/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200122.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 16
Headlines
101-11 86 AVE: Faces Villalta Class Suit in E.D. New York
2U INC: Venue of Harper Securities Suit Transferred to Maryland
A2B CARGO: Stewart Suit Seeks Relief for Commercial Truck Drivers
AG-PRO LLC: Polasek Files FLSA Suit in Texas
ALABAMA: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification in Lett Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Garcia Seeks Final OK of $130K Deal With LVNV
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Goldberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ANB BANK: Katt Files ADA Suit in Colorado
ANTHEM INC: Andersen Moves for Class Certification in Atzin Suit
B&G FOODS: Toney FLSA Suit Moved from New Jersey to N. Carolina
BANK OF THE WEST: Faces Katt ADA Suit in Colorado
BANNER HEALTH: Schmidt & Kmak Testimonies in Ramos ERISA Suit OK'd
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Doe Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
BELMONT MANAGEMENT: Wisneski Moves to Certify Class of Employees
BLUEPEARL VET: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Robles' Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied
C.H. ROBINSON: Moore Files Suit in Minnesota
CALIFORNIA: Godoy Prisoners Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Schick Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CENGAGE LEARNING: Susman Godfrey Named Interim Counsel in Bernstein
CONSUMER GUARDIAN: Hardwick Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
COOPERATIVE REGIONS: Collishaw Files Fraud Class Suit in NY
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Ehrman Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
CREDIT CONTROL: Renta Files FDCPA Suit in New York
CREDIT LAW: Protective Order Request in Ensminger Suit Denied
CREEL & GLOW: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
DASHWOOD BOOKS: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
ERICA WEINER: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVELYN DOUGLIN CENTER: Coulter Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
F&S MANAGEMENT: Curphey Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FBCS INC: Rajkumar Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Spiegler Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
FORD MOTOR: Watkins Sues Over Corrosion Defect in Ford Explorers
GEORGIA: Smith Files Civil Rights Suit in Georgia
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Lead Plaintiff in Green Class Suit Named
GREEN CHEF: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
GREENSKY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
HIPNATION OPERATIONS: Class Certification Sought in Acosta Suit
HUNTER WARFIELD: Valdez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
J MANN INC: Bailey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KING HENRY VIII: Crosby Seeks Unpaid Minimum Overtime Wages
KOHN LAW: Class Certification Bid in Rozani Lawsuit Stayed
LE POISSON ROUGE: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action
LOW OVERRUN: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
MANNA PRO PRODUCTS: Hale Files Suit in Arkansas
MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Class of Inmates Certified in Miller Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Cole Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fitzgerald Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fouts Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Howe Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taylor Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
NESTLE WATERS : Chong Files Mislabeling Suit Over Bottled Water
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: McClendon's Bid to Certify Class Denied
OASIS LIFESTYLE: Faces Warren Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions
OMNI HOTELS: Williams Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
PALEO ON THE GO: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in New York
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Oswald-Green FDCPA Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Minor FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Mich. to W.D. Pa.
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Diez Files FDCPA Suit in New York
RADIUS GLOBAL: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in New York
RANDSTAD NA: DeMino Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Parties Supplement Bid for Cert. in Foster Suit
SEP INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA and AMWA, Williams Says
SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS: Cable Installers Class Certified in Garza
STOCKX LLC: Casey PI Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
STRETCH LAB: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUTTER HEALTH: UEBT Touts $575 Million Settlement
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Katzoff Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
TERRACE CAFE: Steveson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tipped Workers
TIME WARNER: Sydney Moves for Conditional Class Certification
TRASH AND VAUDEVILLE: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
U.S. GOV'T: Judge Weighs Asylum Seekers' Proposed Class Action
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Koufopanteli Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
VINTAGE TWIN: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action
VITA-MIX CORP: Post-Judgment Interest Bid in Linneman Suit Granted
VITAL RECOVERY: Oh Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
WAWA INC: Faces Consumer Credit Class Action in Pa.
WAWA: Otto Files PI Suit in Pennsylvania
WRIGHT BROS: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Honaker Suit
*********
101-11 86 AVE: Faces Villalta Class Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 101-11 86 Ave. Corp.
The case is captioned as JOSE ARNLADO SOLIS VILLALTA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 101-11 86 AVE.
CORP D/B/A JC & SONS HOME IMPROVEMENT, and JUAN ARCE, as an
individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-00249 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2020).
JC & Sons is a construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
2U INC: Venue of Harper Securities Suit Transferred to Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has ordered for the transfer venue of the case
captioned AARON HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 2U, INC., CHRISTOPHER J. PAUCKE,
CATHERINE A. GRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-7390 (RA) (S.D.
N.Y.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
On Aug. 7, 2019, Plaintiff Harper filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
2U securities between Feb. 25, 2019 through July 30, 2019. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After Plaintiff Harper filed a
notice advising members of the purported class of the pendency of
the action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), nine
members of the purported class moved for appointment as the lead
plaintiff, approval of selection of the lead counsel, and
consolidation. Only the motions of Public School Teachers' Pension
& Retirement Fund of Chicago and Fiyyaz Pirani remain pending
before the Court.
On Oct. 16, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer. On
Nov. 25, 2019, Proposed Lead Plaintiffs Chicago Teachers and Pirani
both filed notices of non-opposition to the Defendants' motion to
transfer.
Judge Abrams granted the Defendants' unopposed motion to transfer.
He explained that 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) provides that for the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented. The transfer to the
District of Maryland is appropriate for the reasons articulated in
the Defendants' motion to transfer and because all parties have
consented to it.
The conference to consider motions for appointment of the lead
plaintiff and the lead counsel, and for consolidation is adjourned
sine die.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wx7LWq from Leagle.com.
Aaron Harper, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.
Erik Fjellborg, Erik Fjellborg, Movant, represented by Jeffrey
Philip Campisi -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP.
Anders-Christian Moeller, Movant, represented by Melinda Ann
Nicholson -- melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC.
Public School Teachers Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago,
Movant, represented by Francis Paul McConville, Labaton & Sucharow
LLP.
DeKalb County Pension Fund, Movant, represented by James Milligan
Wilson, Jr., Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.
Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, Movant, represented by Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky LLP.
National Elevator Industry Pension Fund, Movant, represented by
David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Edward Hackman & Herbert Saunders, Movants, represented by William
Scott Holleman, Johnson Fistel, LLP.
Fiyyaz Pirani, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.
2U, Inc., Christopher J. Paucek & Catherine A. Graham, Defendants,
represented by J. Christian Word -- christian.word@lw.com -- Latham
& Watkins, LLP.
A2B CARGO: Stewart Suit Seeks Relief for Commercial Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP STEWART, ANTHONY SMITH, DARKO TRAJCEV, LAWRENCE CRAIG,
KEITH M. HARRIS, SCOTT HEJDUK v. A2B CARGO INC, A2B CARGO LOGISTICS
INC, KSM CARRIER GROUP INC, and LINCOLN STATE LEASING, LLC, f/k/a
LINCOLN STATE HOLDING LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00278 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
14, 2020), seeks monetary and equitable relief arising from the
Defendants' illegal conduct and business practices toward their
commercial truck drivers.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class are commercial
truck drivers, each of whom entered into an oral agreement to drive
trucks as owner/operator independent contractors for A2B, A2B
Logistics or KSM.
When a driver accepts a load from the carrier, the load tender is
typically forwarded to the driver. The price is represented as a
rate per mile driven and contains provisions for any fuel surcharge
or other charges such as stop-off charges. The Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants did not provide them and the members of the class
with load tender documents or other documents containing the
information from the load tender.
The carrier typically provides a statement to the driver, weekly or
as otherwise agreed, showing the trips the driver took for that
period, the rate paid by the shipper for delivery and for any
incidental charges such as fuel surcharges, the percentage of such
charges being remitted to the driver and any amounts deducted from
the driver's share. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
provided them and the members of the class with weekly statements
but these statements allegedly did not contain the rate the shipper
paid for the trip and only contained a total price for the trip.
The statements did not contain any breakdown indicating the
additional charges paid by the shipper such as fuel surcharges, and
did not itemize all deductions from the driver's pay. Unexplained
entries were used, such as "Total Deductions," the Plaintiffs
assert.
The Plaintiffs also alleges that the Defendants wrongfully withheld
portions of compensation earned by them and the members of the
class and prevented them from obtaining control over their money.
The Defendants allegedly refused to provide to the Plaintiffs and
the members of the class the full amount of compensation owed
despite being in possession of the funds owed to them and the
members of the class. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants'
conduct caused damages to them and the members of the class in the
amounts wrongfully withheld from their pay.
The Defendants are logistics and supply chain companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi L. Browne, Esq.
PATTERSON LAW FIRM, LLC
200 W. Monroe, Ste. 2025
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-223-1699
Facsimile: 312-223-8549
E-mail: kbrowne@pattersonlawfirm.com
AG-PRO LLC: Polasek Files FLSA Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AG-PRO, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Grace Polasek, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AG-PRO, LLC, doing
business as: AG-PRO Companies, AG-PRO Texas LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00008 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 10, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ag-Pro Companies is the largest privately-owned John Deere
dealership in North America. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of farm machinery and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
Austin W Anderson, Esq.
Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq.
Anderson Alexander, PLLC
819 N Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
ALABAMA: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification in Lett Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JERRY L. LETT, the Plaintiff,
v. KAY IVEY, Governor, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00518-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Myron H. Thompson
entered an order on Jan. 8, 2019:
1. adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation; and
2. denying the motion for class certification in the
case.
The Plaintiff who is a state prisoner, filed the lawsuit
complaining about dangerous conditions of confinement at Ventress
Correctional
Facility and contending that Defendants violated his rights by
failing to protect him from violence.[CC]
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Garcia Seeks Final OK of $130K Deal With LVNV
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ESMERALDA GARCIA, an individual; on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALLIED INTERSTATE,
LLC, a Minnesota Corporation; IQOR US, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; LVNV FUNDING, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership;
and ALEGIS GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 NUMBERS THROUGH 25, Case No. 5:15-cv-00294-RCL
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff submits a Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Settlement Agreement, which provides for a total
Settlement Fund of $130,000.
Plaintiff Esmeralda Garcia, on consent of Defendants LVNV Funding,
LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, LP, and Alegis Group, LLC
(collectively, the "Settling Defendants"), seeks final approval of
the Class Settlement, which she and the Settling Defendants entered
into on December 11, 2018.
The Settlement provides significant protections for Class Members,
including: (i) direct payments of at least $104; (ii) an account
credit of the lesser of $115 the Class Member's remaining balance
owed to LVNV (approx. $3,159,855 value); (iii) deletion of all
Class Members' credit trade lines being reported by the Settling
Defendants; and (iv) a mandatory injunction whereby the Settling
Defendants are required to include a prominent disclaimer on their
collection letters when seeking payment of a time-barred debt from
Texas consumers.
On April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed this lawsuit alleging the Settling Defendants violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Texas Debt
Collection Practices Act. Specifically, her lawsuit alleges the
Settling Defendants mailed collection letters to Texas consumers
offering a settlement of their debts, but which failed to disclose
that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit to collect
those debts had expired and, therefore, the debts were legally
unenforceable.
On September 19, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement and conditionally certified the settlement class under
Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended on October 22, 2019.
Among other things, the Order preliminarily certified the case
under Rule 23(b)(2) and (3), and defined the Class as:
(a) all individuals with addresses in the State of Texas;
(b) to whom a collection letter was sent on behalf of LVNV
Funding, LLC; (c) offering a settlement of a debt; (d) which
debt was a credit card debt on which the last payment or
activity had occurred more than four years prior to the date
of the letter; (e) which letter was sent during the period
from April 16, 2014, through September 19, 2019; and (f) who
either made a payment, a payment promise, or a dispute
subsequent to the sending of the letter.
