiff must allege more than merely the failure to comply
with Washington's wage laws, but rather the payment of wages at
rates below what defendant represented to plaintiff and the
general public.
And in his briefing, Mr. Castillo generally asserts that wage and
hour violations constitute an act or practice with the capacity
to deceive substantial portions of the public" but without
providing legal support. Indeed, the one case Mr. Castillo cites,
Kirkpatrick v. Ironwood Commc'ns Inc., No. C05-1428JLR, 2006 WL
2381797 at *12 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2006) featured solicitations
made to the general public, not just wage and hour violations
alone.
Third, and lastly, Mr. Castillo's claim is not an unfair or
deceptive act or practice not regulated by statute but in
violation of public interest.
Because Mr. Castillo has not adequately pleaded the circumstances
for United Rentals's alleged meal and rest break violations to
form the basis for a CPA claim, the court grants United Rentals's
motion to dismiss Mr. Castillo's seventh claim.
The court grants in part and denies in part United Rentals's
motion to dismiss Mr. Castillo's complaint. The court dismisses
Mr. Castillo's first, second, and third claims regarding minimum
wage and overtime pay violations under federal and state law. The
court further dismisses Mr. Castillo's seventh claim alleging a
violation of the CPA.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7homy7l from Leagle.com.
Ricardo Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn Hunt
Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP, pro hac vice, David C. Leimbach-
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
BRAYTON KONECKY LLP, pro hac vice, Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.
United Rentals (North America), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Arthur A. Simpson -- arthursimpson@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE, Ryan Coby Hess -- ryanhess@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE & Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss --
sheehansullivanweiss@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.
UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in "Almanza" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Manuel Almanza filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit titled Almanza, et al. v. U.S., Case No. 1:13-cv-
00130-EDK, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
The appellate case is captioned as Almanza v. U.S., Case No. 18-
1803, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11,
2018, Mr. Almanza filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Almanza, et al. v.
U.S., Case No. 18-1701.
The original plaintiffs in this case were 290 Customs and Border
Protection Officers (CBPOs) and Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) who
are now or were formerly employed by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security (CBP). They filed
this action to recover overtime pay for time that they spent
studying outside of regular working hours while attending CBP's
Detection Canine Instructor Course.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement as to
the claims of the CBPOs. Under the settlement, Plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss their COPRA and Fair Labor Standards Act claims with
prejudice in exchange for payment by the Government of
$1,716,000.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MANUEL ALMANZA, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, is represented by:
Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq.
JAMES & HOFFMAN, PC
1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 496-0500
Facsimile: (202) 496-0555
E-mail: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
Albert S. Iarossi, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PO Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-3755
Facsimile: (202) 514-8624
E-mail: albert.s.iarossi@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES POSTAL: Court Dismisses "Stewart" ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendant Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General of the
United States Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned DOROTHY M. STEWART, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant, Civ.
Action No. 17-167-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.).
Stewart asserts claims on behalf of herself and purported class
members for: (1) violations of her right to procedural due
process related to her suspension and constructive removal; (2)
denial of procedural rights under Chapter 75 of the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978 and under 5 C.F.R. Part 752; (3) violations of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and (4) violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Brennan argues Stewart's Complaint fails to state a claim because
Stewart failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by failing
to challenge an identical class action in which she is a class
member.
Brennan points out there were two class actions brought by
permanent rehabilitation employees5 that cover claims from the
period relevant to Stewart's allegations: Pittman fka Walker v.
Donahoe, EEOC Case No. 54102008-00188X, and McConnell v. USPS,
Agency No. 4B-140-0062-06.
On March 18, 2008, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations
affirmed class certification in Pittman of a national class of
permanent rehabilitation employees who alleged their employers
limited their hours based on disability since 2000. The class
included all permanent rehabilitation employees whose duty hours
have been restricted from March 24, 2000 through December 31,
2012. The Pittman class settlement was entered on April 3, 2014.
Stewart further contends Pittman does not subsume her claims,
because the EEOC, which adjudicated Pittman, had no jurisdiction
over her MSPB appeal. Stewart ignores the fact she filed the MSPB
appeal a year after she filed her EEO Complaint. Stewart's
decision to file the EEO Complaint served as her election to
proceed through the process that culminated with the settlement
in Pittman.
For these reasons, Brennan's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ychx59db from Leagle.com.
DOROTHY M. STEWART, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DENNIS L. FRIEDMAN --
danielfriedman1@gmail.com
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal
Service, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. AMORE, OFFICE
OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.
