/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/191016.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 207
Headlines
ALLIANT CAPITAL: Faces Davis Suit in Western District of Wisconsin
ALPHA RECOVERY: Miles Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Sues Over Share Price Drop
APARTMENT PEOPLE: Cullen and Ryan Allege Violation of Rental Laws
ASTRAZENECA: Sued over Anticompetitive Scheme for Seroquel XR
AT DAVIE LLC: Hill Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
AUTOZONE INC: Austin Sues over Gift Card Redemption
BAUSCH HEALTH: Sued over Glumetza Generic Anticompetitive Scheme
CAFEPRESS INC: Fus Sues Over Data Breach
CALIBER HOME LOANS: Morgan Suit Asserts RESPA Breach
CAPIO PARTNERS: Kambitsis Suit Says Collection Letter Time-Barred
CAPITAL REGION LANDFILLS: Faces Duncan Suit in NY State Court
CASTLE BRANDS: Buroker Seeks to Halt Sale to Austin Nichols
CASTLE BRANDS: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Austin Nichols
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Orders Accounting of Funds Paid to MCAG
CLOROX COMPANY: Desouza Sues over Smart TubeTM Technology
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Gant Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Huskey Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
COLLECTIVE HOTELS: Faces Young Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
CONVERSE, INC: Faces Desalvo Suit in Central Dist. of California
COPART INC: Gonsalves Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CORTEVA INC: Moon Files Suit Asserting ERISA Violation
CRAB BOIL: Servers Seek Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
CRST DEDICATED: Smith Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Hourly Employees
D. J. QUIRK: Deleo Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespersons
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Lee Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
E-SERVICE, INC: Dees Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EL TINA FISH: Gonzales Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Dumay et al. Sue over Data Breach
ESHU ENTERPRISES: Rios Seeks Unpaid Wages
FRIENDSHIP MANOR: Faces Kirby Suit Over FLSA and BIPA Violations
GEORGIA DIVERSIFIED: Lazaro Seeks OT Pay for Construction Workers
GINA GROUP: Jung Seeks Overtime Pay for Footwear Designers
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Sued over Doctoral Continuation Courses
HELP AT HOME: Armand Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
I.C. SYSTEM: Dees Sues over Debt Collection Practices
LIFESOURCE WATER: Kubik Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
LIFETECH RESOURCES: Yang Says Beauty Products Have Toxic Component
LINCARE INC: Underpays Sales Representatives, Balderson Alleges
LYFT INC: Cunningham Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
MACRO COMPANIES: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Guillory Suit Says
MDL 2875: Bid for Discovery on Plaintiffs' Litigation Funding Nixed
MICHIGAN: DOC Appeals Another Ruling in Inmates Suit
MOBILEWASH, INC: Bolden Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Car Washers
MRS BPO: Mun Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter
NBC UNIVERSAL: Simmons Seeks OT Pay for Night Cleaners
OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Ford Seeks to Halt Synthomer Merger Deal
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Pillow Seeks Wages for Adjunct Instructors
PHILADELPHIA, PA: OT Wages for Correctional Officers Sought
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Flips in Part Final Judgment in Gentile Suit
PHOENIX LIFE: Faces Suit over Breach of Insurance Policy
PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS: Account Execs Hit Misclassification
POOH-BAH: Quezada File Suit Over Unlawful Storage of Biometric Data
PPL CORP: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Talen Montana Suit
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Hubbard Suit Says
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces Phillips FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
SAN DIEGO CREDIT UNION: Hargrove Seeks Unpaid OT Pay
SHEPPARD-UZIEL: Faces Edelbrock et al Suit in N.D. California
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Dennee Hits Share Price Drop
SPAIN 92 INC: Criollo Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STATEWIDE REMODELING: Jeresano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STONE MEDIC: Muzika Seeks Overtime Compensation
SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE: Hoshaw Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees
TOP GOLF USA: Burlinski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces Boyer et al. Suit in Calif. State Court
TOTALMED STAFFING: Kiseleva Suit Removed to N.D. Ca.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Dane's Insurance Case
USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Sues over Automobile Insurance
VEP ASSOCIATES: Monroe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WINCO FOODS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review Ruling in Mitchell FCRA Suit
*********
ALLIANT CAPITAL: Faces Davis Suit in Western District of Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliant Capital
Management, LLC. The case is captioned as Patricia Davis,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Alliant Capital Management, LLC and Bayside Capital
Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00785-jdp (W.D.
Wis., Sept. 18, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James D.
Peterson.
Alliant Capital is a collection agency.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Mark Andrew Eldridge, Esq.
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
3620 E. Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com
ALPHA RECOVERY: Miles Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle Miles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alpha Recovery Corp, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05585 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action seeking to
recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated October 4, 2018. The Letter claims that
Plaintiff owed $884.65. Plaintiff did not owe any money at all to
the entity on whose behalf Defendant was seeking to collect, says
the complaint.
Plaintiff Michelle Miles is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of New York residing in Kings County, New York and is a
natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
GABBY KLEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., HOWARD A. WILLARD III,
and WILLIAM F. GIFFORD, JR., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05579-JMA-AKT (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Altria securities between December 20, 2018 and September 24, 2019,
both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.
On December 20, 2018, during pre-market hours, Altria issued a
press release announcing that it had signed and closed a $12.8
billion investment in JUUL Labs, Inc., the purported U.S. leader in
electronic vapor products, including e-cigarettes. According to the
December 2018 Press Release, the service agreements related to the
transaction would accelerate JUUL's mission to switch adult smokers
to e-vapor products. Altria's investment represented a 35% economic
interest in JUUL, valuing the company at $38 billion, with JUUL
purportedly remaining fully independent.
On September 25, 2019, Altria issued a press release announcing
that Philip Morris had called off discussions of its merger with
Altria due to scrutiny of the vaping industry and the Company's 35%
stake in market leader JUUL, which had announced the same day that
it was the subject of another federal investigation. JUUL also
announced its CEO would step down and the firm would stop all
advertising in the U.S. On this news, Altria's stock price fell an
additional $0.17 per share, or 0.42%, to close at $40.56 per share
on September 25, 2019--a total loss of $0.32 per share, or 0.78%,
since closing at $40.88 per share two trading days earlier on
September 23, 2019.
The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Altria had conducted
insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8
billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (ii) Altria consequently
failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks
associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the
true value of JUUL and its products; (iii) all of the foregoing, as
well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and
governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it
reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a
material negative impact on the Company's reputation and
operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Altria had conducted
insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8
billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (ii) Altria consequently
failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks
associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the
true value of JUUL and its products; (iii) all of the foregoing, as
well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and
governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it
reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a
material negative impact on the Company's reputation and
operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Due to the 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, says the complaint.
Plaintiff acquired Altria securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Altria, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
APARTMENT PEOPLE: Cullen and Ryan Allege Violation of Rental Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOLAN CULLEN, and EMILY RYAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE APARTMENT PEOPLE LTD.;
and MARK NEUSTADT, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH10710 (Il. Cir., Cook
Cty., Sept. 16, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
violating the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance ("RLTO").
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to attach to the
Plaintiffs' written rental agreements a copy of the then current
RLTO summary required by the ordinance. The Defendants also failed
to disclose in the Plaintiffs' written rental agreements the name
and address of the financial institution into which the Plaintiffs'
security deposits would be deposited in the manner required by
RLTO.
The Apartment People Limited provides real estate services through
Internet. The Company offers apartment search and rental services.
The Apartment People serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
JS LAW
29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 756-1330
E-mail: jeff@jsslawoffices.com
ASTRAZENECA: Sued over Anticompetitive Scheme for Seroquel XR
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; ASTRAZENECA LP; ASTRAZENECA UK
LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08712-CM (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19,
2019), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, under
the state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
The case arises from the Defendants' illegal scheme to delay
competition in the United States and its territories for Seroquel
XR, a prescription medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the treatment of: schizophrenia; acute
depressive episodes of bipolar disorder; acute manic or mixed
episodes of bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications;
long-term bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications;
and major depressive disorder in conjunction with other medications
for those patients who have not had an adequate response to
antidepressant medications.
Seroquel XR is a dopamine, serotonin, and adrenergic antagonist. As
such, it blocks the effects of these neurotransmitters in the
brain, resulting in a reduction of symptoms. In patients with
schizophrenia, antagonism of the 5-HT 2A serotonin receptor in the
frontal cortex of the brain relieves the negative symptoms while
antagonism of the D 2 dopamine receptor relieves negative symptoms.
As of 2016, it was the eighty-sixth most prescribed medication in
the United States, with more than 8 million prescriptions and
annual sales exceeding $1 billion.
Recognizing the huge market for this medication, in 2008, Handa
became the first drug manufacturer to file an Abbreviated New Drug
Application (ANDA) (No. 90-482) with the FDA seeking approval to
market the 50mg, 150mg, 200mg, and 300mg strengths of generic
extended-release quetiapine fumarate tablets, with Seroquel XR as
its Reference Listed Drug.
Accord Pharmaceuticals, Inc. became the first drug manufacturer to
file an ANDA (No. 90-681) for the 400mg strength of
extended-release quetiapine fumarate tablets, with Seroquel XR as
its Reference Listed Drug. Handa later filed an ANDA for the 400mg
strength of extended-release quetiapine fumarate.
The Plaintiff brings this action as an end-payor purchaser of
Seroquel XR, on its own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated end-payor purchasers. Defendants' unlawful conduct has
prevented generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate
manufacturers from entering the market with competing generic
products and has cost Plaintiff and end-payor purchasers hundreds
of millions of dollars in overcharge damages. [BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
52 Duane Street,
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Jayne A, Goldstein, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
35 East State St.
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
AT DAVIE LLC: Hill Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------
ADRIANA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AT DAVIE LLC d/b/a AQUA-TOTS SWIM SCHOOLS
DAVIE, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62488-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6,
2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, arising from Defendant's violations of the TCPA.
To solicit new clients, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing
with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those
messages, notes the complaint. Defendant caused thousands of
unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages
on behalf of herself and Class Members, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a natural person and is a resident of Broward County,
Florida.
Defendant is an organization that specializes in the provision of
swimming instructions and/or coaching to children and young adults
for profit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.
THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.
The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
AUTOZONE INC: Austin Sues over Gift Card Redemption
----------------------------------------------------
Ronald Austin, the Plaintiff, vs. AUTOZONE INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV33357 (Cal. Super.,
Sept. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to provide cash to
consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value less than
$10.00, or alternatively, failed to maintain a policy and/or
practice of complying with Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2).
The lawsuit recounts that over a decade ago, the California
Legislature determined that gift cards were increasingly popular as
a means of gift-giving, but consumers were not able to redeem the
full value of the gift cards they received.
In reaction to this inequity, California State Senator Ellen M.
Corbett authored Senate Bill 250, stating that consumers with small
values on their gift cards often cannot buy anything sold by the
gift card seller with the remaining value on the card, and they
cannot get change for the value. Senator Corbett indicated that
consumers should be relieved from this.