The Agreement includes monetary and equitable relief to the Class
Members and the Plaintiff, attorneys' fees, and releases. More
particularly, the Agreement provides these:
-- Class Settlement Fund. The Settling Defendants agree to
pay the Class a total Settlement Fund of $130,000.00, which
Class Counsel confirmed is approximately two percent of
LVNV's net worth. The Fund will be disbursed to each Class
Member who did not exclude him/herself and who returns a
claim form ("Claimants") as follows:
* 50% of the Settlement Fund will be apportioned and
disbursed on a pro rata basis to each Claimant whose
collection letter was dated on or before May 6, 2015;
* 50% of the Settlement Fund will be apportioned and
disbursed on a pro rata basis to each Claimant whose
collection letter was dated on or after May 6, 2015; and
* Residual Class Recovery. Claimants will receive payment
from the Class Recovery by check, which will be void 120
days from the date of issuance. If any portion of the
Class Recovery remains unclaimed after the void date on
the Claimants' checks, those remaining funds shall be
distributed as a cy pres donation to the Texas Access to
Justice Foundation;
-- Class Account Credits. In addition to the Settlement Fund,
LVNV shall provide to each Class Member--regardless of
whether they made a claim--an account credit of the lesser
of: (i) $115.00; or (ii) the Class Member's remaining
balance owed to LVNV;
-- Class Credit Reporting-Deletion of Tradelines. The
Settling Defendants shall request the request deletion of
all credit trade lines for each Class Member for whom the
debt at issue in this litigation is still being reported to
a consumer reporting agency. No claim form is required to
receive the trade line deletion;
-- Plaintiff's Recovery. The Settling Defendants shall pay
the Plaintiff $5,000.00, which represents $500.00 in
satisfaction of 1/2 of her individual claim for statutory
damages and $4,500 for her service to the Class; and
-- Class Counsel Fees & Costs. The Settling Defendants shall
pay Class Counsel $200,000.00 for their attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in the action based upon their hourly rates
and materials submitted in support of final approval which
the Court finds reasonable. Class Counsel shall not request
additional fees or costs from the Settling Defendants or
Class Members.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Philip@SternThomasson.com
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Goldberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Moshe Goldberg, Aziz Lemnazhi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00288 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Allied Interstate LLC is a debt collection agency that provides
financial services. The Company offers accounts receivable,
customer retention, and debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express
Legal. The case is styled as Joel Friedman, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. American
Express Legal, Alexander Fink, Esq., American Express National
Bank, formerly known as: American Express Centurion Bank,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered in Three
World Financial Center in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ANB BANK: Katt Files ADA Suit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ANB Bank. The case is
styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANB Bank, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00071-NRN (D. Colo., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Arab National Bank (ANB) is a major bank based in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
ANTHEM INC: Andersen Moves for Class Certification in Atzin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Andersen, a Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LACY ATZIN; MARK
ANDERSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. ANTHEM, INC.; ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-06816-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying
this class:
All persons covered under Anthem plans, governed by ERISA,
self-funded or fully insured, whose requests for
microprocessor controlled foot-ankle prostheses have been
denied during the applicable statute of limitations pursuant
to Anthem's Medical Policy on Microprocessor Controlled
Lower Limb Prosthesis, Policy No. OR-PR.00003.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and to appoint his counsel as Class Counsel.
On September 25, 2017, Plaintiffs Lacy Atzin and Mark Andersen
filed the Class Action Complaint in this case against the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that Anthem
engaged in these wrongful practices in denying coverage for
microprocessor controlled lower limb prostheses for persons with
lower limb loss:
-- With respect to microprocessor controlled knee prostheses,
Anthem used erroneous criteria in its coverage guideline,
the Anthem Medical Policy on Microprocessor Controlled
Lower Limb Prosthesis, Policy No. OR-PR.0003; and
-- With respect to microprocessor controlled foot-ankle
prosthesis, Anthem has denied coverage for all such devices
under OR-PR.00003 on the bases they are "investigational
and not medically necessary for all indications."
The Plaintiffs and Anthem (the "Parties") previously arrived at a
settlement, subject to Court approval, of that part of the case
addressing Anthem's criteria for approving claims for
microprocessor controlled knee prostheses. Anthem agreed not to
oppose a motion for class certification brought by Plaintiff Mark
Andersen regarding that part of the case addressing Anthem's
denials of claims for microprocessor controlled foot-ankle
prostheses as "investigational."
Anthem also agreed to stipulate to specific facts for purposes of
certification of a class with respect to that part of the case.
Specifically, Anthem has stipulated that: (1) its data systems can
identify members whose claims for microprocessor controlled
foot-ankle prostheses were denied; (2) based on its review of its
data systems, there are at least 38 class members and as many as
44; (3) it has relied on, and continues to rely, on an internal
coverage guideline, ORP-PR.00003, to adjudicate claims for
microprocessor controlled foot-ankle prostheses; and (4) that
guideline and all prior versions of it categorically provide that
microprocessor controlled foot-ankle prostheses are
"investigational and not medically necessary for all indications,"
and, therefore, not covered.
The Court will commence a hearing on February 10, 2020, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-1600
Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
- and -
Conal Doyle, Esq.
Stephen Beke, Esq.
DOYLE LAW
9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 608
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 385-0567
Facsimile: (310) 943-1780
E-mail: conal@conaldoylelaw.com
sbeke@conaldoylelaw.com
B&G FOODS: Toney FLSA Suit Moved from New Jersey to N. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as CHARITY TONEY, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. B&G FOODS, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-14131 (Filed June 21, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Jan. 14, 2020.
The Middle District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00037 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to N. C.
Tilley, Jr.
The case is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
employed by the Defendant, arising from its willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act, and the Defendant's breach of its contractual obligation to
pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid machine operators for all
hours worked.
B&G Foods manufactures, sells, and distributes a portfolio of
shelf-stable and frozen foods in the United States, Canada, and
Puerto Rico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Lotus Cannon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl., Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
BANK OF THE WEST: Faces Katt ADA Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of the West. The
case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of the West, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00072-SKC (D. Colo., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Bank of the West is a regional financial services company,
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
BANNER HEALTH: Schmidt & Kmak Testimonies in Ramos ERISA Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LORRAINE M. RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BANNER HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
15-cv-2556-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied (i) the
Banner Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Martin A.
Schmidt, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude and Strike
Expert Opinion and Testimony of Thomas R. Kmak.
The Plaintiffs commenced the class action against Defendant Banner
Health and former and current employees, alleging that the Banner
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by causing the employee
401(k) plan to pay excessive record-keeping fees.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Banner Defendants failed to meet
the industry practice standards by failing to seek competitive
pricing for record-keeping and administrative services provided to
the Plan. As a result, they contend, Banner allowed the Plan to
pay uncapped, asset-based fees for these services, rather than
paying per-participant and using market power to negotiate down
fees.
The Plaintiffs endorsed Martin A. Schmidt as their expert on the
level of record-keeping and amount of administrative fees that
would have been reasonable for the Plan. Schmidt produced an
expert report dated Jan. 31, 2018 and a rebuttal expert report
dated April 30, 2018.
The Defendants named Thomas R. Kmak as their expert on
record-keeping fees. Kmak submitted a rebuttal expert report dated
March 26, 2018. In June 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude and
strike Kmak's testimony under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26(a) and 37(c), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Court
granted in part and denied in part that motion relying only on
Rules 26(a) and 37(c), sua sponte reopened discovery, and ordered
the Banner Defendants to obtain a supplemental report from Kmak and
produce certain materials on which Kmak relied. Kmak provided a
supplemental report dated April 30, 2019.
The Banner Defendants then requested a protective order for the
documents that the Court ordered to be produced. The Court denied
that request, and clarified the manner in which the documents were
to be produced. The Banner Defendants determined that they could
not produce certain materials because of Kmak's contractual
obligations to third parties, and thus withdrew those portions of
Kmak's opinion which relied on the material that would not be
produced. Specifically, the Banner Defendants withdrew Kmak's
opinions found in paragraphs 14, 35-41, 45, 46(e), and 47-49 of
Kmak's March 26, 2018 report. Banner also withdrew Kmak's April
30, 2019 report.
There are presently two motions before the Court: the Banner
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Martin A. Schmidt, the
and Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude and Strike Expert Opinion and
Testimony of Thomas R. Kmak.
Schmidt's expert opinion addresses what Banner should have paid for
record-keeping and administrative services for the Plan had the
Banner Defendants acted as prudent fiduciaries. The Banner
Defendants challenge Schmidt's opinion as unreliable because
Schmidt does not appear to have relied on any data to support his
conclusions and instead, he bases his opinion on nebulous allusions
to his experience.
Judge Martinez finds that Schmidt has addressed the basic method by
which he reached his conclusion on the range of expected
record-keeping and administrative service fees. He recognizes the
potential weaknesses of Schmidt's testimony highlighted by the
Banner Defendants, particularly the somewhat vague statements
connecting Schmidt's basic methodology to his outcome, as well as
Schmidt's alleged post-hoc rationalizations of the range of
appropriate record-keeping fees derived from his own experience.
However, based on the briefing submitted, he finds that issues
regarding Schmidt's testimony and the basis for his opinions are
better suited to resolution at trial through vigorous
cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.
Judge Martinez also acknowledges that Senior U.S. District Judge
Robert E. Blackburn recently excluded similar testimony in an ERISA
action after concluding that the expert's opinion falters because
the relevant methodology by which he reached his conclusions
remains undisclosed. However, among other potential distinctions,
Troudt did not address that the Court has considerably more leeway
in admitting expert opinions when the trial is to the court and not
to a jury. Under the present circumstances, the Judge will not
exclude Schmidt's testimony on administrative and record-keeping
fees.
The Plaintiffs again seek to exclude Kmak's testimony, and
particularly paragraphs 42, 43, 44, and 46(b) of Kmak's rebuttal
report, alleging that these paragraphs contain opinions that solely
relate to specific comparisons between the Plan and Kmak's
withdrawn benchmarking report. They contend that Kmak's opinions
should be excluded under Rules 26 and 37 -- for failure to disclose
the underlying information -- or as unreliable under Federal Rule
of Evidence 702.
Judge Martinez will not exclude Kmak's testimony as a sanction for
failure to disclose underlying data upon which he based his
opinion. He has carefully reviewed the disputed paragraphs. While
each paragraph refers to the since-withdrawn benchmarking report,
they do not "solely relate" to specific comparisons between the
Plan and the benchmarking report.
Additionally, for the same reasons that he will not exclude
Schmidt's testimony as unreliable, Judge Martinez will not exclude
Kmak's testimony as unreliable. Like Schmidt, Kmak has described
the process by which he evaluates record-keeping and administrative
fees, and has opined on the reasonableness of fees based on his
usual approach. The Plaintiffs may explore the weaknesses (if any)
of such testimony on cross examination.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Martinez denied (i) the Banner
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Martin A. Schmidt; and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude and Strike Expert Opinion
and Testimony of Thomas R. Kmak.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VirJKJ from Leagle.com.
Lorraine M. Ramos, Constance R. Williamson, Karen F. McLeod,
Robert
Moffitt, Cherlene M. Goodale, Linda Ann Heyrman & Delri Hanson,
individually and as reprentatives of a class of plan participants,
on behalf of the Banner Health Employees 401 (k) Plan, Plaintiffs,
represented by Heather Lea, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP,
Kurt
Charles Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Michael
Armin Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Jerome Joseph Schlichter --
jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.
Banner Health, Banner Health Board of Directors, Laren Bates,
Wilford A. Cardon, Ronald J. Creasman, Gilbert Davila, Peter S.
