/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/190819.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 19, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 165
Headlines
38W 36TH STREET: Dela Cruz Files ADA Class Action in New York
3M CO: King Class Action in Alabama Still Ongoing
3M CO: St. John Class Action in Alabama Still Ongoing
3M COMPANY: Patrick Sues Over Defective Earplugs
ABITINO'S PIZZA: Ortiz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: False Ad Inflates Share Price, Suit Says
AKV RESTAURANT: Espinoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALDI INC: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALLIANCEMED LLC: Retina Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
ALLIED COLLECTION: Solway Files Class Suit in Michigan
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Diaz Sues for Violations under FDCPA
ALTERRA GROUP: Removes Villalobos Suit to C.D. Cal.
ANDREW TORREGROSSA: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ANK MANHATTAN: Sales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ANTERO RESOURCES: Class Action Certification Sought in Romeo Suit
APPROVED PLUMBING: Lipinski Files FLSA Suit in New York
ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Berkowitz Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ASTOR WINES: Tatum-Rios Alleges Violation under ADA
BOTTLING GROUP LLC: Whisenant Sues over Civil Rights Violations
BOYD GAMING: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
CAASTLE INC: Tatum-Rios Asserts Violation under ADA
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Cooley Appeals E.D. Calif. Order to 9th Cir.
CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Yandrapati Sues over Wrongful Termination
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Friedman Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
CAPITAL ONE: Hoskinson-Short Sues Over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Wise et al. Sue over Data Breach
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Whipple Seeks over Overtime Wages
CRYSTAL FARMS: Court Dismisses Consumer-Deception Claims
DEKALB COUNTY, GA: School District Faces Civil Rights Lawsuit
DEMOULAS SUPER: Toomey Sues over Profit Sharing Plan
DENT WIZARD: Sued by Miles for Improperly Paying Detailer Workers
DORMIFY INC: Conner Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
DOWNS RACING: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
DUNE RESORTS: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
EARLY MORNING: Anguiano Files Class Suit in California
EASTON DIAMOND: Morgan Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
EM DIGITAL: Friedman Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Mumpower Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
EQUIFAX: Data Breach-Affected Individuals Can File Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kupfer Suit Alleges ADA Violation
EXPRESSWAY MOTORS: Tong Seeks OT and Sunday Premium Pay
FISHER-PRICE: Willis Alleges Injury Risk in Rock 'n Play Sleepers
FORMICA SPECIALIST: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Martinez Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Cisneros Sues over Chevrolet Cruze's Engine Defect
GOLDWATER BANK: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fabricant Suit
GREENWOOD GAMING: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Jones Asserts Breach of FDCPA
HIOSSEN INC: Kee Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. California
HOME DEPOT: Weeks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
INTEL CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in October 2019
INTEL CORP: Suits over Microprocessor Security Woes Ongoing
KEANE GROUP: Woods Sues Board for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
LENOVO INC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
LIVING PROOF: Morgan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
MASTERCARD: Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Class Action
MATTEL INC: Appeal in Consolidated Class Suit in Calif. Ongoing
MATTEL INC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
MCFARLAND MENTAL: Peters Asks 7th Cir. for Return of $5,816, etc.
MDL 2895: Teamsters Suit over Sensipar Sales Consolidated
ME.N.U. KIDS: Olsen Files ADA Class Action in New York
MIDLAND FUNDING: George Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
MOONEY INCORPORATED: Lucio Sues over Wrongful Termination
MOUNT AIRY CASINO: Mahoney Files Class Suit under ADA
MRS BPO LLC: Certification of Class Sought in Rozani Suit
MSD USA: Diaz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
MT GOX: Class Action Against CEO Can Proceed in Pennsylvania
NAKEDWINES.COM: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
NATIONAL RIFLE: Dell Aquila Files Fraud Class Suit in Tennessee
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Guido Assert Breach of FDCPA in New York
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Lee Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
NCAA: Vincent Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NCAA: Zachery Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NEW YORK: ABC Resumes Foster Care Class Action Against ACS
PAREX USA: Ticali Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
PHH MORTGAGE: Torliatt Sues over Pay-to-Pay Fees
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Moves to Certify Class of Insureds
RAYMUNDOS FOOD: Illegally Collects Biometric Info, Madrigal Says
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Printz Balks at UTC Merger
REALREAL INC: Navy Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROUTE 22 AUTO: Jean-Louis Sues Over Unlawful, Deceptive Practices
SAN FRANCISCO: Broussard Files Class Suit v. Transpo Agency
SECURITY CREDIT: Cottonham Files Class Suit in California
SHAKLEE CORP: Mulvihill Sues over Recording of Telephone Calls
SKM SERVICES: Residents Win Recycling Plant Fire Class Action
SLEEPY'S: Settles Employee Overtime Pay Class Action for $3.9MM
SOLED ENERGY: Federico Sues over Wrongful Termination
SOLIANT HEALTH: Casement Files Class Suit in California
SOTHEBY'S: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Delaware
STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Files Fraud Class Suit in Conn.
STOCKX LLC: Casey Files PI Class Suit in Florida
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Womack Seeks to Certify Flowback Operators Class
TRANSGENOMIC INC: Nov. 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
UBU GALLERY: Picon Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
ULTA BEAUTY: Smith-Brown Moves to Certify Purchaser Classes
UNITED AIRLINES: Thomas et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Ramp Agents
UNITED STATES: Class of Asylum-Seekers Certified in OA/SMSR Suits
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
WAGEWORKS, INC: Rosenblatt Balks at HealthEquity Deal
WELLS FARGO: Pena Sues over Discriminatory Auto Loan
[*] Class Action Lawyer Explains "Slack fill" Litigation Trend
[*] Gibson Dunn Attorneys Discuss Key Class Action Developments
*********
38W 36TH STREET: Dela Cruz Files ADA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
38W 36th Street LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Emanuel Dela Cruz and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 38W 36th Street LLC and In Good Company HG
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07354 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 6,
2019).
38W 36th Street LLC is a restaurant in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
3M CO: King Class Action in Alabama Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend the
"King" class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.
In November 2017, a putative class action (the "King" case) was
filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the
West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water
Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.
The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama
who receive their water from the Water Authority. They assert
various common law claims, including negligence, nuisance,
wantonness, and fraudulent concealment, and they seek injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive damages for
their alleged personal injuries.
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate
manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released
and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the
groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in
discharge into the Tennessee River.
The plaintiffs also contend that the defendants have discharged
chemicals into the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which, in turn, discharged wastewater containing these
chemicals into the Tennessee River.
The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges,
the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was,
and is, contaminated with perfluorooctanoate (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and related chemicals at a level
dangerous to humans.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M CO: St. John Class Action in Alabama Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend the St.
John putative class action suit.
A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in 2002 in
the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John case"),
seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage
from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.
The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
putative class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of
the Decatur plant.
In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities.
In 2005, the judge in a second putative class action lawsuit filed
by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their
property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from
the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that
formerly manufactured those compounds (the "Chandler case") granted
the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the
case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues
in the St. John case. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and
property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members
of a putative class.
No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay
is lifted.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
3M COMPANY: Patrick Sues Over Defective Earplugs
------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PATRICK, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING
LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02968-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Aug. 7,
2019) is an action brought individually on behalf of Plaintiff and
as a class action to allow Plaintiff and Class Members to receive
notice, be informed, seek, and receive appropriate audiological
care and other declaratory relief they require as a direct and
proximate result of the negligent and wrongful conduct of
Defendants in connection with its development, design, promotion,
and sale of 3M Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2).
Despite its claimed expertise in hearing protection devices and
recognition of the need to protect hearing, 3M failed to ensure
that the 3M Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs would provide a proper
acoustic seal in all the members of the Class or providing
alternative hearing protection devices to the USAF to ensure that
the hearing of all the members of the Class would be protected,
asserts the complaint. As a result of 3M's failures and Plaintiff's
use of the 3M Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs, he and the members
of the putative Class suffered permanent injuries and significant
pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost wages and earning
capacity, and diminished quality of life. Plaintiff and members of
the Class respectfully seek all damages to which they may be
legally entitled, says the complaint.
Plaintiff, Anthony Patrick, served in the United States Army
("Army") from approximately 1996 - 2014.
3M Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Mark M. Makhail, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 0706-1739
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: zbower@carellabyrne.com
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
mmakhail@carellabyrne.com
ABITINO'S PIZZA: Ortiz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
RICARDO ORTIZ ORTIZ and ARIOSTO FAJARDO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABITINO'S PIZZA 49TH
STREET CORP. (D/B/A ABITINO'S PIZZERIA), ABITINO'S JFK LLC (D/B/A
ABITINO'S PIZZERIA), MARIO ABITINO, SALVADOR ABITINO, and DOMINIQUE
ABITINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07380 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 7,
2019) is an action on behalf of themselves, and other similarly
situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's
compensation for the hours that they worked, asserts the complaint.
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs were employed as cooks at the Defendants' restaurants.
Defendants own, operate, or control two pizzerias, located at 936
Second Avenue, New York, New York 10022 under the name "Abitino's
Pizzeria" and at JFK Airport International Terminal 8, Jamaica, NY
11430 under the name "Abitino's Pizzeria".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: False Ad Inflates Share Price, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA ROSI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS, INC., NEAL
WALKER, and FRANK RUFFO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07118
(S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Aclaris securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019,
inclusive.
Aclaris is a biopharmaceutical company that identifies, develops,
and commercializes therapies to address unmet needs in medical and
aesthetic dermatology and immunology. Its lead product ESKATA is a
hydrogen peroxide topical solution to treat raised seborrheic
keratosis, a common non-malignant tumor.
On June 20, 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration stated that
an advertisement for ESKATA, "makes false or misleading claims"
regarding the product's risk and efficacy. Specifically, "a
direct-to-consumer video of an interview featuring a paid Aclaris
spokesperson" was "especially concerning because it fails to
include information regarding the serious risks associated with
ESKATA, which bears warnings and precautions related to the risks
of serious eye disorders in the case of exposure to the eye and
severe skin reactions including scarring."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.57 per share, or
over 11%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $4.54
per share on June 21, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, the 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's advertising materials
minimized the risks and overstated the efficacy of ESKATA to
generate sales; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to face regulatory scrutiny; 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.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
AKV RESTAURANT: Espinoza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO JERONIMO ESPINOZA and RAUL MORALES RODRIGUEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AKV
RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A INWOOD LOCAL WINE BAR & BEER GARDEN), GUS
ANTON, CHRIS ANTON, and HARRY DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07277 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019) is an action on behalf of
themselves, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate record keeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the
complaint.
Plaintiffs were employed as a delivery worker and a cook at the
Defendants' restaurant.
Defendants own, operate, or control a beer garden, located at 4957
Broadway, New York, New York 10034 under the name "Inwood Local
Wine Bar & Beer Garden".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ALDI INC: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned GLORIANNE MENDOZA, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
ALDI INC., an ILLINOIS corporation; AI California LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 7,
2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06870.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that ALDI violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
KIMBERLY AROUH, ESQ.
FREDERICK BINGHAM, ESQ.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619 239 8700
Fax: 619 702 3898
Email: kimberly.arouh@bipc.com
frederick.bingham@bipc.com
ALLIANCEMED LLC: Retina Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALLIANCEMED, LLC d/b/a ALLIANCEMED and DRAYE TURNER,
Case No. 8:18-cv-01670-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), moves for an order
granting class certification.
The Class is defined as:
All persons or business entities in the United States who in
June 2018, as identified in Defendants' fax transmission
records produced as CSV files, were successfully sent
through Openfax an unsolicited fax advertisement by or on
behalf of Defendants.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their employees,
agents, and members of the federal judiciary.
The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Court will commence a hearing on September 3, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John W. Leardi, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Rice, Esq.
BUTTACI LEARDI AND WERNER LLC
103 Carnegie Center, Suite 202
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 799-5150
Facsimile: (609) 799-5180
E-mail: jwleardi@buttacilaw.com
earice@buttacilaw.com
- and -
Samuel Joseph St. Romain, Esq.
ST. ROMAIN LAW
PO Box 41061
Long Beach, CA 90803
Telephone: (562) 444-5291
Facsimile: (562) 683-2174
E-mail: contact@stromainlaw.com
- and -
Anthony F. Maul, Esq.
THE MAUL FIRM PC
101 Broadway, Suite 3A
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 496-4477
Facsimile: (929) 900-1710
E-mail: afmaul@maulfirm.com
ALLIED COLLECTION: Solway Files Class Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Collection
Services of California, LLC. The case is styled as Mark Solway,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allied Collection Services of California, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12350-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 7,
2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Allied Collection Services of California, LLC is a Debt collection
agency in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Stern Thomasson LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
Tel: (973) 379-7500
Fax: (973) 532-5868
Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Diaz Sues for Violations under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Jonelle E Diaz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied
Interstate LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04555 (E.D. N.Y., Aug.
7, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Allied Interstate, LLC provides financial services. The Company
offers accounts receivable, customer retention, and debt collection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ALTERRA GROUP: Removes Villalobos Suit to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
Alterra Group removed the case captioned as JACQUELINE VILLALOBOS,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. ALTERRA GROUP, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company dba ALTERRA HOME LOANS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 198TCV19449 (Filed June 5, 2019), from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug.
5. 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-06783 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay
overtime wages, failed to provide meal periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, failed to provide rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, failed to reimburse necessary business expenses,
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to
timely pay wages due at separation.[BN]
Attorneys for the Defendant are:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
tim.johnson@ogletree.com
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
ANDREW TORREGROSSA: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Torregrossa & Sons Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andrew Torregrossa & Sons
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04450 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019).
Andrew Torregrossa & Sons Inc. is a Funeral home in New York City,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
ANK MANHATTAN: Sales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN GUDIEL PEREZ SALES (A.K.A. MENDEZ), RAFAEL HUERTA SILVA,
RENE RAMOS MENDEZ, and WILDER PEREZ (A.K.A. EDUARDO PEREZ),
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ANK MANHATTAN LLC (D/B/A ANKA GRILL MEDITERRANEAN),
CLH DINING LLC (D/B/A ANKA GRILL MEDITERRANEAN), LEVENT ARIK, CHUCK
DOE, and JORGE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07386 (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 7, 2019) is an action on behalf of themselves, and other
similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"),
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's
compensation for the hours that they worked, says the complaint.
Moreover, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Defendants also failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day, adds the complaint.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the policy and
practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records
by designating them as delivery workers instead of non-tipped
employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs at
the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them at the
tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). In addition,
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' tips and made
unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees'
wages, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, dishwashers and food
preparers at the Defendants' restaurants.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Mediterranean restaurant,
located at 642 Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10022 under the name
"Anka Grill Mediterranean".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ANTERO RESOURCES: Class Action Certification Sought in Romeo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying their case
captioned JACKLIN ROMEO, SUSAN S. RINE, and DEBRA SNYDER MILLER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANTERO
RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-IMK-MJA (N.D.W. Va.),
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:
-- appoint them as Class Representatives;
-- appoint their attorneys as Class Counsel; and
-- order their Class Counsel prepare a proposed Notice of the
certification of the defined Class to be mailed to the
members of the Class, in accordance with the requirements
of Rule 23(c)(B) to be submitted to the Court for its
approval within 30 days after approval of the motion for
class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Lee Javins II, Esq.
Taylor M. Norman, Esq.
BAILEY, JAVINS & CARTER, LC
213 Hale Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-0346
Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
E-mail: ljavins@bjc4u.com
tnorman@bjc4u.com
- and -
George A. Barton, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P. C.
7227 Metcalf Ave., Suite 301
Overland Park, KS 66204
Telephone: (816) 300-6250
Facsimile: (816) 300-6259
E-mail: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
- and -
Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq.
PERSINGER & PERSINGER, L.C.
237 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-9333
Facsimile: (304) 346-9337
E-mail: hmp3@persingerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
W. Henry Lawrence, Esq.
Amy M. Smith, Esq.
