/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200211.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 30
Headlines
407 WEST: Tobias Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
441 MOTORS LLC: Barbieri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
AEG PRESENTS SE: Hill Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fielder Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALBERTSONS LLC: Escapes Class Action Over Pharmacy Robocalls
ALLERGAN PLC: Inks $300MM Deal to End Pay-For-Delay Class Action
ALLY FINANCIAL: Cottrell Files FCRA Suit in Arizona
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Breached Ring Cameras
AMERICAN HEALTH: Johnson Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Post Balks at Culligan Merger Deal
AVON CANADA: Goldblatt Partners Files Class Action
BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES: Crain Seeks Overtime Wages for Inspectors
BLUEGRASS CONTRACTORS: Painters Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
BURFORD CAPITAL: Investors Drop Class Action
BYTEDANCE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in California vs. TikTok
CAPIO PARTNERS: Murray Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA
CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Wegner Claims
CAS CONSULTING: Munoz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHICK-FIL-A INC: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly
CIAMPA MANAGEMENT: Avelar Seeks OT Pay; Hits Missing Pay Stubs
CITY BEVERAGE: McGraw Hits Biometrics Data Collection
CITY OF LAVAL: Residents Affected By Flooding File Class Action
CLEARVIEW AI: Hall Sues over BIPA Violations
COMERICA BANK: El-Hage Files Suit in Michigan
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Has $53MM Deal in Securities Fraud Class Action
CONENTRIX SERVICES: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Jones Alleges
CONXALL CORP: Sirko Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
CRACK SHACK: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly
CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES: Rosenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New York
CREDIT CORP: Meisels Alleges Violation under FDCPA
CURIOUSER PRODUCTS: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
DALTON WADE: Faces Caringello Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
DCH HEALTHCARE: Rhodes Files Suit in Alabama
DELTA AIR: Fails to Offer COBRA-Compliant Notice, Eierstock Says
DELUCA-MAISTO PROPERTIES: Laser Assert Breach of ADA
DESERT LAKE GROUP: Coyle Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
DICK'S SPORTING: Jones Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: CAG Files Interpleader Suit to Pay Funds
DSV AIR & SEA: Kelly Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS: Price Files FCRA Suit in California
ELK ENERGY: Lupardus Moves for Certification of Inspectors Class
ENERGY TRANSFER: Allegheny County Employee's Fund Hits Share Drop
EXELON CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rabinovitz Files Consumer Credit Suit in NY
F.A. BARTLETT TREE: Stanfield Files Suit in California
FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Tossed Due to Settlement
FIRSTECH INC: Fane Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
FLAGSHIP SECURITY: Yates Sues over FLSA Violations
FORMULA FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Auto Dialed Calls
GATEWAY PLAZA: Reaches Class Settlement with LeFrak Organization
GEORGE TYNDALL: Court to Approve $215M Class Action Settlement
GEORGE TYNDALL: Judge to OK Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement
GILBERT ROZON: Appellate Court Tosses Sexual Assault Class Action
GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Mega Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
GLOBAL CONTACT: Underpays Call Center Staff, Thompson Says
GOOGLE LLC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement in Google+ Class Action Suit
GREEN ROADS: Court Stays CBD Class Action
GRIEG SEAFOOD: Faces $500MM Class Action Over Price-Fixing
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HYATT CORPORATION: Crump Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
ICON TIME SYSTEMS: Bedolla Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
ICON TIME: Faces Bedolla Suit over BIPA Violations
INA DESIGNS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Alleges
J DAVID TAX LAW: Meyer Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
JAI MATA INC: Perez Files FLSA Suit in Tennessee
KEN RUBMAN: Faces Dressel Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
LCS WYNDEMERE: Kachiroubas Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Customers List Production in Schleifer Denied
LISA VANDERPUMP: Faces Class Action Over Wages at Restaurants
MANHATTAN PARKING: De La Cruz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARIO'S ITALIAN BAKERY: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA
MEDICREDIT INC: 5th Cir. Reverses Certification of Threats Suit
MESA PACKING: Miguel-Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Reimbursement
MICHAEL SCHNELL: Gonzales and Towne Sue over Unpaid Overtime
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Reminds of March 3 Deadline
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mathis Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MONARCH RECOVERY: Reus Sues over Unfair Debt Collection
NARY'S GRILL & PIZZA: Arista Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Mullen Files Suit in Arizona
NAVISTAR: Settlement in MaxxForce Engine Action Gets Final Approval
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Calif. Court Junks Retirees ERISA Lawsuit
NSC TECH: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
NUSIL TECHNOLOGY: Bell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
NVENT THERMAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardimon Claims
OAHU INTERSCHOLASTIC: Title IX Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
ORANGE TWIST: Gavin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Missed Breaks Pay
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Has to File Documentation on Settlement Bid
PERIWINKLES CATERING CORP: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA
PNC BANK: E. Thomas Proposes Class Action for TCPA Breach
POROS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA/IMWL, Cruz Says