AutoZone, Inc. is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories, the largest in the United States. Founded in
1979, AutoZone has over 6,000 stores across the United States,
Mexico, and Brazil. The company is based in Memphis,
Tennessee.[BN]
Attorney for the Plaintiff are:
Brent J. Borchert, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRENT J. BORCHERT
2930 Westwood Blvd Ste 100
Los Angeles, CA 90064-4138
Telephone: (310) 991-8635
Facsimile: (310) 773-9230
E-mail: bjborchert@hotmail. com
BAUSCH HEALTH: Sued over Glumetza Generic Anticompetitive Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES
INC., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
SANTARUS, INC., ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., LUPIN LTD., and PDL BIOPHARMA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-05831-WHA (N.D. Ga., Sept. 18, 2019), seeks damages and
equitable relief arising from the Defendants' anticompetitive
misconduct, which eliminated generic competition in the United
States for branded and generic versions of Glumetza (metformin
hydrochloride extended release). Glumetza is a drug used to treat
patients with Type 2 diabetes.
Prescription metformin has been available as a generic drug since
2002. Patients with Type 2 diabetes use metformin to prevent and
control high blood sugar, helping the body to properly respond to
its own naturally produced insulin. A person with Type 2 diabetes
who fails to control high blood sugar can develop very serious
disabilities, such as kidney damage, blindness, and loss of limbs
or sexual function.
Assertio developed an extended-release version of metformin that
can alleviate some of the drug's common side effects. Assertio
obtained several patents on the extended-release technology.
In 2005, Assertio received approval from the United States Food and
Drug Administration to sell, and began selling, extended-release
metformin, marketed under the brand name Glumetza, in two sizes:
500 mg and 1,000 mg. Extended-release mechanisms are 2 very common,
however, and Assertio's patents 1 were invalid and could be
designed around.
After Glumetza launched, its sales grew rapidly. As of 2016,
Valeant's U.S. sales of Glumetza exceeded $1.2 billion annually.
Because Glumetza was a blockbuster drug, several generic
manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the FDA
seeking the approval of generic versions of Glumetza.
Specifically, at least Lupin, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Watson
Pharmaceuticals filed ANDAs with the FDA concerning proposed
generic versions of Glumetza. Lupin was the first generic
manufacturer to file an ANDA concerning Glumetza, the lawsuit says
The Defendants allocated the market for Glumetza between them.
Assertio and Santarus held the entire market from February 2012
through February 2016, while Lupin exclusively held the generic
portion of the market from February 2016 through at least August
2016 (and in fact, until February 2017). Such an agreement
represents a blatant violation of antitrust law.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a multinational specialty
pharmaceutical company based in Laval, Canada. It develops,
manufactures, and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical products
primarily in the areas of skin diseases, gastrointestinal
disorders, eye health, neurology, and branded generics.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff are:
Whitney E. Street, Esq.
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 968-1852
E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
steti@blockesq.com
CAFEPRESS INC: Fus Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------
MICHAL FUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAFEPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06601 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 4, 2019) is a class action brought
on behalf of all natural persons victimized by the CafePress data
breach to redress the damage that they have suffered and to obtain
appropriate equitable relief to mitigate the risk that CafePress
will allow another breach in the future. Plaintiff and the
nationwide class he seeks to represent assert claims for
CafePress's negligence, negligence per se, and violations of state
consumer protection laws
Despite its guarantee, on October 2, 2019, CafePress notified its
customers that its online shopping website database had been hacked
nine months earlier in February of 2019. CafePress, therefore,
failed to protect Plaintiff's and its customers' personal
information, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers,
email addresses, passwords, the last four digits of credit cards,
credit card expiration dates, and, in some instances, social
security numbers and tax identification numbers.
Since the data breach occurred, CafePress customers have been
exposed to credit card theft and subjected to resulting economic
losses. Plaintiff has and will incur costs to mitigate the risk for
the data breach, such as paying for credit monitoring services.
Regardless of whether they have yet to incur out-of-pocket losses,
Plaintiff and all CafePress customers whose personal information
was stolen remain subject to a pervasive, substantial and imminent
risk of identity theft and fraud, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Michal Fus is a resident and citizen of the State of
Illinois (DuPage County) whose Personal Information was compromised
in the Defendant CafePress, Inc.'s data breach.
CafePress is heralded as the world's largest online gift shop,
carrying more than one billion products on its website, including
t-shirts, mugs, and bags that can be user-customized with logos and
other designs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.741.1019
Fax: 312.264.0100
Email: beth@hbsslaw.com
tim@feganscott.com
- and -
Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
500 Grant St., Suite 2900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Email: lynn@feganscott.com
CALIBER HOME LOANS: Morgan Suit Asserts RESPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
ROGERS MORGAN, and PATRICE L. JOHNSON, On behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of a Class and Subclass of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02797-PX (D. Md., Sept. 23, 2019) is a
class action filed pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that Caliber places its interest and pattern
of unsafe and unsound mortgage service practices above the remedial
rights of homeowners and consumers. Moreover, Caliber unfairly and
deceptively ignores its statutory and contractual duties, including
those which were agreed to as part of their license to legally
operate in the State of Maryland and nationwide. These practices
are compounded when homeowners, like Johnson, Morgan, and the
putative class members, try in good faith to resolve their
situation and Caliber disregards its duty to conduct a reasonable
investigation of their notices of error and makes material
misstatements of law in reply which confirm the underlying claim in
this matter.
As a matter of standard policy and practice, Caliber disregards the
express requirements in the RESPA to cease furnishing or providing
adverse information to any consumer reporting agency regarding any
payments or sums demanded due that are subject of the Qualified
Written Requests/Notices of Error ("QWR/NOE") received from the
Plaintiffs and Class members for a period of sixty days, the
Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs add that Caliber simply
continues the disputed, adverse reporting with knowing and reckless
disregard to their rights. As a direct and proximate result of
Caliber's violations of the RESPA, the Plaintiffs and the class
members have been proximately harmed by Caliber's publishing of
derogatory information to the credit reporting agencies subject to
disputes regarding the borrower's payments and sums claimed due,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff Rogers Morgan is a natural person, who owns and resides
at 5904 Middleton Lane, in Temple Hills, Maryland. Plaintiff
Patrice Johnson is a natural person, who owns and resides at 4935
Coronado Court, in Waldorf, Maryland.
Caliber is a collector and a licensed mortgage servicer in the
State of Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 448-1304
CAPIO PARTNERS: Kambitsis Suit Says Collection Letter Time-Barred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Kambitsis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capio Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-81277, (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2019), seeks redress for
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Capio Partners operates a debt collection agency. It attempted to
collect a debt for personal medical services owed by Kambitsis via
collection letter that did not state that collection of the debt
was time-barred and because of the age of the debt, the Defendant
could not and could not take any further collection action. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jerome F. Skrandel, Esq.
P.O. Box 14759
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Phone: (561) 863-1605
Email: JFSPA@MSN.COM
CAPITAL REGION LANDFILLS: Faces Duncan Suit in NY State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Region
Landfills, Inc. The case is captioned as Jennifer Duncan, O/B/O
Herself And All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Capital Region Landfills, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 904768/2019
(N.Y. Sup., Sept 20, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Roger
D. Mcdonough.
Capital Region offers waste collection, transfer, disposal, and
recycling services. The company was founded in 2011 and is based in
Albany, New York.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
MICHAELS & SMOLACK, PC
17 East Genesee St, Ste 401
Auburn, NY 13021
Telephone: (315) 253-3293
Attorneys for the Defendant are:
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
477 Madison Ave, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 702-5400
CASTLE BRANDS: Buroker Seeks to Halt Sale to Austin Nichols
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Buroker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Castle Brands Inc., Mark Andrews III, John
F. Beaudette, Henry C. Beinstein, Phillip Frost, Richard M. Krasno,
Richard J. Lampen, Steven D. Rubin and Mark Zeitchick, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-08778 (S.D. N.Y., September 20, 2019), seeks relief
for breaches of fiduciary duty and for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the sale of Castle Brands Inc.
to Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.
RookMerger Sub, Inc. will purchase all of Castle Brands'
outstanding common stock for $1.27 in cash. Buroker, a shareholder
of Castle Brands, claims that the merger's proxy statement failed
to provide all line items used to calculate adjusted gross sales,
cumulative auction market preferred stocks, EBITDA and unlevered
free cash flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics.
Castle Brands is a developer and international marketer of the
Jefferson's, Gosling's and Knappogue branded spirits. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 682-3025
- and -
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (646) 860-9158
Fax: (212) 214-0506
Email: raymond@bespc.com
CASTLE BRANDS: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Austin Nichols
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Castle Brands Inc., Mark Andrews III, John
F. Beaudette, Henry C. Beinstein, Phillip Frost, Richard M. Krasno,
Richard J. Lampen, Steven D. Rubin, Mark Zeitchick, Austin, Nichols
& Co., Inc., and Rook Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01743 (D. Del., September 17, 2019), seeks relief for
breaches of fiduciary duty and for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the sale of Castle Brands Inc.
to Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. and RookMerger Sub, Inc.
RookMerger Sub, Inc. will purchase all of Castle Brands'
outstanding common stock for $1.27 in cash. Franchi, a shareholder
of Castle Brands, claims that the merger's proxy statement failed
to provide all line items used to calculate adjusted gross sales,
cumulative auction market preferred stocks, EBITDA and unlevered
free cash flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics.
Castle Brands is a developer and international marketer of the
Jefferson's, Gosling's and Knappogue branded spirits. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Email: rm@maniskas.com
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Orders Accounting of Funds Paid to MCAG
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANAGED CARE ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. CIGNA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.,
DAVID GARCIA, NEIL MANNING, IMEDECS, MILLENNIUM HEALTHCARE
CONSULTING, INC., MARY FALBO, Interested Parties-Appellants, Case
No. 17-13761 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court's
denial of CIGNA's motion to enforce a Settlement Agreement and
compel an accounting.
Medical providers filed several class action lawsuits against
managed care insurance companies, including CIGNA. These actions
alleged that the insurers improperly processed and rejected certain
physicians' claims for payment. The actions were consolidated into
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. The class and CIGNA reached a
settlement after extensive litigation and the district court
subsequently approved the parties' Settlement Agreement.
Following the settlement, Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC
("MCAG"), acting on behalf of the class members, entered into an
arbitration agreement with CIGNA in an attempt to resolve a dispute
over a portion of the settlement funds. The Settlement Agreement
did not provide for arbitration and MCAG was not a party to it.
Instead, MCAG claimed to represent the class members who were
parties to the Settlement Agreement. The arbitrator summonsed the
settlement claims administrator and independent review entities
("IREs") to appear for a live hearing and video conference and to
bring with them certain documents.
MCAG filed a motion to enforce the arbitral summonses in the
district court approximately three years after it had closed all
proceedings involving the MDL. CIGNA responded to MCAG's motion to
enforce the arbitral summonses with a motion to strike the
summonses.
The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge who
denied CIGNA's motion and granted MCAG's request to enforce the
summonses. CIGNA and the summonsed parties appealed the magistrate
judge's decision to the district court and, at the district court's
suggestion, CIGNA filed a motion to enforce the settlement and
compel an accounting.
The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision,
enforcing the arbitral summonses, but denied CIGNA's motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement and compel an accounting stating,
the Arbitrator will be allowed to arbitrate the claims in the
manner he sees fit.
CIGNA, Epiq, and IMEDECS appeal the district court order. Epiq and
IMEDECS challenge the district court's order enforcing the arbitral
summonses. CIGNA appeals the district court's denial of its motion
to enforce the Settlement Agreement and compel an accounting.