Lauren K. Turner, Esq.
Shaina D. Massie, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
400 White Oaks Boulevard
Bridgeport, WV 26330
Telephone: (304) 933-8000
E-mail: hank.lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com
amy.smith@steptoe-johnson.com
lauren.turner@steptoe-johnson.com
shaina.massie@steptoe-johnson.com
- and -
Kevin C. Abbott, Esq.
Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-7112
E-mail: kabbott@reedsmith.com
nbagnell@reedsmith.com
APPROVED PLUMBING: Lipinski Files FLSA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Approved Plumbing and
Fire Protection LLC. The case is styled Adam Lipinski, Eric Garcia
and Kamil Kulig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Approved Plumbing and Fire Protection LLC,
Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc., Vincent Theurer and Ira
Auslander, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04534 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 6,
2019).
The nature of suit is stated as Labor filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Approved Plumbing and Fire Protection LLC provides protection from
water and fire damage.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
ASSET MAXIMIZATION: Berkowitz Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Maximization
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Berkowitz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Maximization Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04431-FB-ST
(E.D. N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Asset Maximization Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
- and -
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
ASTOR WINES: Tatum-Rios Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Astor Wines & Spirits, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Astor Wines & Spirits,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07359 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019).
Astor Wines & Spirits, Inc. is New York City's largest wine &
spirits store online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BOTTLING GROUP LLC: Whisenant Sues over Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Bottling Group LLC for alleged civil rights violations. The case is
captioned Razhawn Whisenant, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Bottling Group LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 34-2019-00260658-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 16, 2019).
Headquartered in White Plains, New York, Bottling Group LLC, doing
business as Pepsi Beverages Company, manufactures, distributes, and
sells non-alcoholic beverages. The company offers soft drink,
bottled water, energy drink, and fruit juices. It serves clients
globally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
BOYD GAMING: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
Boyd Gaming Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Boyd Gaming Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03587-PBT (E.D. Penn., Aug. 7, 2019).
Boyd Gaming Corporation is an American gaming and hospitality
company based in Paradise, Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
DAVID S. GLANZBERG, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
CAASTLE INC: Tatum-Rios Asserts Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Caastle Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lynette
Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caastle Inc. doing business as:
Gwynnie Bee, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07392 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 7,
2019).
CaaStle Inc., doing business as Gwynnie Bee, provides
apparels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Cooley Appeals E.D. Calif. Order to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Terry C. Cooley filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Terry Cooley v. California Statewide Law
Enforcement Association, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02961-JAM-AC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Sacramento.
The nature of suit is stated as constitutionality of state
statutes.
The appellate case is captioned as Terry Cooley v. California
Statewide Law Enforcement Association, et al., Case No. 19-16498,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by August 26, 2019;
-- Transcript is due on September 25, 2019;
-- Appellant Terry C. Cooley's opening brief is due on
November 4, 2019;
-- Appellees Xavier Becerra, California Association of Law
Enforcement Employees, California Statewide Law Enforcement
Association and Eriana Ortega's answering brief is due on
December 4, 2019; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TERRY C. COOLEY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bradley A. Benbrook, Esq.
BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2530
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-4900
E-mail: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
- and -
Talcott J. Franklin, Esq.
TALCOTT FRANKLIN P.C.
1920 McKinney Avenue, 7th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 326-5349
E-mail: tal@talcottfranklin.com
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
E-mail: jfmitchell@mac.com
Defendants-Appellees CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSOCIATION and CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
EMPLOYEES, as an individual defendant and as Representative of the
Class of all Affiliate Associations of the California Statewide Law
Enforcement Association, are represented by:
Cassandra M. Ferrannini, Esq.
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 444-1000
E-mail: cferrannini@downeybrand.com
Defendants-Appellees ERIANA ORTEGA, in her official capacity as
Director of California Department of Human Resources, and XAVIER
BECERRA are represented by:
Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Esq.
AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-7324
E-mail: Maureen.Onyeagbako@doj.ca.gov
CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Yandrapati Sues over Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Capgemini America,
Inc. for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for
alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The case is
captioned CHANDRA YANDRAPATI, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
CAPGEMINI AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV25153 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 18,
2019). Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated under the Private Attorneys General Act, Labor
Code section 2698 et seq., to recover all penalties, attorney's
fees, costs and other damages and/or relief available thereunder
based on defendants' violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant retaliated against and
terminated him for reporting Defendant's non-compliance with the
Immigration and Naturalization Act and failure to pay employees
prevailing wages.
Capgemini America, Inc. conducts business in the state of
California and has its principal office and place of business in
the state designated at 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA
90017. It employs more than 200,000 workers who provide consulting,
outsourcing and technology services in more than 40 countries. It
also supplies foreign workers to U.S. companies under the H-1B visa
program. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard Rutten, Esq.
The Rutten Law Firm, APC
4221 Coldwater Canyon Ave.
Studio City, CA 91604
Telephone: (818) 308-6915
E-mail: Howard@RuttenLawFirm.com
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Friedman Alleges Violation Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts,
LLC. The case is styled as Jacob Friedman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Accounts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-07262 (S.D. N.Y., Aug.
2, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Capital Accounts LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
CAPITAL ONE: Hoskinson-Short Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HOSKINSON-SHORT, KASSANDRA MCKOWN, PATRICK SOTO, MICHAL J.
HAUSER, DOROTHY E. HAUSER, JULIO VERA, BRENDY WOLFRAM, ERNESTO DE
LA FE, TIMOTHY M. HAYDEN, NECROTIZING FASCIITIS FOUNDATION, LINDSAY
WELCH, and JUAN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,
AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01218 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 5, 2019) is a class action
lawsuit over Defendant's failure to protect the confidential
information of over 100 million consumers including: names,
addresses, zip codes/postal codes, phone numbers, email addresses,
dates of birth, income, credit scores, credit limits, balances,
payment history, contact information, transaction data, as well as
approximately 140,000 social security numbers and approximately
80,000 bank account numbers (collectively "PII").
On July 29, 2019, Capital One publicly announced that "there was
unauthorized access by an outside individual who obtained certain
types of personal information relating to people who had applied
for its credit card products and to Capital One credit card
customers" (the "Data Breach"). Through its failure to adequately
protect Plaintiffs' and the Class members' PII, the Amazon
Defendants and Capital One allowed Paige A. Thompson, a former
Amazon employee, to obtain access to and to surreptitiously view,
remove, and make public Plaintiffs' and the Class members' PII
entrusted to Capital One, as well as the Amazon Defendants.
Capital One's and the Amazon Defendants' failures to implement
adequate security protocols jeopardized the PII of millions of
consumers, including Plaintiffs and the Class members, fell well
short of Defendants' promises and obligations, and fell well short
of Plaintiffs' and other Class members' reasonable expectations for
protection of the PII they provided to Capital One who in turn
provided such information to Amazon Defendants.
As a result, Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Classes
have suffered actual damages, failed to receive the benefit of
their bargains, lost the value of their private data, and are at
imminent risk of future harm, including identity theft and fraud
which would result in further monetary loss. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs bring suit, on behalf of themselves and the Classes, to
seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct.
Plaintiffs are active Capital One credit card holders for several
years.
Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards
and offering other credit, including car loans and bank
accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206-652-8660
Fax: 206-652-8290
Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
Grabar Law Office
1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-507-6085
Fax: 267-507-6048
Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Edelson & Associates, LLC
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Fax: (267) 685-0676
Email: medelson@edelsonlaw.com
CAPITAL ONE: Wise et al. Sue over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
NICOLE WISE, HOLLY ALCAZ, and HAROLD VELEZ, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., a
foreign corporation, and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., a Virginia
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01915 (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 5, 2019), contends that Capital One failed to implement
ordinary and prudent practices to protect confidential personal
information of millions of consumers, including consumers' credit
scores, credit limits, account balances, bank account numbers,
segments of transaction history, and the consumers' names,
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, e-mail addresses, and
social security numbers.
Defendants' wrongful disclosure of the Personal Information has
harmed Plaintiffs and the Class. The Class is anticipated to
include over 100 million credit card customers and those that
submitted credit card applications to Capital One between the
fourteen years spanning from 2005 through early 2019.
On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced that ten days prior, on
"July 19, 2019, it determined there was unauthorized access by an
outside individual who obtained certain types of personal
information relating to people who had applied for its credit card
products and to Capital One credit card customers".
Specifically, as of July 29, 2019, Capital One admitted in its
Breach Notice that 14 years of personal information submitted in
credit card applications from 2005 through 2019, were breached.
Further, Capital One admitted that "about 140,000 Social Security
numbers of our credit card customers" and "about 80,000 linked bank
account numbers of our secured credit customers were breached", the
lawsuit says.
Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking and savings accounts headquartered in McLean,
Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks
in the United States by assets.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
FINN LAW GROUP, P.A.
7431 114th Ave., Suite 104
Largo, FL 33773
Telephone: (727) 214-0700
Facsimile: (727) 475-1494
E-mail: ameyer@finnlawgroup.com
pleadings@finnlawgroup.com
- and -
Michael A. Ziegler, Esq.
Kaelyn Steinkraus, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. ZIEGLER, P.L.
2561 Nursery Road, Suite A
Clearwater, FL 33764
Telephone: (727) 538-4188
Facsimile: (727) 362-4778
E-mail: mike@zieglerlawoffice.com
kaelyn@zieglerlawoffice.com
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Whipple Seeks over Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN WHIPPLE, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01773 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Whipple and other similarly situated employees were paid the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says.
CIS provides pipeline inspection and construction management
services throughout the United States, including Ohio.[BN]
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William R. Liles, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713 352-1100
Facsimile: 713 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
wliles@mybackwages.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DE ROSE
WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
250 E. Broad Street, 10 th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614-221-4221
Facsimile: 614-744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CRYSTAL FARMS: Court Dismisses Consumer-Deception Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that a commentary
published in Forbes last December criticized a Second Circuit
decision, Mantikas v. Kellogg Company, for looking upon The
Reasonable Consumer as myopic, naive, and in need of government
protection. We opined that the decision's easing of plaintiffs'
burden for proving deception would inspire more food-labeling
consumer litigation in New York and other states in the circuit.
We were quite pleasantly surprised, then, by a July 28, 2019
Eastern District of New York memorandum and order in Reyes v.
Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Co. The ruling, which
dismissed consumer-deception claims aimed at a ready-to-eat
mashed-potato maker, offers some hope to consumer-product companies
sued in Mantikas' wake.
The Mantikas plaintiffs had alleged that the terms "Whole Grain"
and "Made with Whole Grain" misled them into thinking that the
Cheez-It Crackers they purchased contained 100%, or nearly 100%,
whole grain. The Second Circuit noted that judges should take into
consideration a product's packaging as a whole when undertaking the
reasonable-consumer analysis. It ended up deciding, however, that a
reasonable Cheez-It consumer would view the product with blinders
on, ignoring all the other relevant labeling information, including
"Made with 5g of whole grain per serving" and the Nutrition Facts
panel.
With Reyes, we move from cheese snacks to mashed potatoes. Ms.
Reyes alleges that the terms "Made with Real Butter" and "Made with
Fresh Whole Potatoes" tricked her into paying a premium price for
the defendant's $3.99 "Diner's Choice" brand. Ms Reyes argued that
the presence of margarine in the product rendered the first
statement deceptive, and that the unexpected presence of artificial
ingredients meant that the potatoes weren't "fresh."
Those two statements, viewed in isolation from the rest of the
labeling, could arguably be considered vague and, under the
rationale of Mantikas, plausibly misleading. Yet the district
court, per Judge Nicholas Garaufis, declined to take that approach.
And rather than leave the fact-based reasonable-consumer
determination to a jury, he decided deception as a matter of law.
Under New York consumer-protection principles, Judge Garaufis
wrote, reasonable consumers understand that the "devil's in the
details" when it comes to vague product labeling. A contextual look
at the package, including any verbal clarifications, the court
explains, was in order.
On the first claim, the court reasons, it's clear that the mashed
potatoes did in fact contain real butter. The presence of margarine
did not change that fact. And besides, the court adds, a reasonable
consumer concerned with margarine could look on the back of the
product, where margarine was mentioned twice.
The court found Reyes' second deception claim equally implausible.
FDA regulations define "fresh" as food in its "raw state" that has
"not been frozen." So Crystal Farms' statement is truthful: it
incorporates raw, unfrozen potatoes into its product. The court
further explains that no reasonable consumer would interpret "made
with fresh whole potatoes" to mean that the mashed potatoes are
"fresh" as the term is generally understood. That's because
"potatoes must be cooked before they are mashed." And for that
reason, "a reasonable consumer would [not] be misled into believing
Defendant's mashed potatoes lacked artificial ingredients."
As noted above, Judge Garaufis could have easily taken one of the
"outs" that consumer class-action precedents provided to him.
Instead, he undertook a completely defensible and, well,
reasonable, reasonable-consumer analysis and rejected Reyes'
implausible deception claims. And although he referenced Mantikas,
he deftly distinguished it.
Federal district court judges with post-Mantikas food-labeling
class actions on their docket would do themselves, and
consumer-product makers and consumers, a lot of good by following
Judge Garaufis's lead when the opportunities arise. [GN]
DEKALB COUNTY, GA: School District Faces Civil Rights Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against DeKalb County
School District for alleged civil rights violations against a
handicapped child. The case is captioned T.H. et al v. DeKalb
County School District et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-03268-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
July 18, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
DeKalb County School District is Georgia's third largest school
system. The District serves nearly 102,000 students, 137 schools
and centers, and 15, 500 employees, including 6,600 teachers. The
school district headquartered at 1701 Mountain Industrial Boulevard
in unincorporated DeKalb County, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Kay Seals, Esq.
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
3900 One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
Telephone: (404) 881-4147
E-mail: bersinger@bmelaw.com
- and -
David G.H. Brackett, Esq.
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
3900 One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
Telephone: (404) 881-4100
E-mail: brackett@bmelaw.com
DEMOULAS SUPER: Toomey Sues over Profit Sharing Plan
----------------------------------------------------
Paul Toomey, as representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the DeMoulas (Restated) Profit Sharing
Plan and Trust, the Plaintiff, vs. DeMoulas Super Markets, Inc.,
Arthur T. Demoulas, William F. Marsden, and William J. Shea, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11633-LTS (D. Mass., July 30, 2019),
alleges that Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties with
respect to the DeMoulas Profit Sharing Plan and Trust in violation
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to the
detriment of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.
As of the first quarter of 2019, Americans had approximately $8.3
trillion in assets invested in defined contribution plans, such as
401(k) and 403(b) plans.
To protect Americans' retirement savings, ERISA imposes strict
fiduciary duties upon retirement plan fiduciaries. These fiduciary
duties include a duty to exercise appropriate "care, skill,
prudence, and diligence" in managing the plan's investment options,
and are considered "the highest known to the law."
The Defendants did not prudently manage the Plan's investment
options. In a typical defined contribution plan, the fiduciary will
create a "menu" of investment options designed to meet a wide range
of needs, allowing participants to determine which investments on
the menu are best suited for them and how much money to invest in
each option. However, instead of following
this almost universally-adopted approach, Defendants elected to
adopt a one-size fits all approach. Specifically, Defendants
offered only a single investment option in the Plan (which
consisted of a pre-determined mix of underlying investments) and
locked Plan participants into that investment, without regard to
their age, anticipated retirement date, or individual preferences
or needs, the lawsuit says.
Unfortunately for participants, the one-size-fits-all investment
strategy designed by Defendants was not a prudent one. To the
contrary, it was wildly unsuccessful. Out of 674 similarly-sized
retirement plans across the country, the plan performed worse --
far worse -- than any other plan during the class period, with
returns that were significantly below even the lowest decile of
such plans.