POTOMAC FAMILY DINING: Colburn Alleges Violation under ADA
PUBLIC REPUTATION: Austin Wants Consumer Privacy Under TCPA
RALEIGH RADIOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mammograms
RES-CARE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Black Claims
RHT INC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
RING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hacked Camera
SEATTLE'S CHILDREN'S: Aspergillus Victims File Class Action Suit
SECOND ROUND: Keener Files FDCPA Suit in West Virgina
SRS DISTRIBUTION: Counce Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Lowinger Balks at Sale to Blackstone Unit
TECH USA: Lillard Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Mendoza Sues Over Defective Valve Springs
TOYOTA MOTOR: Cheng Sues Over Defective Low-Pressure Fuel Pumps
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Barbero Files FDCPA Suit in New York
TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Hanks Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 7th Circuit
TRUEACCORD CORP: Deiker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Illinois
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Howard Smith Law Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
US POSTAL SERVICE: Stole Wages from Mailmen, Tran et al. Allege
VIKING GROUP: Class Action Settlement Over Fire Sprinklers Reached
WELLS FARGO BANK: Lizana Files Civil Rights Suit in California
[*] Florida Court Seeks FCC/11th Cir. Guidance on ATDS Matter
[*] Ontario's Proposed Class Action Changes Harder for Plaintiff
*********
407 WEST: Tobias Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Tobias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 407 WEST 63RD, LLC d/b/a ASPIRED LIVING OF WESTMONT,
Case No. 2020L000150 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks
damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and
others' biometric identifiers and biometric information without
obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data
retention and destruction policies, as required by the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being
required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff
contends. The Plaintiff argues that if the Defendant's database of
digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data
breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and
immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities
stolen, among other serious issues.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to
recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized
collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in
violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois.
407 West 63rd, LLC d/b/a Aspired Living of Westmont is an Illinois
limited liability company doing business in DuPage County,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
- and -
Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Phone: (630) 333-0333
Email: peter@l-a.la w
patrick@l-a.law
441 MOTORS LLC: Barbieri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Barbieri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 441 MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-60060 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
411 Motors is a car dealership in Miami Florida. It attempted to
contact Barbieri via SMS on her cellular telephone in an attempt to
solicit their cars using an automatic telephone dialing system.
Barbieri did not give her express consent to be contacted in this
manner, says the complaint. [BN]
American Directions is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
AEG PRESENTS SE: Hill Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Adriana Barbieri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AEG Presents SE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-60061 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
AEG Presents SE is a live-entertainment company headquartered in
Los Angeles, California. It attempted to contact Barbieri via SMS
on her cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit their products
and/or services using an automatic telephone dialing system.
Barbieri did not give her express consent to be contact in this
manner, says the complaint. [BN]
Barbieri is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, Esq
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Aircastle Limited ("Aircastle")
(NYSE: AYR) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Aircastle by newly-formed entities controlled by
affiliates of Marubeni Corporation and Mizuho Leasing Company,
Limited (collectively, the "Buyers") announced on November 6, 2019
(the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Aircastle and its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Rosenblatt v. Aircastle
Limited, Case No. 1:19-cv-02295 (D. Del.).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.
On November 5, 2019, Aircastle entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Buyers. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Aircastle will
receive $32.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, the analyses performed by Aircastle's financial advisor.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Aircastle common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.
Contact:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Timothy J. Macfall, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Phone: (888) 969-4242
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Website: www.rigrodskylong.com
Email: info@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
sdr@rl-legal.com
tjm@rl-legal.com
[GN]
ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fielder Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH FIELDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. d/b/a
ALAMO 1, AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., AECOM C&E, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex., February 5, 2020) is
a collective action brought against Defendants for failure to
properly pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA by
employing Plaintiff Fielder and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refused to
compensate them in excess of 40 hours. Also, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate time and pay records.