MCAG conceded during oral argument that: (1) it had not distributed
all of the funds CIGNA paid before the arbitration for claims that
were not the subject of the arbitration (despite MCAG's previous
assertion that it had distributed all of these funds); (2) it had
not distributed any of the settlement money paid by CIGNA for
Category Two claims since the arbitration commenced; and (3) only
approximately $4.5 million remains of the settlement proceeds CIGNA
paid to MCAG for class members' Category Two claims. Additionally,
MCAG conceded that it was obligated to pay the class members
shortly after receiving payment from CIGNA.
Before oral arguments, the Court issued a jurisdictional question
asking the parties to respond to two inquiries: (1) whether the
district court order enforcing the arbitration summonses was a
final order, particularly in light of the fact that the order
enforced summonses against third parties and is apparently a
post-judgment order; and (2) whether the district court's order
denying CIGNA's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to
compel an accounting was final in light of the district court's
reasoning that CIGNA's claims would instead be handled by the
arbitrator. CIGNA, Epiq, and IMEDECS responded that the orders
were final and appealable, while MCAG contended the orders were not
final and appealable.
The Eleventh Circuit finds that the district court retained
jurisdiction as to all matters relating to the interpretation,
administration, and consummation of the Agreement. The motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement and compel an accounting was
initiated because CIGNA paid approximately $25 million to MCAG for
the class members' claims submitted pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.
Based on the record before it, the Court finds that it does not
appear that the class members received a significant portion of the
funds to which they are entitled. CIGNA paid MCAG approximately
$11 million prior to arbitration to distribute to the class members
for claims that were not the subject of the arbitration agreement
and $14 million during arbitration for Category Two claims. CIGNA
paid these funds to MCAG solely for distribution to the class
members for their approved claims as required by the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court concludes that the litigation has been ongoing for almost
20 years, but it appears that most of the money CIGNA paid to MCAG
for the class members has not been distributed. The district court
should require an expeditious accounting of all funds CIGNA
previously paid to MCAG for the benefit of the class members. The
accounting should include any interest earned on the funds paid to
MCAG.
For these reasons, the Court reversed the judgment of the district
court, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent
with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/svXhUH from Leagle.com.
Paul Joseph Schwiep -- PSchwiep@coffeyburlington.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.
Paul Joseph Schwiep, for Interested Party-Appellant.
Gerald Edward Greenberg -- ggreenberg@gsgpa.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael A. Hanzman, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph A. DeMaria -- jdemaria@foxrothschild.com -- for Interested
Party-Appellant.
Martin Steinberg -- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.
Andrew H. Selesnick, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alejandra Hernandez Pennie, for Defendant-Appellant.
David B. Massey -- dmassey@rkollp.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.
Freddy Funes -- ffunes@gsgpa.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.
CLOROX COMPANY: Desouza Sues over Smart TubeTM Technology
---------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DESOUZA, the Plaintiff, vs. THE CLOROX COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 19-2956 (Mass. Super., Sept. 19, 2019), seeks
to establish a class of similar Massachusetts consumers, enforce
injunctive relief, and recover monetary damages and attorneys' fees
under Mass. Gen. Laws.
Clorox is a provider of home cleaning products and expends
significant resources marketing these products to Massachusetts
consumers. As part of its goal to maintain its market share in
Massachusetts and across the country, Clorox dedicates extensive
effort to research and development of new and improved products.
As part of Clorox's nationwide campaign, Clorox developed what it
coined Smart TubeTM Technology. This Smart Tube technology is
marketed as "revolutionary" and "the result of five years of
product development" including "technology covered by eight
proprietary patents".
The new design promised to provide "superior value and performance
with an innovative trigger bottle design". Unfortunately, this
Smart TubeTM Technology proved to be less than effective, instead
causing Clorox bottles to leak, and in some cases, even causing
consumers physical injury.
One such product that utilized Clorox's Smart TubeTM Technology is
Clorox Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner ANijwith Smart TubeTM
Technology.
According to the lawsuit, Clorox's shoddy design and manufacture of
products utilizing Smart TubeTM Technology caused the Plaintiff and
the putative class to suffer both physical and monetary injuries.
Specifically, Plaintiff, as a house cleaner, suffered physical
injury to his left eye after the Product fell, split open, and
splashed bleach into his eye. The examples across the internet
evidence both the numerosity of the class and the knowledge Clorox
has had regarding this apparent defect.
Clorox sells its products primarily through mass merchandisers,
grocery stores, and other retail outlets. Clorox markets some of
consumers' most trusted and recognized brand names, including
Clorox Bleach, to consumers throughout the United States, including
tens of thousands of consumers in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff:
James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: SJBoumil@Boumil-Law.com
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Gant Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Gant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Coca-Cola Company Co., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-03537 (S.D. Tex., September 19, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Coca-cola is a multinational beverage company. To promote its
products, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an
auto dialer. Gant opted out of receiving such messages yet still
continued to receive them on his cellphone. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Huskey Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned DREW HUSKEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY,
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Oct. 4,
2019, and assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02710.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Personal Property - Other
Fraud.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite #1
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Phone: (314) 550-3717
Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa A. Pake, Esq.
HAAR & WOODS, LLP
Matthew A. Martin, Esq.
1010 Market St., Suite 1620
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 241-2224
Fax: (314) 241-2227
Email: lpake@haar-woods.com
mmartin@haar-woods.com
COLLECTIVE HOTELS: Faces Young Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collective Hotels and
Retreats, Inc. The case is captioned as Lawrence Young on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Collective Hotels and Retreats, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08695-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept 19, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G SOLOTOFF PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 317-2453
Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net
CONVERSE, INC: Faces Desalvo Suit in Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Converse, Inc. The
case is captioned as Brett Desalvo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Converse, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06575-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2019). The suit
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit
seeks $5 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
John A. Kronstadt.
Converse is an American shoe company that primarily produces
skating shoes and lifestyle brand footwear and apparel. Founded in
1908, it has been a subsidiary of Nike, Inc. since 2003. During
World War II, the company shifted its manufacturing from the
public, and instead made footwear for the military.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
COPART INC: Gonsalves Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Patrick Gonsalves and Sonya Lynn Richerson,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated and
aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Copart, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
CIVDS1924531 (Cal. Super., August 19, 2019), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
September 19, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01801.
Gonsalves and Richerson seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 341-8041
Email: info@wilshirelawfirm.com
Copart is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
William C. Sung, Esq.
Caleb Y. Lee, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-Mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
William.Sung@lewisbrisbois.com
Caleb.Lee@lewisbrisbois.com
CORTEVA INC: Moon Files Suit Asserting ERISA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
M.P. MOON, individually and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the DuPont
Pension and Retirement Plan, Plaintiff, v. Corteva, Inc., Dupont De
Nemours, Inc., U.S. Dupont Pension And Retirement Plan, The Ad-
ministrative Committee, E. I. Du Pont De Nemours And Company and
the Dupont Benefits Plans Administrative Committee Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01856-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action brought
individually and as a representative of a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the DuPont Pension and Retirement Plan, to recover
unpaid benefits due to Plaintiff and the putative class, against
Defendants E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and the DuPont
Benefits Plans Administration Committee, for breach of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Plaintiff M.P. Moon, a citizen and resident of the State of
Delaware, was an employee of DuPont from March 7, 1979 to October
31, 1999 and is a participant in and beneficiary of the Plan.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants never adequately informed
Mr. Moon of his right to receive unreduced pension benefits
commencing on July 1, 2010. Mr. Moon did not become aware that he
was eligible to receive unreduced retirement benefits prior to
normal retirement age of 65 until he applied for Social Security
benefits and was informed by the Social Security Administration
that, based on information provided by DuPont, he may have been
eligible for unreduced retirement benefits from the Plan starting
in 2012. As Mr. Moon would later learn from Defendants, he was
eligible for unreduced retirement benefits beginning in July 2010.
Upon learning this, Mr. Moon filed a claim with Benefit
Determination Review Team, the committee established by DuPont to
review claims for benefits, asking that missed pension payments,
totaling $135,492, and which would otherwise be lost forever, be
paid to him. The Benefit Determination Review Team denied Mr.
Moon's claim, citing administrative procedures requiring that a
participant must apply for benefits before benefits can commence.
As required by law, Defendants notified the Internal Revenue
Service (which then notifies the Social Security Administration) of
Mr. Moon's eligibility for unreduced pension benefits commencing
five years prior to his normal retirement date (even though DuPont
later informed Mr. Moon that he was eligible for unreduced pension
benefits seven years prior to normal retirement age), but adopted
administrative procedures that fail to notify participants when
they are eligible to apply for unreduced benefits. This procedure
constitutes a blatant violation of Defendants' fiduciary duty to
administer the Plan solely in the best interest of participants for
the exclusive purpose of providing them benefits. Instead, the
procedure is designed to benefit DuPont at the expense of unwitting
participants who fail to apply for pension benefits as of the date
they are first eligible for unreduced benefits, asserts the
complaint.
Because pension benefits are paid monthly for life, a participant
who fails to commence his or her pension at the earliest date they
are eligible for unreduced benefits will never recover the lost
payments. Instead, those lost payments will benefit DuPont, which
has the financial responsibility for funding all benefits paid from
the Plan. The failure to pay Mr. Moon and other similarly situated
the entire value of the pensions will reduce the financial cost to
DuPont of funding those benefits. The failure to pay Mr. Moon and
others similarly situated the entire value of their benefit results
in an illegal forfeiture in violation of ERISA, says the
complaint.
Corteva, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
headquarters located at 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware
19805.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 656-4433
Email: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com
- and -
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: (480) 681-7000
Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us
CRAB BOIL: Servers Seek Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------
Katherine Groebli, Daniel Ayala, Sam Dzwonkiewicz, Savannah Groebli
and Maximiliano Galindo, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crab Boil 59, Inc. and/or Crab
Boil Express, LLC., Cheers Inc., Maria G. Diokno and Jose A.
Diokno, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06208 (N.D. Ill., September 17,
2019), seeks overtime pay, damages, attorneys' fees and costs
together with other relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
Defendants operate "Crab & Spice" and "Crab Boil" restaurants where
Plaintiffs worked as servers. They claim compensation for
off-the-clock work for working through their 30-minute breaks and
illegal tip deductions. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin IL 60177
Tel: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile 630-206-0889
Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com
CRST DEDICATED: Smith Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Hourly Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEENAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the PLAINTIFF, vs. CRST DEDICATED SERVICES, INC; CRST EXPEDITED
INC., DOES 1-00, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CECG03299
(Cal. Super., Sept. 17, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to
pay wages for all time worked at, failed to pay wages for all time
worked at overtime rate, and failed to adequately indemnify
employees for employment-related losses/expenditures in violation
of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and other members of the general Plaintiffs are
current, former and/or future employees of Defendants as non-exempt
hourly employees.
CRST is one of the largest asset-based, family-owned transportation
companies in the nation.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMLAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432—0001
E-Mail: jlavi@lelawfi1m.com
vgranberg@lelawfirm.com
aburton@lelawfirm.com
D. J. QUIRK: Deleo Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespersons
------------------------------------------------------
D.J. Quirk Ford, Inc., is defending against a class action lawsuit
in Massachusetts. The case is captioned as MATTHEW DELEO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. D. J. QUIRK FORD, INC. and DANIEL J. QUIRK, the
Defendants, Case 19-0975 (Mass. Super., July 26, 2019), and alleges
that the Defendants' employees work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours and/or
Sunday Premium Pay in violation of Massachusetts law.
