/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190517.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 17, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 99
Headlines
11 KITCHEN INC: Ajcet Hits Unpaid Wages, Recordkeeping Violations
3 GUNS LLC: Shrader Seeks Proper Accounting After Liquidation
AARON'S INC: Byrd Class Action Still Ongoing
AARON'S INC: Winslow Class Action Still Ongoing
ABM INDUSTRY: Underpays Janitors, Howard Suit Alleges
ACTIVE SPORTS: Faces Traynor Suit in S.D. New York
ACTIVE TREATMENT: Kirby Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ADVANCEMED CORP: Simply Home Files Medicare Class Action
ALLIANCE OF AMERICAN: Former Employees File Class Actions
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Herdigein Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
ALPHABET LEARNING: Hayes Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
AMERICAN SALES: Santana Seeks Damages, Wages Under FLSA
AMERIFIRST AUTO: Sims Seeks Return of Car Downpayment
ANHEUSER-BUSH: Duffy Suit Asserts ERISA Violation
ARRONDI ENRICHED: Underpays Food Preparers, Kim Suit Alleges
BILLINGS, MT: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Water Bill Tax
BLOOMBERG LP: Underpays Data Analysts, Doe et al. Suit Claim
BLUE AND YELLOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Says
BNSF RAILWAY: Rogers Sues over Biometric Data Collection
BOSTON CONSULTING: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Speiser Sues over 33% Drop in Share Price
BROADWAY PIZZA: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Zavala Suit Alleges
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY: Thames Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
CAILLIER CLINIC: Rodencal Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CANADA: Parents in Quebec to Get School Fee Compensation Payout
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Rossacci Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CLIENT SEVICES: Rhee Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
COAST TO COAST: Estevez Seeks Overtime Pay
COLEMAN-RAYNER: Underpays Photographers, Larsen Suit Alleges
COLLECTION BUREAU: Muhlstock Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
COMSCORE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA: Tayne Sues over Debt Collection Practices
D&J LABOR: Underpays Agriculture Employees, Echeverria Says
DENIM TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Popoca Alleges
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Deceptive Job Placement Success Rate
EPIC GAMES: Removes Krohm Suit to Northern District of Illinois
FILLMORE HOSPITALITY: Lydon Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
FORD MOTOR: Removes Williamson Suit to N.D. California
FORSTER & GARBUS: Hoeflich Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FRANCISCAN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Work Breaks
FREUDENBERG HOUSEHOLD: Moore Balks over Invasion of Privacy Rights
GEICO INDEMNITY: Removes Boderick Suit to N.D. Florida
GLOBAL AVIATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Louis et al. Say
GOLDEN STATE UTILITY: Faces Cardenas Labor Suit in Sacramento
HARPER'S TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kennington Alleges
HEREAFTER INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME BANCSHARES: Ogundiran Seeks OT Premium Pay
HUGHES, AR: Smart Seeks OT Premium Pay for City Employees
IL CIELO PARTNERS: Underpays Waiters, Olin et al. Allege
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Misleading Sales Tactics
JOHANSON DIELECTRICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Woods Alleges
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Barrett Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Bassey Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Ca.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Blake Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Boliek Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Ca.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Borges Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
KIA MOTORS: Forehan Sues over Sale of Defective GDI Engines
KONICA MINOLTA: Noriesta Sues over Background Checks
MCKENNA MOTORS: Underpays Salespersons, Elarabi Suit Alleges
MDL 2804: Hawaii County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
MONSANTO CO: Fails to Warn Roundup Users of Health Risks
MORRISON & FOERSTER: Files Sanctions Against Class Action Firm
MOUNTAIRE: Citizens Allowed to Intervene in DNREC Lawsuit
NATIONS RECOVERY: Wollman Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
NCAA: Strickland Seeks Redress for Student-Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Tevis Seeks Redress for Sustained Sports Injury
OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Sues over Debt Collection Practices
OLIVER WYMAN: Website Not for Differently Abled, Sullivan Says
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
PANERA LLC: Faces Philpott Labor Suit in Sacramento
PARFUMS DE COEURS: Okoe Alleges False Advertising of Epsom Salt
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Illegally Denied Insurance Claims, Suit Says
RANDALL FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims
RBC GLOBAL: Sued Over Excessive Fund Management Fees
RM PARTNERS: Tribal Name Used to Avoid State Usury Laws, Suit Says
RUGSUSA.COM: Powell Files Suit Over Text Ad Blasts
SANDAG: Shares Motorists' Personal Data to 3rd Parties, Suit Says
SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION: Loomis Sues Over Product's False Ad
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT: Underpays Agricultural Workers, Suit Says
STUBHUB INC: Barnes Alleges Phony Discounts on Ticket Prices
SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Soliman Sues over Automated Text Messages
SUPERIOR HEALTH: Removes McNear Suit to N.D. Illinois
SWISSX LABS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Culbert Suit Alleges
SYMANTEC CORP: Beyer Alleges AntiVirus Products Design Defects
TAMED WILD: Rivera Alleges Deceptive Automatic Contract Renewal
TECHSERV CONSULTING: Robison Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors
TME ENTERPRISES: Underpays Cashiers, Young Suit Alleges
TRANS EXPRESS: Landi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
TYSON FOODS: R-CALF Asserts Fed Cattle Price Manipulation
TYSON FOODS: Ranchers et al. Allege Price-Fixing of Fed Cattle
UNITED STATES: Kurisko Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
US CONCRETE: Prado Seeks OT Premium Pay for IT Staff
WALMART: Sued for Misrepresenting Sales Price of Items
WARREN TRICOMI: Nisbett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ZENSAH COMPANY: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1989 Merchant Marine Asbestos Cases Reinstated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 8,728 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $795MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Guilty for Illegal Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doncaster Man Dies of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Emley Moor Mast Worker Dies of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Win for Pep Boys Upheld in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MoD Criticized for Failing to Reveal Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,481 Exposure Lawsuits at March 31
*********
11 KITCHEN INC: Ajcet Hits Unpaid Wages, Recordkeeping Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN SALVADOR AJCET AND CARLOS SALVADOR on behalf of themselves,
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 11 KITCHEN INC, and
JASMINE CONCEPT INC., dba WOKWOK SOUTHEAST ASIAN KITCHEN, KOK JIAN
aka "ERIK" CHEAH, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04077 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and statutory penalties for
notice-and-recordkeeping violations.
The complaint asserts that the Defendants have deprived plaintiffs
and their co-workers of minimum wages and overtime pay since at
least on or about April 21, 2016 in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants have also deprived
Plaintiffs of minimum wages and overtime pay since at least on or
about May 6, 2015, in violation of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").
In addition, the Defendants have violated notice-and-recordkeeping
requirements by failing to provide statements along with wages
listing the name of employee, name of employer, address and phone
number of employer, rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether
paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or
other, gross wages, deductions, allowances, if any, claimed as part
of the minimum wage, and net wages, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs were employed as prep cook and dishwasher by
Defendants.
ll KITCHEN INC, and JASMINE CONCEPT INC. are New York Corporations
doing business as Wok Wok Southeast Asian Kitchen located at 11
Mott Street in Manhattan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ria Julien, Esq.
MIRER, MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, P.L.L.C.
150 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 231-2235
Email: rjulien@mmsjlaw.com
3 GUNS LLC: Shrader Seeks Proper Accounting After Liquidation
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. SHRADER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3 GUNS, LLC; JASON CHAN; and SEAN
O'SCANLAINN, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 2019CH04524 (Ill Cir.,
Cook Cty., April 9, 2019) seeks for reimbursement and proper
accounting after the company's winding down and liquidation.
According to the complaint, upon the closure of the restaurant
business of the Defendants on May 9, 2013, monies for unpaid taxes
were owed to the Illinois Department of Revenue in the amount of
$35,000. The Defendant Chan, without lawful authorization, assumed
control, dominion and possession over funds and prevented said
finds use for the day-to-day operation of the business. The
Defendants Chan also breached his fiduciary duty by diverting funds
for his own personal use. His conduct resulted on the company being
involuntarily dissolved.
After the company was dissolved, the Plaintiff was never reimbursed
by the Defendants. However, the Defendants Chan and Scanlainn were
reimbursed in violation of their agreement.
The Defendants' acts of fraud, deception and embezzlement make an
accounting necessary and proper. The circumstances surrounding the
winding down and liquidation of the company including the
distribution of profits and losses and sharing of tax liabilities
from said liquidation, make an accounting necessary and
proper.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luke A. Casson, Esq.
ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD.
661 West Lake Street, Suite 2 North
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 935-2000
Facsimile: (312) 935-2001
E-mail: Icasson@andreou-casson.com
Iwesolowski@andreou-casson.com
AARON'S INC: Byrd Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way
Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and
Designerware, LLC, is now proceeding for determination on an
individual basis as to the named plaintiffs.
In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company and its
independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises
("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the
Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative
nationwide class.
Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software
program called "PC Rental Agent." Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, asserting claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of
privacy, seeking an injunction, and naming additional independently
owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.
In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations.
Following an appeal of the decision to deny class certification,
the matter was sent back to the District Court and, on September
26, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. A petition with the United States Court of Appeals
for permission to appeal the denial of class certification a second
time was denied on December 11, 2018.
The case is now proceeding for determination on an individual basis
as to the named plaintiffs.
Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions to underserved and credit-challenged customers. It
operates in three segments: Progressive Leasing, Aaron's Business,
and DAMI. The company was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.
AARON'S INC: Winslow Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Michael Winslow and Fonda
Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does
(1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC.
In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and
its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law.
Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental
Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and
damages as well as certification of a putative California class. In
April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court.
In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the
case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain
allegations remain pending.
In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which
was denied in July 2015.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions to underserved and credit-challenged customers. It
operates in three segments: Progressive Leasing, Aaron's Business,
and DAMI. The company was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.
ABM INDUSTRY: Underpays Janitors, Howard Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC; and ABM JANITORIAL
SERVICES, SOUTHEAST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02228 (W.D.
Tenn., April 11, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Howard was employed by the Defendants as janitor.
ABM Industry Groups, LLC provides facility services. The Company
offers electrical lighting, HVAC installation, landscape
maintenance, and janitorial services. ABM Industry Groups serves
clients worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
ACTIVE SPORTS: Faces Traynor Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVE SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03246-ER (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019) alleges violation of
the Americans With Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Edgardo Ramos.
Active Sports, Inc., doing business as The House, retails sporting
goods. The Company operates as an online portal that offers snow
boards, skis, bikes, sports apparels, footwears, bags, and
accessories. House serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com
ACTIVE TREATMENT: Kirby Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE KIRBY, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVE TREATMENT, INC., SMILES, INC. and
MARLEY MARTEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10251-CJB-JCW (E.D.
La., May 9, 2019) complains that the Defendants engaged in a
pattern or practice of unlawful conduct which resulted in the
violation of her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
Plaintiff routinely and as part of her regular duties for
Defendants, worked between Defendants' Active Treatment, Inc. and
Smiles, Inc. locations. However, despite regularly and routinely
working for Smiles, Inc. an average of 20 hours per week, Plaintiff
was never paid for the work that she did for Smiles, Inc. Rather,
she was only paid for the work that she performed for Active
Treatment, Inc. In this manner, and due solely to the actions of
Smiles, Inc. and Marley Marten, Plaintiff was denied the federally
mandated minimum wage for all hours that she worked for Smiles,
Inc., says the complaint.
Plaintiff Melanie Kirby worked for Defendants as an administrator
and/or assistant administrator at their locations in Hammond, LA.
Defendants were an "enterprise engaged in commerce" within the
meaning of FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON+JACKSON
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: (504) 599-5953
Fax: (888) 988-6499
Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
mjackson@jackson-law.net
ADVANCEMED CORP: Simply Home Files Medicare Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Simply Home Healthcare on April 10 disclosed that the Chicago based
home health company filed a class action complaint in Federal Court
on Friday April 5th against the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and a federal Medicare contractor named Advancemed. The
complaint accuses the contractor of wrongly continuing the
suspension of the home health company's Medicare reimbursement
payments when responding to its rebuttal letter and then knowingly
computing past debt to Medicare based on a false documentation
error rate it had calculated.
Simply Home Healthcare LLC said in April 5th filing that AdvanceMed
Corporation, a subsidiary of NCI corporation and a contractor for
CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), misapplied
federal laws and regulations "for the sole purpose of inflating
billable hours and winning additional contracts" with CMS.
AdvanceMed is tasked by CMS to use data mining techniques to
identify possible patterns of fraud in Medicare claims. After
examining 30 patient charts that Simply sent to Advancemed in
August of 2016, 9 months later without warning it had Simply's
Medicare payments suspended alleging overpayments resulting from
documentation errors. At the same time the payments were suspended,
Advancemed requested a much larger number of medical records for
further examination and told the company that it had only 15 days
to submit both these records and a rebuttal letter.
Simply cooperated and within the 15-day period provided over 20,000
pages of additional medical records and a rebuttal letter with 24
pages of supportive information. AdvanceMed responded in writing to
the rebuttal letter by informing Simply that unnamed parties at CMS
had decided to continue the suspension and that the reason for the
continuation of the suspension had changed from overpayment to
fraud. In a subsequent conference call, Advancemed refused to
identify who at CMS made this decision and also confirmed that law
enforcement consultation, which is required by law for an
accusation of fraud, never took place. Based on this admission by
Advancemed, the payment suspension should have ceased at this point
but it was continued.
Simply kept treating patients and paying employees with borrowed
funds hoping the suspension would end, but after several months it
had to lay off all but the president and one nurse plus transfer
over 100 patients to other providers. In September of 2017, after
160 days of zero Medicare payments, AdvanceMed lifted the
suspension but at the same time informed Simply that it now owed
Medicare $5.4 million dollars. This debt was calculated by applying
an alleged medical record error rate against Simply's previous 4
years of Medicare payments. Although an appeal by Simply to another
CMS contractor reduced this to $4.8 million, it had no choice but
to shut down in August 2018, "faced with millions of dollars in
alleged debt," according to the filing.
Robert Kunio, the president of Simply, stated that well over 100
other home health agencies and hospices were put out of business by
Advancemed's use of these same illegal methods. He also stated that
if the annual revenues and profits of only 100 members of the class
were comparable to Simply's, then Advancemed and its parent company
NCI could easily be liable for over $1 billion in direct and
punitive damages if found guilty in Federal Court.
Simply is represented in this action by Michael J. Raiz and Lesley
R. Arca of Jurisprudence Health Law Group PC (630-995-9220) and
George S. Bellas of Bellas & Wachowski (847-823-9032). Mr. Kunio
can be reached at his office in Chicago (773-698-6908).
The case is Simply Home Healthcare LLC v. AdvanceMed Corp. et al.,
case number 1:19-cv-02313, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. [GN]
ALLIANCE OF AMERICAN: Former Employees File Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rothstein and Kyle Bonagura, writing for ESPN, report that
two class-action lawsuits have been filed by former employees of
the Alliance of American Football -- one by players and another by
the former Birmingham Iron director of community relations -- after
the league's abrupt suspension of operations on April 2.
Both were filed in California. The players' suit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, and James Earnest
Roberson Jr.'s suit was filed in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of California. Both are suing the AAF, although the
individuals sued in each one are different.
Roberson is suing the AAF and its LLC, Legendary Field Exhibitions,
along with a handful of investors, including former NFL player
Jared Allen, who also worked for the Alliance. League co-founder
Bill Polian, MGM Resorts International, Troy Polamalu and J.K.
McKay also are listed as co-defendants.
The players' lawsuit, filed by Colton Schmidt and Reggie Northrup,
is suing the league under the name AAF Players, along with
Legendary Field Exhibitions, league owner Tom Dundon, league
co-founder Charlie Ebersol and the Ebersol Sports Media Group.
"This is a wholesale destruction of an entire football league,"
said Boris Treyzon, one of the attorneys suing on behalf of the
players. "Once we started looking at the facts, we saw that this is
basically a wholesale betrayal of a group of people."