Fielder resides in Houston, Texas, and was employed by Alamo as an
Inspector from approximately January 27, 2018 to August 24, 2019.
As an inspector, she was primarily responsible for visiting
properties damaged by Hurricane Harvey, documenting the damage to
FEMA units, and reporting any damage to Defendants. During her
employment with Defendants, she regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week but was not paid overtime.
AECOM is an infrastructure firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
ALBERTSONS LLC: Escapes Class Action Over Pharmacy Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit
claiming that grocery chain Albertsons LLC's robocalls for
prescription fill-ups violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 can't proceed as a class action, a federal court in
Idaho said.
Robert Dorfman claims that he received 21 prerecorded artificial
voice telephone messages from Albertsons, soliciting him to pick up
a pharmacy order that he'd never placed in the company's in-store
"Sav-On" pharmacies. Because these were wrong number calls, he
never gave the company consent to contact him, yet the calls
continued even after he asked them to stop, Dorfman said. [GN]
ALLERGAN PLC: Inks $300MM Deal to End Pay-For-Delay Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that with a jury
already chosen and a $63 billion merger in the works, Allergan PLC
has opted for the certainty of a $300 million settlement of an
antitrust class action alleging that two of its subsidiaries
engaged in pay-for-delay tactics to keep generic versions of its
Loestrin 24 FE contraceptive off the market.
The Dublin, Ireland-based pharmaceutical firm on Jan. 6 revealed
the amount of the settlement that was first reported in a December
court filing by plaintiffs' attorneys, and confirmed that it will
resolve all claims by direct purchasers, third-party payors and
opt-out plaintiffs in the class action that has been pending in
federal court in Providence, Rhode Island since 2013. [GN]
ALLY FINANCIAL: Cottrell Files FCRA Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial
Incorporated. The case is styled as Linda Cottrell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ally
Financial Incorporated doing business as: Ally Financial,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00251-DWL (D., Ariz., Feb. 4, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Ally Financial is a bank holding company organized in Delaware and
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin
Kazerouni Law Group APC
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (602) 230-4482
Email: david@kazlg.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Breached Ring Cameras
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Nickelsburg, writing for King5 News, reports that an
8-year-old in Mississippi, a Georgia woman lying in bed, a Michigan
family watching TV, and dozens of other Ring users were harassed by
hackers via their home security cameras, according to a new
lawsuit.
Two families whose Ring cameras were allegedly hacked brought the
lawsuit against Amazon, which owns the home security company. They
are seeking class-action status, claiming families across the
country who have suffered similar violations should be included in
the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, was brought by
two couples: Ashley LeMay and Dylan Blakeley; and Todd Craig and
Tania Amador.
LeMay and Blakeley claim a hacker accessed the Ring camera they had
set up in their daughters' room. They mounted the camera there so
LeMay could keep an eye on her daughters - particularly one prone
to seizures - while she worked overnight shifts at a nearby
hospital, according to the complaint. [GN]
AMERICAN HEALTH: Johnson Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Johnson, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. AMERICAN HEALTH
COMPANIES, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-02084-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the
Plaintiff.
The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff
for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at
one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by
the FLSA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Johnson was employed by and worked for the Defendant as a
Certified Nursing Assistant.
The Defendant oversees all aspects of operations for 29 skilled
nursing and rehabilitation centers in the Southeast, according to
its Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Post Balks at Culligan Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AQUAVENTURE HOLDIINGS LIMITED, DOUGLAS
BROWN, ANTHONY IBARGUEN, DEBRA COY, HUGH EVANS, PAUL HANRAHAN,
DAVID LINCOLN, CYRIL MEDUÑA, RICHARD F. REILLY, and TIMOTHY WHALL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00174-UNA (D. Del., February 4, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, on December 23, 2019, AquaVenture's
Board of Directors caused the company to enter into an agreement
and plan a merger with Culligan International Company, a Delaware
corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the
stockholders of the AquaVenture will receive $27.10 in cash for
each share of AquaVenture common stock they own.