The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current
employees of the defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and
related products. On or around March 1,2018, Quirk Ford hired Mr.
Deleo as a salesperson.
Quirk Ford operates a car dealership and sells vehicles in
Massachusetts.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 338-9400
E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Lee Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mi Y Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-18635-ES-SCM (D. N.J., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action
seeking to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated October 5, 2018. The Letter was the
initial written communication Plaintiff received from Defendant
concerning an alleged Debt. The Letter states in part: "Unless you
notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that
you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this
office will assume this debt is valid." The Letter diverts the
Plaintiff's attention to correspondence options, with an image of a
telephone and in bolded text next to it states, "Toll Free:
877-848-1045". The Letter further diverts the consumer's attention
to an image of a clock, listing hours of operation to contact
Defendant.
The complaint alleges that the Letter fails to state explicitly
that a dispute to be effective, must be in writing and sent to the
address. The least sophisticated consumer upon reading the Letter
would likely be confused as to what she must do to effectively
dispute the alleged debt. Because the Letter is reasonably
susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated
consumer, as described, it is deceptive within the meaning of the
FDCPA. The Defendant violated the FDCPA by using a false, deceptive
and misleading representation in its attempt to collect a debt,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff Mi Y Lee is an individual who is a citizen of the State
of New Jersey residing in Bergen County, New Jersey and is a
natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
E-SERVICE, INC: Dees Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
David Dees, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. E-Service, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05210-DMF (D. Ariz., Sept. 18, 2019), seeks to recover
damages in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt. Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in
which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes -- namely, personal dental services.
In connection with the collection of the Debt, the Defendant sent
Plaintiff initial written communication dated May 28, 2019.
The Defendant's May 28, 2019 letter purports to contain the notices
required in an initial communication by 15 U.S.C. section
1692g(a).
However, the Defendant's May 28, 2019 letter states: "If you do
notify us of a dispute, we will obtain verification of the debt and
mail it to you."
The Defendant's May 28, 2019 letter fails to inform Plaintiff, or
the least sophisticated consumer, that the right to verification is
triggered only through written dispute, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (602) 388-8898
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
EL TINA FISH: Gonzales Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Custodio Gonzales, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANTIAGO QUEZADA, CELIA QUEZADA
Individually, EL TINA FISH MARKET, CORP. and 207TH STREET LINA
RESTAURANT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09201 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 4, 2019) seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and related
damaegs for unpaid overtime hours worked. Plaintiff seeks these
damages under the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Defendants El Tina is a fish market located at 500 West 207th
Street, New York, NY 10034. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as
food prep worker from 2011 through the end of April 2019.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant unlawfully failed to pay
Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs one and one-half times
their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff a spread hours
premium pursuant to the New York state law when his workdays lasted
10 or more hours, adds the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
The Klein Law Group, P.C.
39 Broadway, Suite 1530
New York, NY 10006
Phone: 212-344-9022
Facsimile: 212-344-0301
EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Dumay et al. Sue over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
LORRELL DUMAY, DIAN DUMAY, and JODI WOLFSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
EPISCOPAL HEALTH SERVICES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 715629/2019
(N.Y. Sup., Sept. 11, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to
safeguard and protect confidential information of Plaintiffs and
the other members of the Class, including financial information
(e.g., credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information, and other personal information (e.g., Social Security
Numbers and dates of birth), and other protected health information
as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not have sufficient
cyber-security procedures and policies in place to safeguard the
Sensitive Information that Plaintiffs provided to Defendant.
As a result, one or more of Defendant's employees' email accounts
were subject to unauthorized access -- or "hacked" -- between
August 28, 2018, and October 5, 2018. The Plaintiffs and members of
the proposed Class suffered damages as a result of the unauthorized
disclosure of their Sensitive Information.
The Plaintiffs were patients at St. John's Episcopal Hospital.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
John Sardesai-Grant, Esq.
Andrew C. White, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
tgarber@fbfglaw.com
jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com
awhite@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Paul M. Sod, Esq.
337R Central Avenue
Lawrence, NY 11559
Telephone: (516) 295-0707
E-mail: pauhnsod@gmail.com
ESHU ENTERPRISES: Rios Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------
MELISSA RIOS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
aggrieved, the Plaintiffs, vs. ESHU ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA POPEYES
CHICKEN, a California Corp.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV33458 (Cal. Super., Sept. 19, 2019),
seeks to recover civil penalties and any other available relief on
behalf of Plaintiff, the State of California, and other current and
former employees who worked for Defendants in California as
non-exempt, hourly employees, under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff worked primarily at the Defendants' location in
Compton but she also traveled to three other locations for supplies
in Long Beach, El Segundo, and Los Angeles. The Plaintiff typically
worked 5-7 days per week for 10 or more hours per day, up to 16
hours per day, and about 50 hours or more per week, the lawsuit
says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly aggrieved are:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 860 0770
Facsimile: (310) 860 0771
E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com
FRIENDSHIP MANOR: Faces Kirby Suit Over FLSA and BIPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
KARA KIRBY on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. FRIENDSHIP MANOR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04198-SLD-JEH (C.D., Ill., Oct. 4,
2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and a class action in the State of
Illinois under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, based upon
Defendant's failure to properly or fully compensate her and
similarly situated individuals at the minimum wage and for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Plaintiff also brings a class
claim under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, on behalf of all
persons in Illinois who had their fingerprints improperly
collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained or disclosed by
Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's policies and practices
with regard to their failure to properly and/or accurately pay
in-home caregivers and/or health aides, were applied uniformly with
respect to the Named Plaintiff and all members of the putative FLSA
and IMWL Classes. Moreover, the Defendant did not obtain written
consent from Plaintiff and the putative BIPA class to capture,
collect, store, or use their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information prior to scanning their fingerprints. The Defendant did
not obtain consent from Plaintiff and the putative BIPA class to
disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Kara Kirby worked as an In-Home Caregiver for Defendants
from approximately April 2016 through approximately July 27, 2017.
Defendant is a nonprofit organization that provides a retirement
community apartment living, skilled nursing, and in-home care for
elderly persons, among other services within interstate commerce
and in the State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.
224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 763-6880
GEORGIA DIVERSIFIED: Lazaro Seeks OT Pay for Construction Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LAZARO, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GEORGIA DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, LLC and
MARIO PEREZ, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00214-RWS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 18, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker for the
Defendants. The Plaintiff was paid straight-time for all hours
worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout
his employment.
The Defendants operate a construction business which serves clients
in various states around the country.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (678) 330-2909
Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com
GINA GROUP: Jung Seeks Overtime Pay for Footwear Designers
----------------------------------------------------------
HYEYOON JUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs. vs. GINA GROUP INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08624 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2019), seeks damages from
Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a designer of
footwear from August 11, 2015 to June 28, 2019. As a non-exempt
employee, the Plaintiff was entitled to overtime compensation at a
rate of one and one-half of the regular wage rate, for all hours
in excess of 40 hours in a given week, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant is engaged in the design, manufacturing, and
wholesale distribution of apparel and accessories to
retailers.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Secoung Y. Lim, Esq.
KIM, CHO & LIM, LLC
460 Bergen Boulevard, Suite 305
Palisades Park, NJ 07650
Telephone: (201) 585 7400
Facsimile: (201) 585 7422
E-mail: joshua@kcllawfirm.com
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Sued over Doctoral Continuation Courses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Carr, Samuel Stanton, Jane Doe I, Jane 17 Doe II, and Jane
Doe III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Grand Canyon University, Inc., and Grand Canyon
Education, Inc. d/b/a Grand Canyon University, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-05214-MTL (D. Ariz., Sept. 18, 2019), seeks
declaratory relief, monetary damages, and restitution from
Defendants based on their improper practice of forcing doctoral
students into taking unnecessary "continuation courses."
The victims of the scheme must pay, or take out loans to pay, Grand
Canyon University for classes that have no value. This also results
in students having to repay their student loans when they have not
finished their degree and cannot yet gain employment, the lawsuit
says.
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is the publicly traded holding company
that does business as Grand Canyon University.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiffs are:
Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
David E. Wood, Esq.
Ashley C. Hill, Esq.
DESSAULES LAW GROUP
5353 N. 16 th St., Suite 110
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: 602-274-5400
Facsimile: 602-274-5401
E-mail: jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com
dwood@dessauleslaw.com
ahill@dessauleslaw.com
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Franklin@WebbLLC.com
HELP AT HOME: Armand Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
NALMA ARMAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HELP AT HOME, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH11425 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Oct. 2, 2019) is a Class
Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant Help
at Home, LLC to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and
storage of Plaintiffs and the putative Class members' sensitive
biometric data.
When employees work at HAH, they are required to scan their
fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of
authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using
biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious
risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations
like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, HAH
disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the BIPA, says the complaint.
Specifically, HAH has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA
because it did not: Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members
in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which
their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
required by the BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff and
the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor Receive a
written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by
the BIPA. Accordingly, this Complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring
that Defendant's conduct violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring
Defendant to cease the unlawful activities discussed herein; and
(iii) awarding liquidated damages to Plaintiff and the proposed
Class.
Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Illinois
who worked for Defendant through 2019.
Defendant HAH is a home care agency, administering care to elderly
clients in their own homes. HAH operates throughout the state of
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Thalia Pacheco, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: 630.355.7590
Fax: 630.778.0400
Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
tpacheco@fishlawfirm.com
admin@fishlawfirm.com
I.C. SYSTEM: Dees Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
David Dees, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. I.C. System, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05212-MTL (D. Ariz., Sept. 18, 2019), seeks to recover
damages against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt. Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction in
which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes – namely, personal cell phone
services.
The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another. In connection with the collection of the Debt, the
Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter dated May 16, 2019.
The May 16, 2019 letter was its initial communication with
Plaintiff with respect to the Debt. The letter purported to contain
the notices required in an initial communication under 15 U.S.C.
section 1692g(a). The letter identified the balance of the Debt as
$675.95.
The Defendant sent another letter on July 1, 2019 identifying the
balance of the Debt as $685.82. However, this amount is $9.87 more
than the balance of the Debt identified in the May 16, 2019
letter.
The May 16, 2019 letter, therefore, failed to inform Plaintiff that
the Debt would increase due to accrued interest, fees, or other
charges. The May 16, 2019 letter is, thus, misleading to the
consumer who could readily conclude that the total account balance
stated as due was due at any time, when in fact it was not, and was
subject to adjustment on a periodic basis, the lawsuit says.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (602) 388-8898
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
LIFESOURCE WATER: Kubik Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KUBIK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. LIFESOURCE WATER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01933-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2019) is a Class
Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant, in negligently or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.
At no time did Plaintiff ever enter into a business relationship
with Defendant. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing
system", to send the artificial or prerecorded message to Plaintiff
as prohibited by the TCPA. This ATDS has the capacity to store or
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator. The Defendant utilized a predictive
dialer to send Plaintiff the text message on February 13, 2019. The
Defendant lacked "prior express consent" to contact Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Plaintiff suffered a concrete and
real invasion of Plaintiff's legally protected privacy rights
through Defendant's violation of the TCPA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California.
Defendant is a national water company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
ml@kazlg.com
LIFETECH RESOURCES: Yang Says Beauty Products Have Toxic Component
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIFETECH RESOURCES LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-05811-HSG (N.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2019), targets the
Defendant's lash and brow enhancing serums, neuLASH (TM) and
neuBROW (TM), which are deceptively labeled and marketed because
the Defendant fails to disclose the serious and potentially harmful
side effects linked to an ingredient contained in the Products.