Treyzon said Schmidt and Northrup are the only players named for
now, but others have expressed interest in joining. Treyzon said he
has yet to communicate with the league, and he declined to offer
other specifics.
The Schmidt-Northrup suit is alleging breach of contract by the
AAF, breach of implied good faith and fair dealings, failure to pay
wages and fraud and false promises.
The suit alleges the "defendants concealed and suppressed a
material fact about their intentions for the long-term viability of
the Alliance of American Football" and that the defendants
"intended to conceal the fact that the league was insolvent."
Instead, the suit claims the AAF projected it had funding for
years. The suit also alleges the defendants "made promises to the
plaintiffs and class members regarding the long-term longevity and
health of the league. Defendants did not intend to perform the
promises made when they made the promises."
The players' suit also alleges Schmidt and Northrup would not have
played in the league if they knew it wasn't financially viable from
the start.
The players are suing for damages and requesting each plaintiff and
class-action member get three times the damages they endured,
general damages and punitive damages.
In March, Polian said during a conference call that Dundon's money
gave the league "long-term" stability.
Roberson's suit alleges violations of the WARN Act (Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988), which states
employees are "entitled to receive 60 days' advance written notice"
in the event of a mass layoff. It also alleges that employees were
not paid for the 60 days after the layoffs, including commissions,
bonuses, holiday pay and vacation pay.
Roberson's suit is asking for the sum of "unpaid wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay
pension and 401(k) contributions and other ERISA [Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974] benefits that would have
been covered and paid under the then applicable employee benefit
plans had that coverage continued for that period, for sixty (60)
working days following the terminations."
The suit also requests interest on those payments as well as "other
and further relief" the court chooses to award.
The Roberson lawsuit was first reported by Courthouse News.
The AAF suspended football operations on April 2 and fired most of
its employees. While still existing as an entity -- some league
employees remain -- most employees lost their jobs on or soon after
April 3.
The league and some of its executives, including Ebersol, were sued
in February by venture capitalist Robert Vanech, alleging the
league was his idea and Ebersol reneged on an agreement to work
together to create the league. [GN]
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Herdigein Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Herdigein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate LLC,,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02668 (E.D. N.Y., May 6, 2019) seeks to
recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").
Plaintiff Veronica Herdigein is an individual allegedly obligated
to pay a debt.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers. In its efforts to collect an
alleged Debt from Plaintiff, it contacted Plaintiff by letter ("the
Letter") dated May 21, 2018, which contained multiple addresses for
Defendant. The Letter fails to instruct the consumer to which of
the multiple addresses provided written disputes must be sent.
Without clear direction as to where to mail her written dispute,
the least sophisticated consumer would likely not dispute the debt
at all because she would be frightened of calling the collection
agency where highly trained and aggressive debt collectors answer
calls. The Letter would also likely discourage the least
sophisticated consumer from exercising her right to dispute the
debt, says the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ALPHABET LEARNING: Hayes Sues Over Biometric Data Retention
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alphabet Learning Center Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH05719 (Ciruit Ct. Cook Cty. Ill., May 7, 2019) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.
The Defendant subsequently stored Biometric Enrollees' biometric
data in its database(s). Each time Plaintiff began and ended her
workday, in addition to clocking in and out for lunches, she was
required to scan her fingerprint using the biometric timeclock
device. Plaintiff has never been informed of the specific limited
purposes or length of time for which Defendant collected, stored,
or used her biometrics, says the complaint.
Moreover, Plaintiff has never been provided with nor ever signed a
written release allowing Defendant to collect, capture, store, or
otherwise obtain her fingerprint print(s), handprint, hand
geometry, or other biometrics. Plaintiff has continuously and
repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful conditions created
by Defendant, says the complaint.
Plaintiff began working for Defendant in on or about March 2012 and
ended employment on or about December 2017.
Defendant Alphabet Learning Center is an Illinois corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
AMERICAN SALES: Santana Seeks Damages, Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
TAHIMY SANTANA, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SALES AND MANAGEMENT
ORGANZATION, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-21835-XXXX (11th Judicial Circuit Ct., Miami Dade
County, Fla., May 7, 2019) is an action by the Plaintiff on behalf
of herself and other employees and former employees similarly
situated for damages and unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Florida common law.
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant, who
worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more workweeks within 3
years of filing of this complaint, are non-exempt and are subject
to payroll practices and procedures, says the complaint. On or
about December 2018, Defendants implementd a new payroll system.
This system automatically deducted 30 minutes daily from the
employees' hours regardless whether or not the employee took a
break. As a result of these improper deductions, Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees were not compensated for all
hours worked, the complaint relates.
Plaintiff began working for Defendants in August 2015 to February
11, 2019.
AMERICAN SALES AND MANAGEMENT ORGANZATION, LLC is a Florida Limited
Liability Company with its principal place of business in Miami
Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
Carlos D. Serrano, Esq.
Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
Email: pmh@rgpattorneys.com
ns@rgpattorneys.com
cs@rgpattorneys.com
AMERIFIRST AUTO: Sims Seeks Return of Car Downpayment
-----------------------------------------------------
ANDRAIA SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIFIRST AUTO CENTER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 87637032 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., April 8, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to return the downpayment
made by the Plaintiff regarding purchase of a motor vehicle.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased from the
Defendant a vehicle, a 2014 Nissan Maxima. The Plaintiff entered
into a Finance Agreement. The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with
a $1,300 cash down payment towards the Vehicle purchase and was to
make two deferred downpayments of $350 within approximately 30 days
after the sale.
The Plaintiff executed the Finance Agreement, made the $1,300
downpayment, but left the Defendant without the Vehicle. The next
day, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant to notify it that she
nolonger wanted the Vehicle and requested her downpayment back.
The Defendant, still in possession of the Vehicle, told the
Plaintiff that it would not provide her with a refund of her
downpayment, but would cancel the sale.
The Plaintiff never took possession of the Vehicle and again
requested her downpayment back, but again refused to provide the
Plaintiff with her downpayment. The Defendant never informed the
Plaintiff that she would not be able to receive a refund of her
downpayment.
Amerifirst Auto Center, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The company is
engaged in selling cars. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Buchwalter, Esq.
ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
5135 West Cypress Street, Suite 105
Tampa, FL 33607
Telephone: (813) 304-2131
E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
ebuchwalter@flautolawyer.com
ANHEUSER-BUSH: Duffy Suit Asserts ERISA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Duffy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01189 (E.D. Mo., May 6, 2019) is a class action
against Anheuser Busch Companies, LLC ("A-B") concerning its
failure to pay benefits under the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension
Plan (the "Plan") in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a
single life annuity, as required by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
By not offering benefits that are actuarially equivalent to a
single life annuity, A-B is causing retirees to lose part of their
vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA, notes the
complaint.
The complaint says A-B uses outdated actuarial assumptions to pay
benefits under the Plan even though it uses current, updated
assumptions to calculate the benefits A-B expects to pay retirees.
By using outdated mortality assumptions, A-B caused Plaintiff, who
worked for A-B for over 17 years, to forfeit part of his retirement
benefits in violation of ERISA. This improper reduction causes
Plaintiff to receive less each month than he should, reducing the
present value of his benefits by more than $4,300.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court reforming the
Plan to conform to ERISA, payment of future benefits in accordance
with the reformed Plan and, as required under ERISA, payment of
amounts improperly withheld, and such other relief as the Court
determines to be just and equitable.
Plaintiff Michael Duffy is a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida,
and a Participant in the Plan.
Defendant A-B is an American brewing company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
8012 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 300
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5446
Fax: (314) 863-5483
Email: mboyko@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Fax: (202) 463-2103 fax
Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
- and -
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
Seth R. Klein, Esq.
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Phone: (860) 493-6292
Fax: (860) 493-6290
Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
mkindall@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
sklein@ikrlaw.com
ARRONDI ENRICHED: Underpays Food Preparers, Kim Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MOONYOUNG KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ARRONDI ENRICHED LEARNING AND CONSULTING,
INC. d/b/a THINK & WRITE; EUNBEE KIM a/k/a ELLIN KIM; JOHN AND JANE
DOES 1-10; and XYZ CORPS 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02114-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, and other
monetary award pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Kim was employed by the Defendants as food preparer.
Arrondi Enriched Learning And Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Think & Write
is a New York corporation, licensed to do business in the State of
New York, that has as its principal place of business at 366 N
Broadway, Suite 400 Jericho, New York, 11753. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Farzad Ramin, Esq.
40-21 Bell Blvd., Second Floor
Bayside, NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 321-0770
Facsimile: (718) 321-0799
E-mail: FRamin@kimbae.com
BILLINGS, MT: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Water Bill Tax
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Rogers, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that the seven
people suing Billings over water, waste and sewer franchise fees is
now a group of roughly 35,000.
A ruling on April 10 by Cascade County District Judge Gregory
Pinski allowed the suit in Yellowstone County District Court to
move forward as a class action lawsuit, which brings in every city
resident who paid a franchise fee on their water, wastewater or
solid waste disposal bill, a group of almost 35,000 people.
"Billings ratepayers are now one step closer to recovering at least
some of the money that the City Council had illegally taken from
them for years," said Matthew Monforton, one of the two attorneys
representing the ratepayers.
The city has argued that the plaintiffs' complaint is moot as
Billings no longer collects franchise fees. It has also argued that
at least some of the plaintiffs -- Terry Houser, Terry Odegard,
Roger Webb, Mae Woo, Kathryn Zurbuchen and Tom Zurbuchen -- failed
to appear or object to franchise fees during public hearings held
on proposed increases to water and waste water rates dating back to
July 2010.
Billings started charging franchise fees in 1992; 4 percent for
water and wastewater services, and 5 percent for solid waste
disposal services. The city ended the practice last summer.
Those percentage points translated to monthly amounts that were
relatively low; that was one of the reasons Judge Pinski ruled to
make the lawsuit a class action.
"The amount in controversy favors class certification," he wrote.
"Few individuals would file a claim for the few dollars a month
they were charged in franchise fees."
The plaintiffs argue that the franchise fee was essentially an
illegal tax collected by the city and that by charging it, the city
violated their rights.
The court's action on April 10 means the lawsuit will move forward
and, depending on the final ruling, could mean the city will be
responsible for compensating nearly 35,000 residents who have been
charged franchise fees.
"A court's certification of a class is one of the most important
steps in a successful class action, so this is a big win for
Billings ratepayers," Monforton said. [GN]
BLOOMBERG LP: Underpays Data Analysts, Doe et al. Suit Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1; and JANE DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 3-19-CV-09471 (D.N.J., April 10, 2019) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as data analysts.
Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Korik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. GRUEN
381 Broadway, Suite 300
Westwood, NJ 07675
Telephone: (201) 342-1212
Facsimile: (201) 342-6474
E-mail: mkorik@gruenlaw.com
- and -
Dan Getman, Esq.
Artemio Guerra, Esq.
GETMAN SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair St.
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com
BLUE AND YELLOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE AND YELLOW TAXI GROUP, INC.; L.A.
CHECKER CAB COMPANY, INC.; ACCESS SERVICES; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11731 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff Jimenez was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
BNSF RAILWAY: Rogers Sues over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH04393 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., April 4, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals'
biometric identifiers and biometric information in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
collected, captured, and stored biometric identifiers and biometric
information of the Plaintiff and the class without any written
disclosures describing the purpose and duration of such use. The
Defendant also failed to make publicly available any retention or
destruction policies, and it failed to obtain informed written
consent from the Plaintiff and the class.
BNSF Railway Company operates railroad systems in North America.
The company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas. BNSF Railway Company operates as a subsidiary of Burlington
Northern Santa Fe, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
mmcguire@mcgpc.com
BOSTON CONSULTING: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Boston
Consulting Group, Inc. for violations of the American Disabilities
Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive
Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case is captioned
PHILLIP SULLIVAN. JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP,
INC., Defendant, Index No. 154109/2019 (N.Y. Super., April 22,
2019).
Plaintiff Phillip Sullivan, Jr. is legally deaf and a member of a
protected class under the ADA. Plaintiff cannot access the audio
portion of a video without the assistance of closed captioning.
Plaintiff has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities,
goods, and services of the company's Website, as a result of its
accessibility barriers. Most recently in April 2019, Plaintiff
attempted to watch the "The Four Keys to Organizing Growth" video
on the Website but could not comprehend the content of the video
due to its lack of closed captioning. The inaccessibility of the
Website has deterred him from watching videos on the Website.
Boston Consulting Group, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation
organized in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is registered in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to do business. The company has a
principal office at 200 Pier 4 Blvd., Boston, MA. It operates the
http://www.bcg.com,which provides information on the firm's
services, history, industry, and careers as well as educational
videos on technological trends. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-465-1188
Facsimile: 212-465-1181
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Speiser Sues over 33% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPEISER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS, INC.; ANDREW V.
MASTERMAN; and JOHN A. FEENAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01610-GAM (E.D. Pa., April 11, 2019) seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Securities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in the Offering
Documents concerning the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) a material
portion of BrightView's contracts were underperforming and
represented undesirable costs to the Company; (ii) as a result of
the foregoing, Bright View would implement a "managed exit"
strategy to end its low margin and non-profitable contracts with
customers; (iii) this "managed exit" strategy would negatively
impact BrightView's future revenue throughout 2018, and would
continue to do so well into fiscal year 2019; and (iv) as a result,
the Offering Documents were materially false and misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.
As of the date of the Complaint, BrightView's common stock price
has fallen 32.8% below the IPO price.
BrightView Holdings, Inc. provides commercial landscaping services
in the United States. Its services include project design and
management services, landscape architecture, landscape
installation, irrigation installation, tree nursery and
installation, pool and water features, sports field, and other
services. The company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in
Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Job A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
10 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
-and-
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
BROADWAY PIZZA: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Zavala Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROADWAY PIZZA OF GREENLAWN, INC.; and GUY
KOWALIK, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02050 (E.D.N.Y., April 9,
2019) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread
hours pay, and damages.
The Plaintiff Zavala was employed by the Defendants as kitchen
staff.
Broadway Pizza Of Greenlawn, Inc. operates a restaurant and bar in
the County of Suffolk and State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY: Thames Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARLON THAMES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY, an
unknown entity; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION, a New
Jersey corporation; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF TEXAS, INC., a
Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00683-JAM-KJN (Filed on Feb. 27, 2019), was
transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California of
the County of Sacramento to United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on April 22, 2019. In the complaint,
Plaintiff Marlon Thames alleges that Defendants have acted
intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to pay all
wages owed to separated employees.
Removal is based on Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) diversity
jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, 1446,
and 1453 because the amount placed in controversy by the complaint
exceeds, in the aggregate, $5 million, exclusive of interest and
costs, the aggregate number of putative class members is 100 or
greater, and diversity of citizenship exists between one or more
plaintiffs and one or more defendants.
Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation is incorporated under
the laws of New Jersey and has its headquarters and principal
executive offices in Burlington, New Jersey. It describes itself as
a leading off-price apparel and home product retailer, operating
567 stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico. [BN]
Attorneys for the Defendants:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Joel M. Purles, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: +1.714.830.0600
Facsimile: +1.714.830.0700
E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
joel.purles@morganlewis.com
CAILLIER CLINIC: Rodencal Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY RODENCAL on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAILLIER CLINIC, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00370 (W.D. Wis., May 8, 2019) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards ("FLSA"), and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") by Plaintiff
on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant for unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as Behavioral Intervention
Specialist on or about November 12, 2018.
Caillier Clinic, Ltd., is a privately owned mental health clinic
headquartered in Eau Claire, Wisconsin that provides psychological
and behavioral outpatient health services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
CANADA: Parents in Quebec to Get School Fee Compensation Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Davies Ward Philips & Vineberg LLP on April 10 disclosed that
Justice Carl Lachance of the Superior Court of Quebec approved, on
July 30, 2018, a $153.5-million settlement agreement entered into
by 68 Quebec school boards and by Mrs. Daisye Marcil, a mother from
Jonquière who represented the parents of students who attended a
public school between 2009-2010 and 2016-2017. The judge described
the day as a very important and historic day for the parents of
students and for the Quebec school boards.