Fine, Susan B. Foote, Michael J. Frick, Michael Garnreiter, Barry
A. Hendin, David Kikumoto, Larry S. Lazarus, Steven W. Lynn, Anne
Mariucci, Quentin P. Smith, Jr., Christopher Volk, Cheryl
Wenzinger, Banner Health Retirement Plans Advisory Committee,
Brenda Schaefer, Charles P. Lehn, Colleen Hallberg, Dan Weinman,
Dennis Dahlen, Ed Niemann, Jr., Ed Oxford, Jeff Buehrle, Jennifer
Sherwood, Julie Nunley, Margaret Dehaan, Patricia K. Block,
Paulette Friday, Richard O. Sutton, Robert Lund & Thomas R.
Koelbl,
Defendants, represented by Jennifer B. Routh, McDermott Will &
Emery LLP, Linda L. Siderius, Caplan & Earnest, LLC, Margaret H.
Warner, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Meghan Elizabeth Pound, Caplan
& Earnest, LLC, Richard Jason Pearl -- richard.pearl@dbr.com --
Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP & Theodore M. Becker --
theodore.becker@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP.
Jeffrey Slocum & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Joseph Boran -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Emily Taylor Jastromb --
emily.jastromb@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Hillary E. August -- hillary.august@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis
& Bockius, LLP, James P. Looby -- james.looby@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP &
Sari M. Alamuddin -- sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis
& Bockius, LLP.
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Doe Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gregory Scott Stephen, Barnstormers Basketball, Inc.
doing business as: Barnstormers Basketball of Iowa, Amateur
Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., Adidas America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. LACV 080354 was removed from Iowa District
Court for Johnson County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa on Jan. 9, 2020, and assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00005-JAJ-CFB.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Gregory Scott Stephen is a former coach of the AAU Iowa
Barnstormers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Guy R. Cook, Esq.
Michael Darrell Currie, Esq.
GREFE & SIDNEY PLC
500 E. Court Avenue, Suite 200
Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: (515) 245-4300
Fax: (515) 245-4452
Email: gcook@grefesidney.com
mcurrie@grefesidney.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon Wayne Lobberecht, Esq.
BETTY NEUMAN & MCMAHON PLC
1900 East 54th Street
Davenport, IA 52807
Phone: (563) 326-4491
Fax: (563) 326-4498
Email: bwl@bettylawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey L Goodman, Esq.
GOODMAN LAW, P.C.
1501 42nd Street, Suite 300
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Phone: (515) 267-8600
Email: jeff@golawpc.com
- and -
Constance M Alt, Esq.
SHUTTLEWORTH & INGERSOLL P.L.C.
115 THIRD STREET SE, SUITE 500
PO BOX 2107
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52401
Phone: (319) 365-9461
Fax: (319) 365-8443
Email: cma@shuttleworthlaw.com
BELMONT MANAGEMENT: Wisneski Moves to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERESA WISNESKI and MILDRED JONES, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
BELMONT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02523-JAR-ADM
(D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify
this collective:
All hourly-paid employees who lived on-premises within the
three (3) years preceding the filing of the Complaint, to
whom Defendant gave a rent discount or credit for a period
covering at least one week in which the employee worked more
than forty (40) hours.
The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on behalf of all former and
current hourly-paid employees, who lived on-premises, received a
rent credit, worked more than forty (40) hours per week and were
employed by Defendant Belmont Management Company, Inc.
("Defendant"), to recover wages and other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:
A. approve of the use of U.S. Mail and e-mail (or
alternatively, U.S. Mail and text message) to distribute
their proposed Notice and Consent to Join;
B. grant approval to their proposed forms;
C. order the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative class member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such as Excel, within seven (7) days after the Court's
Order is entered;
D. allow for an opt-in period of ninety (90) days, to begin
seven (7) days after the day that the Defendant produces
the names and contact information for the putative class
members, in which putative class members may submit a
Consent to Join this lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff;
E. grant them leave to send the reminder Postcard and e-mail
(or text message), beginning thirty (30) days after the
opt-in period begins, to potential plaintiffs, who have not
responded to the Notice; and
F. award costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant all
other good or necessary relief to which the Plaintiffs may
be entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott R. Schillings, Esq.
Matthew K. Holcomb, Esq.
HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
1617 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 267-2000
Facsimile: (316) 630-8466
E-mail: sschillings@hinklaw.com
mholcomb@hinklaw.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Waller, Esq.
WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC
2001 Park Place, Suite 900
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 313-7330
E-mail: jwaller@waller-law.com
BLUEPEARL VET: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluepearl Vet, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bluepearl Vet,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00262 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
BluePearl Veterinary Partners is a company owned by Mars
Corporation that operates emergency and specialty veterinary
hospitals throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Robles' Bid to Certify FLSA Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin denies the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification in the lawsuit styled
SANDY ROBLES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, d/b/a MERCURY MARINE, Case No.
2:18-cv-01809-WED (E.D. Wisc.).
Judge Duffin opines that Ms. Robles has not demonstrated that she
is similarly situated to the members of her proposed class such
that the class ought to be conditionally certified.
Plaintiff Sandy Robles brings this suit on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated against her employer, Defendant
Brunswick Corporation d/b/a Mercury Marine, alleging that "Mercury
Marine has a common policy and practice of impermissibly rounding
the start and end times of its production and maintenance
employees' work hours so as to deny such employees for [sic]
compensation for all hours worked." She alleges this was done in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin
wage and hour laws.
Ms. Robles asked the Court to certify this collective action
class:
All production and maintenance employees who are or have
been employed by Mercury Marine at it's [sic] Fond du Lac
campus, including Plants 3, 4, 15, 15L, 15S, 17, and 98 at
any time since November 15, 2015.
Ms. Robles also asked that the Court appoint counsel of record as
collective action counsel, order the Defendant to produce within 30
days a list of all people known to the Defendant, who belong to the
proposed class, and allow potential collective action members 45
days from the date of the mailing of the notice to opt in.[CC]
C.H. ROBINSON: Moore Files Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.H. Robinson
Worldwide, Inc. The case is styled as David Moore, doing business
as: Moore Family Farms; Terry Lusk, Jason Lusk, and Justin Lusk,
doing business as: JTJ Farms; Kevin Rentz, Amanda Calhoun Rentz,
Dennis Bruce Rentz, Karla Jo Rentz, doing business as: Rentz
Family Farms; Kevin Coggins doing business as: MEK Farms; Bowles
Farming Company, Inc., Agropecuaria Los Americanos S.C. de R.L. de
C.V., Phil Sandifer & Sons Farms LLC, JMB Farm LLC, Powe Farms
Management LLC, CA Comerical, S.A.C., Global Fresh, S.A.C., Pepas
Tropicales del Peru, S.A.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide,
Inc. doing business as: C.H. Robinson Company, Inc., C.H. Robinson
Company, Robinson Fresh, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-00252-DSD-TNL
(D. Minn., Jan. 16, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Agricultural Commodities
Act.
C.H. Robinson is an American Fortune 500 provider of multimodal
transportation services and third-party logistics. The company
offers freight transportation, transportation management, brokerage
and warehousing.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig A Stokes, Esq.
Stokes Law Office LLP
3330 Oakwell Court Ste 225
San Antonio, TX 78218
Phone: (210) 804-0011
Email: cstokes@stokeslawoffice.com
CALIFORNIA: Godoy Prisoners Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MAURICE GODOY, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND GERRY
BROWN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (i) denied the Plaintiff's motion
for a declaratory judgment, a preliminary injunction, a restraining
order, and partial summary judgment; and (ii) dismissed the amended
complaint with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility ("SATF") proceeding pro se, filed the civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff's
amended complaint is now before the Court for screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(a). The Plaintiff has also filed a motion
seeking declaratory judgment, a preliminary injunction, a
restraining order, and partial summary judgment.
The Plaintiff's initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend
because, among other things, it failed to comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 20(a) in that it contained a wide variety of
claims that happened over several years and at more than one
prison, and named forty separate defendants. He was instructed
that in preparing an amended complaint, he could only allege claims
that (a) arose out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences, and (b) presented questions of law
or fact common to all defendants named therein.
The Court further instructed him that claims arising out of events
occurring at California Institute for Men ("CIM") must be filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
where CIM is located, and that claims arising out of events
occurring at Mule Creek State Prison ("MCSP") and/or Substance
Abuse Treatment Facility ("SATF") must be filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California where MCSP
and SATF are located. Finally, the Court dismissed all the other
Plaintiffs except for plaintiff Godoy from the action without
prejudice to pursuing individual civil actions. The Court declined
to allow joinder of the numerous Plaintiffs and their claims, and
also declined to certify the Plaintiffs as a class action.
Judge Gilliam finds that that the Plaintiff's amended complaint
suffers from the same deficiencies as the initial complaint. The
amended complaint again fails to comply with Rule 20(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Similar to the original
complaint, the amended complaint includes a wide variety of claims
which do not appear to arise out of the same occurrence. The
amended complaint names over thirty separate Defendants, and again
seeks to join other inmates as co-plaintiffs.
Because the amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as
the initial complaint, Judge Gilliam dismissed the amended
complaint with leave to amend. The Judge denied the Plaintiff's
renewed request to add additional inmates as co-plaintiffs, for the
same reasons as set forth in the Court's Jan. 29, 2019 order
dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.
In preparing the second amended complaint, Judge Gilliam advised
the Plaintiff as follows. First, the second amended complaint must
comply with Rule 20(a)(2). Second, the second amended complaint
should comply with venue requirements. Third, the Court reminds
the Plaintiff that he need only provide a brief statement of the
facts that give rise to each legal claim.
Next, Judge Gilliam denied the Plaintiff's motion seeking
declaratory judgment, a preliminary injunction, a restraining
order, and partial summary judgment. First, the request for
partial summary judgment is premature and must be denied without
prejudice. Second, the Defendants have not been given notice and
the Plaintiff has not shown that he has satisfied the elements to
support an exception. In addition, the Plaintiff has not yet
stated cognizable claims, and to the extent he seeks relief related
to claims arising out of events that transpired at CIM, those
claims must be filed in the Eastern District of California.
Finally, although the Plaintiff titled his motion as a motion for
declaratory judgment, he does not specify in the motion what
declaratory judgment is sought. If he generally seeks declaratory
judgment as relief in the action, he may simply state that in his
second amended complaint rather than filing a separate motion
requesting declaratory judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam denied the Plaintiff's
motion for a declaratory judgment, a preliminary injunction, a
restraining order, and partial summary judgment. The Judge
dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. If the
Plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he
may file a second amended complaint within 28 days from the date
the Order is filed.
The Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior
complaints by reference. He may not change the nature of the suit
by alleging new, unrelated claims in the second amended complaint.
Failure to file a proper amended complaint in the time provided
will result in the dismissal of the action without further notice
to the Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of Judge Gilliam's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/vMfVu8 from Leagle.com.
Maurice Godoy, Plaintiff, pro se.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Schick Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled as Malka Schick, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00200
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Capital Management Services L.P., a collections agency, provides
delinquent receivables resolutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
CENGAGE LEARNING: Susman Godfrey Named Interim Counsel in Bernstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE INGULLI, TERRY
HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE, as personal
representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18 Civ. 7877 (VEC)
(SLC) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of the law firm of Susman
Godfrey L.L.P. as the interim class counsel pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
On Aug. 12, 2019, Plaintiffs Bernstein, Ingulli, Halbert, Roy,
Penner, and Parke, as personal representative of The Estate of
Alison Clarke-Stewart, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed a complaint asserting a breach of contract claim
against Defendant Cengage. The Plaintiffs allege that Cengage
violated the terms of its publishing agreements by failing to pay
authors for use of their works in accordance with those agreements,
and failing to pay the authors certain royalties.
The Plaintiffs now move for the appointment of Susman Godfrey as
the interim class counsel. No other Plaintiffs have made a motion
seeking the appointment of different interim counsel, but Cengage
opposes the motion.