Additionally, on January 27, 2020, Defendants filed a proxy
statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
According to the Complaint, Defendants omitted material information
regarding the Company's financial projections in the proxy
statement in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff owns AquaVenture common stock.
Defendant AquaVenture is a British Virgin Islands corporation. Its
common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol WAAS. Defendant is a multinational provider of WAAS
solutions that provide customers a reliable and cost-effective
source of clean drinking and processed water primarily under
long-term contracts that minimize capital investment by the
customer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
Email: gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
AVON CANADA: Goldblatt Partners Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Goldblatt Partners LLP has commenced a class action on behalf of
retirees of Avon Canada Inc. for terminating the post-retirement
benefits they earned over years of employment.
Avon Canada Inc. has announced that effective January 1, 2020, it
will cease to provide its retirees with post-retirement benefits.
These benefits consist of extended medical coverage and a death
benefit. Avon promised employees over several decades that they
would receive these post-retirement benefits. The promise was made
through written employee booklets, forms and letters.
The retirees of Avon were dedicated employees who worked for years
to earn their post-retirement benefits and who relied on the
promise that the benefits would be available in retirement. The
class action seeks reinstatement of the benefits or damages if the
benefits are not reinstated. The class consists of approximately
600 retirees of Avon Canada Inc.
Jody Brown, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners, stated:
The retirees in this class action gave their best employment years
to Avon on the explicit promise that Avon would provide
post-retirement benefits. The class members are elderly, on fixed
incomes, and particularly vulnerable to Avon's conduct. This class
action will ensure that promises made in exchange for class
members' years of loyal employment cannot be tossed aside because
those employees are now retired.
For more information, please contact Jody Brown at 416-979-4251 or
jbrown@goldblattpartners.com. [GN]
BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES: Crain Seeks Overtime Wages for Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Crain, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. BERGAILA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008
(W.D. Tex., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime pay and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Day Rate
Inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but the
Defendant did not pay them overtime wages. Instead of paying
overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid its Inspectors
a flat amount for each day worked without overtime compensation.
The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate
Inspectors as exempt from the overtime requirements under the
FLSA.
Plaintiff Kenneth Crain worked for the Defendant as an Inspector.
Bergaila bills itself as "a recognized leader in recruiting
engineering and technical design talent, ...connecting world-renown
oil and gas, engineering and construction, and oil field service
companies nationwide with talented professionals."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
litkin@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BLUEGRASS CONTRACTORS: Painters Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles W. Clouse, Larry R. Whitaker, Jr. and Alexis Mercado, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Bluegrass Contractors, Inc. of Lexington, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00011 (E.D. Ky., January 10, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime pay owed to workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
under Kentucky state law.
Bluegrass Contractors operate a contracting business where
Plaintiffs worked as painters for Defendant from about January 2015
until sometime in or around late 2017. They claim to have regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without overtime pay.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
CHRIS SANDERS LAW PLLC
517 West Ormsby Avenue
Louisville, KY 40203
Telephone: (502) 814-0094
Email: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRET, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
BURFORD CAPITAL: Investors Drop Class Action
--------------------------------------------
John Hyde, writing for Law Gazette, reports that investors have
dropped their class action against listed litigation funder Burford
Capital, the company confirmed.
The financier reported to the London Stock Exchange in January 2020
that the US securities action filed in August last year has been
withdrawn by the plaintiffs and dismissed in its entirety. Burford
said there is no litigation pending against it at present, other
than 'ordinary course skirmishing' within a small number of ongoing
funded investment matters.
The class action had been filed by New York Rosen Law, a specialist
in investor claims, amid a time of turmoil for Burford, one of the
world's biggest litigation funders.
The company had been subjected to an attack from short-seller Muddy
Waters, which made various statements about Burford's financial
accounts and management structure.
The lawsuit had alleged that Burford made false and/or misleading
statements on its returns. Burford denied making any false
statements and denied being in financial difficulty.
The company on Jan. 7, 2020 announced a number of senior personnel
changes, including appointing Aviva Will and David Perla as
co-chief operating officers, and said it retained the 'deepest
management bench in the industry'. Directors David Lowe and Sir
Peter Middleton will leave the board over the next 18 months and
replacements are being sought.
The company had previously announced plans to either add a US
listing on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ or to migrate to
the London Stock Exchange main market. It has now decided to seek a
full-fledged US listing of its ordinary shares: once effective,
shares will trade on both the US exchange and AIM market of the
LSE.