Under this settlement agreement, the parents will receive a net
amount of $24.09 per year for each child who attended a public
primary or high school during the school years concerned. One
cheque per child and per school board will be issued. As a result,
many parents will receive several cheques, often totalling more
than $100. The amounts paid to the parents will compensate, among
other things, for expenses for the purchase of textbooks, grammar
books and dictionaries, as well as for educational field trips. The
cheques will be distributed directly to the parents by the firm
Collectiva Class Action Services. The parents do not need to do
anything to receive their cheques, which will automatically be
mailed to their last known address. In addition, the parents who
changed their address could notify such change to Collectiva in
order to avoid any issues. Close to 5,000 parents have availed
themselves of this option.
The long-awaited moment has now arrived: the distribution of
cheques to the parents will begin in the next few days. Mtre Manon
Lechasseur, from the firm Justitia, and part of the team of legal
counsel for the parents of Quebec, does not attempt to hide her
pride: "Everything is now in place for the distribution, which will
begin over the course of April. Close to 1.4 million cheques will
be distributed to the parents of Quebec prior to the end of 2019.
The parents will need to keep an eye on their mail over the next
months and, above all, not to throw away envelopes bearing
Collectiva's logo!" It is not uncommon today for valid cheques to
be thrown away as a result of concerns about fraud. Mtre Guillaume
Charlebois, from Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, also counsel
for the parents of Quebec, indicates that numerous parents are
waiting for the cheques to be issued: "The cheques being
distributed to the parents are not charity. They compensate parents
for expenses that they should never have had to incur. Several
parents have contacted us since July 2018 to know when the cheques
would be issued, which shows the importance that parents attribute
to this long-awaited compensation. The time has now come for them
to receive their indemnities. They are entitled to them and they
should fully benefit from them." Mtre Yves Laperrière, from
Justitia, indicates that certain parents will need to be patient
given that the distribution will require some time: "Logistically
speaking, it is impossible to send 1.4 million cheques at the same
time. The distribution process will thus be spread over several
months, but is expected to end in 2019. The parents will therefore
need to be patient and to frequently check whether there is an
envelope from Collectiva in their mailboxes. And if your children
have attended school in more than one school board, you will
receive more than one cheque, sometimes a few months apart, so keep
an eye out for this as well!" Once it is confirmed, a schedule for
the distribution of the cheques from each school board will be
available online at the following address:
https://ententefraisscolaires.collectiva.ca.
The cheques will need to be cashed within 180 days of the date of
issue. Joint cheques will, in addition, need to be signed by each
of the persons to whom they have been issued. All amounts that are
not cashed will go to the Class Action Assistance Fund or will
serve to assist students with important financial needs. Mtre
Jean-Philippe Groleau, from Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP,
emphasized that the indemnification of parents remains paramount:
"Our objective is clear: it is that a record number of parents cash
their cheques. In practice, recovery rates are often between 20%
and 40% in the context of a class action. In this case, we wish to
greatly exceed 50% and perhaps get close to 80% or even 90%."
The final results of the distribution will be known prior to the
end of this year. [GN]
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Rossacci Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA ROSSACCI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 19-0456 (Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., April 8, 2019) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.
CitiMortgage, Inc. provides mortgage products. The company offers a
portfolio of financial services, including banking, insurance,
asset management, credit cards, and more; and homeowner support
services. CitiMortgage, Inc. was formerly known as CitiCorp
Mortgage, Inc. and changed its name to CitiMortgage, Inc. in April
2000. The company was founded in 1979 and is based in O'Fallon,
Missouri. CitiMortgage, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Citibank,
N.A. and Citi Retail Services LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
CLIENT SEVICES: Rhee Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------
Hieseok Rhee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-12253-JMV-SCM (D. N.J., May 7, 2019) seeks to recover for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated May 11, 2018. The
complaint says the Letter is structured in such a way that it makes
the validation rights difficult to read. The structure of the
Letter is inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right
to request the name and address of the original creditor and the
least sophisticated consumer could reasonably interpret the Letter
to overshadow her right to dispute the debt. Because the Letter is
open to more than one reasonable interpretation, it violates the
FDCPA, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff Hieseok Rhee is an individual allegedly obligated to pay
a debt.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
COAST TO COAST: Estevez Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Coast to Coast General Contractors, Inc. for alleged violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The
case is captioned VIDAL RIVAS ESTEVEZ, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COAST TO COAST GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61012-RKA (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Vidal Rivas Estevez claims that the Defendant failed to
pay him time and one-half wages for all of his actual overtime
hours worked each week even though he regularly worked in excess of
forty hours per week. Defendant only paid Plaintiff straight-time
wages in cash for his overtime hours and without time and one-half
compensation for his overtime hours as required by the FLSA.
Coast to Coast General Contractors, Inc. has owned and operated a
contracting business specializing in exterior renovation services
including but not limited to concrete restoration, installation of
new glass railing and window systems, waterproofing, and painting
at work sites throughout Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
Counties, Florida, with its corporate headquarters located at 613
South 21 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida in Broward County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
COLEMAN-RAYNER: Underpays Photographers, Larsen Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KARL LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLEMAN-RAYNER, LLC; MARK COLEMAN; JEFF
RAYNER; and DOE 1 through DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12621
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
The Plaintiff Larsen were employed by the Defendants as
photographer.
Coleman-Rayner, LLC is a Los Angeles, California-based news agency
that specializes in showbusiness, but also covers hard news stories
and in-depth features throughout the USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
David Garrett, Esq.
Min Ji Gal, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323)962-3004
E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
mgal@harrisandruble.com
COLLECTION BUREAU: Muhlstock Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Todd Muhlstock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02692-ARR-PK (E.D. N.Y., May 7,
2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").
In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by telephone on May 15, 2018. On that date, Defendant
left a voicemail message ("the Message") for Plaintiff, which
conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The Message, which
announced the call was from a debt collector, was played over the
Bluetooth system of Plaintiff's car. Plaintiff's girlfriend was in
Plaintiff's car and heard the Message who was not aware of the
Debt.
Plaintiff asserts that he never gave Defendant consent to
communicate with any third party in connection with the collection
of the Debt. Plaintiff did not give Defendant express permission to
leave messages on the telephone that the Defendant called.
Defendant's conduct invaded the privacy protections afforded to
Plaintiff through the FDCPA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Todd Muhlstock is an individual a natural person
allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
COMSCORE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 10 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bratusov v.
comScore, Inc. et al., (Case No. 1:19-cv-03210), on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired comScore,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SCOR ) ("comScore" or the "Company") securities
between November 8, 2018 and March 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from April 10,
2019, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.
On March 31, 2019, the Company announced the resignations of its
Chief Executive Officer, Bryan Wiener, and President, Sarah
Hofstetter, both of whom had been appointed to their positions less
than one year ago. The Company also stated that it expects first
quarter 2019 revenue to be between $100 million and $104 million,
but analysts had estimated approximately $106 million in revenue.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.01 per share, or
nearly 30%, to close at $14.24 per share on April 1, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing difficulties
implementing its business strategy; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results would be materially impacted; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased comScore securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from April 10, 2019, the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]
CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA: Tayne Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN TAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv02144-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein
and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke.
Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., doing business as Chase
Receivables, operates as a collection agency. The Company offers
low dollar receivables management, patient budget plan cure,
delinquency management, early payment plan discount, and credit
bureau reporting services. Chase Receivables serves customers in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Stolper, Esq.
THE STOLPER GROUP, LLP
469 Seventh Avenue, Suite 502
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 337-3502
Facsimile: (646) 390-1584
E-mail: michael@stolpergroup.com
D&J LABOR: Underpays Agriculture Employees, Echeverria Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ECHEVERRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D&J LABOR, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
Defendants, Case No. 19CECG01194 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., April
8, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs
Mr. Echeverria was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
agriculture employee.
D&J Labor, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
Brittaney B. de la Torre, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
El Segunao, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com
DENIM TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Popoca Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMMA POPOCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DENIM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11434 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff Popoca was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.
Denim Technologies, LLC is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
Haik Hacopian, Esq.
MOORADIAN LAW, ARC
5023 N. Parkway
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 876-9627
Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
haik@mooradianlaw.com
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Deceptive Job Placement Success Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stirgus, writing for AJC, reports that attorneys for a Decatur
woman have filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit against DeVry
University, claiming it made false claims to her about its job
placement success rate.
The plaintiff, T'Lani Robinson, said in court papers she toured the
school's Decatur campus in 2013 and was told about its 90% job
placement rate. Federal education officials investigated DeVry's
claims several years ago and the school could not substantiate this
claim.
"Had Plaintiff Robinson known the 90% Placement and Higher Income
Claims were in fact false, she would have paid less for these
products and services, or would not have enrolled at all," her
attorneys wrote in their April 3 lawsuit complaint.A spokesman for
DeVry's former parent company, Altalem Global Education, said it
does not comment on pending litigation.DeVry, a for-profit school,
currently operates five campuses in Georgia and offers online
courses. DeVry reached a $100 million settlement with the federal
government in December 2016, with nearly half of the money going to
students harmed by the deceptive advertising. The rest of the money
went to unpaid student loans and debts. [GN]
EPIC GAMES: Removes Krohm Suit to Northern District of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC GAMES, INC.,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit
Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No.
2019-CH-02032) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on April 8, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02353. The case is
assigned to Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber.
Epic Games, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, develops games for
to PCs, consoles, mobiles, VRs, and the Web. It also offers game
engine technologies to developers worldwide. Epic Games, Inc. has a
strategic collaboration with Presagis. Epic Games, Inc. was
formerly known as Epic MegaGames, Inc. and changed its name to Epic
Games, Inc. in March 1999. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Cary, North Carolina with additional offices in Newcastle
and Royal Leamington Spa. It has locations in Salt Lake City, Utah;
Seattle, Washington; Guildford, England; Berlin, Germany; Yokohama,
Japan; Seoul, Korea; and Shanghai, China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
mmcguire@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Constantine Koutsoubas, Esq.
Matthew Charles Luzadder, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
333 W. Wacker Drive, 26th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 857-7070
E-mail: ckoutsoubas@kelleydrye.com
mluzadder@kelleydrye.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
101 Park Ave
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 808-5145
E-mail: jjacobson@kelleydrye.com
FILLMORE HOSPITALITY: Lydon Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
DONAL LYDON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. FILLMORE HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, and FH CHI, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH05679 (Circuit
Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., May 6, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint
against Defendant for their violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and to obtain redress for persons
injured by their conduct.
Using biometrically-enabled technology, Defendants are capturing,
collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of
Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written
consent as required by law, in order to track their time when they
"clock-in" and "clock-out" of their work shifts. The Defendants'
biometric timekeeping regime allows for and resulted in the
dissemination of Plaintiff and other Class member's biometrics to
third parties, including vendors for timekeeping, data storage, and
payroll purposes, notes the complaint.
Prior to taking Plaintiffs biometrics, Defendants did not inform
Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected,
stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically
about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Donal Lydon has been a resident and citizen of the state
of Illinois and worked for Defendants in Cook County.
Defendants ia a leading hotel chain with locations across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 6060 l
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
FORD MOTOR: Removes Williamson Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of ANDREW WILLIAMSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENENTECH,
INC.; and GENENTECH USA, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo (Case No. 19-CIV-01022) to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 5, 2019. The
clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-01840. The case is assigned to Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley.
Genentech, Inc., a biotechnology company, discovers, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes medicines to treat patients with
serious or life-threatening medical conditions in the United
States. Genentech, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in
South San Francisco, California. Genentech, Inc. is as a subsidiary
of Roche Holdings, Inc. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alicia J. Donahue, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
One Montgomery, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: adonahue@shb.com
FORSTER & GARBUS: Hoeflich Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESTER J. HOEFLICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP; and JH
PORTFOLIO DEBT EQUITIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-06265-DGL (W.D.N.Y., April 9, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts. [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
FRANCISCAN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Work Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Farley, writing for Kitsap Sun, reports that a Harrison
Medical Center nurse filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court
on April 9 against Franciscan Health System, alleging staff there
aren't properly compensated for lunch and other work breaks.
Hana Etcheverry of Port Orchard, who works at the Harrison campus
in Bremerton, says in court documents that nurses' unpaid breaks,
including 30 minutes for lunch, are "continuously subject to
interruption" in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
and Washington state law.
"Instead of making nursing staff clock out for their meal periods
then clock back in at the end of a meal period, Defendants assume
nursing staff are able to find a 30-minute block of time to enjoy a
bona fide meal period," the lawsuit says. "In fact, this does not
typically occur."
And further, Franciscan "encourages interruptions" from meals and
breaks by requiring nurses to carry electronic devices so they can
be reached at all times, the suit alleges. Its lawyers filed it as
a class action to enjoin all nurses like Etcheverry who've worked
in the Franciscan Health System over the past several years.
"Defendants have a payroll policy and practice of not compensating
hourly-paid nursing staff for work performed during meal periods,"
the lawsuit, filed by the Seattle-based Terrell Marshall Law Group
in U.S. District Court, says.
"We are aware of the recent filing, are looking into all the
matters raised in the complaint, and will handle all
appropriately," Cary Evans, CHI Franciscan's vice president for
communications and government affairs. "CHI Franciscan takes the
allegations seriously, and we are committed to fair treatment for
all of our employees."
Ensuring breaks for nurses has been a topic in the Legislature and
within the state court system this past year. An April 2018 state
supreme court decision appears to have cleared the way for nurses
to be able to file a class action suit against employers that don't
allow for such breaks as codified in state law. A bill this year in
the Legislature that would require hospitals to provide employees
with uninterrupted breaks has passed the House and is currently
being debated in the Senate, according to the Spokane
Spokesman-Review.
Nurses like Etcheverry, a non-exempt employee making $35.50 an
hour, are expected to find a 30-minute block for lunch, which under
Washington state law they're expected to do no sooner than two
hours after shift start and no later than five, the lawsuit says.
"However, in practice, nursing staff remain on duty and are
continuously subject to interrogation during that (lunch) time," it
reads. The suit goes also alleges the nurses work further amounts
of time off the clock on "various tasks" performed before and after
shifts.
Lawyers for Etcheverry did not return a call and email for comment
on April 10. [GN]
FREUDENBERG HOUSEHOLD: Moore Balks over Invasion of Privacy Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Freudenberg
Household Products LP for alleged violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The case is captioned
LATARA CHANTEL MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. FREUDENBERG HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
LP, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH05103 (Ill. Cir., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Moore alleges that Freudenberg has violated BIPA by its
conduct of capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff and
other workers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information.
Freudenberg has also failed to provide the required disclosures to
inform its workers that it is collecting their biometric
identifiers and information, and failed to inform the workers of
how long it intended to keep this highly sensitive information.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from Freudenberg's illegal
actions.
Freudenberg manufactures and supplies laundry care and mechanical
household cleaning products. Its products include cleaning cloths,
abrasives, floor cleaning cloths, steel wool pads and sponges. The
company owns and operates a facility in Aurora, Illinois, and
possibly elsewhere in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James X. Bormes, Esq.
Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603 33422
Telephone: (312) 201-0575
Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
cpsons@bormeslaw.com
- and –
Frank Castiglione, Esq.
Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603 58402
Telephone: (312) 356-3200
Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
kasit@khowajalaw.com
GEICO INDEMNITY: Removes Boderick Suit to N.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CLEONDENISE BODERICK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, County of Leon
(Case No. 2019-CA-000570) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida on April 9, 2019. The clerk of court
for the Northern District of Florida assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00158-MW-MJF. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Marke E
Walker and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J Frank.
GEICO Indemnity Company operates as a property and casualty
insurer. GEICO Indemnity Company was formerly known as Criterion
Insurance Company Ltd. and changed its name to GEICO Indemnity
Company in June 1986. The company was incorporated in 1961 and is
based in Chevy Chase, Maryland. GEICO Indemnity Company operates as
a subsidiary of GEICO Corporation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig E Rothburd, Esq.