These abysmal returns were not the result of coincidence or bad
luck. Rather, they are the product of a fundamentally flawed
investment strategy that effectively guarantees that participants
will not adequately save for retirement. The participants in a
retirement plan generally have a long investment horizon—most
participants won't touch the money in their account for decades,
and even those participants closer to retirement need that money to
last for decades into retirement, thus requiring capital
appreciation for a portion of holdings. Yet contrary to the
investment objectives and time horizon of the Plan's participants,
and contrary to established
norms that have developed based upon an understanding of those
objectives, Defendants' investment approach called for investing
70% of the Plan's assets in low-returning fixed income
accounts and only 30% in equities. Moreover, they failed to reach
even their modest equities target almost every year throughout the
statutory period, with approximately 86% of the Plan's assets
invested in fixed income accounts and barely 14% in equities in
2013. As a result, participants had no meaningful opportunity for
growth in their portfolios.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
Amanda R. Crawford, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
amanda@blockesq.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
Ben J. Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612 256 3200
Facsimile: 612 338 4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
krichter@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
cengstrom@nka.com
bmcdonough@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
DENT WIZARD: Sued by Miles for Improperly Paying Detailer Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE MILES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DENT WIZARD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Case No.
4:19-cv-00530-BRW (E.D. Ark., July 31, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising
from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid detailer workers a lawful minimum wage, and also
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Dent Wizard International Corporation is a foreign, for-profit
corporation registered to do business in the state of Arkansas.
The Company provides automotive repair services at locations
throughout the United States, including direct services to
consumers at retail locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
WH LAW, PLLC
1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com
brandon@whlawoffices.com
DORMIFY INC: Conner Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dormify, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Dormify, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04548 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 7, 2019).
Dormify, Inc. retails home improvement and textile products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DOWNS RACING: Mahoney Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Downs Racing, LP is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as John
Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Downs Racing, LP, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03586-JHS (E.D. Penn., Aug. 7, 2019).
Downs Racing, LP offers live harness racing, year round simulcast
wagering and casino gambling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
DAVID S. GLANZBERG, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
DUNE RESORTS: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Dune Resorts, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dune Resorts, LLC doing business as: East
Hampton House Resort, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04565 (E.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 7, 2019).
Dune Resorts manages the finest hotels in the East Hampton,
Amagansett & Montauk Areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
EARLY MORNING: Anguiano Files Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Early Morning LLC.
The case is styled as Leonor Anguiano, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Early Morning LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, doing business as, Weeks Roses,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-102171 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern County,
Aug. 2, 2019).
The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
Early Morning LLC iis located in Wasco, CA, United States and is
part of the Nursery & Floriculture Production Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
The Nourmand Law Firm, APC
8822 West Olympic Blvd
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: 310-553-3600
Fax: 310-553-3603
EASTON DIAMOND: Morgan Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Easton Diamond Sports, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Easton Diamond Sports, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07218-GBD (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).
Easton Diamond Sports, LLC is a manufacturer of baseball and
softball equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC.
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Tel: (516) 807-1748
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
EM DIGITAL: Friedman Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LISA FRIEDMAN, individually and
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JILLIAN
MICHAELS, an individual; EM DIGITAL, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company; EMPOWERED MEDIA, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-09414-GW-SS (C.D. Cal.), seeks certification under Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of this
California Class:
All consumers, who were first charged from January 1, 2017
to the present, whose credit cards or debit cards were
automatically charged on a recurring basis by Defendants as
part of a subscription to the "My Fitness by Jillian
Michaels" service.
The Defendants, their officers, employees and assigns, and the
Court and its employees are excluded from the Class Definition.
Ms. Friedman also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, and to appoint John P. Kristensen, Esq., as Lead
Class Counsel, and the law firm of Kristensen Weisberg, LLP as
Class Counsel.
The Court will commence a hearing on September 16, 2019, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
David L. Weisberg, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310)507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
david@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
jacob@kristensenlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard Steven Busch, Esq.
Paul H. Duvall, Esq.
Brittney R. Dobbins, Esq.
Benjamin P. Lemly, Esq.
Keith Kelly, Esq.
Kyle Watlington, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KING AND BALLOW
1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (805) 750-2028
E-mail: rbusch@kingballow.com
pduvall@kingballow.com
bdobbins@kingballow.com
blemly@kingballow.com
kkelly@kingballow.com
kwatlington@kingballow.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Mumpower Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
KATHY MUMPOWER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a ERC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00914 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2019) is a class action
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for the
benefit of Florida and North Carolina consumers who have been the
subject of debt collection efforts by Defendant.
On June 17, 2019, Defendant sent a written communication to
Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt. The June 17,
2019 communication, on the upper right-hand side, disclosed to
Plaintiff that the balance of the Debt was $1,436.34. It then
advised Plaintiff that the Debt had been placed with Defendant for
collection efforts. However, the manner in which Defendant conveyed
the validation notice required by the FDCPA was ineffective, as it
was inconsistent with, and overshadowed and contradicted, the
statutory notice, says the complaint. In the alternative,
Defendant, through its communication, failed to explain an
apparent, though not actual, contradiction that its letter creates
regarding statutorily-mandated disclosures that Defendant was
required to provide to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Kathy Mumpower is a natural person who is obligated, or
allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be
owed or due, a creditor other than Defendant.
Defendant is an international business process BPO (BPO) and full
service, end-to-end provider for every aspect of the customer
lifecycle, including debt collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
EQUIFAX: Data Breach-Affected Individuals Can File Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Dane Rivera, writing for Uproxx, reports that in September of 2017,
consumer reporting agency Equifax announced that they had
experienced a data breach which impacted 147 million people (almost
half of the country). As of July 22nd, a federal court is
considering a proposed class action settlement to resolve the
grievances of consumers who filed the lawsuit after the breach. If
you've used Equifax's services in the past, or think you might
have, you're entitled to file a claim and receive a $125 payout at
the minimum, which is honestly pennies, considering your private
data has been breached.
Individuals can claim the $125 payouts as part of the $575 to $700
million settlement between Equifax and the Federal Trade
Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and 48 states
(Indiana and Massachusetts still have pending cases against
Equifax). If you're wary of giving Equifax the last six digits of
your Social Security number, birth date and mailing address…
why?
They, unfortunately already know that information and more, as the
breach revealed. $125 is literally the least they could do for you
to make it right. Also, by getting paid you are motivating them to
hold themselves to higher standards.
If you have a paper trail regarding this whole data breach, or you
spent time clearing up suspicious credit activity that happened as
a result of the data breach, feel free to take the extra time to
claim additional lost time and expenses beyond the $125 payout, but
you'll have to submit a description of the time you lost and
receipts indicating identity protection services or security
purchases you've made since the aftermath of the breach. If you've
had to go through those steps, get your money. Each individual is
eligible to receive up to $20,000 as part of the settlement and can
bill lost time at a rate of $25 per hour.
Visit the Equifax Data Breach Settlement Website to file a claim
and get paid. Worst case scenario, and we say this without a drop
of mean-spirited irony, someone already claimed it on your behalf.
[GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kupfer Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as David Kupfer, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04522 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
EXPRESSWAY MOTORS: Tong Seeks OT and Sunday Premium Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Expressway Motors,
Inc., and its president and treasurer, Robert Boch, for the alleged
violations of the Massachusetts General Law (MGL). The case is
captioned JORDAN TONG, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESSWAY MOTORS, INC. and
ROBERT BOCH, Defendants, Case No. 19-2297A (Mass. Cmmw., July 18,
2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated MGL for their
failure to pay overtime wages and Sunday Premium Pay. In addition,
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to keep proper records
of the hours he and the class members worked and issued pay stubs
that did not indicate the total number of hours worked.
Expressway Motors, Inc. is a domestic corporation with a usual
place of business located at 700 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02122. The company operates a car dealership and
selling vehicles in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617)338-9400
E-mail: nfo@mass-legal .com
rm@mass-legal.com
sco@mass-legal .com
FISHER-PRICE: Willis Alleges Injury Risk in Rock 'n Play Sleepers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSIE WILLIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00670 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 5, 2019),
contends that Fisher-Price continued to sell and aggressively
market its Rock 'n Play Sleepers even while it was aware of
fatalities of infants who sleep in the Sleepers and while the
American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and consumer groups
repeatedly warned of the dangers of the Sleepers.
On April 12, 2019, the Rock 'n Play was recalled by Fisher-Price
after a series of infant deaths (the "Recall"). The Consumer
Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"), which helped coordinate the
Recall, stated that more than 30 babies died in the product after
they turned over while unrestrained or "under other circumstances."
On April 8, 2019 Consumer Reports' published an article documenting
the concerns about the product's development and pushed for the
recall after it obtained agency records concerning the deaths.
Of the 32 fatalities more than half occurred after September 2016.
It was not until April 2019 that Defendants acknowledged at least
32 infant deaths attributed to the Sleeper since 2009.
The Rock 'n Play was designed as a flexible folding frame with a
fabric hammock suspended between the legs. The product has high
sides and sits at an incline, causing the infant placed in it to
also sit at an incline. According to the complaint, from 2009 to
present, Fisher-Price sold over $4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers
at $50 to $80 equaling gross revenues of between $235 and $376
million. The revenues resulted from an invention developed by a
small group of engineers at the Fisher-Price toy company located
outside of Buffalo, New York. This invention addressed a basic gap
in the market, a product that helped parents get their infant
children to sleep. The box the Sleepers came in stated "Baby can
sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
Fisher-Price's owner, Mattel, declined to respond to a detailed
list of questions about the Rock 'n Play and its creation and
instead stuck its head in the sand and stated that "Safety is
priority number 1 for Fisher-Price" and the company "has a long,
proud tradition of prioritizing safety as our mission."
Plaintiff, like other Class members, owned and/or purchased the
Sleeper unwittingly and unaware of its dangers and suffered damages
in that she now must purchase an alternative to the Sleeper and/or
lost the benefit of her bargain because she would not have
purchased and/or owned the Sleeper had she known it was not safe,
the lawsuit says.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New York.
Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
beng@bsjfirm.com
- and -
F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr.
Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III
Adam W. Pittman
Lauren S. Miller
CORY WATSON P.C.
2131 Magnolia Ave. S.
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com
ddellacio@corywatson.com
rlutz@corywatson.com
lmiller@corywatson.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
jonm@pittmandutton.com
FORMICA SPECIALIST: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Martinez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARTINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FORMICA SPECIALIST, LLC, and FRANK YBARRA, JR., Case
No. 5:19-cv-00918 (W.D. Tex., July 31, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and other construction and
manufacturing workers overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Formica Specialist, LLC is a domestic limited liability company.
Formica Specialist's main manufacturing shop is located in San
Antonio, Texas. Frank Ybarra is a principal, director and/or
officer of Formica Specialist.
Formica Specialist provides manufacturing and installation services
for commercial and home cabinetry and countertops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
Josh Sanford, 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: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Cisneros Sues over Chevrolet Cruze's Engine Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against General Motors LLC
for breach express warranty, breach of implied warranty, for
violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, and for fraudulent
omission in connection with the purchase of a defective 2013
Chevrolet Cruze. The case is captioned, MARCO CISNEROS, Plaintiff,
vs. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV24902 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 16, 2019).
On or about Dec. 22, 2012, Plaintiff purchased a new 2013 Chevrolet
Cruze, vehicle identification number 1G1PC5SB6D7134728, which was
manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant. The Vehicle was
purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes. In connection with the purchase, Plaintiff received an
express written warranty, including, a 3-year/36,000 mile express
bumper to bumper warranty, a 5-year/100,000 mile powertrain
warranty which, inter alia, covers the engine and transmission and
an optional service contract for 72 months/60,000 miles.
Additionally, Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the
utility or performance of the vehicle or to provide compensation if
there is a failure in utility or performance for a specified period
of time. The warranty provided, in relevant part, that in the event
a defect developed with the vehicle during the warranty period,
Plaintiff could deliver the vehicle for repair services to
Defendant's representative and the vehicle would be repaired.
During the warranty period, the vehicle contained or developed
defects, including but not limited to, defects related to the
engine. Said defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety
of the vehicle.
General Motors, LLC is a corporation organized and in existence
under the laws of the state of Delaware and registered with the
California Department of Corporations to conduct business in
California. It is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle
components in Los Angeles County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tionna Dolin, Esq.
STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 929-4900
Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
E-mail: tdolin@slpattorney.com
GOLDWATER BANK: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Fabricant Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Terry Fabricant filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Terry Fabricant v. Goldwater Bank, N.A., Case
No. 2:19-cv-00164-DSF-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
the Defendant sent telemarketing calls without prior express
written consent.
The appellate case is captioned as Terry Fabricant v. Goldwater
Bank, N.A., Case No. 19-80099, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner TERRY FABRICANT, individually and in behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
FOUGNER LAW
600 California Street, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 577-5829
Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
E-mail: jon@FougnerLaw.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
Defendant-Respondent GOLDWATER BANK, N.A., AKA Goldwater Bank, N.A.
Inc., AKA Goldwater Bank, N.A. Incorporated is represented by:
Jack Frank Altura, Esq.
Marie Maurice, Esq.
IVIE, MCNEILL & WYATT
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-0028
E-mail: jaltura@imwlaw.com
mmaurice@imwlaw.com
GREENWOOD GAMING: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Greenwood Gaming and
Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03585-JDW (E.D.
Penn., Aug. 7, 2019).
Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. owns and operates racetrack,
turf clubs, and casinos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
DAVID S. GLANZBERG, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI: Jones Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grossman &
Karaszewski, PLLC. The case is styled as Ila Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04559
(E.D. N.Y., Aug. 7, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Grossman & Karaszewski, PLLC is a debt collection law office
located in East Amherst, NY.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
HIOSSEN INC: Kee Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled CHARLES KEE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. HIOSSEN, INC., a Pennsylvania
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-02019-00023035-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on July 31, 2019, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01440-WQH-BLM to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code,
including failure to pay accrued and unused vacation pay and
failure to pay earned wages and overtime compensation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Hawkes, Esq.
BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
800 Silverado St., 2nd Floor
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-2440
Facsimile: (858) 614-7008
E-mail: dhawkes@bkflaw.com
- and -
David A. Huch, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. HUCH
3281 E. Guasti Rd., Suite 700
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 212-7945
Facsimile: (909) 614-7008
E-mail: david.a.huch@gmail.com
HOME DEPOT: Weeks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------
JAMES WEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06780 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to redress unlawful
and deceptive practices employed by Home Depot in connection with
its sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), which contains the active
ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is known to be a Class 2A
herbicide, meaning it is probably carcinogenic to humans.
The Defendant markets, advertises, distributes and sells various
formulations of Roundup (TM) which Plaintiff maintains are
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce without proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
Defendant's reckless, knowing, and/or willful omission of the
carcinogenic and/or otherwise harmful components to Roundup (TM)
products constitutes unlawful and deceptive business practices
violate California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair
Competition Law.
"Roundup" refers to all formulations of the Roundup (TM) products
sold by Defendant, including, but not limited to, Roundup Landscape
Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-To-Use Killer III with Sure Shot
Wand, Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III with Comfort
Wand, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass 7 Killer III with Pump 'N
Go 2 Sprayer, Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III.
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services. The
company is headquartered at the Atlanta Store Support Center in
unincorporated Cobb County, Georgia.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:
Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
Sara D. Avila, Esq.
Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
MILSTEIN JACKSON
FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 396-9600
Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
savila@mjfwlaw.com
mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com
INTEL CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in October 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that a final approval hearing
in the class action suit related to the company's acquisition of
McAfee, Inc. is scheduled for October 2019.
On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00
per share.
Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in
Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the
proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in
September 2010.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.
The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs'
damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the
purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08.
In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013.
In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class
certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March
2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were
not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial.
In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which
the court of appeal denied in July 2012.
In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The
trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final
judgment in the case in February 2013.
In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The
California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and
in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside
directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and
chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and
affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to a jury trial.