As part of the Defendant's packaging, it markets both neuLASH and
neuBROW as treatments that are "grounded in science," and as
"gentle" and "effective" ways to "address the weakening and loss of
the lashes and brows." The Defendant further states that it
"brings a scientific approach to beauty" by combining "radical
technology with potent blends of essential proteins, vitamins and
rejuvenating ingredients to create targeted skincare treatments"
and represents its Products as "clinically-proven solutions."
However, since the Products have been on the market, the Defendant
has failed to disclose material facts to consumers about the
existence and severity of symptoms and side effects of isopropyl
cloprostenate ("ICP"), a synthetic prostaglandin analog and active
ingredient in the Products.
Prostagladin analogs are chemicals manufactured to be biologically
equivalent to the lipid compound prostaglandin. Prostaglandin
analogs are commonly used as topical prescriptions in the medical
treatment and management of glaucoma to reduce elevated intraocular
pressure. Prostaglandin analogs are also believed to contribute to
eyelash growth. However, there are severe side effects associated
with prostaglandin analogs, including eye color change, darkening
of eyelid skin, droopy eyelids, sunken eyes, stinging, eye redness,
and itching. Notwithstanding these undesirable and serious side
effects, the hair-growth enhancing properties of prostaglandin
analogs has led to the development of products containing
prostaglandin analogs for the purpose of eyelash enhancement, the
lawsuit says.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises,
sells, and labels neuLASH and neuBROW as cosmetic eyelash and
eyebrow enhancing serums that promote youthful and luxurious
looking brows and lashes.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff are:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
breed@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
LINCARE INC: Underpays Sales Representatives, Balderson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA BALDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19C203 (W. Va. Cir., Wood Cty., Sept. 16, 2019) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Balderson was employed by the Defendant as sales
representative.
Lincare Inc. provides healthcare equipments. The Company offers
respiratory care, infusion therapy, and medical equipment to
patients. Lincare serves customers throughout the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine B. Capito, Esq.
Michael B. Hissam, Esq.
Andrew C. Robey, Esq.
HISSAM FORMAN DONOVA RITCHIE PLLC
PO Box 3983
Charleston, WV 25339
Telephone: (681) 265-3802
Facsimile: (304) 982-8056
Telephone: kcapito@hfdrlaw.com
mhissam@hfdrlaw.com
arobey@hfdrlaw.com
LYFT INC: Cunningham Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lyft, Inc., Logan Green and John
Zimmer, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-11974 (D. Mass., September 17,
2019), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage
Law and the Massachusetts Overtime Law.
Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a
mobile phone application to transport riders. Cunningham, is a Lyft
driver who claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor,
thus denied minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. She
was also required to pay business expenses including but not
limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance,
phone and data expenses and other costs. BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
Anne Kramer, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
akramer@llrlaw.com
MACRO COMPANIES: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Guillory Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GUILLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACRO COMPANIES, INC. OF DELAWARE d/b/a
MACRO OIL COMPANY INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01298 (W.D.
La., Oct. 4, 2019) is a lawsuit brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from Defendant under the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute,
and the Virgin Islands Fair Wage and Hours Act.
Macro is a fuel distributor and transportation services company.
Plaintiff Guillory worked as a Crew Leader for Macro from September
2017 until September 2018 in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,
and the United States.
Guillory and those similarly situated regularly worked for Macro in
excess of 40 hours each week. However, Macro paid Guillory, and
other workers like him, a daily rate regardless of the number of
hours worked, including those hours over 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
Law Offices of Kenneth W. DeJean
417 W. University Avenue (70506)
P.O. Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
Phone: 337-235-5294
Facsimile: 337-235-1095
Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
adam@kwdejean.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MDL 2875: Bid for Discovery on Plaintiffs' Litigation Funding Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE: VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA)
CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Civil No. 19-2875
(RBK/JS) (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage,
denied the Defendants' request for discovery directed to the
Plaintiffs' litigation funding.
The MDL concerns various FDA and voluntary recalls of contaminated
valsartan, a generic prescription medication indicated in the
treatment of high blood pressure and other conditions. The Feb.
14, 2019 Transfer Order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation is reported at In Re: Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) Contamination Products Liability Litigation, 363 F.Supp.3d
1378 (MDL No. 2875 2019). The Plaintiffs generally allege the
Defendants' valsartan contained carcinogens that caused personal
injuries and economic losses. The Defendants deny their drugs
caused any injuries or damages, although it is not disputed that at
least some of their drugs were contaminated.
Presently approximately 60 Defendants are named. These Defendants
include manufacturers of the active pharmaceutical ingredient
("API"), suppliers, repackagers, wholesalers, and retailers. Some
of the "lead" Defendants, API manufacturers, are located in China
and India. Given the number of potential Plaintiffs, the amount in
dispute, the seriousness of the Plaintiffs' claimed injuries, and
the fact that some "target" Defendants are located overseas, the
MDL will undoubtedly be costly to prosecute and defend.
Since the first case management conference in March, 2019, much has
been done to organize and manage the case. This includes
designating and approving the parties' leadership structure, and
identifying the "core discovery" to be produced by the Defendants.
In June, 2019, three consolidated "master complaints" were filed.
These complaints generally grouped the Plaintiffs into three
categories. The first master complaint addresses the claims of
individual Plaintiffs who allege they contracted various forms of
cancer from consuming Defendants' contaminated valsartan. To date
approximately 126 personal injury cases of this type have been
filed. The Plaintiffs' counsel estimates approximately 2,000 cases
may eventually be filed.
The second master complaint is a nationwide medical monitoring
class action filed on behalf of all individuals who consumed
contaminated generic valsartan-containing drugs at least since Jan.
1, 2012. The potential class size is undoubtedly in the tens of
thousands.
The third master complaint is a nationwide economic class action
filed on behalf of all individuals and entities who, since at least
Jan. 1, 2012 to the present, paid any amount of money for a
valsartan-containing drug. The class size is also expected to be
very large.
To date, no formal discovery has been directed to the Plaintiffs.
The Court expects to shortly approve "Fact Sheets" to be answered
by all personal injury Plaintiffs and the named class
representatives. As to the Defendants, the "lead" parties have
already produced most of what has been denominated as "core
discovery."
The present discovery dispute arose in the context of what
questions would be included in the Plaintiffs' Fact Sheet to be
answered. Specifically, the Defendants propose to require each
Plaintiff to produce the following: "all documents and
communications related to funding or financing, if any, you or your
counsel have obtained to pursue this litigation."
Their letter brief identifies precisely what they want: The
Defendants seek to obtain information about the Plaintiffs'
agreements and communications with any third-party funders of the
litigation, including the Plaintiffs' documents and communications
relating to or concerning any litigation finance obtained in
connection with the litigation, documents and communications
regarding conferences, meetings or conventions attended with the
purposes of seeking litigation finance, and documents and
communications relating to agreements to finance the litigation.
Not unexpectedly, the Plaintiffs object to producing discovery
regarding their litigation funding. Albeit, they are willing to
produce some documents for an in camera review. The Plaintiffs
argue their private financial information is irrelevant to their
claims and defenses and the Defendants have "no legitimate need for
the requested information." The Plaintiffs, however, agree to
submit documents to the Court for an in camera review, where the
litigation funding company has control or input into litigation
decisions, including settlement, which could interfere with a
Plaintiff's control of his, or her lawsuit and the attorney-client
relationship.
The Defendants disagree with the Plaintiffs and contend third-party
funding represents a critical piece of information to which
Defendants are entitled. They argue the requested discovery is
relevant to identifying, the real party in interest as to some or
all of the claims alleged in the action, and whether the Plaintiffs
have standing to sue.
The Defendants also argue the Plaintiffs' funding information is
relevant to determining: (1) the Plaintiffs' credibility and bias,
(2) the scope of proportional discovery, (3) the scope of potential
sanctions, and (4) the medical necessity and the reasonableness of
the Plaintiff's treatments. They argue, the recent history of mass
tort multi-district litigation is littered with examples of
undisclosed non-party involvement gone wrong to the detriment of
the legal process and public health. They also argue that courts
and legislators lean toward mandating disclosure of third-party
funding.
In his order, Magistrate Judge Schneider said he will deny the
Defendants' request for carte blanche discovery of the Plaintiffs'
litigation funding as the discovery is irrelevant to the claims and
defenses in the case. At best, the discovery is a side issue that
does not help advance this complex litigation. To date, the
litigation has run smoothly without the requested discovery and the
Court expects this to remain the case. He opines that the
Defendants' parade of horribles that might occur from litigation
funding is pure speculation. To be sure, however, he is not ruling
that the plaintiffs' litigation funding can never be discovered.
If good cause exists to order the discovery in an appropriate
instance, it will be done. What the Court will not do is Order the
discovery in the absence of a demonstratable showing that the
discovery is relevant to a claim or defense in the case. That
showing has not been made to date.
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge
Schneider denied the Defendants' request that the Plaintiffs'
litigation funding be included in the Plaintiffs' Fact Sheets. To
the extent the request is made that the Court Order the automatic
or carte blanche disclosure of the Plaintiffs' litigation funding
agreements and documents, the request is denied.
The Court will review in camera the Plaintiffs' litigation funding
documents where their counsel makes the request or if good cause
exists to believe a litigation financer has control or input into
the Plaintiffs' litigation decisions, including settlement, which
would interfere with a Plaintiff's control of his or her lawsuit
and the attorney-client relationship, or other good cause exists
for the review. The Court will thereafter determine the scope of
discovery, if any.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/JRxSAZ from Leagle.com.
ERIC ERWIN, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID JOHN STANOCH --
dstanoch@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
DOMINIC STIMMA & JYNONA GAIL LEE, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW
JOSEPH OBERGFELL -- aobergfell@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER PA &
DAVID JOHN STANOCH, GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
MARGOTH STRAND & IRA SANDERS, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW
JOSEPH OBERGFELL, BURSOR & FISHER PA.
RICHARD O'NEILL, Plaintiff, represented by GEORGE ALLEN BARTON --
gab@georgebartonlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON PC,
STEFANIE LYNN COLELLA-WALSH -- scolella-walsh@stark-stark.com --
STARK & STARK, STACY ANN BURROWS -- stacy@georgebartonlaw.com --
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON PC & DAVID JOHN STANOCH, GOLOMB &
HONIK, P.C.
RICHARD GONTESKI, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES C. SHAH --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP.
PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICALS INC., doing business as SOLCO HEALTHCARE
U.S. LLC & SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S. LLC, Defendants, represented by
ALAN KLEIN -- AKlein@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, DAWNN
ELAYNE BRIDDELL -- dbriddell@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP,
ELINOR HART MURAROVA, Duane Morris LLP, JESSICA ANN PRISELAC --
JPriselac@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS, KEVIN F. HORMUTH,
GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, MELISSA S. GELLER --
MSGeller@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, MEREDITH PROCTOR
GRANT, Duane Morris, LLP, PAUL EVANS CHRONIS --
pechronis@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP & SETH A. GOLDBERG --
SAGoldberg@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP.
HUAHAI U.S. INC., Defendant, represented by ALAN KLEIN, DUANE
MORRIS LLP, DAWNN ELAYNE BRIDDELL, DUANE MORRIS LLP, DREW T.