CRAIG E ROTHBURD PA
320 W Kennedy Blvd, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 251-8800
Facsimile: (813) 251-5042
E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.Com
- and -
Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
Mark S Fistos, Esq.
ZEBERSKY & PAYNE LLP
110 Se 6th St., Suite 2150
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: 989-7781
E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
- and -
Scott Roger Jeeves, Esq.
JEEVES LAW GROUP PA
954 1st Ave N
Saint Petersberg, FL 33705
Telephone: (727) 894-2929
Facsimile: (727) 822-1499
E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Patrick Marino, Esq.
Kristen Lindsay Wenger, Esq.
SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
50 N Laura St Ste 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 598-6104
Facsimile: (904) 598-6204
E-mail: jmarino@sgrlaw.com
kwenger@sgrlaw.com
- and -
Lindsey R Trowell, Esq.
SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
50 N Laura St Ste 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 598-6125
Facsimile: (904) 598-6225
E-mail: ltrowell@sgrlaw.com
GLOBAL AVIATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Louis et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------
DEMARIE LOUIS; and CHARDAY TOLLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL AVIATION
MANAGEMENT GROUP CORP.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11672 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.
Global Aviation Management Group Corp. provide solutions for
commercial aircraft maintenance, technical management and aircraft
lease maintenance. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIANII
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818)609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
GOLDEN STATE UTILITY: Faces Cardenas Labor Suit in Sacramento
-------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Golden State Utility Co. The case is captioned as CECIL CARDENAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GOLDEN STATE UTILITY CO.; and Does 1-50, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00254130-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
April 10, 2019).
As of April 17, 1998, Golden State Utility Co. operates as a
subsidiary of Dycom Investments, Inc. The company issues senior
subordinated notes. The company was incorporated in 2003 and is
based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Dycom Investments Inc. is a subsidiary of Dycom Industries, Inc.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
HARPER'S TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kennington Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE KENNINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARPER'S TREE; STUMP REMOVAL INC.;
and DONALD RANDOLPH HARPER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00052-WLS
(M.D. Ga., April 10, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiff Kennington was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt, hourly-paid employee.
Harper's Tree & Stump Removal Inc provides construction services.
The Company offers real estate improvement, excavation, demolition,
pond construction, posture renovation, and survey clearing
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
McNeill Stokes, Esq.
5372 Whitehall Place
Mableton, GA 30126
Telephone: (404) 352-2144
E-mail: mcstokes@bellsouth.net
HEREAFTER INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HEREAFTER, INC. d/b/a AREAWARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03021-GBD (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2019)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels.
The Hereafter, Inc. d/b/a Areaware, Inc. sells toys, namely,
building blocks, toy figures, toy animals, toy cars, playing cards,
spinning tops. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com
HOME BANCSHARES: Ogundiran Seeks OT Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Home Bancshares, Inc. for violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The
case is captioned SHANNA OGUNDIRAN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Those Similarly Situated, vs. HOME BANCSHARES, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00284-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Shanna Ogundiran alleges that Home Bancshares, Inc.
misclassified her as an exempt employee and accordingly did not pay
her any overtime premium for hours worked beyond 40 in a given
workweek. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees as provided by the FLSA.
Home Bancshares, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation
registered to do business in the state of Arkansas. The company's
principal place of business is 719 Harkrider Street, Conway,
Arkansas. It maintains website at www.homebancshares.com and
provides banking services throughout Arkansas, Florida and other
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Ford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HUGHES, AR: Smart Seeks OT Premium Pay for City Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
City of Hughes in Arkansas for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The case is captioned ROBERT SMART,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
PLAINTIFF vs. CITY OF HUGHES, ARKANSAS, DEFENDANT, Case No.
2:19-cv-00047-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Robert Smart alleges that the City of Hughes did not pay
Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees one and one-half times
their regular rate for their hours worked over 40 per week. He also
alleges that the Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees with compensatory time off at a rate of one
and one-half hours for their hours worked over 40 per week.
The City of Hughes operates the water department where Plaintiff
was employed within the past 3 years as an hourly-paid employee.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stacy Gibson, Esq.
Josh Sandford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
ONE FINANCIAL CENTER
650 SOUTH SHACKLEFORD, SUITE 411
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211
TELEPHONE: (501) 221-0088
FACSIMILE: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sandfordlawfirm.com
IL CIELO PARTNERS: Underpays Waiters, Olin et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------
MARK OLIN; and GIUSEPPE PATERNOSTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IL CIELO PARTNERS,
LTD.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 19STCV11717 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 5, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters.
Il Cielo Partners, LTD. is an upscale Italian restaurant located in
Beverly Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jana M. Moser, Esq.
MOSER LEGAL, PC
355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (310) 295-0142
Facsimile: (323) 476-0130
E-mail: jana@moserlegal.com
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Misleading Sales Tactics
-------------------------------------------------------
James Fernyhough, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
Insurance Australia Group faces a Federal Court class action over
alleged "misleading and deceptive conduct" spanning almost a decade
in the sale of add-on car insurance through its subsidiary Swann
Insurance, in a case that could include thousands of claimants.
If the action is successful, IAG could be liable for additional
compensation on top of the $39 million set aside following an
out-of-court agreement with the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission.
IAG announced the action to the Australian Securities Exchange on
April 11. It will be the first class action faced by IAG since the
Hayne royal commission, when add-on insurance sold through car
dealers came under particular scrutiny.
The action was filed by law firm Johnson Winter & Slattery, in
co-operation with Bannister Law, on behalf of lead plaintiff Jones
Asirifi-Otchere.
'Little or no value'
A spokesperson for Bannister Law would not say how many claimants
had joined the action, but The Australian Financial Review
understands the number of eligible customers could be in the
thousands.
Charles Bannister, principal at Bannister Law, said: "The claim,
seeking compensation, relates to misleading and deceptive conduct
in relation to the way the insurance products were presented and
sold in car dealerships to purchasers of motor vehicles and motor
cycles between 1 January, 2008, [and] 1 August, 2017."
Until 2017, Swann sold add-on insurance through motor dealers. But
in 2017 ASIC ruled these products were of "little or no value".
ASIC said affected customers had been sold policies that were
either unclaimable, unnecessary, or that duplicated existing
policies. Some were sold cover for longer periods than they needed,
while others had paid twice for roadside assistance cover. IAG
agreed to refund $39 million to 67,960 customers and sold its book
of contracts with motor dealers.
Negative attention
So far IAG has paid out about $22 million in refunds. It no longer
sells these types of add-on insurance.
IAG is not the only insurer to compensate customers for mis-sold
add-on insurance. QBE, Allianz and MTA have entered similar
compensation agreements with ASIC.
During the Hayne royal commission, add-on insurance sold through
car dealers received more negative attention than any other type of
general insurance.
In his final report, Commissioner Kenneth Hayne proposed ASIC cap
the commissions paid to car dealers when they sold add-on
insurance. He also called for add-on insurance to be sold on a
deferred sales model, where insurance is sold after the initial car
sale. [GN]
JOHANSON DIELECTRICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Woods Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHANSON DIELECTRICS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11487 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles, April 4, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Mr. Woods was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid or
non-exempt employee.
Johanson Dielectrics, Inc. designs and manufactures ceramic chip
capacitors. It provides standard and high voltage SMT ceramic
capacitors, as well as various standard and custom high voltage and
high capacitance value ceramic capacitors. The company was founded
in 1965 and is based in Sylmar, California with a network of sales
and manufacturing locations worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Barrett Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit titled VIOLET BARRETT, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03284 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that the
Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Bassey Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Ca.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit entitled ANNETTE BASSEY, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03290 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Blake Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit captioned MARVA L. BLAKE, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.;
IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03245 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Boliek Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Ca.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the matter styled NINA BOLIEK, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. JCCP 4872, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03253 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit was filed on February 26, 2018, in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara and was
assigned Case No. 18CV324060.
The action seeks recovery for damages as a result of ovarian
cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful
conduct by the Defendants -- the unreasonably dangerous and
defective nature of the talcum powder, the main ingredient of the
Defendants' products, which include Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder
and Shower to Shower.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Cirsch, Esq.
Michael Akselrud, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Telephone: (310) 277-5100
Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Nicholas Vaughan Janizeh, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street 42nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Borges Talc Injury Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
removed on April 24, 2019, the lawsuit entitled MARJORIE BORGES, an
individual v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03268 to the
proceeding.
The State Court Talc Claims against J&J center on allegations that
exposure to the Debtors' talc caused the Plaintiff's injuries,
specifically, ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. J&J disputes
these allegations.
On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which generally alleges that
the Debtors' talc, through the habitual use of J&J cosmetic talcum
powder products, caused the Plaintiff's personal injury and/or
wrongful death.
The case was coordinated into the coordinated proceeding pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maren Nelson: In re
Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (JCCP No. 4872). On February
20, 2019, leadership for all plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceeding filed a Second Amended Master Complaint ("Master
Complaint").
On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.
(collectively, the "Debtors"), filed a voluntary chapter 11
petition, commencing a reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys
Talc America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter
11 Case").
Because the Debtors have historically been J&J's sole supplier of
cosmetic talc, the Debtors are routinely named as a co-defendant in
the actions in which the Talc Claims arise. Even where the Debtors
are not so named as co-defendants, however, the Talc Claims are
related to the Debtors' bankruptcy.[BN]
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
are represented by:
Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
Nicholas Janizeh, Esq.
Caroline Toole, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com
nicholas.janizeh@tuckerellis.com
caroline.toole@tuckerellis.com
- and -
Michael F. Healy, Esq.
Emily Weissenberger, Esq.
Alexander Guney, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
eweissenberger@shb.com
aguney@shb.com
KIA MOTORS: Forehan Sues over Sale of Defective GDI Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FOREHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12275 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 9, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle and its
2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective and
susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew since 2009, if not
earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011-2019 KIA Sportage,
2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019
Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine,
including the 2012 Kia Sorento contained one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the
restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as
well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which
typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited
warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to
experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation
and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all
due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often
causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a
knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a
fire.
Kia Motors America, Inc. markets and distributes vehicles. It
offers mid-size and luxury sedans, crossovers and minivans, compact
vehicles, hybrid and electric vehicles, special edition vehicles,
and concept cars. The company offers vehicles through dealers in
the United States. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is
based in Irvine, California with an additional office in Dallas,
Texas. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Kia
Motors Corp. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
& CARPENTER, LLP
402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 756-6994
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Edwin J. Kilpela, 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: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (854) 705-9460
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
HALUNEN LAW
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 605-4098
Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
E-mail: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
boyle@halunenlaw.com
- and -
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
PO Box 7
Bly, OR 97622
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
KONICA MINOLTA: Noriesta Sues over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
HARRY NORIESTA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A.,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00620-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2019) alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Jesus G. Bernal.
Konica Minolta Business Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. provides document
management technologies and information technology services. Konica
Minolta Business Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. was formerly known as
Minolta Corporation and changed its name to Konica Minolta Business
Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. in October 2003. The company was founded in
1959 and is based in Ramsey, New Jersey. Konica Minolta Business
Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Konica Minolta,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
MCKENNA MOTORS: Underpays Salespersons, Elarabi Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR ELARABI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCKENNA MOTORS TORRANCE, INC.; MCKENNA MOTOR
COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV11493 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 4, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
Mr. Elarabi was employed by the Defendants as salesperson.
McKenna Motor Company, Inc. operates as a car dealer. The Company
offers retail sale of new and used automobiles. McKenna Motor
Company serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
MDL 2804: Hawaii County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Cook Lauer, writing for Hawaii Tribune Herald, reports that
Hawaii County is jumping into a multi-state class action lawsuit
against Big Pharma manufacturers and distributors, seeking
compensation for opioid addiction and overdoses on the island.
The County Council on April 10 voted 6-2 to hire a national law
firm in what supporters called a no-risk contingency deal that has
the attorneys paid from a portion of proceeds only if they win or
settle the case. Otherwise, the county would pay nothing
Council members said Big Pharma caused the opioid crisis so it
should help fix it.
"We've got to deal with this devastating effect of their aggressive
marketing," said Hamakua Councilwoman Valerie Poindexter. "They
need to start forking some of that money over so we can start
addressing some of the devastating effects of what they created."
Kona Councilwoman Rebecca Villegas agreed.
"This is taking it to the next level, holding accountable those who
manufactured a poison and sold it as a magic pill," Villegas said.
"It's accountability for corporate greed . . . an opportunity for
little to no risk for the county with an opportunity for some
reward."
Voting no were Kohala Councilman Tim Richards and Hilo Councilwoman
Sue Lee Loy, who have philosophical issues about blaming
manufacturers for improper use of their products. Council Chairman
Aaron Chung, also of Hilo, was not in the room for the vote.
"What I'm concerned about is, we're going for the deep pockets
rather than the root of the problem," Richards said. "What we're
taking about is managing a crisis. . . . The end user, the
prescriber, the one who held the license, is the one to be held
accountable."
The measure gives Corporation Counsel authority to hire on a
contingency basis the New York City-based personal injury law firm
Napoli Shkolnik and its local counsel, the Hawaii Accident Law
Center from Honolulu.
Details about the potential lawsuit are sketchy, but attorneys will
enter Hawaii County in multi-state litigation that's been ongoing
for about a year. The lawsuits center on manufacturers and
distributors of opioids in particular.
The county's action comes as a settlement agreement in March saw
the state of Oklahoma winning $270 million in litigation against
Purdue Pharma and the billionaire Sackler family owners over its
OxyContin pain killer.
Representatives for Purdue and Sackler family members said the suit
misleadingly blames them for a problem that's far bigger than
OxyContin, according to the Associated Press.
Lawsuits claiming drug manufacturers collaborated to downplay the
serious risks of opioid addiction have been increasing nationwide.
Distributors have been included in some lawsuits, including Hawaii
County's, accused of playing a part in a scheme that "spent
millions of dollars developing deceptive materials and advertising,
deploying sales representatives and recruiting physicians to
encourage increased prescription rates, which in turn led to
increased addiction, loss of life and costs," according to the
county's Resolution 20.
Healthcare Distribution Alliance, the national trade association
representing distributors, including AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal
Health and McKesson, takes issue with being included in the mix.
"The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a complex public
health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic
response that engages all stakeholders," said John Parker,
executive vice president for Healthcare Distribution Alliance, in a
statement.
"Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the
number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and
lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually
works and is regulated," Parker added. "Those bringing lawsuits
would be better served addressing the root causes, rather than
trying to redirect blame through litigation."
Hawaii County has the highest rate of prescribing opioids of any
county in the state, at a rate of 66.4 prescriptions per 100
people, double the prescribing rate for the City and County of
Honolulu, according to the resolution.
The county could benefit financially from a multi-party lawsuit,
similar to money that came to Hawaii and other states from Big
Tobacco litigation.
Kauai County also accepted the deal, but the state attorney general
has not, according to county Corporation Counsel Joe Kamelamela. He
said that means any compensation would come directly to the county,
unlike the similar tobacco settlement agreement that had all the
compensation going to the state.
Any compensation from the lawsuit would have to be used in some
manner relating to addiction or its effects.
"There's got to be some nexus," Kamelamela said.
Such effects won't be hard to find on this island, said South
Kona/Ka‘u Councilwoman Maile David.
"This lawsuit will determine whether it is the manufacturer's
responsibility. . . . But I think we have to start somewhere,"
David said. "If we win, we will at least have an opportunity to
address something that everyone in this room has been touched by in
one way or another." [GN]
MONSANTO CO: Fails to Warn Roundup Users of Health Risks
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the maker of the world's most popular herbicide could have warned
the public about possible cancer risks, but chose not to, a
controversial expert witness in a trial over a couple's claims that
Roundup caused their cancers testified on April 17.
Back in 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency classified
glyphosate, the main chemical compound in Roundup, as a "Class C"
possible human carcinogen. This came after an EPA oncogenicity
study that found kidney tumors in male mice exposed to glyphosate.