UNIVERSAL VACATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moore" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Universal Vacation Club, Resortcom
International, LLC and Villa Group Hotel and Resorts, S.A. DE
C.V., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-3182 (C.D. Cal., April 16,
2018), alleges that the Defendant has made unsolicited calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made the calls using an
artificial or prerecorded voice or an automated telephone dialing
system, and the Defendant willfully or knowingly placed these
calls without the prior express written consent of the Plaintiff
or the members of the class.
Universal Vacation Club is a California corporation headquartered
at 6850 Bermuda Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619)762-1900
Facsimile: (619)756-6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
THE KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 792-6676
E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
UP INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Navarro" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD NAVARRO on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. UP INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-
00106 (S.D. Tex., April 10, 2018), alleges that the Defendant
knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and
Class Members for their overtime hours based on the time and half
formula under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
UP International, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas. UP does
business under the trade name Universal Pegasus International.
UP is a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries, a publicly
traded company that is America's largest military ship building
company.
UP provides a variety of services to the oil and gas industry,
including construction management, operation and maintenance
support, flow assurance, and inspection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
VB3 LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, "Insuasti" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Insuasti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VB3, LLC; Giuseppe Russo; Gary
Leff; and Ricky Leff, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06038-JLL-CLW
(D.N.J., April 11, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and cost, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Insuasti was employed by the Defendants as a restaurant
worker from the year 2012 to June 2017.
VB3, LLC is headquartered in New Jersey engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
VERISMA SYSTEMS: "Harris" Suit Alleges Unjust Enrichment
--------------------------------------------------------
Sakhone Harris, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated v. Verisma Systems, Inc. and Froedtert Health,
Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00464 (E.D. Wis., March 23, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and for
charging illegal fees in violations of the Wisconsin Law.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Wisconsin.
The Defendant, Verisma Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in a state other than
Wisconsin and regularly conducts business in the State of
Wisconsin although, upon information and belief, it has never
registered to conduct business in the State of Wisconsin.
The Defendant Froedtert Health, Inc. is a Wisconsin entity that
regularly conducts business in the State of Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq.
WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES, S.C.
933 N. Mayfair Rd., Ste. 311
Milwaukee, WI 53226
Tel: (414) 774-7330
Fax: (414) 774-7670
E-mail: Robert@welcenbachlaw.com
- and -
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
38 S. Paca St. #116 Suite B
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: (301) 620-1016
Fax: (301) 620-1018
E-mail: borison@legglaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Wash. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Nauheim"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the
judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned DAVID NAUHEIM and COLLEEN NAUHEIM, husband and wife and
the marital community composed thereof, Appellants, v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, Respondent, No.
76274-5-I (Wash. App.).
Nauheim owns a 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI (turbocharged direct
injection diesel). He filed a complaint against VW in King County
Superior Court in November 2015. Based on the defeat device
software, Nauheim asserted claims for fraud, violations of the
Consumer Protection Act, Ch. 19.86 RCW and Auto Dealers Act, Ch.
46.70 RCW and "Other Violations of State and Federal Law.
VW moved to dismiss the Nauheim action under CR 12(c) based on
the class action settlement. VW asserted that, because Nauheim
did not opt out of the settlement, he was precluded from
maintaining his claim. In response, Nauheim relied on the order
of the Western District court remanding to King County.
Based on this order, Nauheim asserted that only the King County
Superior Court had jurisdiction over his claims and he was not
bound by the decision of the federal court in the class action.
The trial court rejected Nauheim's argument and granted VW's
motion to dismiss. Nauheim appeals.
Nauheim's individual claim is based on his ownership of a 2009
Volkswagen Jetta TDI affected by the defeat device software. The
class action identifies as class members all persons who owned or
leased cars affected by the defeat device software, expressly
including 2009 Jetta TDIs. The class action encompasses state law
claims by persons who own affected vehicles, expressly including
claims based on Washington State law.
The federal court ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over
class members and subject matter jurisdiction over the federal
and state law claims of class members. The settlement order
dismisses with prejudice claims by class members who did not
timely opt out and enjoins class members from maintaining actions
arising from the defeat device software.
Nauheim's individual claim is encompassed in the class action
settlement and was extinguished by that settlement. The trial
court did not err in dismissing Nauheim's suit.
A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s March 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8b22xmm from Leagle.com.
Eugene Nelson Bolin Jr., Law Offices of Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., 144
Railroad Ave Ste 308, Edmonds, WA, 98020-4100.