At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the
Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional
summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin
in December 2018.
In July 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the court denied in September 2018. Also in July
2018, McAfee and Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the
aiding and abetting claims asserted against them; in October 2018,
the court granted the motion as to McAfee and denied the motion as
to Intel.
The parties agreed in principle to settle the case in late October
2018, and finalized the settlement agreement in March 2019. The
settlement agreement calls for an aggregate payment by defendants
of $12 million.
Intel's contribution to the settlement will be immaterial to its
financial statements. In May 2019, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a
final approval hearing for October 2019.
Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.
INTEL CORP: Suits over Microprocessor Security Woes Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend multiple consumer class action suits related to security
vulnerabilities.
In June 2017, a Google research team notified the company and other
companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities (now
commonly referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown") that affect many
types of microprocessors, including the company's products. As is
standard when findings like these are presented, the company worked
together with other companies in the industry to verify the
research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for
impacted technologies.
On January 3, 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was
publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address
the vulnerabilities were made widely available.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Intel and, in certain
cases, the company's current and former executives and directors,
in U.S. federal and state courts and in certain courts in other
countries relating to the Spectre and Meltdown security
vulnerabilities, as well as another variant of these
vulnerabilities ("Foreshadow") that has since been identified.
As of July 24, 2019, 48 consumer class action lawsuits and three
securities class action lawsuits have been filed. The securities
class actions, which were consolidated, were dismissed with
prejudice in April 2019.
The consumer class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent
various classes of end users of our products, generally claim to
have been harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection
with the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common
law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable
relief.
Of the consumer class action lawsuits, 44 have been filed in the
U.S., two of which have been dismissed; two have been filed in
Canada; and two have been filed in Israel.
In April 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the U.S. consumer class action lawsuits consolidated for
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon.
Intel filed a motion to dismiss that consolidated action in October
2018, and a hearing on that motion was held in February 2019.
In the case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, an
initial status conference has not yet been scheduled.
In the case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, the
court entered an order in October 2018, staying that case for one
year.
In Israel, both consumer class action lawsuits were filed in the
District Court of Haifa.
In the first case, the District Court denied the parties' joint
motion to stay filed in January 2019, but to date has deferred
Intel's deadline to respond to the complaint in view of Intel's
pending motion to dismiss in the consolidated class action in the
U.S.
Intel filed a motion to stay the second case pending resolution of
the consolidated class action in the U.S., and a hearing on that
motion has been rescheduled for September 2019.
In the securities class action litigation, the lead securities
class action plaintiffs, who purported to represent classes of
acquirers of Intel stock between October 27, 2017 and January 9,
2018, generally alleged that Intel and certain officers violated
securities laws by making statements about Intel's products that
were revealed to be false or misleading by the disclosure of the
security vulnerabilities.
The securities class actions were consolidated and were pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss those actions in August 2018,
which the court granted in March 2019.
The court's order granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint, but the case was dismissed with prejudice in April 2019
after plaintiffs elected not to re-plead. Plaintiffs did not
appeal.
Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted on behalf of
customers and shareholders seeking monetary damages or other
related relief.
Intel said, "We dispute the pending claims described above and
intend to defend those lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of those cases, including that the pending
proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not
been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that
might arise from those matters."
Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.
KEANE GROUP: Woods Sues Board for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WOODS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of KEANE GROUP, INC. v. LUCAS N. BATZER,
ROBERT W. DRUMMOND, DALE M. DUSTERHOFT, MARC G. R. EDWARDS,
CHRISTIAN A. GARCIA, LISA A. GRAY, GARY M. HALVERSON, SHAWN KEANE,
ELMER D. REED, JAMES C. STEWART, LENARD B. TESSLER and SCOTT WILLE,
Case No. 2019-0590- (Del. Ch., July 31, 2019), arises from breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Keane Board of Directors in connection
with the solicitation of stockholder approval regarding Keane's
proposed issuance of common stock in connection with the Company's
proposed "merger of equals" with C&J Energy Services, Inc.
On June 16, 2019, Keane and C&J entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger pursuant to which Keane will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of C&J common stock in an all-stock transaction.
Keane will be acquiring each share of C&J common stock in exchange
for 1.6149 shares of Keane common stock. Accordingly, the Proposed
Transaction requires Keane to issue approximately 106 million
shares of Keane common stock to C&J stockholders who would, as a
result, own approximately 50% of the combined company. The
transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the Proposed Transaction fails to disclose certain
of Lazard Freres & Co. LLC's conflicts of interests to him and
other Keane stockholders. Lazard served as the financial advisor
to a special committee of the Keane Board. In order to fairly
assess the Proposed Transaction and decide how to vote on the Share
Issuance Proposal, and to assess whether to rely on Lazard's
fairness opinion in making those decision, Keane stockholders, such
as the Plaintiff, are entitled to know all material information
about Lazard's conflicts of interest, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants are directors and officers of Keane.
Relevant non-party Keane provides integrated well completion
services, including horizontal and vertical fracturing, wireline
perforation and logging, cementing and drilling services, and
engineering software and technical guidance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (888) 715-1740
E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
LENOVO INC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------
Lenovo (United States) Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07350 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).
Lenovo Group Limited, often shortened to Lenovo is a Chinese
multinational technology company with headquarters in Beijing. It
designs, develops, manufactures, and sells personal computers,
tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic
storage devices, IT management software, and smart
televisions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
LIVING PROOF: Morgan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Living Proof, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jon
R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Living Proof, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07215-RA (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).
Living Proof, Inc. offers hair care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
Shalom Law, PLLC.
124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
Kew Gardens, NY 11374
Tel: (516) 807-1748
Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com
MASTERCARD: Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Troen, Esq. -- oliver.troen@allenovery.com -- of Allen &
Overy LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the UK class
action regime must take a break whilst the Supreme Court (UKSC)
hears the appeal in Merricks v MasterCard concerning the proper
approach to certification of a class action. Two applications for
a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) brought by organisations
aiming to recover damages from truck manufacturers have already
been adjourned. However the effect will also be felt by all
similar CPO applicants until the law is settled by the UKSC. With
the UKSC unlikely to hear the appeal in Merricks until Spring or
Summer 2020, clarification of the law is unlikely until late 2020
or early 2021. This is a blow to applicants, who will be forced to
sit tight until then. However, with such significant implications
for the UK class-action regime -- and with potentially billions at
stake -- it is vital that the UKSC gives a definitive ruling in
Merricks.
Introduced in 2015, the UK's consumer rights class action regime
allows individuals and businesses within a defined 'class' to bring
collective proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for
breaches of competition law.
Collective proceedings may take two forms:
-- 'opt-in' proceedings, where a representative brings a claim
on behalf of identifiable persons who have elected to join the
collective action; or
-- 'opt-out' proceedings, the US-style of class action in which
the class representative can bring an action for collective redress
on behalf of unidentified members of the class, provided there are
members who have not opted-out of the collective action and the
representative can demonstrate, amongst other things, a practical
methodology for distributing any damages received amongst the
class.
To proceed to trial, the class representative must satisfy the CAT
at an initial certification hearing that the claims are brought "on
behalf of an identifiable class, raise common issues and are
suitable". "Suitability" covers a number of factors, including the
size of the proposed class and whether collective proceedings are
an appropriate means for resolution.
A fledgling regime
The UK class action regime has been slow to take-off. Concerns
raised in 2015 regarding the introduction of a US-style
class-action culture have been unfounded. This has been partly
because of the CAT's strict interpretation of the test for bringing
proceedings as a collective action.
The most significant case so far is the application for 'opt-out'
collective proceedings brought by Walter Merricks MBE against
MasterCard on behalf of more than 46 million UK consumers. The
claim relates to the European Commission's 2014 finding that
certain credit card fees – known as interchange fees – were set
at an unlawfully high level which artificially raised prices for
British consumers over a 16 year period.
On the face of it, the application is precisely the type of claim
that the UK's class action regime was developed to facilitate: on
an individual basis, there would be little point in each of the 46
million consumers bringing a claim against MasterCard as the sums
involved would not be worth the time and cost that litigation
requires. Together, however, the class can make such a claim. The
total value of damages sought is said to be over GBP14 billion.
However in Walter Merricks v MasterCard and others [2017] CAT 16
the CAT scrutinised the application and found that, amongst other
deficiencies in the data required to substantiate the claim, the
lack of a credible methodology for determining the loss suffered by
each individual consumer (and subsequently distributing any award
of damages) meant that it was unable to approve the application for
a CPO.
Movement on Merricks
Merricks appealed to the Court of Appeal (CoA) which, in Merricks v
Mastercard Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 674 2019, allowed the appeal.
It found that the CAT had placed too heavy a burden on the
applicant at the certification stage. Problems with the data
underpinning the claim should not have been probed in detail at
that stage as the CAT had done. Crucially, the CoA held that the
CAT was wrong in its approach to the award of damages, which could
be awarded in the aggregate to the class, with the method of
distribution parked until following the trial.
The CoA rejected the CAT's approach of conducting a 'mini-trial'
and held that the appropriate test at the stage of certification is
simply whether "the claims are suitable to proceed on a collective
basis and that they raise the same, similar or related issues of
fact or law: not that the claims are certain to succeed."
Impact on the Trucks CPO applications
The CPO applications brought in the Trucks proceedings follow a
European Commission decision, published in 2016, which held that
certain truck manufacturers had engaged in unlawful exchanges of
information between 1997 and 2011. The truck manufacturers were
fined EUR2.3 billion by the European Commission.
The applications, brought by UK Trucks Claims Limited (UKTC) and by
the Road Haulage Association (RHA), were due to be heard in early
June 2019.
The CoA's landmark 2019 ruling in Merricks stopped the Trucks CPO
applications in their tracks. Under the CAT's 2017 interpretation
of the rules, the UK class action regime appeared respondent (i.e.
defendant) friendly, with applicants required to surmount a high
bar to proceed. The CoA's 2019 ruling has changed this. However,
in light of MasterCard's appeal to the UKSC, the CAT is wary that
further guidance will emerge which makes it inappropriate to hear
the Trucks applications on the basis of the CoA's ruling.
In particular, the CAT noted the potential for wasted costs should
the application have to be re-heard based on additional guidance
from the UKSC and suggested that, if either of the applications
were allowed to proceed, this would result in developments to the
application(s) (such as setting a date by which the class must be
settled) which it would be difficult to undo. Given these fears
over what the CAT called – quoting counsel for one of the truck
manufacturers – problems in "unscrambling the egg", the CAT
adjourned the Trucks applications until December 2019 pending the
outcome of MasterCard's application for permission to appeal.
Since MasterCard was granted permission to appeal in July 2019, the
Trucks applications will be further delayed until the UKSC judgment
is handed down.
Comment
The CAT has been left with little choice but to adjourn these
hearings, though that will make the pill no easier to swallow for
the RHA and UKTC. With MasterCard seeking to appeal to the UKSC,
it was obviously not appropriate for the CAT to proceed with
hearing the Trucks CPO applications until the correct approach to
such applications is settled. The CAT's decision to adjourn the
Trucks CPO hearings until December, when (should MasterCard's
application have been unsuccessful) they would have been heard in
full, was a sensible one. In the grand scheme of things, a delay
until December would not have worried the applicants too much.
Given the significant differences of approach between the CAT's
initial ruling and that of the CoA -- and the wide-ranging
significance of Merricks to the UK class action regime -- it is no
surprise that the UKSC wants to hear the arguments. This is of far
greater concern to the RHA and UKTC -- indeed all potential
applicants -- than a six month adjournment.
The outcome of this will be a pause on the CAT hearing whether to
certify not just the Trucks CPO applications, but all similar CPO
applications until the law is settled by the UKSC. With the UKSC
unlikely to hear the appeal until Spring or Summer 2020,
clarification of the law is unlikely until late 2020 or early 2021.
This is a blow to applicants, who will be forced to sit tight
until then. However, with such significant implications for the UK
class-action regime -- and with potentially billions at stake -- it
is vital that the UKSC gives a definitive ruling in Merricks. [GN]
MATTEL INC: Appeal in Consolidated Class Suit in Calif. Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the consolidated class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California is ongoing.
A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California,
(consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A.
Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson
alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with
statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period
October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.
In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants
artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment
between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall
financial condition.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices. On May 24, 2018, the Court granted
Mattel's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, and on June
25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion informing the Court he would
not be filing an amended complaint. Judgment was entered in favor
of Mattel and the individual defendants on September 19, 2018.
The plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2018 and
his opening appellate brief on February 25, 2019. On April 26,
2019, Mattel filed its responsive appellate brief, and on June 17,
2019, plaintiff filed his reply brief. Oral argument has not yet
been scheduled.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MATTEL INC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Mattel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07349 (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 6, 2019).
Mattel, Inc. is an American multinational toy manufacturing company
founded in 1945 with headquarters in El Segundo, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MCFARLAND MENTAL: Peters Asks 7th Cir. for Return of $5,816, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Peters,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dr. Zhihong Zhang and Dr. Kathleen Treanor,
McFarland Mental Health Center, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case No.
1:17-cv-01494-JES-JEH (7th Cir.) asks the Seventh Circuit to enter
a final judgment against the Appellees/Defendants.
According to the Plaintiff, Dr. Zhihong Zhang, Doctor and
Administrator at McFarland Mental Health Center, placed a wrongful
date in the Social Security Administration (SSA) database. The
Plaintiff contends that this wrong act prevents her from receiving
$5,816 owed by the Social Security Administration.
Initially, the only action required by the Appellee/Defendant, Dr.
Zhang, was the removal of this date. When Dr. Zhang ignored the
Federal Court of Peoria, Illinois, by remaining silent for one
year, the Court ruled that Dr. Zhang owed $5,816 to her, Ms. Peters
argues. She adds that Dr. Zhang also withheld a Catholic Bible
given to her by Father Grant of Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church.
She also contends that Dr. Kathleen Treanor, Internal Medicine, at
McFarland Mental Health Center, wrongly withheld the prescriptions
provided by her physicians at the Mayo Clinic.
Accordingly, Ms. Peters asks the Seventh Circuit to order the
Appellees/Defendants to pay the $5,817, return the Catholic Bible,
and return the Mayo Clinic prescriptions to her.[CC]
MDL 2895: Teamsters Suit over Sensipar Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE FUND and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237
RETIREES' BENEFIT FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMGEN INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ACTAVIS PLC,
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., and
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-08561 (Filed March 14, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington) on Aug. 5, 2019.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01461-LPS to the proceeding.
The Teamsters case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2895 in re:
SENSIPAR (CINACALCET HYDROCHLORIDE TABLETS) ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. The actions share
factual issues arising from allegations of anticompetitive conduct
designed to restrain competition in the market for Amgen's highly
successful Sensipar drug and its generic equivalents. The alleged
anticompetitive conduct appears principally to implicate a January
2019 agreement between Amgen and Teva, pursuant to which Teva
purportedly agreed to stop selling its generic version of Sensipar.
The common factual issues, which include the merits of patent
litigation dating back to September 2016, appear to be complex, and
likely will require significant discovery. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification and other pretrial matters, and
conserve judicial and party resources. In its July 31, 2019 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge Leonard P. Stark. The lead case is
1:19-md-02895-LPS.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DE PALMA & GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street - Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
- and -
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
lfanning@millerlawllc.com
ME.N.U. KIDS: Olsen Files ADA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Me.N.U. Kids LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Me.N.U. Kids LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07246 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019).
Me.N.U. Kids LLC is a brand specializing in trendy custom designs
and casual wear for tweens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
MIDLAND FUNDING: George Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alison George filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Alison George v. Midland Funding LLC, et al., Case
No. 2-18-cv-15830, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 7,
2019, District Judge William J. Martini granted Midland's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint.
Alison George brings the putative class action against Midland for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff allegedly incurred personal debts on a
Citibank Sears credit card that became past due and in default.