DORNER, Duane Morris, LLP, JESSICA ANN PRISELAC, DUANE MORRIS,
KEVIN F. HORMUTH, GREENSFELDER & HEMKER, MELISSA S. GELLER, DUANE
MORRIS LLP, MEREDITH PROCTOR GRANT, Duane Morris, LLP & SETH A.
GOLDBERG, DUANE MORRIS LLP.
TEVA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant, represented by AARON
VAN NOSTRAND, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP.
TORRENT PHARMA INC. & TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, Defendants,
represented by DEVORA WHITMAN ALLON, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, JAY
PHILIP LEFKOWITZ, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & ALEXIA BRANCATO, KIRKLAND
& ELLIS LLP.
HETERO USA INC., Defendant, represented by JANET LYNN POLETTO,
HARDIN, KUNDLA, MCKEON, POLETTO & POLIFRONI, PC & ROBERT ELMORE
BLANTON, JR., HARDIN KUNDLA MCKEON & POLETTO, P.A.
MICHIGAN: DOC Appeals Another Ruling in Inmates Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Defendants Department of Corrections, et al., filed an appeal from
a ruling issued in the lawsuit titled JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 13-001196-CZ, in the
Washtenaw Circuit Court.
The appellate case is captioned as JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 350812, in the Michigan
Court of Appeals.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that answer is
due on October 17, 2019.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Department
of Corrections, et al., also appealed from a ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is entitled JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 349073.
The inmates took an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court from the
ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals in their lawsuit against
the State's Department of Corrections, et al.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN DOES 11-18 & JANE DOE 1/ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by:
Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
221 North Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 996-5620
Facsimile: (734) 769-2196
Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., are
represented by:
Heather S. Meingast, Esq.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: (517) 335-7622
E-mail: meingasth@michigan.gov
MOBILEWASH, INC: Bolden Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Car Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilewash, Inc., continues to defend against a lawsuit by Michael
Bolden. The case, MICHAEL BOLDEN, an individual, for himself, all
members of the putative class, and the aggrieved employees, the
Plaintiff, vs. MOBILEWASH, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26304
(Cal. Super., July 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
period premiums, final wages not timely paid, and unreimbursed
business expenses under the California Labor Code.
Mobilewash is an on-demand mobile car wash company. To get a car
wash, users download the Mobilewash smartphone app and schedule a
car wash. Mobilewash then sends a uniformed washer to the user's
desired destination. Washer must pass a background check, wash
cars to Mobilewash's standards, and cannot set their own prices or
services.
According to the complaint, Mobilewash willfully misclassifies its
washers as independent contractors. [BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Putative Class, and the Aggrieved
Employees, are:
R. Rex Parris, Esq.
Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
John M. Bickford, Esq.
Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524s
MRS BPO: Mun Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------
Mindy Mun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-09132-CS (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action seeking to
recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated October 2, 2018. The Letter lists
Plaintiff's Account Balance as $1,705.07. The Letter also states in
a center aligned boxed form at its dead center, the total amount of
the debt due as of charge-off as $2,273.08. The Letter does not
clearly specify as to which is the amount that the Plaintiff is
supposed to pay to fully discharge the alleged Debt. The Letter can
be interpreted by least sophisticated consumer to mean that the
account balance is the amount owed to the creditor. Whether a
payment would actually settle the debt is, by definition, a
material term of a settlement offer and must be communicated
clearly and effectively. The least sophisticated consumer reading
the Letter would be left to wonder about a material term of the
offer. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant violated the FDCPA and
is liable to Plaintiff therefor, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Mindy Mun is an individual who is a citizen of the State
of New York residing in Westchester County, New York and is a
natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
NBC UNIVERSAL: Simmons Seeks OT Pay for Night Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------
NBC Universal Media, LLC, and Universal Studios Hollywood continue
to face class action lawsuits by an employee.
TRAMAYNE SIMMONS, the Plaintiff, vs. NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC,
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOLLYWOOD, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 19STCV26235 (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to:
-- pay minimum wages,
-- overtime and double time wages,
-- provide rest periods,
-- provide meal periods, and
-- timely pay wages at separation under the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the the Defendants from in or around
May 2018, through on or around August 2018, in the position of
night cleaner. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in a
non-exempt position and was entitled to compensation for all hours
worked, overtime compensation.
NBC Universal is an American worldwide mass media conglomerate
owned by Comcast and headquartered at Rockefeller Plaza's Comcast
Building in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Christopher F. Allen, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
callen@mahoney-law.net
OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Ford Seeks to Halt Synthomer Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Ford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. David J. D'Antoni, Joseph M. Gingo, Janet
Plaut Giesselman, Michael J. Merriman, James A. Mitarotonda, Anne
P. Noonan, Steven W. Percy, Larry B. Porcellato, Allan R. Rothwell,
William R. Seelbach and Omnova Solutions Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02150 (N.D. Ohio, September 17, 2019), seeks relief for
breaches of fiduciary duty and for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the
sale of Omnova Solutions to Synthomer PLC through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Spirit USA Holdings Inc. and Synthomer USA LLC.
On July 3, 2019, OMNOVA announced that Synthomer will purchase all
of OMNOVA's outstanding common shares at a purchase price of $10.15
per share. Ford, a shareholder of OMNOVA, claims that Defendants
locked up the deal to preclude other bidders from making a
successful competing offers together with a "no-solicitation"
provision that prevents the Company from soliciting other potential
acquirers and negotiating with potential acquirers.
The merger statement also fails to provide Omnova the Company's
financial projections, the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by
Morgan Stanley & Co., the background process of the transaction and
potential conflicts of interest within Omnova, asserts the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Camillus, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC
P.O. Box 141410
Columbus, OH 43214
Tel: (614) 558-7254
Fax: (614) 559-6731
Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 682-3025
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Pillow Seeks Wages for Adjunct Instructors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH PILLOW and FRANK CHINDAMO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PEPPERDINE
UNIVERSITY, a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
19STCV33162 (Cal. Super., Sept. 18, 2019), seeks damages for
unpaid wages, unpaid premium pay, statutory penalties, interest,
and other equitable relief, including injunctive relief and
restitution, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals currently and formerly
employed in California by Pepperdine University as adjunct
instructors or in a similar capacity from four years prior to the
filing of this complaint through to the trial date.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate
Plaintiff Pillow and Class Members for all hours worked.
Pepperdine University is a private research university affiliated
with the Churches of Christ and has its main campus near Malibu,
California. Founded by entrepreneur George Pepperdine in South Los
Angeles in 1937, the school expanded to Malibu in 1972.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@haminondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlaw.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: OT Wages for Correctional Officers Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linette Johnson, Renee Campbell, Jason Kurth, Napika King, Ravin
Harding, Kereen Forbes, Troy Harris, Ramone Jones, Sebastian
Matthew, Michael McKelvey, Johnnesheia Moody, Michael Poulson,
Kelly Sellers, Patrick Sullivan, Vinette Thomas, Arron Turner, and
Stacey Whitfield, the Plaintiffs, v. City of Philadelphia, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04264-MMB (E.D. Pa., Sept. 17, 2019),
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
because of the Defendant's unlawful deprivation of the employees'
right to overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are employed by the City
as correctional officers, and who, since the conversion to the
One-Philly system for payroll commencing on or about March 25,
2019, have not been paid overtime, roll pay (a form of overtime),
and have not been properly credited compensatory time to their
compensation bank, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals perform
non-exempt work during one of three regular shifts during the week
and weekends. The position requires coverage by correctional
officers 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. They are paid overtime
at the FLSA mandated rate of 1.5 times their hourly rate for work
beyond their regularly scheduled work week.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall (where
the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed) and
other American Revolutionary sites.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
are:
Howard K. Trubman, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM OF
PENNSYLVANIA
1500 Market Street
East Tower, 12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215 206-5306
E-mail: HTRUBMAN@GMAIL.COM
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Flips in Part Final Judgment in Gentile Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Appellant, v. MICHAEL GENTILE,
as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BRENDA GENTILE,
Appellee, Case No. 4D18-1439 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Dorian K.
Damoorgian of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the
Fourth District reversed in part the final judgment entered in
favor of Plaintiff Michael Gentile as Representative of the estate
of his deceased wife, Brenda Gentile.
The Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against PM asserting
Mrs. Gentile died from lung cancer caused by her addiction to
cigarettes designed, manufactured, advertised, marketed,
distributed and/or sold by PM. In his suit, the Plaintiff alleged
causes of action for strict liability, negligence, fraud by
concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit
fraud by concealment. At trial, it was established that Mrs.
Gentile smoked at least a pack of cigarettes a day for over 30
years. She smoked several brands throughout the years, but her
main brand was PM's Virginia Slims, both lights and ultra-lights.
Mrs. Gentile was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer in 2014. She
passed away less than six months later.
At trial, Plaintiff presented testimony from various experts
concerning the American tobacco industry, generally, and the
actions the tobacco companies took to market their products to
consumers while concealing their harm. In November 2002, PM
provided newspaper inserts, a 20-page booklet detailing the health
risks of light cigarettes, in several major newspapers stating that
"[l]ow-tar cigarettes evidence does not indicate a benefit to
public health. Also, in November 2002, it added onserts, a folded
leaflet placed under the cellophane packaging, to its light and
ultra-light cigarettes.
In order to establish that PM made a false or misleading statement
about its light or low-tar cigarettes within the repose period
notwithstanding the disclosures, Plaintiff presented testimony of
two PM corporate representatives, Dr. Lipowicz and Jennifer Pike.
Through his prerecorded deposition testimony taken in 2017, Dr.
Lipowicz explained that light and ultra-light cigarettes have a
longer filter, making the smoke more diluted, which meant less tar
and less nicotine. Jennifer Pike testified that PM continued
marketing and advertising with the terms light and ultra-light
until 2010.
At the close of the Plaintiff's case, PM moved for a directed
verdict on all counts. Relevant to the fraud claims, PM argued
that the Plaintiff did not provide evidence PM made a false or
misleading statement about its light or low-tar cigarettes during
the repose period.
The court denied the motions, finding that the statute of repose
presented a "jury issue" in light of the "advertising" evidence.
It did not specify which "advertising" evidence created a triable
issue for the jury. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in
favor of the Plaintiff on all claims and awarded a total of $7.1
million in compensatory damages. The verdict form did not specify
the amounts attributed to each cause of action. The appeal
follows.
PM maintains the court erred on two grounds. First, PM argues that
the court improperly denied its motion for directed verdict on its
three fraud-based claims because the Plaintiff failed to prove PM
made a false or misleading statement about its light or low-tar
cigarettes after May 12, 2003, as required by Florida's statute of
repose. Second, it asserts that certain comments made by the
Plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments necessitate a new
trial.
Judge Damoorgian finds that PM's pre-May 12, 2003 disclosures
adequately explained "there is no such thing as a safe cigarette"
and put consumers on notice that light and ultra-light cigarettes
are of no benefit to public health. Moreover, the onserts
explicitly stated that the descriptors light and ultra-light
referred to strength of taste and that light and ultra-light
cigarettes were not less harmful than regular cigarettes. The
onserts also explained that the terms "low tar" or "lowered tar and
nicotine" referred to the tar and nicotine yield as measured by a
government test method, and "the amount of tar and nicotine you
inhale will be higher" if "you block ventilation holes, inhale more
deeply, take more puffs or smoke more cigarettes." Accordingly,
any alleged misrepresentations that PM made in the past regarding
light and ultra-light cigarettes were expressly disclaimed prior to
the repose period, thus foreclosing the Plaintiff from recovering
in fraud.