Cengage objects to the Plaintiffs' Motion not on the merits of any
of the factors relevant under Rule 23(g)(1)(A), but on the ground
that the relief sought is unnecessary and inappropriate. It
maintains that because only one law firm represents the Plaintiffs
and there are no other pending related actions, Susman Godfrey's
appointment is unnecessary.
On review of Plaintiffs' Motion, Magistrate Judge Cave finds that
Susman Godfrey meets the four factors set forth in Rule
23(g)(1)(A). First, the Magistrate Judge is satisfied that the
work Susman Godfrey has done to date in identifying and
investigating potential claims weighs in favor of their appointment
as the interim class counsel. Taking the second and third factors
together, Susman Godfrey has extensive experience in litigating
class actions in the District and elsewhere, and in complex
commercial disputes, including in breach of contract actions in the
media industry. Regarding the fourth factor, Susman Godfrey has
represented that it can commit substantial resources to the case.
In addition, while true that two similar recent actions against
Cengage are no longer pending, the Magistrate Judge finds that the
recent existence of those other cases asserting similar claims with
other plaintiffs represented by counsel other than Susman Godfrey
shows that the possibility of more such cases is not foreclosed.
Establishing the interim lead counsel in the action will minimize
the risk of duplicative filings and allow the Court to consolidate
related filings more efficiently. Cengage's alternative argument
that appointing counsel is premature, is similarly unpersuasive in
light of the Court's analysis of the four Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factors
set forth. The Plaintiffs here have sufficiently made the showing
of a need and benefit that was found to be lacking in the two cases
on which Cengage relies, the Court finds.
For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge Cave approves the
appointment of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as interim class counsel in
the action.
The Interim Class Counsel will be generally responsible for
coordinating activities during pretrial proceedings and will:
a. Determine and present (in briefs, oral argument, or other
fashion as may be appropriate, personally or by a
designee) to the court and opposing parties the position
of the Plaintiffs and proposed class(es) on all matters
arising during pretrial proceedings;
b. Coordinate the conduct of discovery on behalf of
Plaintiffs and the proposed class(es) consistent with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,
including preparation of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents and the examination of witnesses
in depositions;
c. Conduct settlement negotiations on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and the proposed class(es);
d. Enter into stipulations with opposing the counsel as
necessary for the conduct of the litigation; and
e. Perform such other duties as may be incidental to
the proper coordination of pretrial activities or
authorized by future order of the Court.
The Order will apply to each related class action pending or
subsequently filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/IWZHjV from Leagle.com.
Douglas Bernstein, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Elaine Ingulli, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Terry Halbert, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Edward Roy, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Louis Penner, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated & Ross Parke, as personal
representative of The Estate of Alison Clarke-Stewart, Plaintiffs,
represented by Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Chanler Ashton Langham -- clangham@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., Rohit Nath -- rnath@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver -- sklaver@susmangodfrey.com --
Susman Godfrey LLP & Kalpana Srinivasan --
ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP.
Cengage Learning, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Fish --
afish@ssbb.com -- Satterlee Stephens LLP, Glenn Charles Edwards --
gedwards@ssbb.com -- Satterlee Stephens LLP, James Frederick
Rittinger -- jrittinger@ssbb.com -- Satterlee Stephens LLP &
Jennifer Philbrick McArdle -- jmcardle@ssbb.com -- Satterlee
Stephens LLP.
CONSUMER GUARDIAN: Hardwick Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONSUMER GUARDIAN
SPECIALISTS, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Hardwick, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER
GUARDIAN SPECIALISTS, LLC doing business as: CREDIT SHIELD, SARAH
YOUNG, SECURE ACCOUNT SERVICE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00060-MRH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 13, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Credit Shield is an insurance benefit that covers Credit Card
outstanding balance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
The Law Firm of Fenters
201 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Phone: (412) 545-3015
Fax: (412) 540-3399
Email: jward@fentersward.com
COOPERATIVE REGIONS: Collishaw Files Fraud Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooperative Regions
of Organic Producer Pools. The case is styled as Jennifer
Collishaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer
Pools, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00277 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12,
2020).
The nature of suit is state as Other Fraud.
Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, doing business as
Organic Valley is an organic food brand and independent cooperative
of organic farmers based in La Farge, Wisconsin, United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Ehrman Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
In case docketed David Ehrman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Cox Communications, Inc.,
Coxcom, LLC and Cox Communications California, LLC, Respondents,
Case No. 19-55658, (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, December 16, 2019), Ehrman petitions for a writ of
certiorari contesting its removal on the basis of diversity of
citizenship insisting that the allegation of an individual's state
citizenship made solely on "information and belief" is sufficient
enough to keep the case in federal court, arguing the panel didn't
dig deep enough into the evidence to back up the ruling.
Said case was initially docketed under Case No. 30-2018-00992300
with the Superior Court of the State of California for Orange
County on May 9, 2018, removed to federal court on June 22, 2018
based on diversity of citizenship, remanded to state court on
December 17, 2018 and removed again to federal court on May 7, 2019
with no entry of judgment in this case.
Original complaint alleges Cox of lying about its internet speeds.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamin S. Soderstrom
SODERSTROM LAW PC
3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 667-4700
Email: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com.
- and -
Gunnar Gundersen, Esq.
GUNDERSEN & GUNDERSEN LLP
5000 Birch Street
West Tower, Suite 3000
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949) 467-9244
Email: gunnar.gundersen@gundersen-law.com
Defendant is represented by:
Katherine Tracy Van Dusen, Esq.
Richard R. Patch, Esq.
Scott C. Hall, Esq.
Philip D.W. Miller, Esq.
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
San Francisco, CA
Tel: (415) 772-5712, 772-5722, 772-5798
Fax: (415) 989-1663
Email: kvandusen@coblentzlaw.com
rrp@coblentzlaw.com
shall@coblentzlaw.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Renta Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Griselda Renta, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00184 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Credit Control Services, Inc. was founded in 1966. The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
CREDIT LAW: Protective Order Request in Ensminger Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 19-2147-JWL (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge
James P. O'Hara of the U.S. District Court for the District Kansas
denied Williston's motion for protective order.
Ensminger filed the putative class-action complaint against the
Defendants for violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act
("CROA"). Williston, who is not a party in the case, is an
attorney who previously represented the Plaintiff in another action
in the Court, which was settled and voluntarily dismissed on Feb.
19, 2018. Williston has not represented the Plaintiff in the
action in any capacity. But the Defendants contend Williston has
remained in contact with the Plaintiff and has documents relevant
to the action. The Defendant briefly previews an argument that the
Plaintiff is an inadequate representative of the putative class
because of a conflict of interest arising from his relationship
with Williston, though that argument is not presently before the
court.
The Defendants served the subpoena on Williston on Oct. 26, 2019.
Williston argues the Defendants served the subpoena and will
continue to serve discovery only to annoy, embarrass, and oppress
him in an effort to indulge their delusional grudges that have been
or at least could have been litigated elsewhere.
After conferring, the Defendants narrowed the items requested by
subpoena to:
1. All correspondence and communications (including but not
limited to emails, text messages, and direct messages) with Mark
Ensminger that reference or discuss the Credit Repair Organizations
Act; any potential lawsuit or claims against [Credit Law Center
("CLC") or any credit repair organization; or any payment,
compensation or other benefit to be provided to or by it in
connection with any potential lawsuit or claims asserted by Mr.
Ensminger against CLC.
2. All documents that reference or discuss Mark Ensminger, on
the one hand, and, on the other hand, the CROA; any potential
lawsuit or claims against CLC or any credit repair organization; or
any payment, compensation or other benefits to be provided to or by
it in connection with any potential lawsuit or claims asserted by
Mr. Ensminger against CLC.
What transpired between the Defendants and Williston is not clear
in the briefing; it appears they had a dispute about Williston's
continued representation of clients after he left the Defendants'
firm. Williston contends the Defendants now intend to seek
discovery in the case, including the mentioned subpoena, that
constitutes yet another fishing expedition by the Defendants who
are trying to find 'dirt' on Williston because he left the the
Defendants' firm on bad terms. He asserts the Defendants
previously attempted similar inappropriate tactics in Ensminger v.
Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc., but he did not raise his
objections and concerns then out of hopes that defendants' ethical
obligations would guide them to resolve the issues without court
intervention. The issue was apparently taken up in a case in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
Williston filed the instant motion on Nov. 6, 2019, arguing the
Defendants should be precluded from serving any discovery into any
matter related to Williston's representation of the Plaintiff.
Williston wants a protective order to obtain relief from the
Defendants' incessant harassment.
For the purposes of the case, the Defendants appear to allege
financial agreements between Williston and the Plaintiffs' counsel
could be discoverable. Although Williston and the Defendants agree
there is no present attorney-client relationship between Williston
and the Plaintiff, the Defendants insinuate (though they don't
clarify how) Williston may have a financial interest in the
litigation. Williston asserts he knows of no documents that will
be (a) responsive; (b) not be protected by privilege; (c) not
already in possession of the parties; and (d) material to these
proceedings.
After reviewing the briefing, Magistrate Judge O'Hara finds
Williston has not shown good cause to justify the scope of the
requested protective order. Although Williston argues the subpoena
seeks irrelevant and privileged information, imposes an undue
burden, and constitutes harassment, he does not explicitly reassert
these objections in his protective-order argument. Indeed,
Williston doesn't make any specific arguments to support the motion
for protective order, beyond the harassment argument.
Tellingly, Williston does not cite to any case law to support his
position that all discovery related to his representation of the
Plaintiff should be precluded. Rather, Williston offers a factual
summary of what he contends is the Defendants' dogged pursuit of
discovery in various actions to annoy, embarrass, and oppress
Williston and subject him to undue expense and delays. But the
Magistrate Judge, to be comprehensive in his analysis, addresses
Williston's arguments related to the subpoena in the context of a
protective order.
AS for relevance, the fitness of the Plaintiff as a class
representative is not before the Court today. Regardless, the
Court need not, at this point, decide whether the discovery
requests are relevant. The court may only rule on the validity of
objections of relevance in the context to compel. The Magistrate
Judge declines to enter a protective order on the basis that the
discovery sought is irrelevant.
Second, Williston argues any responsive documents he possesses
would be covered by the attorney-client privilege. However,
privilege is not a valid basis for a protective order under Rule
26(c). Williston may raise privilege objections as to certain
discovery requests or in response to a subpoena. The Magistrate
declines to enter a protective order on the basis of privilege.
Third, Williston argues any discovery related to his representation
of the Plaintiff imposes an undue burden on him. As proof of the
undue burden, Williston submits he would have to create a privilege
log, which would be a a waste of judicial resources and an abuse of
Rule 45. The Magistrate holds that Williston is an attorney who is
equipped to create a privilege log if necessary. He does not offer
a detailed explanation as to why the expenses or effort required
would be extraordinary. While the Magistrate recognizes there are
resources involved in creating and evaluating a privilege log, he
does not find it so burdensome as to constitute good cause for
granting a protective order.
Finally, Williston argues the Defendants are only serving him
discovery for the purpose of abusing court processes to harass,
annoy, and embarrass him. Although the Magistrate Judge
acknowledges Williston's frustration at his involvement in the
litigation, on balance, the he finds there is not good cause for a
protective order regarding all discovery related to Williston's
relationship with the Plaintiff. Williston may continue to pursue
the motion to quash the subpoena in the appropriate court and may
object to specific discovery requests as necessary.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge P'Hara denied Williston's motion for
protective order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Oxh731 from Leagle.com.
Mark Ensminger, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Stecklein --
aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com -- Stecklein & Rapp Chartered, Amy L.