The debts were subsequently "assigned, placed, transferred or sold"
to Defendants Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management
for collection.
The appellate case is captioned as Alison George v. Midland Funding
LLC, et al., Case No. 19-2727, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALISON GEORGE, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
Defendants-Appellees MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT are represented by:
Dana B. Briganti, Esq.
Ellen B. Silverman, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 471-6241
E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com
esilverman@hinshawlaw.com
MOONEY INCORPORATED: Lucio Sues over Wrongful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Mooney,
Incorporated and Vanessa Mooney for wrongful termination and for
alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code
and several provisions of the California Labor Code, including
overtime, minimum wage, and itemized wage statements. The case is
captioned NATASHA LUCIO, Plaintiff, vs. MOONEY, INCORPORATED;
VANESSA MOONEY; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV24681 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 16, 2019).
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified her as an
"independent contractor" during her employment tenure to avoid the
taxes, insurance, and other costs that accompany employees.
Mooney was and is a California corporation operating in the County
of Los Angeles, State of California. It owns, operates, and
controls "Vanessa Mooney" Jewelry where Plaintiff was employed.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
MOUNT AIRY CASINO: Mahoney Files Class Suit under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Mount Airy Casino Rresort, LP is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mount Airy Casino Rresort, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03588-GJP (E.D. Penn., Aug. 7, 2019).
The Mount Airy Casino Resort is a casino and hotel located in Mount
Pocono, Pennsylvania in the Pocono Mountains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
DAVID S. GLANZBERG, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
MRS BPO LLC: Certification of Class Sought in Rozani Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rozani moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned JULIAN ROZANI, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MRS BPO LLC and CHASE
BANK USA NA, Case No. 2:19-cv-01115-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.
Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).
The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers.
As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MSD USA: Diaz Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
MSD USA, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. MSD USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07353-RA (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 1, 2019).
MSD is a global biopharmaceutical company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MT GOX: Class Action Against CEO Can Proceed in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Cali Haan, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that a judge in
Philadelphia has ruled that a class-action suit brought against
Mark Karpeles, the reviled former CEO of the Mt Gox bitcoin
exchange, can proceed in Pennsylvania.
Karpeles had asked for dismissal claiming Pennsylvania courts did
not have jurisdiction, but the judge determined that Mt Gox, based
in Japan before its collapse, solicited investors in the region.
Complainants led by Gregory Pearce allege that Karpeles' negligence
and incompetence enabled a successful of $500 million USD hack of
bitcoins from the exchange in late 2013.
An unnamed programmer who worked at Mt Gox once told author Brian
Patrick Eha that trading systems on Mt Gox were constituted from
'spaghetti code.'
Complainants in the Pennsylvania case say Karpeles was the, "sole
controlling force behind the exchange and designer of its
software." They also claim he knew about bugs in the system and
failed to disclose them to customers trading and storing bitcoins
on the platform.
Judge Robert F Kelly's memorandum denying the motion to dismiss
says that Karpeles handled all aspects of the business, including
contract negotiation, "statements and representations," and
accounting.
Mt Gox terms of service also promised to, "hold all monetary sums
and all Bitcoins deposited (and safeguard them)," according to the
memo.
Karpeles beat incredible odds earlier this year (Japan boasts a
standard 99.9% conviction rate) earlier this year when he was found
not guilty of embezzlement and breach of trust.
He was found guilty of one charge related to falsifying exchange
data but is appealing that conviction.
Karpeles was sentenced to time-served plus a year of monitoring by
Japan authorities- about 4 years in total. [GN]
NAKEDWINES.COM: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Nakedwines.com, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nakedwines.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07352 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019).
Naked Wines retails alcoholic beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
NATIONAL RIFLE: Dell Aquila Files Fraud Class Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Rifle
Association of America. The case is styled as David Dell'Aquila, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association of America, a New York
not-for-profit corporation and NRA Foundation, Inc., a Washington
D.C. not-for-profit corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00679
(M.D. Tenn., Aug. 6, 2019).
The case type is stated as Other Fraud - Diversity-Fraud.
The National Rifle Association of America is a gun rights advocacy
group based in the United States. Founded in 1871, the group has
informed its members about firearm-related legislation since 1934,
and it has directly lobbied for and against firearms legislation
since 1975.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Guido Assert Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guido, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04449 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Lee Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Keun Hyung Lee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide
Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04449 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 2,
2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NCAA: Vincent Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
---------------------------------------------------------
JIMMIE VINCENT, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03274-JMS-MJD (S.D.
Ind., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Western Michigan University ("WMU") of
student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
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.
Rafey S. Balabanian, 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
rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Zachery Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
---------------------------------------------------------
JERRY ZACHERY, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03272-SEB-MJD (S.D.
Ind., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Texas Tech University (TTU) of student-athletes.
According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.
But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.
Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.
Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.
NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
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.
Rafey S. Balabanian, 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
rbalabanian@edelson.com
NEW YORK: ABC Resumes Foster Care Class Action Against ACS
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fitzgerald, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change,
reports that a nonprofit law firm representing a group of New York
City foster youth has resumed long-running litigation against the
city's Administration for Children's Services (ACS) and the state
agency that oversees it.
A Better Childhood (ABC), along with its white-shoe litigation
partner Cravath, Swaine & Moore, has delivered a nearly 300-page
filing to a federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, with new
evidence and allegations of money grabbing by nonprofit foster care
agencies, frequent protocol violations, and too-frequent abuse of
children, many of whom are staying too long in foster care in
violation of federal law.
Cravath and ABC, led by the high-profile child welfare litigator
Marcia Lowry, are seeking class certification in the lawsuit Elisa
W. v The City of New York, so that remedies they seek for the 19
children named in the case would apply to the more than 8,000
children in the city's foster care system.
"This filing demonstrates -- often in the actual words of city and
state employees -- just how wide the gap is between New York City's
policies and its practices for the treatment and protection of
foster children," read an ABC statement provided to The Chronicle
of Social Change. "Furthermore, the filing demonstrates how
Governor Cuomo's Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)
fails to oversee ACS and keep the City's children safe from harm
while in care."
A spokesperson for OCFS said the agency does not comment on pending
litigation. ACS referred The Chronicle to the city's Law
Department, which has argued on behalf of the city in the case.
[UPDATED Wednesday, July 31, 2019]*
"Looking to the court to manage the challenges of foster care is a
simplistic approach to a complex system, particularly when ACS has
proven itself fully capable of meeting those challenges. In the
face of foster care increases nationally, ACS has successfully
reduced the number of youth in foster care to the lowest level in
decades," read a statement e-mailed by a Department spokesperson.
"Cherry picking facts from a relative handful of cases going back
years, second-guessing decisions made by Family Court judges, and
drawing comparisons between states that even the federal government
recognizes are unwise, the plaintiffs seek to paint a picture of a
system in crisis when a fair review of the facts tells a story of
remarkable progress and achievement benefitting many thousands of
families."
Elisa W. was initially submitted in the summer of 2015, accompanied
by a scathing report on the fate of kids in ACS' care from the
city's then-public advocate Letitia James, who joined the
plaintiffs in the litigation. The group quickly reached a
settlement with Governor Cuomo's office that October, over strong
objections from the city, advocates for foster youth and birth
parents, and, ultimately, the judge overseeing the case.
That judge, Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District Court of
New York, tossed out the settlement a year later. By then, James,
who is now the state's attorney general, had already quietly
withdrawn from the contentious suit, as reported by Politico at the
time. James' office did not respond to a request for comment.
The city, and legal advocates for parents and foster youth —
groups that face off in court over tens of thousands of child abuse
and neglect cases each year — found rare agreement in opposition
to the settlement. This reflected a divide in the field of child
welfare nationally over the utility of landmark class actions on
behalf of youth in foster care, a strategy Lowry pioneered decades
ago with another pro bono New York firm she founded, Children's
Rights.
"The fact that we are united in opposing the state's position in
this proposed settlement is, I think, the headline in many ways
today, and should be a significant message … about why it is that
we feel that the proposed settlement and in fact the lawsuit is
wrongheaded," Sue Jacobs, the president of the legal aid firm
Center for Family Representation, told Politico in 2015.
"We represent collectively over 90 percent of the cases of families
in the child welfare system in the five boroughs, so that when the
public advocates or plaintiffs in the lawsuit suggest that they in
fact speak for those children and families, we are here to say, not
so much," she said.
Since that time, ABC said that it has had an opportunity to sift
through more than a million pages of records. The class action
renewal filed on July 31 focuses on an alleged disconnect between
policy and practice when it comes to ACS' management of more than
two dozen contracted providers in the city.
"A core revelation of the brief is that the Improved Outcomes for
Children (IOC) model, wherein ACS delegates day-to-day care of
children to 27 Contract Agencies, is not working, and the city
knows it," the statement from ABC said. "ACS conducts only cursory
case reviews, has no minimum requirements for agency performance,
no minimum requirements for training of agency caseworkers, and
fails to impose consequences when agencies have consistently poor
performance outcomes."
The motion leads with a quote from 2014 written by
then-Commissioner of ACS Gladys Carrión, who appears to cop to a
lack of oversight and accountability for the dozens of nonprofits
that ACS contracts with to provide foster care services:
"Concern that agencies are in it for the $. ACS goes from
initiative to initiative without paying attention to fundamentals
or deepening the work," reads a brief excerpt presented without
context from an unidentified document ABC says it acquired during
discovery. ABC claims that the statement was shared with Sheila
Poole, the head of the state's Office of Children and Family
Services, which oversees ACS's work.
Julie Farber, ACS' deputy commissioner for Family Permanency
Services, supposedly confirmed the point in an internal
communication sent after the suit was filed in 2015: "the capacity
of ACS to provide truly robust support to the [Contract Agencies]
in order to accelerate permanency for children in foster care" is
"missing."
ABC singled out six points in which it alleges failure by ACS and
its contractors:
-- Matching children with appropriate foster care placements
-- Concurrent planning for both family reunification and
contingency options for finding foster youth another permanent
home
-- Ensuring permanency for foster youth in general
-- Providing the right services for at-risk birth parents and
other caregivers
-- Providing special attention to children in foster care longer
than two years
-- Maintaining timely and adequate case documentation
Oversights related to these elements were "present in each of the
19 children's case files," and "contributed to the children's
extended stay in foster care and increased their risk of harm while
in care," said ABC's statement.
A city source pointed to ACS' recent improvements on key metrics:
The total number of children in foster care for two years or more
dropped 38 percent from fiscal years 2014 through 2018, while the
total number of days all children spent in foster care declined by
19 percent. Over the last two fiscal years, ACS also increased the
number of newly certified foster parents by 32 percent, turning
around a previous six-year decline in the number of new foster
homes recruited.*
A Better Childhood also slammed New York's state child welfare
agency, OCFS, for failing to appropriately monitor the city.
"Long before this lawsuit was filed, OCFS had ample knowledge of
ACS's poor performance," the motion states. ABC describes a
"laissez-faire attitude towards ACS's failings," citing e-mails
between OCFS leadership after it received a negative report on the
city's work with contracting agencies.
A Better Childhood has filed a series of major cases against foster
care systems nationwide in recent months, including against the
state-run systems in Oregon and Indiana. The Chronicle reported
last July that the firm had received significant new financial
support from a secret funder, allowing it to hire new attorneys and
staff, open an office in Manhattan, and file new cases nationwide.
The firm was founded in 2014 after Lowry left another firm she
started, Children's Rights.
ACS is now led by David Hansell, who was appointed in early 2017,
shortly after Carrión's resignation. The foster care population in
the city has shrunk dramatically in recent decades, from a high
near 50,000 youth decades ago, to less than 8,500 today. [GN]
PAREX USA: Ticali Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
William Ticali, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintif, vs. Parex USA, Inc., Super-Tek Products,
Inc., and John Garuti III, the Defendants, Case No. 609539/2019,
was removed from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on
Aug. 5, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-04497 to the proceeding. The suit seeks $500,000
in damages.
According to the complaint, the Defendant have willfully withheld
wages from Mr. Ticali and others similarly situated by failing to
pay for all hours worked, including overtime in excess of 40 hours
in any given week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Scott H. Mandel, Esq.
LaBONTE LAW GROUP PLLC
1461 Franklin Ave., Ste. LL-S
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 280 8580
Facsimile: (631) 794 2434
Attorneys for Parex USA, Inc. are:
Jeffrey Spiegel, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 232-1300
Facsimile: (212) 232-1399
E-mail: jeffrey.spiegel@lewisbrisbois.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Torliatt Sues over Pay-to-Pay Fees
------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE TORLIATT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04356 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2019),
targets the Defendant's alleged breach of contract and violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Borrowers in California struggle enough
to make their regular mortgage payments without getting charged
extra, illegal fees when they try to pay by phone or online
(Pay-to-Pay fees). Federal and state debt collection laws strictly
prohibit these charges unless expressly agreed by the borrower, but
these Pay-to-Pay fees are found nowhere in the standard deed of
trust. Here, PHH pays Western Union to process these Pay-to-Pay
transactions at a cost of about $0.40 each.
Despite the low cost, PHH charges California homeowners an
excessive $5.00 to 2 $20.00 Pay-to-Pay fee for each online or
pay-by-phone mortgage payment transaction, pocketing the difference
as profit.
PHH services mortgages throughout the United States, including
California. Its predecessor, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, has already
been sued for this same conduct in an Alabama federal court, where
it agreed to pay $9.7 million. But, PHH makes too much profit
charging Pay-to-Pay fees and continues to charge the fees
nationwide and in California. In doing so, PHH leverages its
position of power over homeowners and demands excessive Pay-to-Pay
fees.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Hank Bates, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 501-312-8500
Facsimile: 501-312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Pivotal
Software, Inc. (PVTL) ("Pivotal") investors that a securities fraud
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Pivotal common stock between 1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Pivotal's April 2018 initial public offering
("IPO"); and/or 2) between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased Pivotal
securities during the Class Period may, no later than August 19,
2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/pivotal-software-inc-securities-class-action
According to the complaint, Pivotal, together with its
subsidiaries, provides a cloud-native application platform and
services in the United States. Pivotal's cloud-native platform,
Pivotal Cloud Foundry ("PCF"), purportedly accelerates and
streamlines software development by reducing the complexity of
building, deploying, and operating cloud-native and modern
applications. Pivotal also purportedly enables its customers to
accelerate their adoption of a modern software development process
and their business success using its platform through its strategic
services, Pivotal Labs ("Labs"). Pivotal markets and sells PCF and
Labs through its sales force and ecosystem partners.
In April 2018, Pivotal commenced the IPO, issuing over 42 million
shares of Pivotal common stock to the investing public at $15.00
per share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement, raising more
than $638 million in gross proceeds.
According to the complaint, on June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal
reported its financial and operating results for the first quarter
of fiscal year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a
complex technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush
Securities analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck"
and characterized Pivotal's operating results as "disastrous,"
asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on
the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the
activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will
be the start of some ‘dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its
investors)." Following this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.65
per share, or over 40%, to close at $10.89 per share on June 5,
2019.
The complaint alleges that, in the Registration Statement and
throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal
was facing major problems with its sales execution and a complex
technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds resulted in
deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as
its customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from
Pivotal's principal products because Pivotal's products were
outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the industry-standard
platform; and (iii) as a result, Pivotal's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Pivotal investors may, no later than August 19, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.
CONTACT:
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Website: http://www.ktmc.com/
Tel.No.: (844) 887-9500
Toll free: (610) 667-7706
Email: info@ktmc.com
abell@ktmc.com
jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Moves to Certify Class of Insureds
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the action
entitled MICHAEL A. LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE CO., Case No.