The Plaintiff nonetheless argues that the following constituted
evidence of misrepresentation and concealment sufficient to create
a jury issue on the fraud claims: (1) PM's continued use of the
descriptors light and ultra-light during the repose period; and (2)
the testimony of PM's corporate representatives.
The Judge disagrees. First, because the pre-May 12, 2003
disclosures adequately disclaimed any prior misrepresentations
regarding light and ultra-light cigarettes, the continued use of
the descriptors light and ultra-light during the repose period
could not constitute a misrepresentation. Second, the testimony of
PM's corporate representatives did not constitute evidence of
fraud. Although Dr. Lipowicz testified that light cigarettes were
safer, his deposition testimony was taken in August 2017, well
after the repose period ended. Also, Jennifer Pike's testimony
regarding light and ultra-light cigarettes containing less tar was
in reference specifically to the measuring method employed by the
Federal Trade Commission via a smoking machine. This exact
explanation was also included in the cigarette packaging onserts
issued in 2002.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Damoorgian reversed and remanded
with instructions that the trial court enters a directed verdict in
favor of PM on the Plaintiff's fraud-based claims. Moreover,
because the jury awarded compensatory damages without specifying
the amounts attributable to the non-fraud claims, he remanded for a
new trial on the remaining negligence and strict liability claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HJr9sO from Leagle.com.
Geoffrey J. Michael -- geoffrey.michael@arnoldporter.com -- of
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, and Scott A.
Chesin -- sachesin@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP, New York,
New York, for appellant.
Courtney Brewer and John S. Mills of The Mills Firm, P.A.,
Tallahassee, and Robert W. Kelley and Eric S. Rosen of Kelley
Uustal, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
PHOENIX LIFE: Faces Suit over Breach of Insurance Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY; and NASSAU INSURANCE GROUP
HOLDINGS, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01448-JAM (D. Conn.,
Sept. 16, 2019) seeks compensatory and consequential damages,
declaratory relief, including a declaration that the cost of
insurance ("COI") increase was in breach of the terms of the
Plaintiffs' life insurance policies. The Plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment that there is no coverage for any Insured with
respect to two lawsuits currently styled Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA, as Nominee of Life Partners Position Holder
Trust v. PHL Variable Insurance Company, No. 18-cv-3444 (S.D.N.Y.),
and Fan v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., No. 18-cv-1288 (S.D.N.Y.).
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Underlying Actions
do not fall within the scope of coverage under the Policy for each
of three independently sufficient reasons: (1) the Underlying
Actions do not constitute a Claim first made during the Policy
Period; (2) the Prior and Pending Exclusion bars coverage for the
Underlying Actions because they are based upon or arise out of or
are attributable to essentially the same facts and circumstances as
prior litigation and regulatory proceedings against Phoenix; and
(3) the Contractual Liability Exclusion bars coverage for the
Underlying Actions because the Underling Actions are based on or
arising out of breach of any oral or written contact or agreement.
Phoenix Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers term life insurance, annuities, spectrum of death
benefit protection, and living benefits in case of critical,
chronic, and terminal illness. Phoenix Life Insurance serves
clients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rhonda J. Tobin, Esq.
Jessica A.R. Hamilton, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 275-8200
Facsimile: (860) 275-8299
E-mail: rtobin@rc.com
- and -
Jason P. Cronic, Esq.
Mary E. Borja, Esq.
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 719-7000
Facsimile: (202) 719-7049
E-mail: jcronic@wileyrein.com
mborja@wileyrein.com
PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS: Account Execs Hit Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Catalo, Matthew Falcione and Mikhail Rasner, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01210, (W.D. Penn., September 20, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs ifor violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems operates as "PLS Logistics Services,"
an incorporated logistics and transportation company where
Plaintiffs worked as account executive trainee. They claim to be
misclassified as independent contractors and deprived of the
mandated minimum wage for all hours worked. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
George E. Swegman, Esq.
Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 244-7005
Fax: (410) 244-8454
Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
gswegman@nicholllaw.com
kaburgy@nicholllaw.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Hardin, II, Esq.
HARDIN LAW, P.C.
The Frick Building
437 Grant Street, Suite 620
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 315-7195
Fax: (412) 315-7386
POOH-BAH: Quezada File Suit Over Unlawful Storage of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. POOH-BAH ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
RICK'S CABARET, an Illinois corporation; and RCI HOSPITALITY
HOLDINGS, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH11515 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Oct. 4, 2019) is a Class
Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants for
violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Since 2008, it has been illegal in Illinois to collect an
individual's biometric information or identifiers-such as a
fingerprint, voiceprint, or faceprint-without the individual's
informed, written consent. Despite the substantial privacy risks
created by the collection and storage of biometric data, and the
decade-old prohibition on collecting and retaining biometric data
in Illinois without informed consent, Defendants use a biometric
time-tracking system that requires their entertainers, waitstaff,
and bartenders to use fingerprint scans as a means of
authentication each time they start or stop working. When
Defendants' Illinois employees begin their employment, Defendants
require them to scan their fingerprints into an employee database.
Defendants' scanning and retention of employees' fingerprints
without informed consent is clearly unlawful in Illinois, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Katherine Quezada is a natural person and a citizen of
the State of Illinois residing in Cook County.
Rick's Cabaret is a gentleman's club located in Chicago, Illinois,
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant RCI.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashley Keller, Esq.
Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.741.5220
Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
tdl@kellerlenkner.com
nl@kellerlenkner.com
PPL CORP: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in Talen Montana Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants PPL Corporation filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Talen Montana Retirement Plan, et al. v. PPL
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00174-SPW, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, Billings.
The appellate case is captioned as Talen Montana Retirement Plan,
et al. v. PPL Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-80132, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 30, 2019, PPL
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen
Energy Marketing.
On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.
The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen
Putative Class Action).
The Plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment. They are seeking avoidance of the
purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other
relief.
In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents TALEN MONTANA RETIREMENT PLAN and TALEN
ENERGY MARKETING, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3673
E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
Defendants-Petitioners PPL CORPORATION, PPL CAPITAL FUNDING, INC.,
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP., PPL ENERGY FUNDING CORP., MARK F.
WILTEN and PETER J. SIMONICH are represented by:
Jonathan Louis Frank, Esq.
Tansy Woan, Esq.
George Abraham Zimmerman, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 735-3386
E-mail: jonathan.frank@skadden.com
tansy.woan@skadden.com
george.zimmerman@skadden.com
- and -
Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 651-3000
E-mail: paul.lockwood@skadden.com
- and -
Elizabeth L. Griffing, Esq.
AXILON LAW GROUP, PLLC
7 West 6th Avenue
Level 4, Suite 4P
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 529-3106
E-mail: bgriffing@axilonlaw.com
- and -
T. Thomas Singer, Esq.
AXILON LAW GROUP, PLLC
P.O. Box 987
Billings, MT 59103-0987
Telephone: (406) 294-9466
E-mail: tsinger@axilonlaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner, PAUL A. FARR is represented by:
Casey John Heitz, Esq.
Mark D. Parker, Esq.
PARKER HEITZ & COSGROVE PLLC
401 N. 31st St.
P.O. Box 7212
Billings, MT 59103-7212
Telephone: (406) 245-9991
- and -
Joshua L. Seifert, Esq.
JOSHUA L. SEIFERT PLLC
175 Varick Street
New York, NY 10014
Telephone: (646) 470-2647
E-mail: jseifert@seifertpllc.com
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Hubbard Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA HUBBARD, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RCM TECHNOLOGIES (USA), INC.; and
DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06363 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 4, 2019) is a California-wide class action against RCM
TECHNOLOGIES (USA), INC. for (1) failing to include the value of
per diem and stipend payments in the regular rate of pay when
calculating overtime and (2) failing to pay all wages owing at time
of discharge.
Plaintiff was required to earn her weekly per diem pay each week by
working the minimum number of required weekly hours specified in
her assignment contract. If Plaintiff failed to satisfy the number
of minimum required weekly hours specified in her assignment
contract, her per diem and stipend pay was subject to an hourly
charge-back for each hour she fell short. Defendants did not
include the value of Plaintiff's weekly per diem pay in her regular
rate of pay when calculating overtime, says the complaint.
Notwithstanding that the amount of the weekly per diem and stipend
pay is based on and varies with hours worked, Defendants do not
include the value of the per diem and stipend pay in Travelers'
regular rates of pay when calculating overtime and double time,
adds the complaint.
Plaintiff is a citizen of California who was employed by RCM as a
non-exempt hourly employee to work multiple assignments in
California.
RCM is a New Jersey corporation that has been engaged in the
business of health care staffing throughout California and the rest
of the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 808-4357
Fax: (626) 921-4932
Email: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces Phillips FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management LLC. The case is captioned as TRECIA
PHILLIPS On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-18191-KM-ESK (D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.
Receivables Performance provides accounts receivable management
services and offers third party debt collection services.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
Floral Park, NY 11001
Telephone: (201) 873-7675
E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com
SAN DIEGO CREDIT UNION: Hargrove Seeks Unpaid OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Carleton Hargrove and Michael Hammond, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. San Diego County Credit Union and Does 1-100,
Defendant, Case No. 37-2019-00049944, (Cal. Super., September 20,
2019), seeks monetary damages and restitution, penalties/premium
pay for missed meal and rest periods, restitution and restoration
of sums owed and property unlawfully withheld, reimbursement of
business-related expenses, payment of final wages upon termination,
statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs under California labor code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
San Diego County Credit Union is a credit union headquartered at
6545 Sequence Drive, San Diego, California 82121. It employed
Hargrove and Hammond as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
Areen Babajanian, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
SHEPPARD-UZIEL: Faces Edelbrock et al Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sheppard-Uziel Law
Firm, et al. The case is captioned as Kevin John Edelbrock and Nina
Erin Berkson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Sheppard - Uziel Law Firm, a general
partnership; Robert J. Sheppard, individually and in his official
capacity; Jamie C. Uziel, individually and in his official
capacity; and Jerod L. Hendrickson individually and in his official
capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-05904-HSG (N.D. Cal.,
Sept 20, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act. The case is ssigned to the Hon. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr.
Sheppard-Uziel Law Firm and its attorneys have been providing legal
services to their clients since the 1970s.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
Matthew C Salmonsen, Esq.
Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
San Jose, CA 95112-4610
Telephone: (408) 294-6100
Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com
raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Nathaniel Bigger, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NATHANIEL BIGGER
540 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 295-4735
Facsimile: (415) 920-1750
E-mail: nate_bigger@yahoo.com
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Dennee Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Tyler Dennee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Stewart
Butterfield, Allen Shim, Brandon Zell, Andrew Braccia, Edith
Cooper, Sarah Friar, John O'Farrell, Chamath Palihapitiya and
Graham Smith, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05857 (N.D. Cal.,
September 19, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Slack is a company that allows users to share and aggregate
information from other software, take action on notifications, and
advance workflows in a multitude of third-party applications.
In June 20, 2019, Slack filed its prospectus with the SEC,
registering for the resale of up to 118,429,640 shares of Class A
common stock by registered shareholders at a reference price of
$26.00.