Stephanie Lynn Messplay, Van Siclen Stocks Firkins, 721 45th St
Ne, Auburn, WA, 98002-1303, Counsel for Appellant(s).
John Alan Knox, William Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, 601 Union St Ste
4100, Seattle, WA, 98101-1368.
Paul Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC, 601 Union St
Ste 4100, Seattle, WA, 98101-2380, Counsel for Respondent(s).
VOLVO CARS: Sensus System Not Android-Compatible, Middien Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Middien, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Volvo Cars of North America,
LLC and Volvo Car USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03760-
CC-JBC (D.N.J., March 19, 2018) is an action alleging that the
Defendants committed misrepresentation in the marketing of the
Sensus system in Volvo XC90s, that such system is compatible with
Android Auto, when in fact, it is not compatible with Android
Auto.
Volvo Cars of North America, LLC provides marketing, sales,
distribution, parts service, and training support for Volvo brand
passenger cars in United States, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico.
The company's Volvo's brand passenger car has range of models
including S-Range, the V-Range, the C-Range, and XC-Range. It
also offers financing through Volvo Finance. The company was
incorporated in 1981 and is based in Rockleigh, New Jersey. Volvo
Cars of North America, LLC is a subsidiary of Volvo Car
Corporation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
Barbara Hart, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One North Broadway, Suite 509
White Plains, NY 10601-2301
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: slee@lowey.com
bhart@lowey.com
dharrison@lowey.com
-and -
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Two Seaport Lane, Floor 6
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
pvallely@shulaw.com
WAFFLE HOUSE: Removes "Diamond" Suit to E.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Paul Diamond, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on behalf of Shannon
Diamond and Anne Diamond, Rebekah Diamond, Plaintiff v. Waffle
House, Inc.; Riverside Restaurant Group, LLC; and WH Capital,
LLC; and John Doe, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Boyd Circuit Court of the State of Kentucky
(Case No. 18-CI-00243) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Kentucky and assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-00049-HRW
(E.D. Ky., April 16, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Henry
R. Wilhoit, Jr.
Waffle House, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants in Georgia.
The company offers omelets, waffles, hashbrowns, eggs,
sandwiches, grilled biscuits, coffee, sides, beverages, burgers,
salads, wraps, pie slices, T-bone steaks, deserts, sauces, slices
of ham, and others. It also provides franchisee opportunities. In
addition, the company offers men's and women's T-shirts, hats,
babywear, outerwear, fitness wear, and kids wear; and home goods,
such as coffee mugs/drinkware, coolies, furniture/decors, and
games products online. The company was founded in 1955 and is
headquartered in Norcross, Georgia. It also has locations in
Winder, Auburn, Statham, Cartersville, Acworth, Villa Rica,
Carrollton, Bremen, Temple, and Woodstock, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariana Torres Goff, Esq.
HUGHES & COLEMAN
1256 Campbell Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 1012
Bowling Green, KY 42102
Telephone: (270) 782-6003
Facsimile: (270) 843-0446
E-mail: mgoff@hughesandcoleman.com
- and -
Richard Wade Hartsock
HUGHES & COLEMAN
1256 Campbell Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 10120
Bowling Green, KY 42102
Telephone: (270) 782-6003
Facsimile: (270) 843-0446
E-mail: hartsock@boamlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D.C. Offutt, Jr., Esq.
OFFUTT NORD ASHWORTH, PLLC
949 Third Avenue, Suite 300
P.O. Box 2868
Huntington, WV 25728-2868
Telephone: (304) 529-2868
Facsimile: (304) 529-2999
E-mail: dcoffutt@ofnlaw.com
- and -
Ira Matthew Mains, Esq.
OFFUTT NORD BURCHETT, PLLC
949 Third Avenue, Suite 300
P.O. Box 2868
Huntington, WV 25728-2868
Telephone: (304) 529-2868
Facsimile: (304) 529-2999
E-mail: immains@onalegal.com
WAL-MART STORES: "Mays" Transferred to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Defendant's Motion to
Tranfer Venue to the Central District of California in the case
captioned LERNA MAYS, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-07174-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
The Plaintiff filed the instant putative wage and hour class
action in the Northern District of California on December 18,
2017. The Plaintiff asserted seven causes of action under
California law: (1) Continuing Wages Penalty, Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 201-03; (2) Failure to Provide Adequate Pay Stubs, Cal.