"This had significant regulatory implications," Charles Benbrook
told the jury on April 17. Benbrook, an agricultural economist, was
brought in to testify about the EPA's regulatory framework for
herbicides. He said a classification as a possible human
carcinogen would essentially block the EPA from expanding
glyphosate tolerances and "had a direct effect on market potential
for future Roundup sales."
Brent Wisner, representing plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod,
showed the jury a memo sent by Monsanto employee Lyle Gingrich on
February 22, 1985, shortly after the EPA released its statement.
The memo said colleague Fred Johansen had asked "short of a new
study finding tumors in the control groups, what can we do to get
this thing off of Group C?"
"Responding to question from FJ, Dr. Farber said it was an
extremely close call and that the EPA remains open to any new
information that would make their decision easier," the memo
continued, referring to Dr. Theodore Farber, at the time head chief
Monsanto toxicologist.
In April, Monsanto hired pathologist Dr. Marvin Kuschner to look at
the kidney slides, and lo and behold, he did find a kidney tumor in
one of the mice not dosed with glyphosate.
This was strange, Benbrook said, since EPA statistician Dr. Herbert
Lacayo had calculated the odds of tumors being found in the control
group back in February and found it considerably small. Monsanto
had argued that the four tumors had been false positives, and
Lacayo disagreed, saying that false positives are "less likely to
occur with rare tumors . And the tumors in question are rare," and
that Monsanto "will have to demonstrate that this positive result
is false."
"Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see
suspicious data," Lacayo wrote. "It is not our job to protect
registrants from false positives."
The EPA's scientific advisory panel was concerned by the sudden
appearance of a tumor in the control group after Kuschner's study,
but nonetheless classified glyphosate as a Group D chemical, "not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity."
The EPA asked for more studies, but, as Benbrook testified, "No
other study was done."
Benbrook's testimony has been highly contested by the defense, both
before and during trial. Monsanto's attorneys moved to exclude his
testimony altogether, and in mid-March, Judge Winifred Smith issued
an order limiting Benbrook to explaining regulations and herbicide
registration requirements.
She ordered that Benbrook could not testify on whether Monsanto
misled the EPA, or about whether the EPA would have approved an
amendment to the Roundup label.
She also ordered that Benbrook could not testify as to Monsanto's
motive or intent, or on standard of care warnings in the industry.
Outside the presence of the jury on April 17, Monsanto attorney
Eugene Brown objected to the scope of Benbrook's planned testimony,
particularly an article Benbrook wrote entitled, "How did the US
EPA and IARC Reach Diametrically Opposed Conclusions on the
Genotoxicity of Glyphosate-based Herbicides?"
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for
Research on Cancer deemed glyphosate a probable carcinogen, while
regulators in Europe, Canada and the United States, including the
EPA, have concluded glyphosate is safe.
Benbrook said the difference lay in IARC's reliance on mostly
peer-reviewed studies, while the EPA based its findings on studies
either performed or commissioned by pesticide registrants like
Monsanto.
Wisner protested that the jury had already seen the article when
toxicologist Dr. William Sawyer testified about it, and that the
defense had already been supplied with Benbrook's expert report.
He accused Monsanto attorneys of "Sandbagging us on the morning
[Benbrook] is on the stand."
Brown stood firm on the issue. "He is an agricultural economist.
That does not qualify him to read articles and form opinions and
then come in and proselytize to the jury."
"There's so much factual inaccuracy here," Wisner said.
"By virtue of publishing an article does not make someone an expert
on any point," Brown told Judge Smith.
"We specifically gave them the report," Wisner said. "Mr. Brown is
not familiar with this litigation. I've been doing this for the
last three years."
"You've been doing something," Brown sniped.
Smith, who said she had been blindsided by the objection to
Benbrook after she's already issued her order limiting his
testimony, said she would not make any rulings but that the parties
would have to "wing it."
"I'll entertain objections as we go along," she said. Brown fully
availed himself of this, and objected no less than 50 times
throughout Wisner's direct examination.
Glyphosate use has quadrupled in the United States since 1997,
Benbrook said. More than 2.6 billion pounds of the chemical were
spread on U.S. farmlands and yards between 1992 and 2012, according
to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Benbrook also noted during testimony that while Monsanto's safety
sheet for its own employees recommends that the product be used
with skin protection, chemical resistant clothing, face shields and
shoe coverings, it puts none of these warnings on labels on Roundup
product labels and has never proposed amending it.
The Pilliods both developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after decades of
consistent, unprotected Roundup use, and a large part of their case
rests on the claim that Monsanto knew its product was toxic but
deliberately did not warn consumers to use protective clothing.
MORRISON & FOERSTER: Files Sanctions Against Class Action Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rubion, writing for Above The Law, reports that the "mommy
track" lawsuit filed against the Biglaw firm of Morrison & Foerster
is heating up. As you may recall, MoFo was first hit with a $100
million purported class action, alleging gender discrimination as
women who take maternity leave are placed on a "mommy track" which
is a career dead end, in April of last year. And the plaintiffs
just kept on piling on with three more Jane Doe plaintiffs added in
January, and another added in March for a total of seven plaintiffs
in the case.
Now the firm is making a pretty bold move in response: MoFo filed a
motion for sanctions against Sanford Heisler Sharp, the firm
representing the plaintiffs, and Jane Doe number 4, alleging the
claims brought by Doe 4 are "knowingly baseless." In the amended
complaint, Doe 4 alleges she was informed she was being terminated
by MoFo less than two months before she was scheduled to take
maternity leave and that she was coerced into signing a release of
claims against the firm in order to take her maternity break as
planned. It is that release of claims that features prominently in
MoFo's motion for sanctions.
While Sanford Heisler is obviously arguing the release is
unenforceable, negotiated when the pregnant Doe 4 was in a
vulnerable position, MoFo, through their lawyers Gibson Dunn, are
claiming the release should not only bar Doe 4's claim, but
bringing the claim with the knowledge the release exists is grounds
for sanctions. Since Doe 4 was able to negotiate a higher severance
package than initially offered-- she ultimately received five
months' salary after her employment ended and almost six months of
benefits -- MoFo argues the release should be fully enforced.
From the sanctions motion:
"Morrison does not bring a motion for sanctions lightly, but
sanctions are required under these extraordinary circumstances….
The terms of the release underscore what Jane Doe 4's allegations
make clear: Jane Doe 4, an attorney, negotiated for herself
generous and substantial consideration in exchange for the release
she executed."
As reported by Law.com, attorneys at Sanford Heisler take a
different view. Co-lead counsel Deborah Marcuse calls the filing of
the sanctions motion "itself sanctionable conduct by MoFo," and
says the release Doe 4 signed should not be enforced:
"It is regrettable that MoFo made the choice to terminate Jane Doe
4 when she was eight months pregnant, without prior notice. It is
reprehensible that the Firm then demanded that Jane Doe 4 sign away
her legal rights or give up the five months of paid maternity leave
that she was counting on," Marcuse said. "MoFo's conduct toward
Jane Doe 4 constituted duress and undue influence warranting
recission of the agreement she signed." [GN]
MOUNTAIRE: Citizens Allowed to Intervene in DNREC Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mavity, writing for Cape Gazette, reports that a federal judge
has allowed two groups of class-action litigants to intervene in a
lawsuit contesting a consent decree negotiated by Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and
poultry producer Mountaire.
In a March 25 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika
granted the motion brought by attorneys for two Sussex County
couples to intervene in a two-pronged case.
Meanwhile, a Delaware judge has stayed a state case brought by
DNREC against Mountaire until the federal lawsuit is concluded.
In a suit filed by Gary and Anne-Marie Cuppels in Delaware Superior
Court, the couple alleges they had to be hospitalized because they
drank water contaminated by Mountaire's spray irrigation practices.
The Cuppels suit has come to include over 700 class members. A
second suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Wilmington by Joseph
and Joal Balback, makes similar allegations and involves 45 other
class members.
In June 2018, DNREC filed suits in federal and state court against
Mountaire related to groundwater contamination. The DNREC cases go
back to September 2017, when DNREC learned Mountaire's wastewater
treatment facility had failed the prior month. A DNREC
investigation showed effluent sprayed by Mountaire exceeded
drinking water standards, in violation of the company's spray
permit.
In its lawsuit, DNREC also alleges that Mountaire did not notify
DNREC in a timely fashion about the system's failure and did not
submit a timely plan of corrective action, among other
environmental violations.
Mountaire and DNREC then negotiated a consent decree concurrent
with DNREC's legal filings which would force Mountaire to make
short and long-term improvements to the company's wastewater
treatment system. However, court documents show Mountaire would not
admit liability for elevated nitrate levels in wells around the
company's Millsboro plant, but Mountaire would provide a central
water supply system or deep water supply wells to residents in the
area. The consent decree must be signed off on by a judge.
In November, DNREC and Mountaire looked for just that from Superior
Court Judge Richard Stokes. But Cuppels and Balback attorneys Chase
Brockstedt and Chris Nidel filed motions to intervene; DNREC and
Mountaire opposed their intervention, saying it would delay
improvements to Mountaire's treatment facilities. Attorneys for
DNREC and Mountaire argued at the November hearing that there would
be opportunities for potential intervenors to have their say when
Mountaire seeks a permit for a new water supply.
But Brockstedt and Nidel have argued that Mountaire's operations
have been polluting their clients' water supply for years. They
argue that the consent decree prevents legal action against
Mountaire for claims prior to the decree going into effect.
According to Noreika's decision, citizens are prohibited from
filing suits in instances where the state has already taken action
against an alleged violator, leaving the federal court as the only
option the intervenors would have to question the consent decree.
"This case is at its earliest stages," Noreika wrote. "So far,
DNREC filed its complaint and intervenors moved to intervene.
Intervenors' full participation would not undo significant work in
this litigation or upend a schedule already in place."
In response to Noreika's decision, Stokes issued a decision March
29 staying the proceedings in Delaware Superior Court. He said
while the stay would delay needed improvements to Mountaire's
treatment facility, the resolution of the federal case will allow
for all issues to be addressed and resolved.
"The court is unwilling under the facts of this case to rubber
stamp the consent decree," Stokes wrote. "In the situation at hand,
a refusal to enter a stay would increase the amount of litigation
in these cases and would complicate proceedings."
Representatives from DNREC did not comment on the decision. In the
class-action cases, a gag order has been imposed to prevent the
parties from making comments to the media. Brockstedt said that,
while there is not a gag order in the DNREC case, he did not wish
to comment on the decisions. [GN]
NATIONS RECOVERY: Wollman Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE WOLLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.; LVNV FUNDING,
LLC; JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-03259-NSR
(S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman.
Nations Recovery Center, Inc. provides debt recovery services in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com
NCAA: Strickland Seeks Redress for Student-Athletes' Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and the Sewanee: The University of
the South, seeking redress for injuries sustained as a result of
their reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of Sewanee student-athletes. The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER
STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
and SEWANEE: THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01593-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019). Plaintiff
Christopher Strickland alleges that NCAA and Sewanee have breached
their duties to student football players by failing to disclose
and/or failing to recognize and/or being willfully non-observant
of: (a) material information regarding the long-term risks and
effects of repetitive head trauma they possessed or should have
possessed; (b) the dangers of concussive and sub-concussive
injuries; and (c) the proper ways to evaluate, treat, and avoid
concussive and sub-concussive trauma to football players.
Strickland also claims that the NCAA has breached its contractual
agreement by failing to ensure Sewanee student-athletes were
provided a safe environment in which to participate in collegiate
football. The NCAA further breached its contractual agreement by
concealing and/or failing to properly educate and warn Sewanee
football players about the symptoms and long-term risks of
concussions and concussion-related traumatic injury.
NCAA is a registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. Its principal place of business is located at 700
West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. NCAA is the
governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three
college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in
intercollegiate athletics. Sewanee: The University of the South is
a private university located at 735 University Ave, Sewanee, TN.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: 713.554.9099
Facsimile: 713.554.9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312.589.6370
Facsimile: 312.589.6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Tevis Seeks Redress for Sustained Sports Injury
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for its reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Claremont McKenna
College (CMC) student-athletes. The case is captioned JUSTIN TEVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01595-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Justin Tevis seeks redress for the injuries he sustained
as a result of NCAA's failure to implement adequate procedures to
protect him and other CMC football players from the long-term
dangers associated with the traumatic brain injuries.
NCAA is a registered as a tax-exempt organization with principal
place of business located at 700 West Washington Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana. NCAA governs collegiate athletics and
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Sewanee: The University
of the South is a private university located at 735 University Ave,
Sewanee, TN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: 713.554.9099
Facsimile: 713.554.9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312.589.6370
Facsimile: 312.589.6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and –
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
OCWEN LOAN: Pantano Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL PANTANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1977cv00530D (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., April 8, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC offers residential mortgage loans. Its
loan servicing includes customer service, collections, investor
accounting, escrow, loss mitigation, foreclosure, and property
disposition. It serves mortgage backed securitized and
unsecuritized loans and securities. The company was founded in 2002
and is based in West Palm Beach, Florida. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corp. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
OLIVER WYMAN: Website Not for Differently Abled, Sullivan Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Oliver Wyman, Inc.
for violations of the American Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case
is captioned PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OLIVER WYMAN, INC.,
Defendant, Index No. 154112/2019 (N.Y. Sup., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Phillip Sullivan, Jr. cannot access the audio portion of
a video without the assistance of closed captioning. Plaintiff has
been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and
services of the company's Website, as a result of its accessibility
barriers. Most recently in April 2019, Plaintiff attempted to watch
the "Why Oliver Wyman?" video on the Website but could not
comprehend the content of the video due to its lack of closed
captioning. The inaccessibility of the Website has deterred him
from watching videos on the Website.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to
correct Defendant's policies and practices to include measures
necessary to ensure compliance with federal and state law, to
include monitoring of such measures, and to update and remove
accessibility barriers on the Website so that Plaintiff will be
able to independently and privately view videos posted on the
Website. He also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff
for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Oliver Wyman, Inc. is a for-profit corporation organized in the
State of Delaware and is registered in New York State to do
business. The company has a principal executive office at 1166
Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York. It operates the
Website, which provides information on the firm's services,
history, industry, and careers as well as educational videos on
technological trends. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 10 disclosed that it filed a
class action lawsuit against Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. ("OSIR" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: OSIR) and its board of directors (the
"Board"), on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all public
stockholders of Osiris in connection with alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the Board's agreement to
recommend the sale of the Company to Smith & Nephew plc pursuant to
the proposed tender offer by Smith & Nephew plc. As required by the
federal law known as the PSLRA, this notice is being published to
all stockholders of Osiris.
The Complaint alleges that on March 12, 2019, Osiris, Smith &
Nephew plc ("Parent Holdco" or "Smith & Nephew"), Smith & Nephew
Consolidated, Inc., ("Parent"), and Papyrus Acquisition Corp., an
indirect Subsidiary of Parent ("Sub") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement: (i) Sub will merge with and into Osiris, and (ii) Osiris
shall continue as the surviving corporation in the Merger (the
"Proposed Transaction").
The Complaint also alleges that under the terms of the Proposed
Transaction, Osiris stockholders will receive $19.00 in cash for
each share of Osiris common stock they own (the ''Offer Price'').
The complaint alleges that the Offer Price is inadequate and that
the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement regarding
the Proposed Transaction (the ''Recommendation Statement'')
provides stockholders with materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Proposed Transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In
particular, the Complaint alleges that the Recommendation Statement
sets forth materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for Osiris; and (ii) the
valuation analyses performed by Osiris' financial advisor, Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co., in support of its fairness opinion.
In addition, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have issued the
Recommendation Statement with the intention of soliciting
stockholders to tender their Osiris shares in the Tender Offer. The
Complaint alleges that the Defendants reviewed and authorized the
dissemination of the Recommendation Statement, even though it fails
to provide critical information regarding the Proposed Transaction.