Wells, Keogh Law, Ltd., pro hac vice, Keith J. Keogh, Keogh Law,
Ltd., pro hac vice, Matthew S. Robertson, Stecklein & Rapp
Chartered & Michael H. Rapp, Stecklein & Rapp Chartered.
Credit Law Center, LLC, also known as Thomas Andrew Addleman
L.L.C., doing business as Credit Law Center & Thomas Addleman, also
known as Tom Addleman, Defendants, represented by Chad C. Beaver --
admin@beaver-law.com -- Beaver Law Firm, LLC, Jordan E. Wilkow --
JWilkow@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, LLC, pro hac
vice & Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito
& Rothstein, LLC, pro hac vice.
Keith N. Williston, Interested Party, pro se.
Credit Law Center, LLC & Thomas Addleman, Counter Claimants,
represented by Chad C. Beaver, Beaver Law Firm, LLC, Jordan E.
Wilkow, Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, LLC & Timothy A. Hudson, Tabet
DiVito & Rothstein, LLC.
Mark Ensminger, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Counter Defendant, represented by Alan J. Stecklein, Stecklein &
Rapp Chartered, Amy L. Wells, Keogh Law, Ltd., pro hac vice, Keith
J. Keogh, Keogh Law, Ltd., pro hac vice, Matthew S. Robertson,
Stecklein & Rapp Chartered & Michael H. Rapp, Stecklein & Rapp
Chartered.
CREEL & GLOW: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creel & Gow, LLC. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Creel & Gow,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00205 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Creel and Gow has an extensive range of fascinating and exquisite
objects sourced from all around the world by avid collector and
traveler world Jamie Creel and his adventurous team.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
DASHWOOD BOOKS: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dashwood Books, Inc.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dashwood
Books, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00207 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Dashwood Books specializes in the latest quality books on
contemporary photography from the 1960s to the present produced by
fine publishers from Japan, Europe and the United State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
ERICA WEINER: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erica Weiner LLC. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Erica Weiner
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00201 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Erica Weiner LLC is a privately held company in Brooklyn, NY and is
a Single Location business that offers antique gems and jewelry
.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
EVELYN DOUGLIN CENTER: Coulter Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Coulter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Evelyn Douglin Center for Serving People
in Need, Inc. and Does 1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07198 (E.D. N.Y., December 24, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws.
Evelyn Douglin Center is a nonprofit organization that offers
crisis intervention, community habilitation, residential programs,
training and after school programs where Coulter worked as a Direct
Support Professional. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being paid overtime pay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq.
THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
401 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 571-2000
Fax: (212) 571-0505
Email: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com
F&S MANAGEMENT: Curphey Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Curphey on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. F&S Management I, LLC,
F&S Management II, LLC, F&S Management III, LLC, F&S Management IV,
LLC, F&S Management VI, LLC, F&S Oil - I, LLC, F&S Oil III, LLC,
F&S Oil V, LLC, F&S Consulting & Management, LLC, FNS Ventures -
Gateway, LLC, F&S Ventures I, LLC, F&S Ventures II, LLC, FNS
Ventures-Tempe, LLC, Francis & Sons I, LLC; Francis &
Sons-McClintock, LLC, Coldwater F&S, LLC, F&S Capital Management,
LLC, T&J Management, LLC, F&A Management, LLC, Ehab Francis and
Jane Doe Franis, Hisham Francis and Jane Doe Francis II, Osama
Francis and Jane Doe Francis III and Anal Francis and Jane Doe
Francis IV, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05904, (D. Ariz., December
27, 2019), seeks unpaid wages for overtime compensation due,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses
of this action and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Defendants operate a chain of 15 car washes under the name "Francis
& Sons Car Wash," where Curphey worked as a store manager.
Defendants allegedly failed to properly compensate him for any of
his overtime hours despite working between approximately fifty to
sixty hours per workweek.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (602) 956-1409
Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
FBCS INC: Rajkumar Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc. The case
is styled as Navindra Rajkumar, Raymond Junmok Kim, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FBCS,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00218 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Federal Bond And Collection Service, Inc. (FBCS) provides
collection services.[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) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Spiegler Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit Inc. The
case is styled as Katie A. Spiegler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FirstCredit Inc., John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00057 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 10,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
FirstCredit Inc. provides innovative revenue cycle solutions to
hospitals, health systems and integrated physician practices
through an array of eligibility and receivables management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: (216) 800-5529
Fax: (216) 514-4987
Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Watkins Sues Over Corrosion Defect in Ford Explorers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer C. Breazeale Watkins, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR CO., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:20-cv-10095-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich., Jan. 14, 2020), arises from
a manufacturing defect in Ford Explorer vehicles.
The lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals, who purchased Ford
Explorer vehicles manufactured and/or sold by the Defendant, with a
manufacturing defect that causes premature corrosion to the
vehicle's aluminum hood sections as well as unsightly bubbling and
damage to the overlaying exterior paint of the vehicle's aluminum
hoods (the "Corrosion Defect").
The class action seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief
on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or leased model
years 2011 through 2019 Ford Explorers. Through a common uniform
course of conduct, Ford manufactured, supplied, promoted, and sold
model year 2011 through 2019 Ford Explorers with the manufacturing
defect, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that Ford, acting individually and
collectively through its agents and dealers, failed to adequately
disclose to the consuming public the fact that its model year 2011
through 2019 Ford Explorers were manufactured with a serious
defect, which would cause consumers, such as the Plaintiff to
experience bubbling or blistering under the paint on Ford
Explorer's aluminum hood panels and incur significant costs to
remedy the Corrosion Defect.
On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased from Bill Currie Ford in
Tampa Florida, a 2015 model year Ford Explorer XLT that has the
defect. She also asserts that despite having knowledge of the
Corrosion Defect for almost two decades, Ford has failed to
disclose same to consumers, and has also refused to provide
necessary repairs to Explorer owners who have experienced the
Corrosion Defects effects on their vehicles.
Ford Motor designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, supplies,
services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles under the
Ford brand, including the class of vehicle purchased by the
Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Darryl Bressack, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
Facsimile: (248) 971-2600
E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
dbressack@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
GEORGIA: Smith Files Civil Rights Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Georgia. The
case is styled as Austin Garrick Smith, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. State of Georgia, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00138-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 10, 2020).
The nature of suit is state as Other Civil Rights.
Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal
beaches, farmland and mountains.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Lead Plaintiff in Green Class Suit Named
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOUGLAS GREENE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
INCORPORATION, JAMES H. ROBERTS, and JIGISHA DESAI, Defendants,
Case No. C 19-04744 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
appointed The Police Retirement System of St. Louis as Lead
Plaintiff.
In Aug. 13, 2019, individual investor Greene filed the putative
securities class action against Defendant Granite, and individual
Defendants Roberts, the CEO of Granite, and Desia, the CFO of
Granite, alleging false and misleading statements in violation of
federal securities laws. That same day, Greene's counsel published
a notice on Business Wire informing investors that a class action
lawsuit had been filed against Granite and that investors had 60
days from the publication of the notice to seek appointment as the
Lead Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleges that Granite misrepresented and concealed
information regarding certain risks and additional costs related to
its joint venture construction projects. He further alleges that
Granite made positive statements about these projects. However, in
July 2019, Granite disclosed that its financial results for the
second quarter of fiscal year 2019 were negatively impacted by
non-cash charges related to four legacy, unconsolidated heavy civil
joint venture projects. The disclosure ultimately led the stock
price to fall $7.98 per share. The stock price then fell $2.78 per
share in August 2019 following a further announcement that the four
projects had experienced delays and increased costs.
Four Lead Plaintiff candidates timely filed motions for
appointment: (1) The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, (2)
Doug Mittelman, (3) Ahmad Rategh, and (4) Anchorage Police & Fire
Retirement System. Doug Mittelman and Ahmad Rategh have filed
statements of non-opposition. Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement
system filed a response to The Police Retirement of St. Louis's
motion, but the response does not oppose St. Louis' appointment.
Judge Alsup requested that each Lead Plaintiff candidate file
responses to a questionnaire about its qualifications, experience
in managing litigation, transactions in the shares at issue, and
any potential conflicts related to the instant securities
litigation. St. Louis and Anchorage have submitted answers to the
Lead Plaintiff questionnaire. A hearing on the appointment of the
Lead Plaintiff was held and St. Louis was questioned on its
qualifications. Anchorage was also in attendance.
St. Louis purchased 8,525 shares during the class period and
suffered an estimated net loss of $108,119.74. Anchorage, who
filed a "response" but not an opposition to St. Louis's motion for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, purchased 1,936 shares and
suffered a $26,193.31 loss during the class period. Anchorage does
not dispute that St. Louis has the largest financial interest. All
other candidates do not oppose St. Louis's motion. Because St.
Louis has shown that it has the largest financial interest within
the meaning of the statute, it is presumptively the most adequate
Lead Plaintiff.
St. Louis has the largest financial interest in the relief sought
by the classes and otherwise satisfies the typicality and adequacy
requirements of FRCP 23. St. Louis has now filed a response to
the questionnaire, including an updated list of pending securities
class actions it is Lead Plaintiff in. It has further acknowledged
that the lead counsel appointment will be deferred until after
appointment of the Lead Plaintiff, and is prepared to undertake any
additional due diligence or vetting of the counsel as the Court
deems appropriate.
Judge Alsup thus finds that the concerns raised by Anchorage do not
rebut the presumption that the putative Lead Plaintiff has
satisfied the requirements of typicality and adequacy. Any
concerns regarding St. Louis' choice in counsel will be addressed
in selecting the lead counsel. St. Louis is therefore the most
adequate Lead Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Judge Alsup appointed The Police Retirement System of
St. Louis as the Lead Plaintiff. The counsel wishing to apply to
be considered for the role of lead counsel should promptly contact
Mark Lawson at: The Police Retirement System of St. Louis 2020
Market St. St. Louis, MO 63103.
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis shall, if it hasn't done
so already, promptly advertise for applicants and leave open the
application period for the class counsel until Dec. 12, 2019, and
will make a final decision as to the selection of the counsel by
Dec. 26, 2019.
Through the counsel, The Police Retirement System of St. Louis will
move for the appointment and approval of their selected counsel no
later than Jan. 9, 2020. The motion should be accompanied by a
declaration from the Lead Plaintiff explaining the due diligence
undertaken with respect to the selection of the class counsel. The
declaration should also explain why the counsel selected was
favored over other potential candidates. The declaration should
further certify no pay-to-play arrangement was made. The
declaration should be filed under seal and not served on the
Defendants. The motion for approval of the Lead Plaintiff's choice
of counsel, however, should be served on defense counsel. No
hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court determines that
it would be beneficial.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ScVPSE from Leagle.com.
Douglas Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Pavithra Rajesh --
PRAJESH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley F.
Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.
Granite Construction Incorporated, James H. Roberts & Jigisha
Desai, Defendants, represented by John W. Spiegel --
John.Spiegel@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Achyut Jayant
Phadke -- Achyut.Phadke@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, Movant, represented by
Craig Wallace Smith, Robbins Arroyo LLP & Gregory Eric Del Gaizo,
Robbins Arroyo LLP.
Doug Mittelman, as Trustee of the Mittelman Family Trust, Movant,
represented by Charles Henry Linehan, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
& Pavithra Rajesh, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.
Ahmad Rategh, Movant, represented by Marion Curry Passmore, Bragar
Eagel and Squire, P.C.
Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Javier Bleichmar, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, pro hac vice, Peter
E. Borkon,Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP & Ross M. Shikowitz,Bleichmar
Fonti & Auld LLP, pro hac vice.
GREEN CHEF: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Chef
Corporation. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Green Chef Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00192
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Green Chef Corporation provides food delivery services. The Company
offers organic ingredients for cooking healthy and flavorful
meals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
GREENSKY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the motions of the GreenSky officers and directors, and the
underwriters to dismiss the second amended complaint in IN RE
GREENSKY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18 Civ. 11071 (AKH) (S.D.