Lab. Code Section 226(a); (3) Failure to Provide Reporting Time
Pay, IWC Wage Order 7; (4) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sections 17200 et seq.; (5) Failure to Provide Employment
Records, Cal. Labor Code Section 226(b); (6) Failure to Provide
Employment Records, Cal. Labor Code Section 1198.5; and (7) a
Private Attorneys General Act claim, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2698
et seq.
Defendant asserts that transfer is appropriate pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Section 1404(a) states: "For the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,
a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought or to any
district or division to which all parties have consented."
The purpose of Section 1404(a) is to prevent the waste 'of time,
energy and money' and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the
public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.
Step One: This Case Could Have Been Brought in the Central
District of California
The events giving rise to the Plaintiff's claims occurred in the
Central District because the Plaintiff alleges violations of the
Labor Code that occurred during her employment with the
Defendant, and the Plaintiff has only worked at the Defendant's
stores located in the Central District. In addition, courts in
the Central District are equally as able to assert personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant as this Court is. Thus, the Court
finds at step one of the transfer analysis that this case could
have been brought in the Central District of California.
Step Two: Transfer of This Case Would Serve the Interest of
Justice
The five central considerations in assessing the Defendant's
motion to transfer in this case are: (1) the Plaintiff's choice
of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3)
the location of the evidence; and (4) other factors related to
fairness and the interest of justice, including the fact that
Magadia is pending before this Court.
Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's motion to transfer on the
ground that "a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to
considerable weight and a defendant must make a strong showing of
inconvenience to warrant upsetting this choice."
First, the Plaintiff is currently a resident of Los Angeles,
which is located in the Central District. Second, the Plaintiff's
claims arise out of her work at two Wal-Mart stores, both of
which are located in the Central District. Third, the Plaintiff
purports to bring this case on behalf of a state-wide class. As a
result, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's chosen venue in this
action is entitled to less deference than is generally given in
assessing motions to transfer.
Convenience of Parties and Witnesses
However, the Court finds it more likely that employees at the
stores in the Central District where the Plaintiff worked will be
called as witnesses than will the unspecified tech workers in San
Bruno and Sunnyvale. In a case with similar circumstances, where
a plaintiff resided in the Central District and brought a
putative wage and hour class action based on his employment in
the Central District, the Court found that should either party
call non-party witnesses such as the plaintiff's former co-
workers or managers who could testify as to the policies,
conditions, or practices at the plaintiff's place of employment
these witnesses will most likely reside within the Central
District.
Indeed, other district courts in this Circuit have held that
where, as here, a plaintiff brings a statewide putative class
action based on employment law violations alleged to have
occurred in another district, non-party witnesses are more likely
to reside in the district where the alleged misconduct transpired
and that this factor tips in favor of transferring venue.
Thus, the convenience of the witnesses weighs in favor of the
Central District.
Location of Evidence
In any event, the Court finds that this factor is neutral. The
Defendant has only generally argued that documents and materials
are more likely to be located in the Central District -- the
Defendant has not affirmatively represented that documents and
materials are actually stored in the Central District, as opposed
to an online database, for example. Cf. Park, 964 F. Supp. 2d at
1095 (finding that this factor weighed in favor of transfer where
Defendant represented that the evidence most likely to be
relevant was largely maintained at a specific office in the
putative transferee district). Thus, it is not clear where the
relevant documentary evidence -- as distinct from the witnesses -
- is located. This factor is thus neutral.
Other Factors Related to the Interest of Justice
The Court found that while the Northern and Central Districts
would have an equal interest in a certified class's case, the
Central District had a greater interest in Arreola's individual
claim because the underlying events took place in the Central
District. Arreola, 2014 WL 6982571 at *11 (citing Vu v. Ortho-
McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F.Supp.2d 1151, 1157 (N.D. Cal.2009)
finding that, while the transferee district's interest was not
substantially stronger than the transferor's, it nevertheless
remains stronger because the events at issue took place there")).
Thus on balance, the Court finds that this factor tips in favor
of transfer.
The Court finds that all relevant factors either favor transfer
to the Central District or are neutral. Thus, on balance, the
factors weigh in favor of transfer. The Court therefore grants
the Defendant's motion to transfer to the Central District of
California.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrhxs5b from Leagle.com.
Lerna Mays, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Dale Harris
law@harrisandruble.com -- Harris & Ruble.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl Lynn
Johnson-Hartwell -- cjohnson-hartwell@bwslaw.com -- Burke,
Williams and Sorensen, LLP, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch --
mwrosch@bwslaw.com -- Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Paloma P.