In response to shareholder inquiries, Burford also confirmed it
will provide in its 2019 annual report information about management
compensation (including individual compensation disclosure for
chief executive Christopher Bogart and chief investment officer
Jonathan Molot) consistent with the disclosure obligations to which
it will be subject under its potential US listing, even though
those obligations will not yet have taken effect.
Full year results for the year ended Dec. 31, 2019 will be released
on March 24, 2020.
A spokesperson for Muddy Waters said: 'We would also caution anyone
against interpreting the litigation dismissal as affirmation that
there is no misleading conduct or wrong-doing at the company. It
is nothing more than the reality of the US being overly litigious.
Lawsuits get filed and dismissed all the time, which in this case
is ironic, given Burford's own contribution to the clogged toilet
that is the US court system.' [GN]
BYTEDANCE: Class Action Lawsuit Filed in California vs. TikTok
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Mears, writing for California Globe, reports that the
Pentagon has reversed its policy on TikTok. The popular Chinese
owned social media app is now considered a security threat. The
Army was using the app as an effective tool to reach young
Americans as a recruiting tool. Lt. Col. Robin Ochoa, a spokesman
for the Army reported the app will no longer be allowed on
government-issued phones.
The Beijing based company that owns the music video app is
ByteDance. Army recruiters were using the app, but in October, Sen.
Tom Cotton R-Arkansas and Sen. Chuck Schumer D-New York requested
an investigation by intelligence officials to determine if the app
was a security threat to the United States.
Although a security probe was started the Army continued to use the
app until December.
The U.S. Navy also issued a warning and banned the app from being
used on their government-issued phones. Gizmodo reported the the
policy reversal came after the release of a Defense Department
Cyber Awareness Message stating, "TikTok has potential security
risks with its use.
The Department of Defense directed all employees to, "To be wary of
applications you download, monitor your phones for unusual and
unsolicited texts etc., and delete them immediately and uninstall
TikTok to circumvent any exposure of personal information."
The service members can use the Chinese owned app on their personal
phones but military leaders are asking service members to be
cautious when using any social media platform, especially if they
receive random or unfamiliar text messages, according to Ochoa.
The Navy Marine Corps Intranet stated Wednesday, January 8, in a
user bulletin, that anyone with the TikTok app on their mobile
devices wouldn't be allowed to use the intranet.
"This decision was made based on cybersecurity threat assessments,
and is consistent with 10th Fleet efforts to proactively address
existing and emerging threats in defense of our networks," Cmdr.
Dave Benham, 10th Fleet and U.S. Fleet Cyber Command spokesman,
said in a statement.
ByteDance acquired Musical.ly in November 2017 for $800 million to
$1 billion. Musical.ly, was an app popular with teenagers who made
homemade karaoke videos. It had about 60-million users in the
United States and Europe.
The FBI, in 2015 blamed Chinese hackers on the breach of more than
21-million records from the Office of Personnel Management.
According to a lawsuit filed in California against ByteDance and
TikTok, "Beijing ByteDance had $7.2 billion in annual revenue for
the year 2018. It has far surpassed this number in 2019, booking $7
billion to $8.4 billion in revenue in a better-than-expected result
for the first half of 2019."
Beijing ByteDance is currently worth between $75 billion and $78
billion. Investors include Sequoia Capital China, Russian
billionaire Yuri Milner, Japanese technology giant SoftBank, and
big private-equity firms such as KKR, General Atlantic, and
Hillhouse Capital Group
President Trump has already placed Huawei and other Chinese tech
firms on a blacklist. This blacklist prevents the companies from
purchasing American products due to national security and human
rights issues. Trump also placed tariffs on more than $360 billion
of Chinese products.
The CEO of Huawei was arrested in Canada in December 2018 and
extradited to the United States. Meng Wanzhou was facing charges in
Eastern District of New York. The Wall Street Journal reported last
April the U.S. Justice Department was looking into Huawei violating
US sanctions on Iran.
Wanzhou is on bail, living in one of her multimillion-dollar
homes in Vancouver. Wanzhou's hearing is set to begin Jan. 20, in
Canada and has not yet been extradited to the United States.
TikTok has been accused of being a threat to the nation's youth.