By virtue of their positions in the Company and/or roles in the
process and in the preparation of the Recommendation Statement,
Defendants were aware of this missing material information and
their obligation to disclose this material information in the
Recommendation Statement. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the Recommendation Statement
contained material omissions and misstatements and nonetheless
allowed it to be issued.
The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time,
on April 17, 2019.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June 10, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
PANERA LLC: Faces Philpott Labor Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Panera LLC. The case is assigned to DEBORA PHILPOTT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA
LLC; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00254303-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., April 11, 2019).
Panera, LLC owns and franchises bakery-cafes in the United States.
The company also operates fresh dough facilities, which supply
fresh dough items to both company-owned and franchise-operated
bakery-cafes. The company was incorporated in 1993 and is based in
Saint Louis, Missouri. Panera, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Panera Bread Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
PARFUMS DE COEURS: Okoe Alleges False Advertising of Epsom Salt
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Parfums de Coeur,
Ltd. (PDC) for its deceptive practices in the marketing,
advertising, and promotion of its Dr. Teal's Epsom Salt products.
The case is captioned DANIEL OKOE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- PARFUMS DE COEUR, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00602 (D. Conn., April 23, 2019).
Plaintiff Daniel Okoe alleges that Parfums de Coeurs represents
that its Epsom Salt products offer various non-existent health
benefits. A variant of Epsom Salt products cannot detoxify the body
and cannot relieve pain from muscle soreness, contrary to what is
described in their labels.
Parfums de Coeurs is a company organized under the laws of the
State of Connecticut with its principal place of business at 6 High
Ridge Park, Floor C2, Stamford, Connecticut. It manufactures,
markets, and sells beauty, personal care, and wellness products
throughout the United States, including numerous versions of its
Dr. Teal's Epsom Salt, which is sold at a wide variety of retail
and online outlets throughout America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq., Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-465-1188
Facsimile: 212-465-1181
E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
- and -
Stephen M. Bourtin, Esq.
THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
Stephen M. Bourtin, Esq. (CT 30443)
68 Southfield Avenue, Two Stamford Landing Suite 100
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: 203-921-0322
E-mail: sbourtin@theboydlawgroup.com
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Illegally Denied Insurance Claims, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC D/B/A CLEARVIEW OPEN MRI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
87519147 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., April 5, 2019) is an action
arising out of the amount of insurance benefits which must be paid
by the Defendant pursuant to the terms of the Insurance Policy,
when the Defendant erroneously reduces the insured patient's
coinsurance portion of a medical bill.
On or about August 27, 2018, the Insured Patient was involved in a
motor vehicle accident, and as a result, sustained bodily injuries
related to the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.
At the time of that accident, the Insured Patient was a contracting
party and a named insured and an omnibus insured under an
automobile insurance policy issued by the Defendant, consistent
with the exemplar of the Insurance Policy, which was in full force
and effect, and provided personal injury protection coverage as
required by law to comply with the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault
Law.
As a result of the injuries sustained by the Insured Patient at
that accident, the Plaintiff, the Health Care Provider,
subsequently rendered health care services to the Insured Patient
on or about September 24, 2018. Prior to providing such medical
services and as a condition to providing them, the Plaintiff
obtained from the Insured Patient a written assignment of
benefits.
After providing health care services to the Insured Patient, the
Plaintiff timely submitted a bill to the Defendant for the services
rendered. In response to the bill for health care services provided
to the Insured Patient, the Defendant issued an "Explanation of
Reimbursement" form which purported to extend the Fee Schedule
Method reductions to the portion of the bill that applies to the
Insured Patient's 20% coinsurance or co-payment.
The Plaintiff contends that the Fee Schedule Method can only be
applied to the 80% portion of the medical bill covered by the
Reasonable Medical Expenses Mandate, and cannot lawfully be
extended to the portion of a medical bill that is covered by a
personal injury protection insured's 20% coinsurance or co-payment
amount. The Defendant disagrees, and routinely purports to extend
the Fee Schedule Method reductions to the portion of a medical bill
that is covered by the personal injury protection insured's 20%
coinsurance or co-payment amount.
Progressive American Insurance Company offers car insurance, home
insurance, renters insurance, condo insurance, insurance bundles,
motorcycle insurance, boat insurance, RV insurance, life insurance,
pet insurance, and commercial insurance. The company was founded in
1937 and is based in Mayfield Village, Ohio. Progressive American
Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of Drive Insurance
Holdings, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Daniel Clark, Esq.
CLARK & MARTINO, P.A.
3407 W. Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33609
Telephone: (813) 879-0700
E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com
- and -
David M. Caldevilla, Esq.
DE LA PARTE & GILBERT, P.A.
Post Office Box 2350
Tampa, FL 3360 1-2350
Telephone: (813) 229-2775
E-mail: dcaldevilla@dgfinmcom
RANDALL FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martinez Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR A. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANDALL FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1
THROUGH 250, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11502 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 4, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.
Mr. Martinez was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, and
hourly-paid employee.
Randall Foods, Inc. processes and distributes various food products
in California and Arizona. The company offers beef, chicken, and
pork products, as well as bulk products, tray packs, custom sets
and displays, and natural products. It offers its products through
stores. The company was founded in 1953 and is headquartered in
Vernon, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
Jean Phan Buchanan, Esq.
CARLIN AND BUCHSBAUM LLP
301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 1550
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 432-8933
Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com
RBC GLOBAL: Sued Over Excessive Fund Management Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Advisor's Edge reports that RBC and TD could be facing class action
lawsuits concerning allegations that they overcharged clients for
mutual fund management fees.
On April 9, Investigation Counsel P.C. and Paul Bates Barrister
announced they had filed two proposed class actions with B.C.'s
Supreme Court against RBC Global Asset Management Inc. (RBC GAM)
and subsidiary The Royal Trust Company, and TD Asset Management
Inc. (TDAM).
The proposed lawsuits allege the investment managers charged
"excessive" management fees for the RBC Canadian Equity Fund and TD
Canadian Equity Fund, respectively.
A release from the law firms said RBC GAM and TDAM "received fees
for conducting an investment strategy based on active management"
when they were allegedly using a "closet indexing" strategy
instead, designed to replicate -- but not exceed -- the performance
of the S&P/TSX Composite Index.
"It appears investors might not have received adequate disclosure
about the true investment objectives and strategies of these
Canadian equity funds," said John Archibald, a lawyer at
Investigation Counsel P.C., in a release.
"Mutual fund trustees and managers are accountable for legal
compliance with a set of serious obligations that protect investors
from harmful conduct, including excessive fees that deplete fund
assets and diminish investor returns," said Paul Bates, co-counsel
for the plaintiffs.
The proposed RBC GAM class action was filed on behalf of clients
who have held (either directly or indirectly) units of the RBC
Canadian Equity Fund at any time from June 1, 2005 to present. The
proposed TDAM class action was filed on behalf of clients who have
held units of the TD Canadian Equity Fund at any time from Jan. 1,
2010 to present. [GN]
RM PARTNERS: Tribal Name Used to Avoid State Usury Laws, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE HENGLE; SHERRY BLACKBURN; WILLIE ROSE; ELWOOD BUMBRAY;
TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE; SUE COLLINS; and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SCOTT ASNER; JOSHUA LANDY; RICHARD MOSELEY, JR.; RM
PARTNERS, LLC; GOLDEN VALLEY LENDING, INC.; SILVER CLOUD FINANCIAL
INC.; MOUNTAIN SUMMIT FINANCIAL, INC.; MAJESTIC LAKE FINANCIAL,
INC.; and UPPER LAKE PROCESSING SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00250-REP (E.D. Va., April 9, 2019) is an action involving
an illegal lending enterprise that flouts state usury laws through
the tribal lending business model.
According to the complaint, under the Defendants' lending business
model, the payday lenders originate their loan products through a
company "owned" by a Native American tribe and organized under its
laws. The tribal company serves as a conduit for the loans,
facilitating a dubious and legally incorrect claim that the loans
are subject to tribal law, not the protections created by state
usury and licensing laws. In exchange for the use of its name on
the loan, the tribal company receives a small portion of the
revenue and does not meaningfully participate in the day-to-day
operations of the business.
Consistent with the tribal lending model, Defendants made
high-interest loans to consumers in the names of the tribal lending
entities, namely, the Golden Valley Lending, Inc., Silver Cloud
Financial, Inc., Mountain Summit Financial, Inc., and Majestic Lake
Financial, Inc., the four entities formed under the laws of the
Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, a federally recognized Native
American tribe. Although the tribal lending entities are held out
as "wholly owned and operated" by the Tribe, "the companies largely
operate out of a call center in Overland Park," Kansas.
RM Partners, LLC is an investment bank that provides mergers and
acquisitions services. The company is based in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
elizabeth@clalegal.com
- and -
James W. Speer, Esq.
VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
919 E. Main Street, Suite 610
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 782-9430
Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
E-mail: jay@vplc.org
RUGSUSA.COM: Powell Files Suit Over Text Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RUGSUSA.COM, INC. Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61161-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
In efforts to inject a new stream of revenue into its business,
Defendant would often send marketing text messages providing
various types of promotional offers and savings for future
purchases of medical treatments to consumers without first
obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text
messages as required to do so under the TCPA. These messages were
sent using mass-automated technology through a third-party company
hired by Defendant to send marketing text messages on Defendant's
behalf en masse.
Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing
injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.
Defendant owns a website that sells rugs, furniture and home
decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC.
110 SE 6th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
SANDAG: Shares Motorists' Personal Data to 3rd Parties, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00017834-CU-NP-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., April 4, 2019) seeks redress against the
Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's and the class members'
rights to privacy and protection of personally identifiable
information.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants transmit
the Plaintiff and the class members' personally identifiable
information to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Franchise Tax
Board, other tolling entities, law enforcement agencies, and a host
of other unauthorized third persons, without their consent in
direct violation of the California Streets and Highways Code,
entitling the Plaintiff and the class to damages and injunctive
reliefs.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) provides planning
services. The Association offers capital planning and fare setting
for transit systems, as well as plans, engineers, and builds public
transportation. SANDAG caters its services in the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Ben Travis, Esq.
COAST LAW GROUP LLP
1140 South Coast Hwy 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone: (760) 942-8505
Facsimile: (760) 942-8515
E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com
ben@coastlaw.com
SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Shimmick
Construction Company and its respective subsidiaries or affiliated
companies for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 (PAGA) and the California Labor Code. The case is captioned
WILLIAM SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation; SHIMMICK/FCC/IMPREGLIO JOINT VENTURE, a
business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV13741 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff William Sanchez alleges that Defendants have had a
consistent policy or practice of failing to pay wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt
aggrieved employees in the State of California in violation of
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but
not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. Defendants have
failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees the
full amount of their wages owed to them upon termination and/or
resignation as required by Labor Code sections 201 and 202.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of himself and
all other similarly aggrieved current and former employees of
Defendants, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
Shimmick is a general engineering contractor focusing in heavy
civil construction. The company is now part of AECOM, a fully
integrated global infrastructure firm serving governments,
businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION: Loomis Sues Over Product's False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANE LOOMIS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00854-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 7,
2019) seeks injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of herself,
all other similarly situated California consumers, and the general
public, alleging violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, as
well as Slendertone's breach of express and implied warranties.
Slendertone markets and sells an Electrical Muscle Stimulator
("EMS") called the "Flex Belt." The belt delivers a small amount of
electricity to the body, which stimulates the muscles and causes
them to contract. Such EMS devices are considered Class II Medical
Devices by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), and any seller
is required to obtain pre-market approval. Class II Medical Devices
are devices for which general controls, by themselves, are
insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device, and for which there is sufficient
information to establish special controls to provide such
assurance.
Slendertone markets its EMS devices as providing users, with no
effort or exertion on the user's part, with "strong, toned abs in
weeks" and with "more attractive abs" through a "great work out."
Slendertone's advertising falsely conveys that use of its Flex Belt
will lead to weight loss by "getting rid of belly fat," will
contour the body, provide visible "six pack" abs, and is a total
replacement for traditional abdominal exercise. However, aside from
some limited science showing some strength and endurance
improvements to the abdominal muscle tissue as a result of extended
EMS use, no science supports the conclusion that use will rid belly
fat, provide more attractive abs, contour the body, provide visible
"six pack" abs, or that use can ever be a replacement for
traditional exercise, notes the complaint.
Additionally, FDA has only approved devices such as the Flex Belt
to "temporarily strengthen, tone or firm a muscle" and has
specifically disapproved such devices to assist with weight loss,
contour the body, develop visible "six-pack" abs, or otherwise to
replace traditional exercise. Similarly, the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC"), the independent federal agency charged with the
promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention
of unfair or abusive business practices, has already determined
that any claims that such ab devices cause fat loss and inch loss,
will give users well-defined abdominal muscles (e.g., "rock hard,"
"six pack" or "washboard" abs), or that use of the ab devices is
equivalent to conventional abdominal exercises, such as sit-ups or
crunches, are false and misleading, the complaint relates.
Plaintiff purchased the Flex Belt in reliance on Slendertone's
misleading and unlawful claims that use would assist in weight
loss, body contouring, develop visible "six pack" abs, and could be
used effectively as a replacement for abdominal exercises, the
complaint says.
Plaintiff Jane Loomis, who at the time of her purchase was a
resident of San Diego, purchased the Flex Belt in San Diego County,
California.
Slendertone markets and sells an over the-counter medical device
called the "Flex Belt," an electronic muscle stimulating device,
approved by the FDA to rehabilitate muscles through electronic
"pulsing" stimulation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
JACK FITZGERALD, ESQ.
TREVOR M. FLYNN, ESQ.
MELANIE PERSINGER, ESQ.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
Hillcrest Professional Building
3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 692-3840
Fax: (619) 362-9555
Email: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT: Underpays Agricultural Workers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS BEJINES-GONZALEZ; and ABRAHAAM SAYAGO-HERNANDEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SOUTHERN VALLEY FRUIT & VEGETABLE, INC.; HAMILTON GROWERS, INC.;
KENT HAMILTON; HAMILTON FARMS MEX, L.P.; HAMILTON PRODUCE, L.P.;
KENDA PROPERTIES, L.P.; WK HOLDINGS, LLC; WK MEX PROPERTIES, L.P.;
and WKW, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00055-HL (M.D. Ga.,
April 11, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, actual, incidental, consequential, and
compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre
and post-judgment interest.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as agricultural
workers.
Southern Valley Fruit & Vegetable, Inc. engages in growing,
packing, and selling fruits and vegetables. The company's products
include sweet corn, mini sweet peppers, eggplant, spaghetti squash,
butternut squash, acorn squash, zucchini, pole grown cucumbers,
pickling cucumbers, variety pepper, bell pepper, green beans,
cabbage, and yellow squash. The company was founded in 1987 and is
based in Norman Park, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dawson Morton, Esq.
DAWSON MORTON, LLC
1003 Freedom Blvd.
Watsonville, CA 95076
Telephone: (404) 590-1295
E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com
STUBHUB INC: Barnes Alleges Phony Discounts on Ticket Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STUBHUB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv-80475-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant's deceptive "bait-and-switch" business practice
deceiving consumers into purchasing from the Defendant's website by
advertising false low ticket prices while hiding the amount of
so-called fees that the Defendant charges for each sale.
According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises misleadingly
low ticket prices that do not include additional hidden fees until
the last moment of the transaction. Only at checkout does the
Defendant for the first time list a total amount that includes
hidden service and delivery fees after consumers have already
selected seats, that may only be available for an instant, at a
lower advertised price which does not include the profit-generating
fees, created an account or entered login credentials, entered
credit card information, made the decision to buy, and clicked "go
to check out." In addition, rather than itemizing those fees at
check out, the amount of additional fees included in the total
purchase price is hidden in a separate link.
The Defendant intentionally hides additional fees in a separate
link that is not automatically presented to customers as part of
the transaction. Reasonable consumers are drawn in by deceptively
low ticket prices advertised in an initial search, and then proceed
through check out without ever becoming aware of the amount of the
so-called "service and delivery fees" were have automatically
included in the total price.