Peracchio -- pperacchio@bwslaw.com -- Burke, Williams Sorensen,
LLP & Susan Eileen Coleman -- scoleman@bwslaw.com -- Burke,
Williams & Sorensen LLP.
WEST SHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Andrews" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henrietta Andrews, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. West Shore Medical Personnel
Services, Inc.; Paul H. Hunter; Janet Hunter; and Jennifer
Hunter, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00324-JTN (W.D. Mich., March
22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, compensatory
damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Andrews was employed by the Defendants as nurse
assistant from year 2013 to 2017.
West Shore Medical Personnel Services, Inc. is engaged in the
business of providing in-home nursing care to patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Philo, Esq.
Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR
ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor
Detroit, Michigan 48201
Telephone: (313) 993-4505
Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
tparis@sugarlaw.org
- and -
Jack W. Schulz, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Gotham, Esq.
SCHULZ GOTHAM PLC
P.O. Box 44855
Detroit, MI 48244
Telephone (313) 246-3590
E-mail: schulzgothamplc@gmail.com
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Burdette-Miller Sues over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Burdette-Miller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Williams & Fudge, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02187 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.
Williams & Fudge was founded in 1986 and is a family owned
business with the purpose of serving the higher education
community. The Company aids institutions in the recovery of
education-related receivables. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul T. Geske, Esq.
Myles McGuire, Esq.
David Gerbie, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
pgeske@mcgpc.com
dgerbie@mcgpc.com
WINDSOR SURRY: Court Narrows Claims in "Begley"
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned Brian Begley, v. Windsor Surry
Company, d/b/a WindsorONE, & Windsor, Willits Company d/b/a
Windsor Mill, Civil No. 17-cv-317-LM (D.N.H.).
Plaintiff Brian Begley brings this action against defendants
Windsor Surry Company d/b/a WindsorONE and Windsor Willits
Company d/b/a Windsor Mill. Begley raises a number of claims
relating to allegedly defective wood products that the defendants
manufacture and sell.
Begley alleges that, contrary to the defendants' marketing,
neither the adhesive glue nor the wood itself can withstand
normal outdoor weather conditions. The adhesive glue, while water
resistant, is not actually waterproof and therefore breaks down
through exposure to rain, snow, and other conditions. This allows
water to penetrate the pieces of the board, which because it has
no resistance to rot decays, rots, warps, and splits prematurely.
The deterioration of the board can then cause deleterious effects
on the underlying structure.
In support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants argue: (A)
the 2008 Release bars all of Begley's claims; (B) the statute of
limitations bars all of Begley's claims; (C) the claim for breach
of express warranty fails because the complaint does not
sufficiently allege any representation that became the basis of
the bargain; (D) the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
are inappropriate because Begley has adequate remedies at law,
and Begley had no standing to seek injunctive relief; and (E)
Begley is not entitled to seek punitive damages under New
Hampshire law.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, construe reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and "determine whether the
factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint set forth a
plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.
2008 Release
Taking the allegations as true and construing all reasonable
inferences in Begley's favor, the complaint plausibly alleges
that Begley lacked a meaningful choice when he executed the
release. The critical allegation is that Begley was only given
the 2008 Release to sign after he had been falsely informed that
poor installation and not a defect covered by the warranty was to
blame for the deterioration of the WindsorONE boards. With no
apparent basis to insist upon the original terms of the warranty,
Begley's only choice was to accept the new terms offered by
defendants: receive replacement boards in exchange for the
execution of the 2008 Release.
Nevertheless, the court declines to resolve these questions at
present. Although one of law, the question of unconscionability
is a fact-laden determination. Indeed, RSA 382-A:2-302
contemplates that the court will not resolve the issue at this
early stage: When it is claimed or appears to the court that the
contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties
shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as
to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in
making the determination.
Therefore, in light of Begley's plausible claim that the 2008
Release is unconscionable, the court declines to grant the motion
to dismiss on the basis of the 2008 Release.
Statute of Limitations
Negligence, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
The Defendants contend that Begley's claims for negligence and
declaratory and injunctive relief are barred by the three-year
statute of limitations set forth in RSA 508:4, I. Begley asserts
that his claims are timely under the discovery rule, as well as
under the doctrines of fraudulent concealment and equitable
tolling.
Under RSA 508:4, I, all personal actions may be brought only
within 3 years of the act or omission complained of. However, the
statute contains an exception known as the discovery rule, which
tolls the limitations period until a plaintiff discovers, or
should reasonably have discovered, the causal connection between
the harm and the defendant's negligent or wrongful act.