0:18-cv-61844-WPD (S.D. Fla.), as a class action on behalf of the
"Class" or "Class Members" defined as:
From five years before the filing of this complaint until
the day the Court decides class certification (the "Class
Period"), all individuals insured under Defendant's personal
motor vehicle Policy substantially similar to Exhibit A to
First Amended Complaint and issued in Florida (1) who
submitted a comprehensive and/or collision claim to
Defendant on a vehicle covered under the Policy; (2)
Defendant settled the claim of the insured paying the
insured what Defendant considered "Actual Cash Value" for
the vehicle; (3) Defendant obtained title to the vehicle in
its name; and (4) Defendant on its own or through a vendor,
sold the damaged vehicle for salvage or for parts.
Subclass:
Individuals meeting the criteria of the Class defined above
whose vehicles according to Defendant's records were stolen
and recovered.
Mr. Lopez also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint his counsel as class counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
mfistos@zpllp.com
- and -
Alec Schultz, Esq.
Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
LEON COSGROVE, LLP
255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1975
Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
ckligler@leoncosgrove.com
- and -
Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
954 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
Telephone: (727) 894-2929
E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
- and -
Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 251-8800
E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
Bryan T. West, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
Three Brickell City Centre
98 Southeast Seventh Street
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-5600
Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
bryan.west@akerman.com
- and -
James Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: mbrigman@kslaw.com
jcashdan@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
RAYMUNDOS FOOD: Illegally Collects Biometric Info, Madrigal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luvia Madrigal on behalf of herself and similarly situated
laborers, known and unknown v. Raymundos Food Group, LLC, Case No.
2019CH08939 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., July 31, 2019), arises under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the Defendant's
obtaining of confidential and sensitive unique biometric
information, specifically fingerprints of the Plaintiff and other
employees, without complying with the requirements of BIPA,
including failing to inform them in writing that such biometric
information was being collected.
Raymundos Food Group, LLC has been a corporation organized under
the laws of the state of Illinois and has been a private entity as
that term is defined in BIPA.
Raymundos manufactures and distributes gelatin, pudding and Latino
specialty gels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 795-9121
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Printz Balks at UTC Merger
--------------------------------------------
LOUISE PRINTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RAYTHEON COMPANY, THOMAS A. KENNEDY,
WILLIAM R. SPIVEY, STEPHEN J. HADLEY, TRACY A. ATKINSON, LETITIA A.
LONG, GEORGE R. OLIVER, ROBERT E. BEAUCHAMP, DINESH C. PALIWAL,
JAMES A. WINNEFELD, JR., ROBERT O. WORK, ADRIANE M. BROWN, MARTA R.
STEWART, and ELLEN M. PAWLIKOWSKI, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01426-UNA (D. Del., July 30, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a Merger or, in the
event the Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from
Defendants' wrongdoing.
The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 9,
2019, pursuant to which Raytheon Company will be acquired by United
Technologies Corporation.
On June 9, 2019, Raytheon's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with UTC and Light
Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of UTC, formed for the
purpose of effecting the merger. In accordance with the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Raytheon, leaving
Raytheon as the surviving company in the merger as a direct, wholly
owned subsidiary of UTC, with each share of Raytheon common stock
being converted into 2.3348 fully paid and non-assessable shares of
UTC common stock. On completion of the Merger, UTC will be renamed
Raytheon Technologies Corporation.
On July 17, 2019, UTC filed a joint registration statement on Form
S-4 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Proxy omits certain material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Raytheon Company is a major U.S. defense contractor and industrial
corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in weapons and
military and commercial electronics. It was previously involved in
corporate and special-mission aircraft until early 2007.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Antoinette Adesanya, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: 212-759-4600
Facsimile: 212-486-2093
E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
REALREAL INC: Navy Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The RealReal Inc. The
case is styled as Chantel Navy, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The RealReal Inc.,
a Corporation and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC19578134 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco County, Aug. 2, 2019).
The case type is stated as Other Non Exempt Complaints.
The RealReal, Inc. is an online and brick-and-mortar marketplace
for authenticated luxury consignment.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
ROUTE 22 AUTO: Jean-Louis Sues Over Unlawful, Deceptive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK JEAN-LOUIS and VICAME LAFONTANT on behalf of two classes of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ROUTE 22 AUTO SALES
INC.; CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOC.; SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16367-ES-SCM (D. N.J., Aug. 5, 2019)
seeks to represent those similarly situated with, and have suffered
similar injuries, with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs (i) feel that
they have been wronged, (ii) wish to obtain redress for the wrong,
and (iii) want Defendants stopped from untimely compliance with
decision on adverse applications.
On February 27, 2019, Plaintiffs visited the ROUTE 22's sales
dealership located at 109 Route 22 Toyota, Elizabeth NJ 07205 to
look for a used vehicle. At the dealership, after a 5 hour process
where ROUTE 22's salesperson kept plaintiffs' drivers licenses
(forcing plaintiff JEAN-LOUIS to leave to pick up plaintiffs'
children), plaintiffs signed a retail installment contract to
purchase a pre-owned 2016 Toyota Highlander, bearing Vehicle
Identification #5TDBKRFH2GS259293. Plaintiffs returned the next
day, i.e. February 28, 2019, with proof that they had $2,000
towards the down payment, bank statements, and all other supporting
financial information requested by ROUTE 22; all of this
information completed their credit application to ROUTE 22 for the
purpose of acquiring credit from it to acquire a new family car and
ROUTE 22 approved the transaction. Plaintiffs returned the day
thereafter, i.e. March 1, 2019, and paid the balance due of
$2,000.00 deposit towards the $4,000.00 down payment for purchase
of the vehicle stated under the RISC. The first payment on the loan
was due by plaintiffs on April 1, 2019. After signing the RISC,
plaintiff left the dealership with the subject vehicle in reliance
upon ROUTE 22's representations that they had been approved for an
auto loan and that ROUTE 22 had approved their credit application
for that loan.
On February 28, 2019, ROUTE 22 submitted plaintiffs' credit
application to SANTANDER to sell onto the secondary market for auto
loans. On March 2, 2019, ROUTE 22 submitted plaintiffs' credit
application to CAPITAL ONE to sell onto the secondary market for
auto loans. Approximately one month later, even though ROUTE 22 had
approved their application for credit and accepted their deposit,
ROUTE 22 contacted plaintiffs to inform them that "banks" had
rejected plaintiffs for financing to purchase the subject vehicle
and demanded that plaintiffs return the vehicle to the dealership
accordingly. In reliance to the demands made by ROUTE 22, on March
25, 2019, plaintiffs returned to the Defendant dealership and
tendered the vehicle as defendant instructed. While there,
Plaintiffs requested their down payment back from Defendant who
replied that "We do not give refunds." Plaintiffs, not wanting to
do further business with Defendant any longer, due to its
fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and/or abusive bait and switch sales
tactics and wanting only return of their down payment, declined to
produce the requested financial documents again to Defendant.
Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be financially damaged
due to defendant's actions in stealing their down payment and the
subject vehicle from them through its unfair, deceptive, and
otherwise abusive sales practices, says the complaint. ROUTE 22
deceived the Plaintiffs into believing ROUTE 22's actions were
lawful, and/or concealed their actions' unlawful nature.
Plaintiffs' belief, reliance, and trust in ROUTE 22 was reasonable
because no reasonable person would believe that the Defendant would
act illegally, unfairly, abusively, or abusively in contravention
of its duties to the Plaintiffs. In addition, ROUTE 22, by and
through its authorized agents, omitted the disclosure of material
information to the Plaintiffs with the intent, based on its
statements to them, to defraud or otherwise act unfairly,
deceptively, or abusively to trick the Plaintiffs' out of their
deposit. The Plaintiffs relied on ROUTE 22's apparent and claimed
experience, sophistication and expertise in selling and/or
financing motor vehicles and allowed the Vehicle to be repossessed,
says the complaint.
Plaintiffs, PATRICK JEAN-LOUIS and VICAME LAFONTANT, are adult
individuals, married and residing at 451 Cherry St., Apt. E5,
Elizabeth NJ 07208.
ROUTE 22 AUTO SALES INC. is a corporation licensed to do business
in the State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Niznik, Esq.
Law Office of Michael F. Niznik
SAN FRANCISCO: Broussard Files Class Suit v. Transpo Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City and County of
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. The case is styled
as Kathy L. Broussard, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public, Plaintiff
v. City and County of San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency, Does 1 to 100 inclusive and Christopher P. Grabarkiewctz, a
Public Entity, Defendants, Case No. CGC19578201 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
County San Francisco, Aug. 7, 2019).
The case type is stated as other non exempt complaints.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency oversees transit,
streets and taxis in the city of San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
SECURITY CREDIT: Cottonham Files Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Credit
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Sharde Cottonham, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Security Credit Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-04486 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 2, 2019).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Security Credit Systems, Inc. is a debt collecting agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
SHAKLEE CORP: Mulvihill Sues over Recording of Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MULVIHILL, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. SHAKLEE
CORPORATION; SHAKLEE U.S., LLC; SHAKLEE U.S. HOLDINGS CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG19029994 (Cal. Super., Aug. 5, 2019), targets Shaklee
Corporation's policy and practice of recording and/or monitoring
without the consent of all parties, (1) California residents'
telephone calls to Defendant's toll-free customer service telephone
numbers and (2) Defendants' return calls to California residents,
in violation of the the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Shaklee is an American manufacturer and distributor of natural
nutrition supplements, weight-management products, beauty products,
and household products.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 543-1305
Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
rspencer@kellergrover.com
- and -
Scot Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 447-0100
Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
E-mail: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com
SKM SERVICES: Residents Win Recycling Plant Fire Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
7News reports that residents who suffered health complications
after a massive fire at a Melbourne's recycling plant have won a
class action.
More than 200 residents of Coolaroo, in the city's northern
suburbs, will share in a settlement worth $1.2 million.
It follows the blaze at a recycling plant in July 2017, which led
to businesses being closed and residents being evacuated.
The incident resulted in a lengthy legal battle between residents
and SKM Services, the company that manages the site.
In a statement, Maddens Lawyers, the legal firm representing
residents, landowners and businesses confirmed each of the 210
class action participants were set to receive between 56 to 70 per
cent of their total assessed losses.
However, it remains unclear whether or not the company will be able
to afford the payout.
The suburb was blanketed with acrid smoke and fumes after a major
blaze ignited at Coolaroo Recycling Plant -- despite many locals
reporting concerns associated with the stockpiling of hazardous
waste materials at the site.
Maddens Lawyers Principal Kathryn Emeny said the outcome was a good
example of the importance of the class action system.
"This is an example of a group of local residents and businesses
banding together against a large corporation and saying, 'Enough is
enough'."
Emeny said there had been numerous instances of fire at SKM's
Coolaroo Recycling Plant prior to the July 13 blaze.
Red flag
The frequency of fires at the site was a red flag that something
had to be done on behalf of those living and working close to the
plant, she said.
Lead plaintiff Castor Murillo was forced to evacuate from his home
with his wife and four young children.
He said his family suffered nausea and breathing difficulties due
to the toxic fumes.
"It is a great outcome for everyone that was affected by the fire
two years ago," he said. "Many of us are still suffering the
impacts of the fire, and this settlement will help to alleviate
some of the pressures that we have been facing since this
happened.
"It was an awful experience, but today's outcome will serve to
lessen some of the hardships that we have faced since the event."
[GN]
SLEEPY'S: Settles Employee Overtime Pay Class Action for $3.9MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Massachusetts federal judge gave his initial
blessing on July 31 to a $3.9 million settlement of a class action
brought by former commission-only salespeople at Sleepy's who
argued they should receive overtime pay. [GN]
SOLED ENERGY: Federico Sues over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against SoLED Energy, Inc.
et al for alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and for breach of written
contract of employment. The case is captioned Lawrence Paul
Federico, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SoLED Energy, Inc., a
California Corporation; Dean Trinh; Trust of Dean Trinh, a
California trust, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc. and
Does 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 19CV350970 (Cal. Super., July
16, 2019). Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants have violated several provisions of the California Labor
Code, including wrongful termination, whistle-blower protection,
and failure to pay wages and overtime.
SoLED Energy, Inc. (SoLED) is a California corporation
headquartered in Milpitas, California. The company was engaged in
several public works projects including the electrical lighting
retrofitting on multiple campuses for the Palo Alto Unified School
District. [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SOLIANT HEALTH: Casement Files Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soliant Health, Inc.
The case is styled as James Casement, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Soliant Health, Inc. and
Rightsourcing, Inc., Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-102213 (Cal.
Super. Ct., County Kern, Aug. 7, 2019).
The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
Soliant Health is a healthcare staffing company that provides
medical staff to various healthcare facilities throughout the
United States. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashkan Y. Shakouri, Esq.
Albright, Yee & Schmit, APC
888 West 6th Street
14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 833-1700
SOTHEBY'S: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Aug. 1 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Sotheby's (NYSE: BID)
common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Sotheby's by BidFair USA LLC ("Parent") and BidFair Merger Right
Inc., announced on June 17, 2019 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint,
which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Sotheby's and its Board of Directors (the "Board"), is
captioned Kent v. Sotheby's, Case No. 1:19-cv-01374 (D. Del.).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/
On June 16, 2019, Sotheby's entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Parent and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Sotheby's will receive $57.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to, among other things, the
Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by
Sotheby's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Sotheby's
common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
With offices in Delaware, New York, and California, Rigrodsky &
Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]
STANLEY BLACK: Montgomery Files Fraud Class Suit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Black &
Decker Inc. The case is styled as William Montgomery, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc doing business as: Craftsman, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01182-VLB (D. Conn., Aug. 1, 2019).
The case type is stated as Other Fraud - Diversity-Fraud.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., formerly known as The Stanley Works,
is a Fortune 500 American manufacturer of industrial tools and
household hardware and provider of security products and locks
headquartered in the greater Hartford city of New Britain,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
Reardon Scanlon LLP
45 South Main Street Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Tel: (860) 955-9455
Fax: (860) 520-5242
Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
STOCKX LLC: Casey Files PI Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against StockX, LLC. The case
is styled as Sean Casey, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. StockX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-23285-UU (S.D. Fla., Aug. 6, 2019).
The case type is stated as P.I.: Other - Diversity.
StockX is a Detroit based company primarily known for its
e-commerce platform StockX.com. The company was founded by Dan
Gilbert, Greg Schwartz, Josh Luber and Chris Kaufman in 2015, with
an emphasis on the sneaker resale market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
Edelsberg Law PA
20900 NE 30th Ave 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
14 NE 1st Ave STE 1205
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (404) 797-9696
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Womack Seeks to Certify Flowback Operators Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled AARON WOMACK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPERIOR ENERGY
SERVICES-NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, INC. and SPN WELL SERVICES f/k/a
INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00074-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), seeks conditional certification of a collective
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and court-authorized
notice of the action.
Specifically, Mr. Womack seeks conditional certification for the
FLSA class:
All Flowback Operators who worked for, or on behalf of,
Defendants, who were classified as independent contractors
and paid a day rate at any time during the last three (3)
years ("Putative Class Members").
Mr. Womack asserts that the Court should conditionally certify this
class of day rate contractors because he has more than satisfied
his minimal burden of demonstrating that he and the Putative Class
Members are similarly situated, as they were all subjected to the
Defendants' uniform pay policy that deprived them of overtime
compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Accordingly, he asks that the Court grant his Motion and
approve his proposed Notice & Consent Form and opt-in
procedures.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 325-1100
Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
TRANSGENOMIC INC: Nov. 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD TRANSGENOMIC, INC.
("TRANSGENOMIC") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING
APRIL 12, 2017, THE RECORD DATE FOR TRANSGENOMIC'S SPECIAL
STOCKHOLDER MEETING REGARDING THE MERGER BETWEEN TRANSGENOMIC AND
PRECIPIO DIAGNOSTICS, LLC (THE "MERGER"), THROUGH AND INCLUDING
JUNE 30, 2017, THE DATE THE MERGER CLOSED.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska, that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as
a class action and that a Settlement has been proposed. A hearing
will be held on November 4, 2019, at 11:30 a.m., before the
Honorable John M. Gerrard at the United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska, 586 Federal Building 100 Centennial Mall
North Lincoln, NE 68508, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation for $1.95 million
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice and releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan
of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of
Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and any award to
Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) should be
approved.
IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD TRANSGENOMIC COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING APRIL 12, 2017 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE
30, 2017 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE
OR ACQUISITION OF TRANSGENOMIC COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS
PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to Transgenomic Securities Litigation, c/o RG/2 Claims
Administration, P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479, or on
the website www.rg2claims.com/transgenomic.html. If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail
(postmarked no later than October 29, 2019), or online at
www.rg2claims.com/transgenomic.html no later than October 29, 2019,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
If you purchased or acquired Transgenomic common stock during the
Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than
October 4, 2019, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who do not
timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement.
Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, and Lead Plaintiff's request
for time and expenses must be received by each of the following
recipients no later than October 4, 2019:
CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MILWAUKEE DIVISION
586 Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508
Lead Counsel:
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
Juan E. Monteverde
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, New York 10118
Counsel for Defendants:
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Deborah S. Birnbach
100 Northern Ave.
Boston, MA 02210
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.
DATED: July 31, 2019
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA [GN]
UBU GALLERY: Picon Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Ubu Gallery Limited is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ubu Gallery Limited, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07214 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).
Ubu Gallery Limited is an art gallery in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
ULTA BEAUTY: Smith-Brown Moves to Certify Purchaser Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled KIMBERLEY LAURA SMITH-BROWN,
et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC. and ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00610 (N.D. Ill.), move for certification of
classes of:
All persons who purchased, other than for resale, used
beauty products from Ulta retail stores in Alabama,
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The Classes exclude: (i) Defendants and their officers and
directors, agents, affiliates, and subsidiaries; (ii) all Class
members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class;
and (iii) the Judge presiding over this action.
The Plaintiffs and the states they seek to represent are: Kimberley
Laura Smith-Brown (CA), Quinn Allen (MD), Ilene Anchell (FL),
Brittany Caffrey (PA), Kris Dane (NV), Karen Eonta (PA), Valarie
Hutchison (WI), Kristen Jackson (IN), Cristina Kovacs (IL),
Michelle Musk (RI), Robin Okman (CA), Paula Ogurkiewicz (IL & NV),
Jennifer Sacks (MI & CA), Veronica Sanders (GA), Deanna Shaw (WA),
Allison Sot (NJ, PA & SC), Shasta Swaney (SC & AL), Colleen
Thornton (NY & IL), Alice Vitiello (OH), and Tammy Walker (AL, GA &
FL).
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel as Class
Counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
Jason Giaimo, Esq.
MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
351 W. 54th Street, Suite 1C
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 969-7810
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: pollackj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Howard T. Longman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
STULL, STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 687-7230
Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com
memert@ssbny.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Nickolas A. Hagman, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
nick@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
sjadams@pomlaw.com
- and -
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 229-8811
E-mail: lcludwig@pomlaw.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Thomas et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Ramp Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMAS and SAMUEL UMANZON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED AIRLINES,
INC., and UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-04354 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2019), alleges that United has
systematically run afoul of California's Labor Code in numerous
ways, including its failure to keep and maintain adequate records
of hours worked, engaging in a policy and practice of refusing to
provide workers meal and rest breaks, failing to provide a legally
compliant mechanism for workers to receive payments and penalties
for missed breaks, and failing to pay all wages, overtime and
commissions in compliance with California law.
The Plaintiffs are workers previously employed by United as "Ramp
Agents" throughout its operations in California.
The Plaintiffs' typical work duties include marshaling aircraft,
loading/unloading and sorting freight 10 and baggage, servicing the
aircraft, assisting with pushback and towing, deicing and other
duties as assigned.
United Airlines, Inc. is a major "legacy" international airline
carrier with substantial business operations throughout California.
United Airlines, Inc. is a wholly- owned subsidiary of United
Airlines Holdings, Inc.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Mario M. Choi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-772-4700
Facsimile: 415-772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
mchoi@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Gennaro Du Terroil, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GENNARO DU TERROIL
18756 Stone Oak Pkwy Suite 200
San Antonio, TX 78258
Telephone: 210 998 5645
Facsimile: 210 495 4670
E-mail: cibelliterroil@outlook.com
UNITED STATES: Class of Asylum-Seekers Certified in OA/SMSR Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Randolph D. Moss issued an order in the lawsuits captioned
O.A., et al. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02718-RDM
(D.D.C.), and S.M.S.R. et al. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No.
18-2838 (RDM) (D.D.C.), ruling that:
(1) a class consisting of "[a]ll noncitizen asylum-seekers
who have entered or will enter the United States through
the southern border but outside ports of entry after
November 9, 2018," is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) named Plaintiffs O.A., A.V., K.S., G.Z., C.A., D.S.
S.M.S.R., R.S.P.S., L.C.V.R., C.S.C.C., R.G.G., D.A.G.A.,
A.J.A.C. (on behalf of his minor son, A.J.E.A.M.),
K.P.P.V., R.D.P.V., and Y.A.L.P. are designated as class
representatives; and
(3) counsel for Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases O.A. v.
Trump and S.M.S.R. v. Trump are designated as co-counsel
for the class.[CC]
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on July 31
disclosed that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of its client City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust ("Miami Retirement Trust") against
Venator Materials PLC ("Venator" or the "Company") (NYSE: VNTR),
and certain of the Company's senior executives, the Company's
controlling shareholder, Venator's Board of Directors, and the lead
underwriters of the Company's Offerings (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action, which is captioned City of Miami
General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust v.
Venator Materials PLC, No. 1:19-cv-07182 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of investors in Venator ordinary
shares during the time period of August 2, 2017 and October 29,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action also asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act") on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Venator ordinary shares in or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares conducted on
or around August 3, 2017 (the "IPO"), and secondary public offering
of ordinary shares conducted on or around December 4, 2017 (the
"SPO," and together with the IPO, the "Offerings").
Venator was previously organized as the Pigments & Additives
division within Huntsman Corporation ("Huntsman"), a multinational
manufacturer of chemical products. In August 2017, Huntsman
offered shares of Venator to the public through an initial public
offering ("IPO"). Months earlier, however, on January 30, 2017, a
fire had ravaged one of Venator's key chemical manufacturing plants
located in Pori, Finland.
The Complaint alleges that in connection with its IPO and its
December 2017 secondary stock offering, and continuing throughout
the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the true extent of the
fire damage to Venator's Pori facility, the cost to rehabilitate
the facility, and the impact on Venator's business and operations.
The Company also assured investors that the Pori facility would be
rebuilt with insurance proceeds within its policy limits.
Throughout the Class Period, Venator and its executives continued
to assure investors that the rebuild of the Pori facility was on
track and that the Company would be able to fully recoup the
production capacity lost in the fire. As a result of these
misrepresentations, Venator shares traded at artificially inflated
prices throughout the Class Period.
The truth began to emerge on July 31, 2018, when Venator revealed
that the fire damage at the Pori facility was far more extensive
than Defendants had previously represented to investors.
Specifically, Venator announced that the cost to repair the
facility had climbed to more than $375 million above the insurance
policy limits, more than double the amount disclosed to investors
just two months after the IPO. On this news, the price of Venator
shares declined from $15.35 per share to $14.62 per share.
Then, on September 12, 2018, Venator announced that it was
abandoning the Pori facility altogether, despite the Company's
previous assurances that the site would be repaired and restored
back to its full operating capacity. The Company also revealed
that the facility was still only operating at 20% capacity and thus
had not increased production by any meaningful amount during the
thirteen months since the IPO. During an investor conference call
held later that same day, Venator's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Defendant Simon Turner, admitted that the Company had
misrepresented the true extent of the fire damage. When asked by
an analyst whether Venator had provided a "misestimate of the
initial amount of damage from the fire" and whether "the actual
work that needed to be done was missed," CEO Turner agreed that "it
was a combination of factors, both of which, you've mentioned
already." These disclosures caused the price of Venator shares to
decline from $11.35 per share to $10.81 per share.
Finally, on October 30, 2018, Venator announced that, in addition
to the over $500 million in costs and lost business associated with
the Pori fire incurred to date, the Company incurred a
restructuring expense of approximately $415 million and would incur
additional "charges of $220 million through the end of 2024"
related to the Pori site. As a result of these disclosures, the
Company's stock price declined from $8.00 per share to $6.47 per
share, or more than 19%.
A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available on
BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than September 30, 2019, which is
the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of July 31, 2019. Any member of the proposed
Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel
of their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain
part of the proposed Class.
Miami Retirement Trust is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100
attorneys with offices in New York, California, Louisiana,
Illinois, and Delaware. If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail
at avi@blbglaw.com.
Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of
the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history,
recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.
[GN]
WAGEWORKS, INC: Rosenblatt Balks at HealthEquity Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WAGEWORKS, INC., STUART C.
HARVEY, JR., EDGAR MONTES, THOMAS A. BEVILACQUA, BRUCE G. BODAKEN,
CAROL A. GOODE, JEEROME D. GRAMAGLIA, ROBERT L. METZGER, and GEORGE
P. SCANLON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01416-UNA (D. Del.,
July 30, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Proxy Statement.
The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 27,
2019, pursuant to which WageWorks, Inc. will be acquired by
HealthEquity, Inc. and Pacific Merger Sub Inc.
On June 26, 2019, WageWorks' Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with HealthEquity.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, WageWorks'
stockholders will receive $51.35 in cash for each share of
WageWorks common stock they own.
On July 29, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for August 28, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.
WageWorks, Inc. provides tax-advantaged programs for
consumer-directed health, commuter, and other employee spending
account benefits, or CDBs, in the United States. The Company
operates spending account management programs such as health and
dependent care Flexible Spending Accounts, Health Savings Accounts,
and Health Reimbursement Arrangements programs.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
- and -
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
WELLS FARGO: Pena Sues over Discriminatory Auto Loan
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank
N.A. for alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
The case is captioned EDUARDO PEÑA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04065-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 16,
2019). Plaintiff brings this case against Wells Fargo for unlawful
alienage discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1866, as codified by 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and for failure to
provide him written notice of his credit denial with an accurate
statement of the reasons for the denial in violation of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act. Wells Fargo's auto loan line of business,
as a matter of policy, treats non-United States citizens who reside
in the United States and hold Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) status as categorically ineligible for auto loans
even where such DACA applicants have valid Social Security numbers
and federal work authorization and regardless of their
creditworthiness and ability to satisfy the bank's auto loan
underwriting criteria. Wells Fargo's policy of denying aliens with
DACA status the opportunity to contract for credit is
discriminatory and unlawful under Section 1981.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational banking and financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is
the fourth largest bank in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Rachel Dempsey, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
rdempsey@outtengolden.com
- and -
Ossai Miazad, Esq.
Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: om@outtengolden.com
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com
[*] Class Action Lawyer Explains "Slack fill" Litigation Trend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Tiffany, writing for Vox, report that have you ever opened
a can of tuna to find not very much tuna? Or a box of Milk Duds to
find, in your opinion, not enough Milk Duds? How about a carton of
Halo Top synthetic "ice cream" filled only two-thirds of the way
up?
We have all had our disappointments. Pasta. Potato chips. Mike &
Ikes. Raisinets. Butterscotch? Most of us keep these quiet
disappointments to ourselves, but in the past few years, there has
been at least one underfilling class-action lawsuit filed over
every item I've just listed, as well as some non-edible products
like nasal spray, deodorant, lip balm, and laundry detergent.
In the case of Halo Top, the company got the case thrown out after
insisting that its product can "settle" in different ways due to
temperature and air pressure en route. But that can't possibly be
the answer for all of these, and it also doesn't explain why anyone
would get riled up enough to sue a diet ice cream company.
So Vox's Tiffany spoke to Robert Niemann, a partner at the San
Francisco-based law firm Keller Heckman who specializes in
defending manufacturers and food companies in class action suits,
and asked him why these cases seem to be so common and so
increasingly silly. The first thing he taught me was that these are
actually called "slack fill" cases, and the second thing he taught
me was that San Francisco is a hotbed for them.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
So what's with all of these lawsuits around boxes or bags or
cartons of food being not full enough? How do they start?
These slack fill cases are almost always filed as class-actions
because by themselves, they wouldn't have any power. You'd only be
claiming that basically one bag is not full or one container is not
full. The power is in the number of sales. These are about slack
fill, or rather "non-functional" slack fill. Every container has
some amount of slack fill; the problem is non-functional slack
fill, when there doesn't seem to be a purpose for that size of a
void in there. You'd think there'd be more product and less space.
Slack fill occurs [most often] in snacks, nuts, candy. The weight
is always accurate. If it says there's two pounds in there, there's
two pounds, probably a little bit more. But if the container is
designed to hold four pounds and there's only two pounds in there,
obviously it's only 50 percent full. The container is larger than
necessary for the amount of product that's in there, so it gives a
deception of how much there is. It's always accurate by weight, and
that's how people defend these cases.
The classic one people often think of is movie theater candy. You
see these big boxes of Milk Duds or Jujubes or something like that,
and when you buy it, you don't get to touch it first because it's
in a glass case. You go into the theater and you're like, "Gosh, it
feels pretty empty in here." It doesn't begin to be filled until
halfway down. Theater candy tends to be that way because it's sold
in bigger boxes than there tend to be in a grocery store.
There have been hundreds and hundreds of class-action lawsuits
filed in the last five or six years against the food industry, and
the vast majority of them are filed here in the Northern District
of California. About 10 to 12 percent are slack fill cases. We up
here in San Francisco have been dubbed the "Food Court" because we
have so many food cases; it's just sort of a mecca for these types
of cases. The second is down in Los Angeles. The other states are
New York, Florida, to some degree Illinois and Missouri. And then
there's other states that never have them. It's strange.
But why are slack fill cases so popular in California?
California is very litigious. There's a lot of food companies and
candy companies out here in California. There's a lot of lawyers
that know how to do these types of cases. It's just a trend that's
going through the food and beverage industry the last six or seven
years. [Food companies] have become a target, with plaintiffs
[acting] as bounty hunters trying to get companies to pay money.
There's about 10 or 12 district attorneys in the various counties
in California that watch for these cases and prosecute them.
They're not going for compensation to a plaintiff; they're going
for penalties they can get for their county. District attorneys
have been very successful. The most prolific one is Yolo County;
you can Google them and see a lot of examples. The last one I can
think of was about a year ago, against Ghirardelli, and I think
they got $750,000 from them.
Here's an interesting thing, though: The percentage of fill has
never been codified. No court has said it's gotta be 50 percent or
more. There's no numbers like that that have ever been specific.
Because you can't. It's really in the eye of the beholder. It's
like beauty. You see it and you know it's there. Plaintiffs will
say, "This was 30 percent underfilled." And the defendant will say,
"That's right. That's how we engineered it, because it's necessary
to protect the product and allow for it to be sealed properly so
that it's fresh when we get it to you."
This happens a lot with potato chips. Potato chips are very fragile
-- you need some air or space in there in order for them to
breathe. It also happens with other products that are fragile.
Candies are fragile. You have to have "head space," they call it.
If you have to seal the product at the top with either some type of
glue or processed heat or steam, you need space at the top or the
product can get crushed or it would get damaged or it would be not
purified, it could not taste good.
How often do companies lose these cases and have to pay out money?
Most of these are settled. Most don't go to trial. I won one
recently earlier this year, down in the central district, which is
Los Angeles, and it was for a pretzel company. [The plaintiffs]
said it was underfilled by 50 percent, which it wasn't. The court
dismissed the case. The plaintiffs were not specific enough about
the alleged underfilling. They couldn't really prove it.