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that the Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring
service-level disruptions that were increasingly likely to occur as
it scaled its services to a larger user base. It purportedly
provides credits to customers even if the customer was not
specifically affected by service-level disruptions and had a
material adverse impact on the company's financial result.
On September 4, 2019, Slack reported its second-quarter fiscal 2019
results and issued guidance for the third quarter, expecting a
wider loss than analysts predicted. On this news, Slack's share
price fell $3.69 per share, nearly 12%, over two consecutive
trading sessions to close at $27.38 per share on September 6, 2019.
It traded as low as $25.72 per share, a significant decline from
the $26.00 per share reference price for its IPO.
Dennee purchased Slack securities and lost and as a result of the
federal securities law violations. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
SPAIN 92 INC: Criollo Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raul Criollo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Spain 92, Inc., Sergio Seijas and Manolo
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-18134 (D. N.J., September 19,
2019), seeks to recover overtime wages due, liquidated damages, and
all reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
Defendants operates as "Spain 92," a Spanish cuisine restaurant
located at 1116 U.S. Highway 202, Raritan, New Jersey, where
Criollo worked as a cook. He claims to have worked in excess of 40
hours per week without being paid overtime premiums and was denied
meal/rest breaks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 460-0047
Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
STATEWIDE REMODELING: Jeresano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR JERESANO and FRANK SHLENSKY, Individually and on Behalf Of
All Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. STATEWIDE REMODELING
HOLDINGS, LLC; STATEWIDE REMODELING OF HOUSTON, INC.; STATEWIDE
REMODELING OF HOUSTON, LLC; STATEWIDE REMODELING OF SAN ANTONIO,
LLC; And STATEWIDE REMODELING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-03786 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 2019) is an action arising under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, brought both as an individual action
and collective action to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated employees employed by, or formerly
employed by Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs were paid a set salary per
week, and they were not paid an overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 hours in the workweek, a clear violation of the FLSA, says
the complaint.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as field supervisors from September
of 2017 until August of 2019.
Defendants constituted an enterprise engaged in interstate
commerce, namely, a home remodeling business, operating on
interstate highways.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Phone: 713-868-3388
Facsimile: 713-683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
vijay@buenkerlaw.com
STONE MEDIC: Muzika Seeks Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------
THOMAS MUZIKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. STONE MEDIC, INC., and TED DORMAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 95933951 (Fla. 13th Jud'l Cir., Hillsborough
Cty, Sept. 18, 2019), seeks damages in excess of $15,000 exclusive
of interest and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The action is brought under the FLSA to recover unpaid overtime
compensation owed to Plaintiff.
The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff and
others similarly situated regularly work in excess of 40 hours a
workweek but have not been paid overtime compensation as required
by the FLSA.
The Defendant is a concrete polishing company that uses wires,
highways, internet and other various materials that travel through
interstate commerce.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
William J. Sheslow, Esq.
WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
11020 Northcliffe Boulevard
Spring Hill, FL 34608
Telephone: (352)683-2016
Facsimile: (352) 556-4839
E-mail: Lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
Will@theFLlawfirm.com
Millany@theFLlawfirm.com
6Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
Jwalsh@theFLlawfirm.com
Pls@theFLlawfirm.com
SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE: Hoshaw Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONESHA HOSHAW, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
SUTHERLAND HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV33165
(Cal. Super., Sept. 18, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed
to pay overtime, meal period premiums, rest period premiums, and
minimum wages under the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated are current and
former California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who
were employed by or provided services through staffing
agencies.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
Phillip Song, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: 818-230-7502
Facsimile: 818-230-7259
E-Mail: info@justicelawcorp.com
dhan@justicelawcorp.com
tatavos@justicelawcorp.com
dpark@justicelawcorp.com
TOP GOLF USA: Burlinski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned THOMAS BURLINSKI and MATTHEW MILLER on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. TOP GOLF USA INC., TOPGOLF USA SALT CREEK,
LLC, and TOPGOLF USA NAPERVILLE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2019L000263 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois to the United States
District Court for the Northen District of Illinois on Oct. 9,
2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06700.
Plaintiffs allege five BIPA violations per individual and seek
statutory damages of $5,000 per reckless violation and attorney's
fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
Werman Salas P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
- and -
David J. Fish, Esq.
Seth Matus, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: 630.355.7590
Fax: 630.778.0400
Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
smatus@fishlawfirm.com
khilton@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anne E. Larson, Esq.
Michael V. Furlong, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.558.1220
Facsimile: 312.807.3619
Email: anne.larson@ogletree.com
michael.furlong@ogletree.com
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces Boyer et al. Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Topco Associates,
LLC. The case is captioned as Melissa Boyer and Katja Morrissey, on
behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Topco Associates, LLC and Does 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00264990-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sept. 18, 2019).
Topco Associates LLC is the largest American retail food GPO and
the third largest private company in Illinois.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Adam J Gutride, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
San Francisco, CA
Telephone: 415-271-6469
E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
TOTALMED STAFFING: Kiseleva Suit Removed to N.D. Ca.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ELENA KISELEVA, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. TOTALMED STAFFING INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19CV354635 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Oct. 9, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-06480.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on behalf of herself and various
putative classes consisting of non-exempt employees of TotalMed who
have worked in California since September 13, 2015 and employees or
prospective employees who executed TotalMed's Fair Credit Reporting
Act disclosure form since September 13, 2014. Plaintiff alleges ten
causes of action for (1) unfair business practices; (2) failure to
pay minimum wage; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to
provide required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest
periods; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (7)
failure to reimburse employees; (8) failure to provide wages when
due; (9) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for failure to
make proper disclosures; and (10) violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act for failure to obtain proper authorization.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
SARAH KROLL-ROSENBAUM, ESQ.
SAYAKA KARITANI, ESQ.
NANCY SOTOMAYOR, ESQ.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 909-7775
Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
Email: skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com
skaritani@constangy.com
nsotomayor@constangy.com
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Dane's Insurance Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dane has taken an appeal from the dismissal of his class
action lawsuit against Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company et al.
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK DANE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00792-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R.
Underhill entered an order on June 24, 2019, dismissing case and
directing Clerk to close the file.
The fee that Dane and each insured pays is an expense of the
program paid out of United's CID-approved Medigap premiums, and
Dane paid only the legally required rate. Because Dane did not pay
more than the CID-approved filed rate for the coverage he received,
and he could not have purchased United Medigap coverage for any
other rate, he cannot plausibly allege any loss caused by United's
allocation of its premium revenue to program expenses.
Although Dane argues that he would have chosen another insurance
company had he known about the alleged misconduct, that allegation
does not demonstrate that he suffered any loss from his selection
of United Medigap insurance. Therefore, Dane does not meet the
standing requirements under CUTPA or CPPA.
In addition to consumer protection law claims, Dane also alleges
(1) breach of the Medigap group insurance contract; (2) unjust
enrichment; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; and (4) conversion. The royalty that Dane pays is not an
additional cost, but is instead a program cost paid out of the
CID-approved rate.
Because the insurance contract does not prohibit royalty payments
or program costs, Dane's breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing arguments both fail. In
addition, Dane does not allege any benefit that Defendants unjustly
retained because the royalty payment for use of AARP's intellectual
property was openly disclosed. Finally, Dane did not have ownership
rights to the 4.9% of his payment because that payment was a
royalty for use of AARP's intellectual property. Thus, Dane's
conversion argument also fails, the Court says.
Dane brought claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of
current and former insureds who purchased United Medigap coverage.
He asserted seven Connecticut-law causes of action.[BN]
USAA CASUALTY: Griffy Sues over Automobile Insurance
----------------------------------------------------
SHINEQUA GRIFFY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. S19C-09-015 RFS (Del. Super., Sept. 18, 2019),
seeks declaratory relief for USAA Casualty Insurance Company's
unlawful methodology in calculating statutory interest under 21
Del. C. section 2118B.
The action is brought on behalf of all policyholders under any
existing policy of Delaware automobile insurance issued by USAA.
USAA is a prolific underwriter of automobile insurance in Delaware,
including first-party medical benefits for persons injured while
driving or occupying motor vehicles. USAA has derived substantial
revenues and profits from the sale of automobile insurance products
in Delaware.
According to the complaint, USAA failed to pay the bill until
August 1, 2018; failed to pay the required statutory interest at
the time it paid the bill; and did not in fact pay statutory
interest on the bill until August 1, 2019. Under this scenario,
USAA would (wrongly) pay only the statutory interest that accrued
during the period July 1, 2018 through August 1, 2018, treating the
accrual of statutory interest as having ended on the latter date,
even though it failed to pay that statutory interest for another
whole year.
USAA's methodology for calculating statutory interest under section
2118B is wrong because, where the statutory interest is owed, USAA
can only (lawfully) bring the accrual of that interest to an end by
paying both the principal amount owed in PIP benefits and the
required statutory interest. So long as the required statutory
interest remains unpaid, such interest continues to accrue, the
lawsuit says.
USAA Casualty Insurance Company is engaged in the business of
insurance, and regularly sells automobile insurance within the
State of Delaware.[BN]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
John S. Spadaro. Esq.
JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
54 Liborio Lane
Smyrna, DE 19977
Telephone: (302)235-7745
VEP ASSOCIATES: Monroe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MONROE and RUSSELL DAVILA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VEP ASSOCIATES LLC d/b/a
VEP AMERICAN FIRE AND SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 159656/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Oct. 4, 2019) is an action for
damages and other legal and equitable relief against Defendant,
upon personal knowledge as to themselves and upon information and
belief as to others, for violations of the New York State Labor
Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, The New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of
40 hours in any given workweek for Defendant. Despite this,
Plaintiffs were never compensated at the overtime rate of time and
one half their base rate of pay for hours worked over 40.
Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and
consistent, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs were throughout their entire employment with Defendant,
covered, non-exempt employees within the meaning of the NYLL.
Defendant is a domestic corporation organized pursuant to the laws
of the State of New York with a principal place of business at 726
Gerald Court, Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Gaylord, Esq.
Bouklas Gaylord LLP
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (516) 742-4949
Fax: (516)742-1977
Email: mark@bglawny.com
WINCO FOODS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review Ruling in Mitchell FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Winco Foods, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Gloria Mitchell v. Winco Foods, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-00076-BLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, Boise.
The appellate case is captioned as Gloria Mitchell v. Winco Foods,
LLC, Case No. 19-35822, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8,
2019, Plaintiff Gloria Mitchell filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in her lawsuit. That appellate case is titled Gloria Mitchell v.
Winco Foods, LLC, Case No. 19-35802.
The lawsuit seeks redress for, and to put an end to, the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
specifically its failure to provide proper notices and disclosures
to its job applicants and employees.
WinCo is a privately-held supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho.
The Company was founded in 1967 and now has over 100 store
locations in Idaho, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Utah, and Washington. WinCo also operates at least 5 distribution
centers throughout the United States.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- First cross appeal brief is due on December 30, 2019, for
Gloria Mitchell;
-- Second brief on cross appeal is due on January 30, 2020,
for Winco Foods, LLC;
-- Third brief on cross appeal is due on March 2, 2020, for
Gloria Mitchell; and
-- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Winco Foods, LLC is
due within 21 days of service of Third brief on cross
appeal.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee, GLORIA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq.
Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0676
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
- and -
Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
623 W Hays Street
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 489-8989
E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com
Defendant-Appellant WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:
Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
E-mail: rroskelley@littler.com
*********
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 ***