Taking the allegations in the light most favorable to Begley, the
complaint plausibly alleges that, as tolled, Begley's claims were
timely filed. There are sufficient allegations supporting
Begley's arguments that defendants actively thwarted his ability
to discover essential information and that he was not otherwise
on notice of a claim until 2015. Ultimately, the application of
the above tolling doctrines will turn on a number of factual
issues, including the extent of Begley's knowledge of the defects
in the trim boards, the degree to which he participated in
investigating and pursuing the 2008 warranty claim with
Vandenberg, and the effect of the allegedly false inspection
report on Begley.
Given these outstanding disputes of fact, defendants are not
entitled to dismissal under RSA 508:4 at this juncture.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranties
The Defendants assert that the claims for breach of express
warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
are barred by the four-year statute of limitations fixed by RSA
382-A:2-725. See RSA 382-A:2-725(1), (2) (stating that, for
breach of warranty claim, action must be commenced within four
years of tender of delivery).
In Lockheed Martin Corp. v. RFI Supply, Inc., 440 F.3d 549 (1st
Cir. 2006)), the First Circuit reviewed the district court's
conclusion that RSA 382-A:2-725 barred the plaintiff's implied-
warranty claim.
Begley urges the court to refrain from applying Lockheed, arguing
that the First Circuit erred in its interpretation of RSA 382-
A:2-725. However, in light of the First Circuit's decision and
the absence of any intervening state authority to the contrary,
this court considers it appropriate to follow the Erie guess of
the First Circuit. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Woods, No. 1:95-cv-469,
1996 WL 450687, at *5 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 1996) Adherence by a
federal district court to a circuit court's Erie guess is
typically the norm.)
Thus, based on the First Circuit's reasoning in Lockheed, the
court concludes that Begley cannot invoke equitable tolling or
fraudulent concealment to save his otherwise time-barred implied-
warranty claim. Therefore, the court grants the motion to dismiss
with respect to that claim.
Begley's implied-warranty claim is dismissed.
Existence of Express Warranty
RSA 382-A:2-313(1)(a)-(b). To create an express warranty, the
seller is not required to use formal words, such as warranty or
guarantee or have the specific intention to create a warranty.
In this case, there are sufficient allegations that Begley became
aware of defendants' marketing materials during the bargaining
process. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Vandenberg
relayed to Begley the information he learned in defendants'
marketing materials, product brochures, and product warranty. The
complaint further states that Begley chose to purchase WindsorONE
trim board based on the information Vandenberg received and
thereafter communicated to Begley.
And, taking the allegations in the light most favorable to
Begley, the marketing materials on which he and Vandenberg relied
contained the particular representations that underlie Begley's
express-warranty claim. Thus, the complaint is sufficient, and
the express-warranty claim will not be dismissed on that ground.
The court grants the motion to dismiss only to the extent it
seeks dismissal of the implied-warranty claim and the request for
punitive damages.
A full-text copy of the District Court's March 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaau9h7g from Leagle.com.
Brian Begley, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Shawn J.
Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak &
Wanta, pro hac vice, Charles G. Douglas, III --
chuck@nhlawoffice.com -- Douglas Leonard & Garvey PC & George T.
Campbell, III, Douglas Leonard & Garvey PC, 14 South Street,
Concord, NH 03301
Windsor Surry Company, doing business as WindsorONE, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer L. Shoda, Kaufold Gaskin LLP, pro hac
vice, 199 North Arroyo Grande Blvd Suite 200, Henderson, NV 89074
Windsor Surry Company, doing business as WindsorONE, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan B. Gaskin, Kaufold Gaskin LLP, pro hac
vice, 199 North Arroyo Grande Blvd Suite 200, Henderson, NV 89074
WYNDHAM VACATION: Underpays Marketing Reps, Babouchian Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tzovinar Babouchian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.;
Wyndham Resort Development Corporation; Wyndham Worldwide
Operations, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-0014601-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 20,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.
The Plaintiff Babouchian was employed by the Defendants in
California as marketing representative from year 2014 to March
28, 2017.
Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. operates a chain of resorts in the
United States. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. was formerly known
as Fairfield Resorts, Inc. and changed its name to Wyndham
Vacation Resorts, Inc. in October 2006. The company was founded
in 1966 and is based in Orlando, Florida. Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Wyndham Vacation
Ownership, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 886-7224
Facsimile: (619)259-5455
*********
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.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2018. 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 * * *