There seem to be a lot of Starbucks lawsuits. Too much ice in an
iced coffee, or not enough latte in the latte — those have been
attempted multiple times even though they always fail.
That's not so much a slack fill case because slack fill usually
refers to packaging as opposed to the amount that's put in a fluid.
If you're at a Starbucks and you don't want them to put too much
ice in there, you just tell them, "Easy on the ice," or, "Just give
me a couple cubes."
What's the strangest slack fill case you've heard of?
One industry I was kind of surprised by was bodybuilding powders.
They come in large boxes; I was surprised that many of them are not
filled very much. Those are cardboard, so you can't see in there.
They tend to be sold in larger containers than it seems like they
need. That's the one area where it tends to be an issue more often
than not.
It's not always that easy to say what needs to be done to protect
the product -- that's the issue. They want the product to look nice
and wholesome and desirable when you open the bag. If the bag is
too small, it can crush the product. The beat-up potato chips at
the bottom, they're all smashed; if the whole bag looked like that,
you wouldn't buy them. If you put chocolate in a clear plastic bag
so you can see in there, it would leave streaks and residue on the
inside of the bag and it just wouldn't look very attractive. That's
another reason they keep the bags opaque.
Was there a big underfilling case that started this trend? Why is
it happening?
There's no specific mega-case that created an interest in this.
It's just that plaintiff lawyers are always looking for methods to
get money from manufacturers of food products and other types of
products. They look for the labeling to see if it's sufficient or
false or misleading. There's a lot of lawyers out there that call
themselves consumer advocates, and as consumer advocates, they look
at products that are sold to the public and try to find something
wrong with them.
Why do people get so riled up about slack fill? I've certainly
opened a disappointing bag of PopChips or whatever, but I wouldn't
go sue.
Usually the plaintiff, the client, is not really somebody who came
into the office one day and was upset. It happens. But usually
these lawyers hire people to go out and find things for them, and
they say, "Go over to the grocery store, see if you see anything
that's slack filled, or anything that has language that's
misleading." So they actually roam the aisles of these grocery
stores and other types of stores, like lions looking for zebras.
There's a bunch of lawyers I deal with and that's all they do. All
they do is file claims against companies for misleading claims or
labeling or slack fill and that's their whole practice. They have
their sister, brother, receptionist, or somebody who goes out and
does all these findings. And then they send out letters getting
people to settle with them. If they don't settle, they sue. [GN]
[*] Gibson Dunn Attorneys Discuss Key Class Action Developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq., Christopher Chorba, Esq., Theane
Evangelis, Esq. -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Kahn A. Scolnick,
Esq. -- kscolnick@gibsondunn.com -- and Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
-- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- ofGibson, Dunn & Crutcher, in an
article for Mondaq, provided an overview and summary of key class
action developments during the second quarter of 2019 (March
through June).
Part I discusses developments in the law governing class
settlements, including loosened requirements for certifying
settlement-only classes, the continued viability of multistate
classes, and acceptance of third-party litigation funders.
Part II discusses the continued divergent approaches that the
federal appellate courts have adopted in order to assess whether
putative class plaintiffs have standing under Article III after the
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540
(2016).
I. Courts Continue to Address Important Questions Regarding Class
Settlements
During this past quarter, the federal courts of appeals touched
upon three important issues relating to class settlements.
A. The En Banc Ninth Circuit Reaffirms Viability of Nationwide
Settlement Classes
In June 2019, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit endorsed the
viability of multistate settlement classes in In re Hyundai & Kia
Fuel Economy Litigation, reversing the prior three-judge panel
decision.
As reported in our first quarter 2018 update, in a 2-1 decision, a
three-judge Ninth Circuit panel originally vacated the district
court's certification of a nationwide settlement class because the
district court had failed to analyze whether California law could
be applied to the claims of a nationwide class, given potential
differences in states' consumer protection laws. In re Hyundai, 881
F.3d 679, 702 (9th Cir. 2018). Judge Nguyen dissented, warning that
the panel decision would "deal[] a major blow to multistate class
actions" and "significantly burden[] . . . overloaded district
courts" because it would "import[] . . . additional hurdle[s]" into
the class certification process that are "found nowhere in [Rule
23]." Id. at 708, 712 (Nguyen, J., dissenting) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
The Ninth Circuit reheard the case en banc and, in an 8-3 decision
(authored by Judge Nguyen), overruled the three-judge panel and
affirmed the district court's certification of a nationwide
settlement class. 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc). The en
banc court first observed that because the case involved
certification of a settlement-only class, the question of
"manageability [wa]s not a concern . . . [since] by definition,
there will be no trial." Id. at 556-57. On the choice-of-law issue,
the court held that "[s]ubject to constitutional limitations and
the forum state's choice-of-law rules, a court adjudicating a
multistate class action is free to apply the substantive law of a
single state to the entire class." Id. at 561. In particular, under
California's choice-of-law rules, because no party or objector
timely argued that the law of another state should apply, the
district court was not obligated to address choice-of-law issues at
all, and the Ninth Circuit would not disturb the class
certification decision "for lack of such analysis." Id. at 562.
Importantly, the en banc Ninth Circuit left undisturbed its prior
decision in Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th
Cir. 2012) -- which held that a multi-state class could not be
certified due to substantive differences in the law across dozens
of jurisdictions—because it found the decision distinguishable.
Specifically, the class in Mazza had been certified for litigation,
rather than settlement purposes, and therefore the distinct laws of
multiple jurisdictions would have presented significant trial
manageability problems. In re Hyundai, 926 F.3d at 563. In the
settlement context, however, the trial manageability concerns
identified in Mazza had no relevance, according to the en banc
Ninth Circuit. Id.
By reinstating the nationwide settlement class, the Ninth Circuit's
en banc opinion in In re Hyundai offers a roadmap for parties
wishing to settle class actions on a nationwide basis. Yet at the
same time, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that choice of law issues
are still a legitimate reason to deny certification of a class
action in which certification is sought for litigation, rather than
settlement, purposes.
B. The Third Circuit Holds That District Court Overstepped by
Voiding Agreements Assigning Class Claims to Third-Party Litigation
Funders
Third-party litigation funders scored a victory in the Third
Circuit in the second quarter of 2019.
In In re NFL Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, 923 F.3d 96 (3d
Cir. 2019), the district court approved a $1.5 billion class
settlement between former NFL players and the NFL arising from
concussion-related injuries. Some class members assigned their
claims to third-party litigation funders in exchange for receipt of
an immediate cash payment, even though the settlement contained an
anti-assignment clause. Id. at 100. The district court subsequently
entered an order "purporting to void all such agreements,"
reasoning that its order was "necessary to protect vulnerable class
members from predatory funding companies." Id. at 100, 103.
The litigation funders appealed, and the Third Circuit reversed.
While recognizing that the district court had the power to
administer the settlement, and that true assignments of settlement
proceeds were void ab initio under the class settlement's
anti-assignment clause, the court held that the district court
"went beyond its authority when it purported to void the cash
advance agreements in their entirety." Id. at 111. Because there
were other "portions of the cash advance agreements that may be
enforceable even after any true assignments are voided," the
district court "had the option of invalidating only the assignment
portions of the agreements containing true assignments . . .
without voiding the agreements in their entirety." Id. The court
also seemed troubled that the district court voided the cash
advance agreements "without affording the [third-party funders]
notice and a hearing." Id. at 112. The Third Circuit added,
however, that "once the funds are disbursed to the players, the
District Court's power over the funds—and any contracts affecting
the funds -- is at an end." Id. at 111.
In light of the increasing prevalence of third-party litigation
funding, the Third Circuit's ruling provides important guidance
regarding the contours of the role that funders may play in class
action litigation.
C. The Ninth Circuit Addresses the Preclusive Effect of Class
Settlement on Subsequent Class Actions
The Ninth Circuit also addressed the scope of class settlement
releases in Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, 923 F.3d 685
(9th Cir. 2019). The case involved a plaintiff who had settled a
class action against his former employer, in which he had alleged
that the employer had terminated employees without the advance
notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("WARN Act"). Id. at 688. As part of the class
settlement, the class (including the plaintiff) released all claims
against the employer. Id. But the release expressly preserved
claims against third parties affiliated with the employer,
including an affiliated venture capital firm, Kohlberg Ventures LLC
("Kohlberg"). Id.
After entering the settlement, the plaintiff filed a new putative
action against Kohlberg, alleging that Kohlberg was also liable as
a "single employer" under the WARN Act. Id. at 688–89. The
district court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, holding that the
earlier class action barred the new suit, and reasoning that
because Kohlberg was not a party to that first lawsuit, it could
not be bound by the prior settlement agreement (including the
provision preserving the class's claims against Kohlberg). Id. at
689.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and allowed the plaintiff to proceed
with his claims against Kohlberg. When a court dismisses an action
because of a settlement, the Ninth Circuit held, "the settlement
agreement—and in particular, the intent of the settling
parties—determines the preclusive effect of the previous action."
Id. at 688. The court explained that because "'the settlement and
release of claims . . . is stamped with the imprimatur of [a] court
with jurisdiction,'" "[t]he settlement and release become a 'final
judgment' and 'not simply a contract entered into by . . . private
parties.'" Id. at 690-91. Accordingly, to determine the preclusive
effect of the prior settlement, the district court had to consider
"whether the settling parties intended to preclude [plaintiff's]
current claim." Id. at 691. Because it was undisputed that the
parties from the first settlement agreement did not intend to
release claims against Kohlberg, the Ninth Circuit reversed and
remanded for further proceedings. Id.
Wojciechowski underscores the importance of clearly spelling out
the intended scope of a class settlement release, as that intent
should determine the preclusive effect of the settlement.
This issue remains far from settled, however, as litigants and
district courts must now attempt to square the holding and
reasoning of Wojciechowski with the Ninth Circuit's prior decision
in Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010). In Hesse,
the court retroactively limited the effect of a prior class
settlement release, reasoning that regardless of the language or
intent of the release, the preclusive effect of that release can go
no further than claims that share an "identical factual predicate"
with the claims in the first settled class action. Id. at 592. In
future cases, class plaintiffs seeking to avoid prior class
settlement releases will continue to rely on Hesse, and defendants
invoking prior class settlement releases will cite Wojciechowski
and argue that Hesse can be limited to its unique facts. In short,
the issue will likely be back in front of the Ninth Circuit before
too long.
II. The Federal Courts of Appeals Continue To Apply a Divergent
Range of Approaches to Assessing Article III Standing After Spokeo
As we have discussed in prior updates, the federal courts of
appeals continue to grapple with the Supreme Court's 2016 decision
on Article III standing in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540
(2016), with circuit splits continuing to emerge or deepen
regarding Spokeo's meaning and application to various statutes.
On one end of the spectrum, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits applied
a more demanding standard in this quarter, finding that violations
of consumer protection statutes did not constitute injuries under
Article III. In Huff v. Telecheck Services, Inc., the plaintiff
filed a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
alleging that Telecheck provided him an incomplete report of its
records about his check-writing history and accounts. 923 F.3d 458,
461-62 (6th Cir. 2019). While acknowledging that the "border
between what Congress may do in creating cognizable intangible
injuries and what it may not do remains elusive," the Sixth
Circuit, citing Spokeo, agreed with the district court that he
lacked standing, notwithstanding the statutory violation, and
declared that under Spokeo, "Congress cannot conjure standing by
declaring something harmful that is not, by saying anything causes
injury because the legislature says it causes injury." Id. at 465.
Because Telecheck's disclosure "never harmed" plaintiff Huff and
"did not create a material risk that Huff would suffer a check
decline, Huff has not suffered an injury in fact." Id. at 468.
The Seventh Circuit came to a similar conclusion in a case arising
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In Casillas v.
Madison Avenue Associates, Inc., the defendant sent the plaintiff a
debt-collection letter which omitted required language explaining
"that she had to communicate in writing to trigger the statutory
protections" of the statute. 926 F.3d 329, 331 (7th Cir. 2019).
Like the court in Huff, the Seventh Circuit held "no harm, no
foul." Id. Because the plaintiff "complained only that her notice
was missing some information that she did not suggest that she
would ever have used," id. at 334, she lacked an injury in fact
sufficient to create Article III standing.
Reflecting the unsettled state of the law in this area, both Huff
and Casillas garnered dissents: one member of the Sixth Circuit
panel would have held that Telecheck's omission "present[ed] a
material risk of real harm to [a] concrete interest," and thus was
sufficient to confer standing on the plaintiff. 923 F.3d at 469
(White, J., dissenting) (quotation omitted). And in Casillas, three
judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, concluding
there was a "fair inference" in the pleading of "imminent risk of
losing the many protections" provided by the statute, and warning
against imposing "unnecessarily heightened requirements" for
pleading. 926 F.3d at 340-41 (Wood, J., dissenting from the denial
of rehearing en banc).
On the other side of the Spokeo divide, the Second and Fourth
Circuits found standing in Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases,
and the D.C. and Eleventh Circuits found that a heightened risk of
identity theft was a sufficient injury to create Article III
standing.
In Melito v. Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc., the Second Circuit
considered a putative class action alleging unsolicited spam text
messages. It concluded that "receipt of the unsolicited text
messages, sans any other injury" was sufficiently concrete to
establish standing. 923 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2019). This conclusion
was based on the court's view that "nuisance and privacy invasion .
. . are the very harms with which Congress was concerned when
enacting" the statute, and that "such injuries were traditionally
regarded as providing bases for lawsuits in English and American
courts." Id.
In Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C.—which involved calls to
numbers on the Do-Not-Call registry—the Fourth Circuit found
standing for similar reasons. 925 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2019).
"Looking both to Congress's judgment and historical practice, as
Spokeo instructs," the Fourth Circuit held that "the private right
of action [at issue] plainly satisfies the demands of Article III."
Id. at 653. The court noted that Congress had created a right of
action for an individual who "receive[s] a call on his own
residential number, a call that he previously took steps to avoid,"
and that "[o]ur legal traditions, moreover, have long protected
privacy interests in the home." Id. In reaching this conclusion,
the court rejected a standing inquiry that would require courts to
conduct an element-by-element analysis of whether a violation would
have supported a common-law tort, holding instead that the standing
analysis considers only the "types of harms protected at common
law, not the precise point at which those harms become actionable."
Id. at 654.
Also taking a broad view of Article III standing, the Eleventh and
D.C. Circuits found standing based on the mere potential for
identity theft. In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 922 F.3d
1175 (11th Cir. 2019), the Eleventh Circuit considered claims under
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), alleging
that the defendant violated the statute by printing the first six
and last four digits of credit card numbers on cash register
receipts. Id. at 1181. The court found Spokeo's requirements
satisfied for two separate reasons. First, Congress had deemed "the
risk of identity theft . . . to be sufficiently concrete" to create
a cause of action when it enacted the FACTA, and—in this
particular case—the pleadings were sufficient to establish a
heighted risk of identity theft. Id. at 1188-89. Departing from the
Third Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit separately held that standing
existed because "the risk of identity theft bears a close enough
relationship to the common law tort of breach of confidence." Id.
at 1187, 1191.
The D.C. Circuit addressed a similar issue in In re U.S. Office of
Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, __ F.3d __,
2019 WL 2552955 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2019). The case involved
related suits by individuals whose personal information was stolen
in cyberattacks on a database of federal background investigations
for government employees and contractors. The D.C. Circuit
explained that it had held previously that identity theft can
qualify as a "concrete and particularized injury," and then
proceeded to reverse the district court's holding that the risk of
identity theft to the plaintiffs was insufficient in this case to
confer standing. Id. at *5. Based on the allegations of identity
theft incidents that had already occurred, the D.C. Circuit
concluded there was a "substantial—as opposed to a merely
speculative or theoretical—risk of future identity theft." Id. at
*6.
These decisions illustrate how Article III standing continues to be
a moving target, with diverging authority regarding Spokeo's
application under particular statutes and factual circumstances.
[GN]
*********
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 ***