N.Y.).
In the securities class action, the purchasers of common stock sold
by GreenSky in its initial public offering ("IPO") commenced the
lawsuit under the Securities Act of 1933 against GreenSky, the
GreenSky officers and directors, and the underwriters who
participated in the May 25, 2018 IPO. The Plaintiffs' core claim
is that GreenSky, in its offering documents, failed adequately to
disclose material changes in the composition of GreenSky' s
business, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act, and in violation of Items 303 and 503 of Regulation
S-K.
On July 3, 2019, both (1) the GreenSky officers and directors and
(2) the underwriters involved in the IPO, moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Hellerstein heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss on
Nov. 25, 2019.
For the reasons stated on the record, Judge Hellerstein denied the
motion. However, the Judge granted the motion to dismiss as to
Plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge's claims under Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, because the absence of causation is
clear.
A case management conference is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2020 to
chart further progress in the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uBKvyz from Leagle.com.
The Fund Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Alice Buttrick,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Donald A. Broggi, Scott +
Scott, L.L.P., Ji Eun Kim, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Max
Raphael Schwartz, Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Thomas Livezey Laughlin,
IV, Scott + Scott, L.L.P. & Steven Jeffrey Toll --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Rustam Mustafin, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Douglas Bunch, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Bradley Yu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz
LLP.
Mitchell DeVivo, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm.
Luciano Felice, Movant, represented by Ira M. Press, Kirby
McInerney LLP.
Jason Han, Movant, represented by Eduard Korsinsky, Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP.
Leslie W. Winegarden, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Avi
Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, Movant, represented by
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP.
David Passerallo, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.
Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Movant, represented
by Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow, LLP.
GreenSky, Inc., David Zalik, Robert Partlow, Joel Babbit, Gerald
Benjamin, John Flynn, Gregg Freishtat, Nigel Morris & Robert Sheft,
Defendants, represented by Karin A. DeMasi -- kdemasi@cravath.com
-- Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Lauren Kristen Roberta Kennedy --
lkennedy@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, JPMorgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley
and Co. LLC, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner, & Smith Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Raymond James & Associates,
Inc., Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.
& Fifth Third Securities, Inc., Defendants, represented by Todd G.
Cosenza, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Elizabeth J. Bower, Willkie
Farr & Gallagher LLP, Sarah Matlack Wastler, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP & Timothy Gerard Fleming, Willkie Farr & Gallagher
LLP.
HIPNATION OPERATIONS: Class Certification Sought in Acosta Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARLON ACOSTA, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. HIPNATION
OPERATIONS & SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-09315-WBV-DMD
(E.D. La.), moves for certification of class.
Mr. Acosta notes that this Motion is being submitted pursuant to
Local Rule 23.1(B) and reserves the right to supplement it after
conducting class-related discovery. He contends that the proposed
class is legally and factually appropriate and warranted, and his
Motion should be granted.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 534-5005
Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
jmk@beaumontcostales.com
HUNTER WARFIELD: Valdez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield. The
case is styled as Therese Valdez, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00190 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Hunter Warfield is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
J MANN INC: Bailey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J Mann Inc. The case
is styled as Ashanti Bailey, and other members of the general
public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. J Mann Inc., Eco Thrift Corporation, Does
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2020-00272968-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 9, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other employment".
J Mann, Inc., doing business as Eco Thrift, operates as a
merchandise store. The Company offers shoes, accessories, books,
electronics, housewares and furniture, toys, and tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is epresented by Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
KING HENRY VIII: Crosby Seeks Unpaid Minimum Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dashawn Crosby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. King Henry VIII, Inc., Renata Heindl,
Samantha Sanson, Samantha Sanson Consulting, Inc., Doe Managers 1-3
and Does 4-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-10921 (C.D.
Cal., December 27, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wage including all tips kept by the
employer, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located
at 13443 Crenshaw Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90250 where
Crosby worked as an exotic dancer. She claims that she worked in
excess of forty hours per week yet did not receive overtime pay and
only was only compensated in the form of tips from club patrons.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
jacob@kristensenlaw.com
KOHN LAW: Class Certification Bid in Rozani Lawsuit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JULIAN ROZANI, the Plaintiff,
v. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., the Defendant, Case No. 20‐CV‐029 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on Jan.
8, 2020, granting the Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings on the motion for class certification.
The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose
under Damasco, the Court says.
On January 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In
this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in
the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings
on that motion.
In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."
Kohn Law provides legal services. The company practices in a
various areas such as credit card, municipal, medical finance, and
consumer debt, as well as repossession actions and insurance
subrogation claims.[CC]
LE POISSON ROUGE: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Poisson Rouge
Group NYC, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for
himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Le Poisson Rouge Group NYC, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00214 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Le Poisson Rouge (often referred to as LPR) is a music venue and
multimedia art cabaret in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
LOW OVERRUN: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Low Overrun LLC. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Low Overrun LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00212 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Low Overrun LLC is a private business located at 215 Bowery New
York, NY 10002.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
MANNA PRO PRODUCTS: Hale Files Suit in Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manna Pro Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Ashley Hale, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Manna Pro Products,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-mc-00005-TLB (W.D. Ark., Jan. 10,
2020).
The nature of suit is state as Other Statutory Actions.
Manna Pro Products LLC manufactures and markets animal feed
products. The Company offers products for equines, rabbits, goats,
poultry, cats, dogs, pigs, and other animals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Kent Hirsch, Esq.
Hirsch Law Firm, P. A.
107 W. Emma Avenue
Springdale, AR 72764
Phone: (479) 751-0251
Fax: (479) 751-0490
Email: kent@hirschlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura Bentele, Esq.
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Class of Inmates Certified in Miller Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Damon R. Leichty grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, supported by a stipulation, in the lawsuit entitled
JAMES MILLER, et al., on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated v. MARSHALL COUNTY, INDIANA, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00842-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.).
The class is defined as: all persons currently confined, or who
will in the future be confined, in the Marshall County Jail.
According to the Order, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class on September 26, 2019. The parties subsequently filed a
stipulation to certify the class on November 25, 2019.
The Court says it has an independent obligation to ensure the
requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are met, regardless of any stipulation, citing Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011) (requiring a "rigorous
analysis" of class certification issues); and Davis v. Hutchins,
321 F.3d 641, 649 (7th Cir. 2003).
Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs
have satisfied all the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[CC]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Cole Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Wesley Cole,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00035 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fitzgerald Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Terrence
Fitzgerald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
American International College, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00042
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fouts Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled John Fouts, Keith
Busmire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Santa Clara University, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00032 (N.D.
Ill., Jan. 9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Howe Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as William Howe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Whittier
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00037 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taylor Files PI Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Sean Taylor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00043 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Brian Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00038 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Shifra Gordon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide
Credit, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00283
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic st
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
NESTLE WATERS : Chong Files Mislabeling Suit Over Bottled Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Chong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nestle Waters North America Inc., and Does
1 through 10., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10901 (C.D. Cal.,
December 27, 2019), seek restitution, disgorgement and/or the
imposition of a constructive trust upon all profits, benefits and
compensation that Nestle Waters North America obtained from the
sale of their "Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water" resulting from
unjust enrichment/breach of quasi contract and violation of
California's Business and Professions Code and Civil Code.
Chong alleges that Nestle misrepresented that their bottled water
is made from 100% Arrowhead Mountain spring water as shown on their
label (with the background picture of the Arrowhead Mountain and
the lake in front of the mountain) despite the fact that it is only
one of their six sources. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan Hong, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP.
4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 509-6505
Fax: (949) 335-6647
Email: jhong48@gmail.com
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: McClendon's Bid to Certify Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the lawsuit titled MARIETTA MCCLENDON v.
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:17-cv-00404 (M.D. Tenn.).
Following the Court's Order of July 26, 2019, the parties in the
lawsuit filed supplemental briefs on the issue of class
certification.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, Judge
Campbell denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff's Motion to File Supplemental Memorandum is moot,
Judge Campbell adds.[CC]
OASIS LIFESTYLE: Faces Warren Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD A. WARREN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. OASIS LIFESTYLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00048 (N.D. Ind.,
Jan. 14, 2020), seeks to address the class-wide wage and hour
violations committed by Oasis against its hourly-paid employees,
who are required by Oasis and by law to wear significant Personal
Protective Equipment while working.
The Plaintiff alleges that Oasis is and has been taking illegal
wage deductions from its employees' pay checks for costs of
legally-required PPE. These deductions are taken in violation of
Indiana's Wage Assignment Statute, and result in the underpayment
of wages in violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, says the
complaint.
The same illegal deductions also violate the Fair Labor Standards
Act, particularly as the deductions cause overtime violations,
because Oasis is violating the FLSA's rule that wages (including
payment of an overtime wage) must be paid free and clear,
unconditionally, and not subject to any kickbacks, the Plaintiff
contends. He adds that Oasis is and has been underpaying its
employees' wages on a class-wide basis as a result of a
company-wide policy or scheme in which Oasis fails and refuses to
pay employees from their first principal work activity each day
until their last principal work activity.
Mr. Warren is a former Oasis employee. He was hired in October 2017
to work as an hourly-paid production employee. He voluntarily
resigned from employment in February or March 2018.
Oasis operates its manufacturing facility in Plymouth, Marshall
County, Indiana. Oasis manufactures home bath products, such as
shower stalls and bases and combination tubs and showers. The
products Oasis manufactures have high resin and fiberglass content
and production workers work with raw resin and fiberglass
materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
- and -
Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
1905 South New Market St., Ste. 220
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone: (317) 743-0614
Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
E-Mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
OMNI HOTELS: Williams Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2020CH00496 (Ill. Cir., Jan. 14,
2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
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, the Defendant uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires workers at one of Defendant's locations to use
their fingerprints as a means of authentication. When its Illinois
workers begin their time with the Defendant, the Defendant requires
them to scan their fingerprints into a time management database,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's scanning and retention
of its workers' fingerprints without informed consent is clearly
unlawful in Illinois. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant
required her to use a fingerprint-based timekeeping system, and
thus, every time she clocked in or out of a shift or for a meal
break, the Defendant captured, collected, or otherwise obtained her
biometric identifier.
Plaintiff Candace Williams worked at the Defendant's Chicago hotel
from February 2019 to May 2019, in Chicago, Illinois.
The Defendant operates a hotel resort located at 676 N. Michigan
Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
E-mail: amz@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@keHerlenkner.com
PALEO ON THE GO: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paleo on the Go, LLC.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paleo on the Go,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00220 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Paleo On The Go is a meal delivery service company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-71717
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Oswald-Green FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey has dismissed the complaint captioned
ALEXANDRA OSWALD-GREEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC
and JOHN DOES 1-25. Defendants, Case No. 19-07337-BRM-LHG (D.
N.J.).
The dispute arises out of Oswald-Green's putative class action
claim, alleging PFS' debt collection practice violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA") by failing to convey the
requirement that a consumer must dispute a debt in writing. Some
time prior to Oct. 3, 2018, Oswald-Green allegedly incurred a
financial obligation which was assigned to PFS for debt collection
purposes. On Oct. 3, 2018, PFS mailed a letter to Oswald-Green in
connection with the debt. Oswald-Green alleges the Letter violates
the FDCPA by omitting the requirements that she must request
validation and make any dispute in writing.
On Feb. 28, 2019, Oswald-Green filed her two-count FDCPA Complaint.
On April 10, 2019, PFS filed the Motion to Dismiss. On May 1,
2019, Oswald-Green filed an opposition to PFS' Motion to Dismiss.
PFS argues the Complaint should be dismissed because the language
in the Letter complies with FDCPA requirements. It claims the
Letter does not overshadow or mislead the consumer regarding the
ability and process by which to dispute the underlying debt.