StubHub, Inc. owns and operates an online fan-to-fan ticket
marketplace. StubHub, Inc. was formerly known as Liquid Seats, Inc.
and changed its name to StubHub, Inc. in December 2003. The company
was founded in 2000 and is based in San Francisco, California. As
of February 13, 2007, StubHub, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
eBay Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
301 Clematis Street, Suite 3000
West Palm Beach, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Facsimile: (561) 514-0905
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Daniel Faherty, Esq.
TELFER, FAHERTY & ANDERSON, PL
815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201
Titusville, FL 32780
Telephone: (321) 269-6833
Facsimile: (321) 383-9970
E-mail: danfaherty@hotmail.com
SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Soliman Sues over Automated Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Subway Franchisee
Advertising Fund Trust Ltd for an alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case is captioned
MARINA SOLIMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING FUND TRUST
LTD., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00592-JAM (D. Conn., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Marina Soliman alleges that Subway has violated TCPA and
has invaded her privacy rights through its marketing communications
that use an automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff Soliman
also alleges that Subway did not have prior express written consent
to send the marketing text messages to her cell phone, especially
after she had clearly and expressly requested that Subway cease
sending text messages. Through Subway's aforementioned conduct,
Soliman suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in
privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the
TCPA.
Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust Ltd. is a Connecticut
Domestic Statutory Trust company with its principal place of
business at 325 Sub Way, Milford, CT. The company is engaged in the
business of fabrication and placement of print ads and commercials.
It creates advertising materials to promote restaurant business of
various franchisees and offers advertising agency services for the
production of point-of-sale materials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
TOOHER WOCL & LEYDON, L.L.C.
80 Fourth Street
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 324-6164
Facsimile: (203) 324-1407
E-mail: BLeydon@tooherwocol.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 877-206-4741
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
SUPERIOR HEALTH: Removes McNear Suit to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SONIA LOPEZ MCNEAR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR
HEALTH LINENS, LLC; and AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC.,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit
Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No.
2019CH2668) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 9, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02390. The case is
assigned to Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.
Superior Health Linens, LLC provides textile rental services to the
health care industry in the Midwest. It also sells linen and
apparel products. The company was formerly known as PSCP Superior,
LLC. Superior Health Linens, LLC was founded in 1990 and is based
in Cudahy, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6377
E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
- and -
J. Eli Wade Scott, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 242-0859
E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com
- and -
David J. Fish, Esq.
John C Kunze, Esq.
Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 E. Fifth Ave., Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
khilton@fishlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael D Hayes, Esq.
Anne Marie Mayette, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606-4473
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
E-mail: michael.hayes@huschblackwell.com
anne.mayette@huschblackwell.com
SWISSX LABS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Culbert Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN CULBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWISSX LABS AG INC.; FILMON MEDIA HOLDINGS,
INC.; DAVID ALKI; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV12354
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
The Plaintiff Culbert was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.
Swissx Labs AG Inc. is a Delaware corporation licensed to do
business in the State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Burns King, Esq,
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 419-5101
Facsimile: (213) 289-2815
E-mail: julian@kingsiegel.com
elliot@kingsiegel.com
SYMANTEC CORP: Beyer Alleges AntiVirus Products Design Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONTGOMERY BEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. CGC-19-575177 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 10,
2019) is an action against the Defendant over the sale of its
network security software containing Symantec's AntiVirus
Decomposer Engine.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the decomposer engine
common to all the products sold by the Defendant under the Norton
brand and to businesses under the Symantec brand were designed with
old third-party open source code with known corruption bugs that
could be exploited by hackers and malicious software. Third-party
open source providers had released software updates or "patches" to
resolve those bugs in subsequent iterations of their code. The
Defendant however, systematically failed to update their antivirus
products with these patches.
In addition, it was revealed that the Defendant failed to design
the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine to limit the impact of a
vulnerability, in contravention of a fundamental cybersecurity best
practice known as the principle of least privilege. Instead, the
AntiVirus Decomposer Engine unpacked and examined compressed
executable files in the most sensitive part of a computer's
operating system, which exposed millions of computer systems to the
risk of "a clean overflow as root" on Linux, Mac, and other UNIX
systems or "kernel memory corruption" on Windows systems. These
defects caused the Defendant's products to be susceptible to
serious vulnerabilities.
Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity products, services, and
solutions worldwide. Symantec Corporation has strategic alliance
with Ernst & Young LLP to help organizations address intellectual
property and data, as well as manage cyber risk. The company was
founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
wjonckheer@sjk.law
nschubert@sjk.law
- and -
John Archibald, Esq.
INVESTIGATION COUNSEL P.C.
350 Bay Street, Suite 300
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S6
Canada
Telephone: (416) 637-3152
Facsimile: (416) 637-3445
E-mail: jarchibald@investigationcounsel.com
TAMED WILD: Rivera Alleges Deceptive Automatic Contract Renewal
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAMED WILD APOTHECARY, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV11773 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 5, 2019) seeks damages, restitution,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made automatic renewal
or continuous service offers to consumers in California and at the
time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service offers,
failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous
service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in
visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the
subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled.
The Defendants also charged the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
credit or debit cards, or third-party account without first
obtaining the Plaintiffs and Class Members' affirmative consent to
the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms.
Tamed Wild Apothecary, LLC operates a website which markets herbal
remedies, crystals, and related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferre1l@trialnewport.com
TECHSERV CONSULTING: Robison Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Techserv Consulting and Training, Ltd. for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio Wage Laws. The case is
captioned CHRISTOPHER ROBISON, Plaintiff, for himself and all
others similarly situated, v. TECHSERV CONSULTING AND TRAINING,
LTD, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00896 (N.D. Ohio, April 22,
2019).
Plaintiff Christopher Robison also alleges that TechServ has
violated FLSA for his employment termination for timesheet issues.
On behalf of all transmission construction representative and area
supervisors, Robison seeks to recover overtime wages owed pursuant
to the FLSA.
TechServ Consulting and Training Ltd. is a Texas limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Tyler, Texas. It
provides consulting and services to the utility industry. Its
biggest client is American Electric Power. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
TME ENTERPRISES: Underpays Cashiers, Young Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
TRACIE MARIE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TME ENTERPRISES, I., LTD. (L.P.)
d/b/a TACO BELL, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01659-AT (N.D. Ga.,
April 11, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cashier.
TME Enterprises, I., LTD. (L.P.) d/b/a Taco Bell, owns, operates,
and franchises a chain of Mexican-inspired quick service
restaurants in the United States. The company’s restaurants offer
made to order and customizable tacos, burritos, quesadillas,
gorditas, nachos, chalupas, beverages, desserts and sides, and
other specialty items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Daniel Cole, Esq.
Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, Suite 2600
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
Email: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com
dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
TRANS EXPRESS: Landi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Landi and Xin Lin Xie, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. Trans Express Inc. and
Matthew Ashley, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02715 (E.D. N.Y., May
8, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves well as other employees similarly situated, against
Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards
Act, ("FLSA") and of New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek,
spread of hours pay, as well as failing to provide their employees,
including Plaintiffs, with wage notice at the time of their hiring
and wage statements for each pay period.
Plaintiffs were employed as shuttle bus drivers for Defendants'
transportation business.
TRANS EXPRESS INC. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keli Liu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Phone: (718) 353-8588
Fax: (718) 353-6288
Email: Kliu@hanglaw.com
TYSON FOODS: R-CALF Asserts Fed Cattle Price Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
RANCHERS CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF
AMERICA; WEINREIS BROTHERS PARTNERSHIP; MINATARE FEEDLOT INC;
CHARLES WEINREIS; ERIC NELSON; JAMES JENSEN d/b/a LUCKY 7 ANGUS;
and RICHARD CHAMBERS AS TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD C. CHAMBERS LIVING
TRUST on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; JBS
S.A.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; SWIFT BEEF COMPANY; JBS PACKERLAND,
INC.; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION;
MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.; NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC;
("Packing Defendants")and JOHN DOES 1-10; Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-01222 (D. Minn., May 7, 2019) is an action challenging the
Packing Defendants' conspiracy to suppress the price of fed cattle
that they purchased in the United States, from at least January 1,
2015 through the present.
According to the complaint, the Packing Defendants' coordinated
conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter volumes and
curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash cattle market,
precipitated an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle prices in
2015. The Packing Defendants then continued to suppress the price
of fed cattle through coordinated procurement practices and
periodic slaughter restraint. Packing Defendants' conspiracy--which
is confirmed by witness accounts, trade records, and economic
evidence--impacted both the physical fed cattle market and the
market for live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange, says the complaint.
As a result of Packing Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiffs and other
producers who sold fed cattle to Packing Defendants (the "Producer
Class") received significantly lower prices for their cattle than
they would have in a competitive market, and purchasers of live
cattle futures and options (the "Exchange Class"), including
certain Plaintiffs, suffered significant harm as a result of the
same, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers
of America ("R-CALF USA") is a non-profit public benefit
corporation and is the largest cattle producer-only based
membership trade organization.
Tyson Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at 2200 Don Tyson Parkway, Springdale,
Arkansas 72762.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-349-8500
Fax: 612-339-4181
Email: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com
tundlin@robinskaplan.com
sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-980-7400
Fax: 212-980-7499
Email: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
klerner@robinskaplan.com
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Anjali Bhat, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue
17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: 212-223-6444
Fax: 212-223-6334
Email: david.scott@scott-scott.com
pbarile@scott-scott.com
alawrence@scott-scott.com
abhat@scott-scott.com
- and -
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-4565
Fax: 619-233-0508
Email: cburke@scott-scott.com
- and -
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-782-4882
Fax: 312-782-4485
Email: afata@caffertyclobes.com
ctourek@caffertyclobes.com
boconnell@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe St.
Media, PA 19063
Phone: 215-864-2800
Fax: 215-864-2810
Email: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
TYSON FOODS: Ranchers et al. Allege Price-Fixing of Fed Cattle
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc.
and other food companies and packing plants for alleged violations
of the Commodity Exchange Act. The case is captioned RANCHERS
CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF AMERICA;
WEINREIS BROTHERS PARTNERSHIP; MINATARE FEEDLOT INC; CHARLES
WEINREIS; ERIC NELSON; JAMES JENSEN d/b/a LUCKY 7 ANGUS; and
RICHARD CHAMBERS AS TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD C. CHAMBERS LIVING TRUST
on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; JBS
S.A.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; SWIFT BEEF COMPANY; JBS PACKERLAND,
INC.; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION;
MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.; NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC; and
JOHN DOES 1-10; Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02726 (N.D. Ill.,
April 23, 2019).
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America
et al. bring this action to challenge Defendants' conspiracy to
suppress the price of fed cattle that they purchased in the United
States, from at least Jan. 1, 2015 through the present. Defendants'
coordinated conduct, including slashing their respective slaughter
volumes and curtailing their purchases of fed cattle in the cash
cattle market, precipitated an unprecedented collapse in fed cattle
prices in 2015. Defendants then continued to suppress the price of
fed cattle through coordinated procurement practices and periodic
slaughter restraint. Their conspiracy has impacted both the
physical fed cattle market and the market for live cattle futures
and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 2200 Don Tyson Parkway,
Springdale, Arkansas. The company operates Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.,
its wholly-owned subsidiary located at Stevens Port Drive, Dakota
Dunes, South Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Scott, Esq.
Beth A. Kaswan, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
Anjali Bhat, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: 212-223-6444
Facsimile: 212-223-6334
E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
bkaswan@scott-scott.com
pbarile@scott-scott.com
abhat@scott-scott.com
- and -
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4882
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
ctourek@caffertyclobes.com
boconnell@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe St.
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: 215-864-2800
Facsimile: 215-864-2810
E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
UNITED STATES: Kurisko Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
KELLY KURISKO, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00669-LKG (U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims, May 7, 2019)
seeks judgment, backpay and other relief, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the overtime provisions to remedy
the Defendant's willful and unlawful violations of federal law.
During the time the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week
and/or 8 hours a day, Defendant failed and refused to provide the
plaintiffs with the rights and protections provided under the FLSA,
including overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay, asserts the complaint.
By failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiff and other employees
similarly situated the overtime pay required under law, the
Defendant has violated, and is continuing to violate in a willful
and intentional manner, the provisions of the FLSA, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant and has been employed as
GS-12 Program Analyst and GS-12 Outreach Coordinator by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") in the Pittsburgh District.
Government of the United States is a "public agency" and "employer"
within the meaning of the FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Ricksecker, Esq.
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 833-8855
Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com
gkm@mselaborlaw.com
US CONCRETE: Prado Seeks OT Premium Pay for IT Staff
----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
U.S. Concrete, Inc. and USC Payroll, Inc. for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned ROBERTO
PRADO, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated
vs. U.S. CONCRETE, INC. and USC PAYOLL, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00969-B (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2019).
Plaintiff Roberto Prado and the members of the proposed class were
misclassified by Defendants as salaried/exempt. Prado alleges that
U.S. Concrete, Inc and USC Payroll failed to pay their IT
Department employees overtime compensation in violation of the
FLSA.
U.S. Concrete is a commercial supplier of ready-mixed concrete and
aggregate products and provides its products and services from its
companies operating in Texas, Northern California, Oklahoma, New
Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and British
Columbia. USC Payroll is a wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S.
Concrete. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 North White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
WALMART: Sued for Misrepresenting Sales Price of Items
------------------------------------------------------
Payton Kuhn, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Maryland
man alleges Walmart misrepresented the sales price of items by
including and collecting amounts in excess of sale taxes from
shoppers.
In a lawsuit filed on Feb. 13 in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court,
plaintiff Robert Van Buren of Annapolis alleged the megacorporation
applied a heightened sales tax on items based on their original
price when they were sold at a reduced price. Van Buren alleges he
and class members are entitled to compensation for all items sold
in this manner.
The defendant filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland on March 27.
Van Buren alleges that throughout 2018, he bought multiple items
that were sold at reduced prices, including a Sonicare product and
a nearly $200 Brindale mattress, and was assigned a sales tax that
was to be applied to their original costs. He also claims to have
experienced similar cases with purchases at Sam's Club, a
subsidiary of Walmart.
"The sales tax that is due should be calculated based on the
purchase price paid by the customers for that particular item," the
suit states. "If an item is on sale or sold at a reduced price,
only the amount of the sale or reduced price is the amount subject
to sales tax. Walmart overstates the sales taxes on sale items by
calculating the sales tax based on the regular price of the item,
not the on sale or reduced price of the item."
Van Buren seeks to represent class members who "within the last
three years," had similar experiences at Walmart and Sam's Club
stores. Van Buren, who is specifically alleging that Walmart
committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation, is requesting the
case go to trial and for Walmart to pay in excess of $75,000 each
for punitive damages and compensatory damages, along with whatever
awards the court may find necessary.
This claim follows numerous settlements the company reached in
recent years. The first occurred in 2015, in which it was accused
of undercutting sales tax amounts on refunded items. Although it
denied those allegations, the company paid more than $5 million in
a settlement.
In October of last year, after Walmart allegedly used similar
practices at its Pennsylvania locations, it agreed to pay up to $45
million to settle a class action lawsuit.
The plaintiff is represented by attorneys from the Holland Law Firm
in Annapolis, Maryland. [GN]
WARREN TRICOMI: Nisbett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WARREN TRICOMI DOWNTOWN LLC &
WARREN TRICOMI MADISON AVENUE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04063-VSB (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019) is a civil rights action
against Defendants for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, www.warrentricomi.com (the
"Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or visually-impaired people and
asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL").
The Defendants' policy and practice denied Plaintiff Nisbett and
other blind or visually-impaired users access to their Website,
thereby denying the facilities and services that are offered and
integrated with Defendants' hair salons. Due to their failure and
refusal to remove access barriers to their Website, Plaintiff
Nisbett and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being
denied equal access to Defendants' salons and the numerous
facilities, goods, services, and benefits offered to the public
through their Website, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Nisbett is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped
person.
Defendants operate hair salons in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017-6705
Phone: 212.392.4772
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
ZENSAH COMPANY: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZENSAH COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03033-JMF (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2019) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Jesse M. Furman.
Zensah Company is engaged in selling sportswear apparel and
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dov Michael Mittelman, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: mittelmandov@yahoo.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1989 Merchant Marine Asbestos Cases Reinstated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LaywersandSettlements.com, reported that
back in the late 1980s merchant mariners began filing asbestos
mesothelioma lawsuits against ship owner and manufacturing
defendants in the Northern District of Ohio. Most of the claims
languished in the court system -- until April 9, 2019 when a U.S.
District Court Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated two
lawsuits filed by the estates of two merchant marines.
Hundreds of thousands of lawsuits were filed by merchant mariners,
who became known as the maritime docket plaintiffs -- or MARDOC.
The claims were filed in the Northern District of Ohio on a theory
of nationwide jurisdiction. In 1989, Ohio federal judge Thomas
Lambros presided over the consolidated litigation and ruled that a
significant number of the defendants were not subject to personal
jurisdiction in Ohio. He granted the defendants -- the ship owners
-- the option of either agreeing about jurisdiction transfer to
Pennsylvania or waiving their personal jurisdiction defense and
staying in Ohio.
The ship owners never technically waived their defense, nor did
they take any action beyond requesting more time to decide the
District Court's decision to reinstate asbestos claims. But the
ship owners challenged jurisdiction and Judge Lambros agreed. The
MARDOC plaintiffs weren't pleased with Lambros's decision to
transfer their claims across the country and in 1990, filed a
motion to transfer all defendants to a single forum.
In 1991, the cases were transferred and consolidated into
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The ship-owner defendants strongly opposed the
consolidation and transfer, arguing that, because a litigation plan
was already in place in the Northern District of Ohio, the cases
should remain there. The MARDOC cases were nevertheless transferred
to the MDL court where they stagnated from 1996 to 2008, when they
were reassigned to Judge Robreno and reactivated (MDL 875 in Re:
Asbestos Productivity Litigation (No.V1))
In 2013 the Pennsylvania court held that the Northern District of
Ohio lacked personal
jurisdiction over many of the defendants and that those defendants
had not waived or forfeited their personal-jurisdiction defense.
The Court granted 418 defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction
In 2017, the Kalama v. Matson Navigation ruling determined that
judge Lambros in 1989 was outside his authority in the way he
handled the personal jurisdiction challenge.
The defendants contended that they never waived their
jurisdictional challenge, but Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith thought
otherwise, based on their objection to transfer and their continued
filings in the litigation, according to Law.com."Behavior that is
consistent with waiver, and which indicates an intent to litigate
the case on the merits, is sufficient to constitute a waiver,
regardless of whether the parties also express an intent to
preserve the defense," Smith said. "By filing pleadings responding
to substantive allegations in the merchant mariners'
complaints—after Lambros had unequivocally ruled that he did not
have jurisdiction—the shipowners chose to actively litigate their
case."
On April 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
said that the court handling the MDL over maritime asbestos
exposure shouldn't have dismissed the estates' claims for lack of
personal jurisdiction. (The case is Asbestos Products Liability
Litigation No. 17-3471.)
Most asbestos mesothelioma lawsuits are filed against companies
that knew asbestos was dangerous, but failed to inform employees
that there was a risk. Two of the most common defendants are
shipbuilders and shipowners. Almost one million asbestos claims
have been filed since 1929, including more than 121,000 claims now
reactivated in MDL 875.
If you worked as a shipbuilder, sailor, or dockworker and you -- or
a member of your family--have developed an asbestos-related
illness, you may be entitled to compensation. Even decades later,
asbestos claims are still being filed.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 8,728 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has 8,728 asbestos-related claims pending as of
March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
that the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named
as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
actions. The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and
has been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the majority of
the claims asserted against it without any payment. Due to the
nature of the fibers used in certain types of automotive products,
the encapsulation of the asbestos, and the manner of the products'
use, the Company believes that these products were and are highly
unlikely to cause harm. Furthermore, the useful life of nearly all
of these products expired many years ago. The Company likewise
expects that no payment on these claims will be made by the Company
or its insurance carriers in the vast majority of current and
future asbestos-related claims.
"Through March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company incurred
US$584 million and US$574 million, respectively, in
asbestos-related claim resolution costs (including settlement
payments and judgments) and associated defense costs. During the
three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company paid US$11
million and US$15 million, respectively, in asbestos-related claim
resolution costs and associated defense costs. These gross
payments are before tax benefits and any potential insurance
receipts. Asbestos-related claim resolution costs and associated
defense costs are reflected in the Company's operating cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/N5iP7C
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $795MM Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. estimates US$795 million as of March 31, 2019, for
the aggregate liability for both asbestos-related claims asserted
but not yet resolved and potential asbestos-related claims not yet
asserted, including estimated defense costs.
In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, the
Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
The Company has an estimated liability of US$795 million as of
March 31, 2019 for asbestos-related claims and associated costs
through 2074, which is the last date by which the Company currently
estimates it is likely to have resolved all asbestos-related
claims. The Company additionally estimates that, as of March 31,
2019, it has aggregate insurance coverage available in the amount
of US$386 million to satisfy asbestos-related claims and associated
defense costs."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/N5iP7C
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that it believes that the resolution
of its pending asbestos claims will not have a material impact on
its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
The Company states, "Over the years, we have been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured
in limited amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's. In
addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages. We typically obtain dismissals or settlements of
our asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We
maintain insurance coverage that applies to our defense costs and
payments of settlements or judgments in connection with
asbestos-related lawsuits. At this time, we believe that the
resolution of our pending asbestos claims will not have a material
impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows, although these matters could result in the Company being
subject to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against
earnings in particular periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mIM1Iq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Guilty for Illegal Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBC Today reported that Mohammad Arshad, a building contractor
appointed by the homeowner to carry out the work, had stripped the
garage ceiling and removed the material, leaving debris on site.
The material was tested on the advice of HSE during a site visit
and was confirmed as being licensable asbestos containing
material.
Manchester and Salford Magistrates Court heard how in December 2017
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was notified by a member of
the public of fibrous board outside the property in Chadderton,
Oldham which looked like asbestos insulation board.
The HSE investigation into the incident found Arshad had carried
out the removal of licensable asbestos-containing materials without
being licensed to do so and without suitable control measures for
preventing exposure to and spread of asbestos fibres. A prohibition
notice was issued and the area was sealed off before being cleaned
by a licenced building contractor under fully controlled
conditions.
Mohammad Arshad of Broadway, Chadderton, Oldham pleaded guilty to
breaches of Regulation 11 (1) (a), Regulation 8 (1) and Regulation
16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was fined
GBP1,200 and ordered to pay costs of GBP1,000.
HSE Inspector, Laura Royale, said: "Asbestos is a class 1
carcinogen which is responsible for around 5000 deaths per year.
Prior to starting work on the property Mr Arshad should have had an
asbestos survey carried out by a competent person.
"He should have then appointed a licensed contractor to remove the
asbestos containing ceiling under controlled conditions. Instead he
carelessly removed it himself, potentially putting himself and
others at risk of exposure. Individuals and companies should be
aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement
action against those that fall below the required standards."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doncaster Man Dies of Asbestos Cancer
------------------------------------------------------
Darren Burke, writing for Doncaster Free Press, reported that the
family of a Doncaster man who died from asbestos related cancer are
appealing for answers following his death.
Peter Broderick died aged 97, just weeks after he was diagnosed
with malignant mesothelioma, a form of terminal lung cancer linked
to exposure to hazardous asbestos several decades earlier.
Now his daughter Sylvia Shepherd is appealing to his former
workmates for help in establishing how he developed the disease.
Following his death, the family has instructed expert asbestos
disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate how he may have
been exposed to the deadly material during his working life.
They are particularly keen to hear from those who worked with Peter
during the construction of the original Emley Moor television mast,
near Huddersfield, or at Elland Power Station, in Halifax, in the
1950s.
READ MORE: Doncaster widow's call for answers after husband's
asbestos cancer death
Angela Davies, specialist asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, representing the family said: "Peter's death is another
dreadful reminder of the terrible legacy that asbestos has created
and how dangerous it is.
"We are now investigating how Peter may have been exposed during
his working life. As part of our investigations we would be
grateful for information about the possible use of asbestos during
the construction of the original Emley Moor television mast or at
Elland Power Station.
"Any information could prove vital in helping Peter's family obtain
find the answers they deserve regarding his final illness and sad
death."
Peter grew up on a farm in County Galway in the Republic of
Ireland, and moved to Huddersfield in 1947. Two years later he
married his wife, Sabina, who was known as Sheila.
Peter worked in the boiler room at the now demolished Elland Power
Station, which was located near the River Calder and Manchester to
Wakefield railway line, around 1955 and early 1956.
However, he did not like being stuck indoors so left to work on the
construction of Emley Moor television mast in 1956.
Peter, Sheila, Sylvia and her brother Christopher, lived in a
pre-fab house in Netheroyd Close, Netheroyd Hill, Sheepbridge,
Huddersfield, at the time.
The family moved to Edenthorpe, Doncaster, in 1961. Peter worked on
pit tops, including Hatfield Colliery, as well as for a plant hire
company. He retired in 1989.
In July last year, Peter started complaining of pain in the back of
his right arm and developed shoulder pain. Following medical
appointments and tests he was diagnosed with mesothelioma at the
end of September. He died on 2 November 2018.
Sylvia, 67, said: "Dad was such a wonderful man, with a great sense
of humour. He loved being outside and spent most of his working
life outside. The reason he left the power station was because he
hated being cooped inside and he joked that he was losing his tan.
"Despite his age he was still relatively active and led a pretty
healthy life.
"We still cannot really believe how quickly his condition
deteriorated following his diagnosis. We feel that we didn't really
get to plan properly and say goodbye to him. It all happened in
flash.
"We still miss dad and his death has not fully sunk in. While we
know nothing can bring him back, we want to honour his memory by
finding the answers he deserves as to what caused his mesothelioma
cancer."
Anyone with information about working conditions at Emley Moor
transmission station or Elland Power Station should call Angela
Davies at Irwin Mitchell on 0114 274 4538 or email
angela.davies@irwinmitchell.com
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Emley Moor Mast Worker Dies of Asbestos Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Himelfield, writing for Examiner Live, reported that a
daughter, whose dad helped build Emley Moor Mast, has appealed for
his former colleagues to come forward following his death from an
asbestos related cancer.
Peter Broderick, who also worked in the boiler room at Elland Power
Station, died in November, just weeks after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.
An inquest at Doncaster Coroner's Court concluded Mr Broderick, 97,
had died from mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos.
His daughter Sylvia Shepherd is appealing for former colleagues to
help with an inquiry into Mr Broderick's death.
Ms Shepherd's solicitors Irwin Mitchell want information on the
conditions -- and possible use of asbestos -- at Emley Moor Mast
and Elland Power Station.
Mr Broderick, formerly of Netheroyd Hill Road, Fixby, worked at
Elland Power Station around 1955 and in early 1956. It was
demolished in 1996.
He worked on the construction of Emley Moor Mast in 1956.
Mr Broderick, originally from Galway, Ireland, had enjoyed an
active life for a man in his nineties.
But in July 2018, Mr Broderick started complaining of pain in the
back of his right arm and shoulder. Mr Broderick, of Doncaster, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in September.
Ms Shepherd, 67, said: "Dad was such a wonderful man, with a great
sense of humour. He loved being outside and spent most of his
working life outside. The reason he left the power station was
because he hated being cooped inside and he joked that he was
losing his tan.
"Despite his age he was still relatively active and led a pretty
healthy life.
"We still cannot really believe how quickly his condition
deteriorated following his diagnosis. We feel that we didn't really
get to plan properly and say goodbye to him. It all happened in
flash.
"We still miss dad and his death has not fully sunk in. While we
know nothing can bring him back, we want to honour his memory by
finding the answers he deserves as to what caused his mesothelioma
cancer."
Angela Davies, specialist asbestos disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "Peter's death is another dreadful reminder of the
terrible legacy that asbestos has created and how dangerous it is.
"The family's appeal is made all the more relevant as Workers'
Memorial Day (April 28) this year has a particular focus on
asbestos and preventing exposure in the workplace.
"We are now investigating how Peter may have been exposed during
his working life. As part of our investigations we would be
grateful for information about the possible use of asbestos during
the construction of the original Emley Moor television mast or at
Elland Power Station.
"Any information could prove vital in helping Peter's family find
the answers they deserve regarding his final illness and sad
death."
Anyone who can help the inquiry should call Angela Davies on 0114
274 4538 or email: angela.davies@irwinmitchell.com.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Win for Pep Boys Upheld in Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reported that Pep Boys
successfully defended its trial win in a case alleging it
negligently sold asbestos-containing auto parts to a California
couple who died of mesothelioma.
A jury verdict in favor of the auto parts retailer, the full name
of which is Pep Boys—Manny, Moe & Jack, will stand in a wrongful
death action brought by the children of Philip and Febi Mettias,
the California Court of Appeals said in an unpublished May 14
ruling.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MoD Criticized for Failing to Reveal Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Webber, writing for Personnel Today, reported that a union
has criticised the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for refusing to
provide information about workers who might have come into contact
with asbestos while working on its helicopters.
Unite said it had been urging the MoD for the past year to contact
the estimated 1,000 workers who undertook maintenance on its Sea
King helicopters, which used components containing asbestos.
However, the MoD said it does not have a central record of the
staff who had worked on the fleet since 1969, because many had been
external contractors.
The union also requested information on how the MoD was contacting
the workers to inform them that they could have come into contact
with the substance, but it said it received no response.
Jim Kennedy, Unite national officer, said: "The MoD is more
interested in covering up its failings then ensuring that workers
who may have been exposed to asbestos are notified about their
contamination.
"Workers could have been handed a death sentence by the MoD and it
is not even prepared to warn them of what has occurred."
The union urged the MoD to identify all current employees who may
have been exposed to asbestos; offer counselling or medical checks
for conditions like mesothelioma for all current and former
workers; and notify all former MoD employees who may have had
contact with the Sea King helicopters.
The MoD discovered asbestos in the helicopters last year, when
maintenance on a retired aircraft revealed the presence of the
material in an exhaust panel seal. It then emerged that components
that contained asbestos had not been removed from the MoD's supply
chain.
In December the government urged military veterans and civilian
maintenance workers who had worked on the Sea King fleet to report
the possible exposure to the MoD, which would consider an award for
compensation if they had developed an asbestos-related condition.
An MoD spokesperson told military publication Forces News: "We have
been completely transparent throughout this process and have
published comprehensive information for those who may have been
exposed in the past, detailing the actions they should take."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,481 Exposure Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC, a subsidiary of MSA Safety
Incorporated, continues to face 1,481 cumulative trauma lawsuits at
March 31, 2019, according to MSA Safety's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2019.
MSA Safety states, "Our subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances Company,
LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,481 cumulative trauma
lawsuits comprised of 2,371 claims at March 31, 2019. Cumulative
trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful
substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred
years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into
diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. The products at issue were manufactured
many years ago and are not currently offered by MSA LLC. A reserve
has been established with respect to cumulative trauma product
liability claims currently asserted and estimated incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims.
Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to
inherent uncertainties, including unfavorable trial rulings or
developments, an increase in newly filed claims, or more aggressive
settlement demands, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured,
there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur
losses in excess of presently recorded liabilities. These losses
could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results, financial condition and liquidity. We will adjust the
reserve relating to cumulative trauma product liability claims from
time to time based on whether the actual numbers, types and
settlement values of claims asserted differ from current
projections and estimates or there are significant changes in the
facts underlying the assumptions used in establishing the reserve.
These adjustments may be material and could materially impact
future periods in which the reserve is adjusted."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/d4DMtN
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2019. 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 ***