Additionally, PFS asserts the language in the Letter is not only
consistent, but almost identical to the very language used by
Congress in the statute itself.
Oswald-Green argues the Letter violates the FDCPA because it fails
to clearly and effectively convey that it was required to dispute
the debt in writing. Specifically, Oswald-Green claims that PFS's
failure to include "in writing" in the first sentence of the
G-Notice was a per se violation of Section 1692g(a)(3).
Furthermore, she alleges PFS violated Section 1692e by using the
conditional word "if" in the second and third sentences of the
Letter, which only further served to confuse Ms. Oswald-Green as to
whether she was required to dispute the debt in writing, or whether
a verbal dispute could suffice.
Judge Martinotti opines that the least sophisticated consumer is
charged with reading the entire document and is assumed to
understand the plain language of a standard validation notice. As
the Court reasoned in Borozan v. Fin. Recovery Servs., the use of
the word "unless" in the first sentence informs the consumer the
consequences of failing to dispute the debt, while the second
sentence instructs how to dispute the debt. Because the Letter
clearly conveys to the least sophisticated consumer the requirement
disputes be submitted in writing, PFS did not violate the
requirements of Section 1692g(a)(3).
Section 1692e forbids the use of any false representation or
deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.
However, in the Circuit, when allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e(10) are based on the same language or theories as allegations
under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, the analysis of the Section 1692g
claim is usually dispositive. Therefore, based on her analysis,
because Oswald-Green fails to state a claim under Section 1692g,
her claim under Section 1692e also fails. Accordingly, the Judge
holds that PFS' debt collection letter does not violate Section
1692g or Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA.
For these reasons, Judge Martinotti granted PFS' Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/tkl81E from Leagle.com.
ALEXANDRA OSWALD-GREEN, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by YAAKOV SAKS --
ysaks@steinsakslegal.com -- Stein Saks, PLLC.
PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, represented by AARON
RAPHAEL EASLEY -- aeasley@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN,
NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.
PNC FINANCIAL: Minor FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Mich. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as CASEY MINOR and ALEXIS
YARBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00114 (Filed Feb. 12, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Pittsburgh) on Jan. 14, 2020.
The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00058-CB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon.
The case is a collective and class action brought by the
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons employed by the Defendant, arising from the Defendant's
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant is engaged in retail banking, including residential
mortgage, corporate and institutional banking and asset management,
providing many of its products and services nationally.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: rjohnston@sommerspc.com
mturner@sommerspc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick Michael Edsenga, Esq.
MILLER JOHNSON PLC (GRAND RAPIDS)
45 Ottawa SW, Ste. 1100
P.O. Box 306
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0306
Telephone: (616) 831-1713
E-mail: edsengap@millerjohnson.com
- and -
Robert S. Whitman, Esq.
BAACH, ROBINSON & LEWIS
One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8900
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Diez Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Louis Diez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Professional
Claims Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00187 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. provides receivable collection and
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Paul Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Carrell Paul, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius
Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00198 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 10, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions is a provider of account recovery and debt
collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue
cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com
RANDSTAD NA: DeMino Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Michelle DeMino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Randstad North America, Inc., Randstad US,
LLC; Randstad Professionals US, LLC; and Randstad Technologies,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06931 (W.D. N.Y., December 28,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.
DeMino worked as an Account Manager for Randstad, placing temporary
and permanent employees with their business customers. He regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime
pay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Mullin, Esq.
FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
7635 Main St. Fishers
P.O. Box 440
Fishers, NY 14453
Tel: (585) 869-0210
Fax: (585) 869-0223
Email: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com
ROBERT BROGDEN'S: Parties Supplement Bid for Cert. in Foster Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled ASHLEY FOSTER, individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. ROBERT BROGDEN'S
OLATHE BUICK GMC, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02095-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.),
file with the Court a joint supplemental motion for final class
certification approval pursuant to the Court's January 3, 2020
telephone hearing and Memorandum and Order.
As set forth in the Court's Memorandum and Order before the Court
can approve class settlement, the Court must enter a final class
certification, citing Barbosa v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co., No.
12-2311-KHV, 2015 WL 4920292, at *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 18, 2015) citing
McCaffrey 2011 WL32436, at *3. The Parties are required to set
forth the final certification factors the Court reviews to
determine whether plaintiffs are similarly situated for the purpose
of final collective action certification.
According to the Joint Supplemental Motion, although the 14 class
members had various job titles and duties with the Defendant, i.e.,
some were administrative employees working in the front office
while others worked in the auto shop, they all are or were hourly
employees subjected to the same automatic lunch deduction timeclock
policy in effect from March 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016 when, as
the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendant implemented a new paperless
computer software program through which these same employees
tracked their periods of work and non-work by logging into a
computer and effectively punching in and out diligently.
The Parties assert, among other things, that in this matter, all 14
collective class members were subjected to the automatic pay
deduction protocol, which deducted 30 minutes of time from hourly
employees daily pay record, allegedly even when lunch breaks were
not taken. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are factually "similarly
situated."[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy L. Coopman, Esq.
Christopher R. Mirakian, Esq.
David W. White, Esq.
FOLAND, WICKENS, ROPER, HOFER & CRAWFORD, P.C.
1200 Main Street, Suite 2200
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 472-7474
Facsimile: (816) 472-6262
E-mail: acoopman@fwpclaw.com
cmirakian@fwpclaw.com
dwhite@fwpclaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James C. Morrow, Esq.
Peggy A. Wilson, Esq.
MORROW WILLNAUER CHURCH, LLC
8330 Ward Parkway, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64114
Telephone: (816) 382-1382
Facsimile: (816) 382-1383
E-mail: jmorrow@mwcattorneys.com
pwilson@mwcattorneys.com
SEP INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA and AMWA, Williams Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SEP, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-04009-SOH (W.D.
Ark., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at its store in Texarkana,
Arkansas. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant's pay practices
were the same for all hourly workers across its stores.
SEP, Inc. is an operating company for several grocery store chains,
including the Save-A-Lot chain the Plaintiff worked in.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris W. Burks, Esq.
Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
WH LAW, PLLC
1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891–6000
E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com
brandon@whlawoffices.com
SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS: Cable Installers Class Certified in Garza
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad grants the Parties' Joint
Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and
Notice to Conditional Class in the lawsuit entitled GENEVIVE GARZA,
Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v.
SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and CREATIVE BROADBAND SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00700-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.).
The conditionally certified class consists of:
All Cable Installers who performed services for Creative
Broadband Solutions and were paid on a piece-rate basis
since January 1, 2017.
According to the Order, the form and content of Exhibits 1-5 are
approved. The Defendant shall submit the names, addresses,
telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all potential class
members to the Plaintiff's counsel in an electronic and searchable
spreadsheet format (such as Excel) within seven days. The
Plaintiff shall send Notice and Consent forms to the potential
opt-ins within seven days after receipt from the Defendant.
The opt-in period begins on the day that the Plaintiff sends the
Notice and Consents, and ends sixty (60) days afterward. The
Plaintiff shall send the reminder postcard and reminder e-mail 30
days after the initial mailing of the Notice and Consents to those
who have not responded.
The Court acknowledges the Defendant's right to move for
decertification at the appropriate time.[CC]
STOCKX LLC: Casey PI Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Sean Casey, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. StockX, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-23285 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on Jan. 13, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10077-VAR-DRG.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
StockX is an online marketplace and clothing reseller, primarily of
sneakers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Shamis & Gentile, PA
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David M. Poell, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
70 West Madison St., Suite 4800
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 499-6349
Fax: (312) 499-4745
STRETCH LAB: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stretch Lab
Franchise, LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Stretch Lab Franchise, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00172 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
StretchLab is the first boutique fitness franchise that offers
one-on-one assisted stretching services in a fun, energetic,
communal environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SUTTER HEALTH: UEBT Touts $575 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
The UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust ("UEBT"), on behalf of the
certified class of plaintiffs, and the People of the State of
California, sought preliminary approval of a historic, eve-of-trial
settlement resolving all claims in their antitrust class action
against Sutter Health and its affiliates.
UEBT Chair Jacques Loveall issued the following statement:
"Our settlement with Sutter represents an extraordinary result for
working people, their employers, and every Californian who has
struggled with the high cost of healthcare. From the outset, our
goal has been to not only achieve justice for the members of the
class, but to also put an end to the anticompetitive behavior that
has allowed Sutter to charge inflated prices. Today, we are asking
the Court to approve a settlement that delivers on both of these
goals."
"Our case focused on allegations that Sutter has leveraged its
market power to insulate its providers from competition on price
and quality, thereby allowing it to charge inflated prices. After
five and a half years of litigation, Sutter has agreed to a
one-time cash payment of $575 million to resolve the damages claims
of the class and the People's claim for disgorgement. In addition,
Sutter has agreed to comprehensive injunctive relief that will stop
the anticompetitive conduct at the heart of this litigation and
ensure that Sutter competes on price and quality."
"It is an honor to represent the union-employer trusts and private
and government employers that are members of the class. We are
proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Attorney General Xavier
Becerra and the members of the class in achieving justice and
restoring fairness. This is proof that when we join together, we
can achieve great results."
"This is only the beginning of what we can and will accomplish as a
united voice for self-funded payors."
Plaintiff Class Counsel: Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP (San Francisco,
CA); Farella Braun + Martel LLP (San Francisco, CA); Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington, DC); Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel &
Frederick PLLC (Washington, DC); and McCracken, Stemerman &
Holsberry, LLP (San Francisco, CA).
Case caption: UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, v. Sutter Health, et al., Case
No. CGC-14-538451, pending in San Francisco Superior Court. [GN]
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Katzoff Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A.
The case is styled as Yisroel Katzoff, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Tenaglia & Hunt,
P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00181 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A. is a full service regional law firm handling
matters in the Courts of New York, New Jersey and across the
US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
TERRACE CAFE: Steveson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tipped Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE STEVESON and JALAND BURTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TERRACE CAFE, LLC, TERRACE CAFE OF
BALLANTYNE, LLC, and STEWART PENICK, in his individual capacity,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00027 (W.D.N.C., Jan. 14, 2020), is brought under
Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
seeking to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages,
reimbursement of withheld tips, and statutory penalties.
The Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers were servers
and bartenders ("Tipped Workers") who worked at TC located at 4625
Piedmont Row Drive, in Charlotte, North Carolina, or TCB located at
14815 Ballantyne Village Way, also in Charlotte.
The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of failing to timely pay all
regular wages earned on their scheduled paydays, including the next
regular payday following the termination of their employment.
Plaintiff Steveson was employed by Defendants TC and Penick as a
Bartender at the SouthPark location since March 2012. Plaintiff
Burton was employed by TCB and Penick from May 2019 until November
8, 2019.
TC was a restaurant in the SouthPark area of Charlotte, North
Carolina, that closed for business on November 6, 2019. TCB was a
restaurant in the Ballantyne area of Charlotte that closed for
business on November 8, 2019. Penick is an owner, member and/or
officer of TC and TCB.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Geoffrey A. Marcus, Esq.
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Craig L. Leis, Esq.
GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
Charlotte, NC 8277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
Facsimile: (704) 612-0038
E-Mail: geoffrey@gibbonsleis.com
phil@gibbonsleis.com
craig@gibbonsleis.com
TIME WARNER: Sydney Moves for Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JEFFREY SYDNEY and STEVEN CAPOUSIS, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT-ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP, Case No.
5:13-cv-00286-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move for an
order:
-- conditionally certifying a proposed class and collective;
-- directing the Defendants to provide documents identifying
potential class and collective members within 15 days of
the Order;
-- ruling that the parties meet and confer concerning a
proposed notice to be sent to all potential class and
collective members within 15 days of the Order on this
Motion; and
-- ruling that the claims of the potential class and
collective members be tolled.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
Justin S. Clark, Esq.
L. Graeme Spicer, Esq.
LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 967-3000
Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com
jclark@levineblit.com
gspicer@levineblit.com
TRASH AND VAUDEVILLE: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trash and Vaudeville,
Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trash
and Vaudeville, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00203 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Trash and Vaudeville is a store located in Manhattan, New York. The
store is associated with the clothing styles of punk rock and
various other counter culture movements, and has been a leading
source of fashion inspiration since its inception.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
U.S. GOV'T: Judge Weighs Asylum Seekers' Proposed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Morrissey, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that a San Diego judge is considering who will be included in a
lawsuit that challenges a policy denying asylum seekers access to
their attorneys during interviews that determine whether they will
have to wait for their immigration cases in Mexico.
Judge Dana Sabraw, who also presides over the on-going case over
family separation at the border, heard arguments on December 20
about whether to expand a lawsuit brought on behalf of one
asylum-seeking family to become a class action. Sabraw has already
ordered that the family be allowed access to their attorney before
and during the interview with an asylum officer about their fear of
return to Mexico.
Though the family had not passed an earlier interview when they had
to go through it on their own, they managed to pass when their
attorney was present because of Sabraw's order. They were allowed
into the United States while their asylum case is pending.
"This case is fundamentally about people's rights in proceedings
that could determine whether they live or die," said Bardis Vakili,
Esq., senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
in San Diego and one of the lawyers representing the proposed class
of asylum seekers.
The courtroom packed to capacity for the hour and 41 minute
hearing, with about 40 people seated inside and another crowd
waiting in the hallway.
Archith Ramkumar, Esq., an attorney with the Department of Justice
arguing on behalf of the federal government, told Sabraw a number
of reasons why the federal government believes that the case
shouldn't move forward as a class action. He emphasized that
Congress did not say specifically that migrants should be given
access to counsel in the statute that the Trump administration has
used to send asylum seekers back to across the border in its
Migrant Protection Protocols, known widely as "Remain in Mexico."
That omission, Ramkumar said, was significant. He argued that meant
that Congress did not want asylum seekers to have access to lawyers
when they were being returned to Mexico to wait out their
immigration proceedings.
Monika Langarica, Esq., an ACLU lawyer who previously worked as an
immigration attorney, countered that the statute also does not
mention the interviews that migrants are given if they say they are
afraid to return to Mexico.
Those interviews, called non-refoulement interviews, are based on a
key principle in international and U.S. asylum law that says that
people should not be returned to a country where they would face
persecution or torture.
Asylum officers have raised alarms about the Trump administration's
implementation of non-refoulement interviews, saying that they
believe many are being sent back to harm in Mexico. Human rights
organizations have reported hundreds of cases in which returned
asylum seekers have been kidnapped, raped or otherwise attacked.
"This is a traumatized population by definition. Many have suffered
unspeakable harm," Vakili said. "They don't understand the system
being imposed on them. They need their lawyers."
He emphasized that the lawsuit is not about ruling on the decisions
of non-refoulement interviews but rather ensuring that an attorney
is present so that there are more accurate outcomes.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
While the class action case makes its way through the court system,
asylum seekers say they are still being denied access to their
lawyers during non-refoulement interviews.
A Salvadoran woman and her three children faced the interview alone
last week even after their attorney Robyn Barnard, of Human Rights
First, pushed to be allowed to appear by telephone. Barnard made
requests to Scott Simpson, the immigration judge hearing the
woman's asylum case, as well as to several federal agencies.
The asylum-seeking woman asked not to be identified because she
believes that she is still in danger. The family has already been
kidnapped once in Mexico and continues to face threats in Tijuana.
Barnard told Simpson that the family was afraid to go back to
Mexico and asked him to order that she be allowed to be present by
phone for their interview.
"I understand what you're asking for and why you're asking for it,
but I don't know if I have the authority or power," Simpson told
her.
Barnard pointed out that Rico Bartolomei, assistant chief
immigration judge in San Diego, had recently made such an order on
a similar motion for another one of her cases. Simpson said he
would have to read her motion and would decide later.
After the hearing, Barnard continued her pleas to the guards
contracted by ICE to take the family back to the border.
Two days later, the woman called her. The family was back in
Tijuana. They'd had the interview, and they hadn't passed. No one
had tried to contact Barnard.
"She is sad but hoping in God that they will be safe and all will
go well in her case," Barnard said of her client.
ICE did not comment when asked about the case. Custom and Border
Protection deferred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
USCIS deferred to the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
EOIR, which employs immigration judges and is responsible for
immigration court, declined to comment, citing the pending
litigation in front of Sabraw.
Sabraw said he will make a decision about the class action after
the holidays. [GN]
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Koufopanteli Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VENGROFF WILLIAMS,
INC. The case is styled as Tatiana Koufopanteli, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENGROFF
WILLIAMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00581 (D.N.J., Jan. 16,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Vengroff Williams, Inc. provides financial services. The Company
offers third party recovery, insurance services, medical
subrogation, revenue cycle management, medical collections, invoice
and statement processing, payment monitoring, and legal
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
VINTAGE TWIN: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vintage Twin,
LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Vintage Twin, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00202 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 9, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Vintage Twin is an NYC-based brand that re-creates vintage
clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
VITA-MIX CORP: Post-Judgment Interest Bid in Linneman Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Vicki Linneman, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-748
(S.D. Ohio), Judge Susan J. Dlott of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted (i) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Post-Judgment Interest, and (ii) the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal.
On May 3, 2018, the District Court entered an Order approving the
class action settlement in the Linneman case against Vita-Mix
Corporation. On June 25, 2019, the District Court granted in part
the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Awards, and awarded the Class Counsel's request for
$41,194.77 in expenses as well as $3,000 in service awards for each
of the two named Plaintiffs. On Sept. 11, 2019, the District Court
granted in part the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and
awarded fees in the amount of $3,923,017.96. The same day, the
Clerk entered a judgment in the amount of $3,923,017.96.
On Oct. 9, 2019, the Defendants gave notice of an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the District
Court's two Orders on fees, expenses, and service awards as well as
the Clerk's judgment. In their Motion to Stay Judgment Pending
Appeal, the Defendants move the District Court pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 62(b) for Court approval to stay the operation of the
remaining judgment it has yet to pay and approve a bond in the
amount of $2,277.657.98, which it asserts represents the unpaid
judgment amount.
The parties dispute whether bond in the case should include
post-judgment interest. Under 28 U.S.C. Secton 1961(a), interest
will be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in
a district court. The Defendants argue that this statute does not
apply to settlements approved by a district court. They rely on
Reynolds v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., in which the court found that
Section 1961 does not apply to settlements and noted "sparse" case
law on the point. They reason that because the case involves
attorneys' fees awarded pursuant to a Court-approved settlement
agreement, it falls within a line of cases holding that the
post-judgment interest statute does not apply.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants rely on out-of-district
cases that are distinguishable because they did not involve a
court-determined fee. They contend that a fee determined and
awarded by a court fits within the parameters of Section 1961,
which states that post-judgment interest "shall" be paid.
Judge Dlott finds that the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, expenses,
and service award is subject to post-judgment interest under
Section 1961. The interest will accrue from May 3, 2018 -- the
date that the Court entered its Order approving the settlement,
which included the parties' agreement that the Plaintiffs are
entitled to a reasonable award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
She also finds that it is the date on which the Plaintiffs became
unconditionally entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. The Sixth
Circuit precedent noted above is clear that the parties' caveat,
that the amount of [the reasonable award of attorneys' fees will be
determined by the Court at a later date, should not change the
analysis.
While she appreciates that there are distinctions between the cases
cited by the Plaintiffs (e.g., fee-shifting provisions) and the
precise facts at bar, Judge Dlott is not persuaded that they
warrant departure from the post-judgment interest principles set
out in Drabik and Leflan in the context of attorneys' fee awards.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Post-Judgment Interest is therefore
granted. The Defendants' Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal is
granted with a supersedas bond set in the amount of $2,413,267.94.
Because an award of post judgment interest is mandatory, it is not
necessary to amend the judgment.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ycMe7S from Leagle.com.
Kamala Bennett, Objector, represented by Simina Vourlis --
svourlis@vourlislaw.com -- The Law Offices of Simina Vourlis.
Franklin DeJulius & Jon Lorenzo, Objectors, represented by Edward
W. Cochran.
Avagail Short, Objector, pro se.
Vicki A Linneman, On behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated & Obadiah N Ritchey, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Biller --
abiller@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC,
Christopher P. Finney -- chris@finneylawfirm.com -- Finney Law
Firm, LLC, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com --
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Justin Charles Walker --
justin@finneylawfirm.com -- Finney Law Firm, LLC, Paul M. De Marco
-- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC,
Terence Richard Coates -- tcoates@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock
& DeMarco, LLC, Christopher D. Stock -- cstock@msdlegal.com --
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC & Wilbert Benjamin Markovits --
bmarkovits@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC.
Vita-Mix Corporation, Vita-Mix Management Corporation & Vita-Mix
Manufacturing Corporation, Defendants, represented by Carolyn Ann
Taggart -- ctaggart@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur, LLP, J. Philip Calabrese -- pcalabrese@porterwright.com --
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Tracey L. Turnbull --
tturnbull@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP,
Ana P. Crawford -- acrawford@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur, Caroline Gentry -- cgentry@porterwright.com --
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur & Ryan Lewis Graham , Porter --
rgraham@porterwright.com -- Wright, Morris & Arthur.
VITAL RECOVERY: Oh Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Diana Oh, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital
Recovery Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00366 (D.N.J.,
Jan. 10, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Vital Recovery Services, LLC ("VRS") is a fully licensed, national,
third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip
tracing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
WAWA INC: Faces Consumer Credit Class Action in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAWA, INC. The case
is styled as Gary Nickerson, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00203-GEKP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Consumer Credit.
Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK PC.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 985-9177
Fax: (215) 985-4169
Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
WAWA: Otto Files PI Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAWA. The case is
styled as Steve Otto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAWA, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00171
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 9, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Wawa is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations
located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington,
D.C., and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan R. Gross, Esq.
LAW OFFICES BERNARD GROSS, P C
450 JOHN WANAMAKER BLDG
JUNIPER & MARKET STS.
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 561-3600
Fax: (215) 561-3000
Email: susang@bernardmgross.com
WRIGHT BROS: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Honaker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion
to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and to Authorize
Notice in the lawsuit captioned SCOTT HONAKER, On behalf of himself
and those similarly situated v. WRIGHT BROS. PIZZA, INC., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01528-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio).
The Court conditionally certifies this collective action class:
All delivery drivers employed at Domino's Pizza stores
owned/operated by Defendants Wright Bros. Pizza, Inc. and
Thomas Wright from November 27, 2015 to present.
Judge Marbley approves the substance of the proposed Form and
Method of Notice. Notice shall be sent, to the extent possible, by
regular mail and e-mail in the form proposed by the parties, and
putative opt-in Plaintiffs shall be given sixty (60) days from the
date they receive notice to return the consent form to the
Plaintiffs' counsel.
Pursuant to the terms of the jointly proposed notice form, the
Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiffs a list of the
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
dates of employment, and job titles for members of the putative
class within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. The
Plaintiffs' counsel shall disseminate notice within fifteen (15)
days of receiving the contact information from the Defendants.
According to the Opinion & Order, Plaintiffs Scott and Rhonda
Honaker worked as Wright Bros. Pizza delivery drivers. They filed
this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
employees consisting of delivery drivers at least five Wright Bros.
Pizza locations in Ohio. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants' reimbursement policy was inadequate and violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") because it did not cover all of
the Plaintiffs' driving expenses, who are paid at or close to
minimum wage.[CC]
*********
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 2020. 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 ***