The company was forced to pay $5.7 million in fines by the Federal
Trade Commission to settle the "the largest civil penalty ever
obtained by the Commission in a children's privacy case." TikTok
now must also comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act and take down any videos uploaded by users under 13.
The class-action lawsuit was filed in December by student, Misty
Hong, who initiated the lawsuit states she downloaded the app but
she never created an account. Despite not creating an account
TikTok took it upon themselves to create one using the Hong's
personal data sending it to Chinese servers.
The company ByteDance is a Delaware Corporation and TikTok is a
California Corporation and has offices in Palo Alto, Culver City
and Mountain View.
The lawsuit is claiming TikTock did the following:
1. Violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030
2. Violated the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud
Act, Cal. Pen. C. § 502
3. Violated the Right to Privacy – California Constitution
4. Intrusion upon Seclusion
6. Violated the California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof.
C. Sec. 17200 et seq.
7. Violated the California False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof.
C. Sec. 17500 et seq.
8. Negligence
9. Restitution / Unjust Enrichment
TikTok wrote in a statement in October in response to the
accusations from the United States Government saying, "We take
these issues incredibly seriously. We are committed to transparency
and accountability in how we support our TikTok users in the US and
around the world."
TikTok further stated, "We store all TikTok US user data in the
United States, with backup redundancy in Singapore. Our data
centers are located entirely outside of China, and none of our data
is subject to Chinese law."
The class action lawsuit accuses ByteDance of secretly collecting
data on users and transferring private data to China.
Schumer tweeted, "It's (TikTok) owned by a Beijing-based tech
company. It's required to adhere to Chinese law. That means it can
be compelled to cooperate with intelligence work controlled by
China's Communist Party." [GN]
CAPIO PARTNERS: Murray Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners LLC.
The case is styled as Karmiec Murray, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capio Partners LLC, CF
Medical LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00218-CEH-CPT (M.D., Fla., Jan. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Capio Partners, LLC is a third-party debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
Zeig Law Firm, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Tel: (754) 217-3084
Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Wegner Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERLENE WEGNER, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00305-PJM (D. Md., Greenbelt Div., February 4,
2020) is a collective class action brought against Defendant for
failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
Defendant Carahsoft Technologies Corp. is a Maryland corporation
engaged in interstate commerce by selling and marketing computer
software and hardware to end consumers throughout the United States
on behalf of software and hardware developers.
Plaintiff Sherlene Wegner currently resides in Carrollton, Dallas
County, Texas and was employed by Carahsoft to sell/renew/market
Defendant's products over the phone to customers from its office in
Reston, Virginia, and hundreds of home offices throughout the
United States.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff was not paid by Defendant any
commissions on goods/services sold (or, if paid a commission, it
comprises 50% or less of the entire compensation) and not paid
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Cater mofett, Esq.
CATER MOFFETT LAW FIRM
1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW, Suite 715
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202)251-6438
E-mail: Natalie@catermoffettlaw.com
- and -
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Suite 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 221-7100
Fax: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: Brendan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
DONELON, PC
6642 Clayton Rd., #320
St. Louis, MO 63117
Tel: (314) 297-8385
Fax: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com
CAS CONSULTING: Munoz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MUNOZ, individually and for other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CAS CONSULTING & SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00124 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div., February 4, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
illegal straight time for overtime policy which violated the Fair
Labor Standard Act (FLSA).
According to the complaint, Defendant CAS Consulting did not
properly pay their workers, including Munoz, for overtime worked as
required by the FLSA. Instead, they were paid at the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
workweek.
Munoz is an hourly CAS employee in Austin, Travis County, Texas.
CAS provides civil engineering services throughout Texas,
specializing in providing consulting services in waste and
wastewater engineering, water resources engineering, transportation
engineering, and program and construction management.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated workers of CAS and demands a trial by jury in an
aim to recover unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages and all
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH LLP
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CHICK-FIL-A INC: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly
--------------------------------------------------------
Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal., January 13,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Defendant operates a restaurant with an online presence through
https://www.chick-fil-a.com/, offering chicken sandwiches.
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said site cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
CIAMPA MANAGEMENT: Avelar Seeks OT Pay; Hits Missing Pay Stubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Avelar, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. Ciampa Management Corp., Douglas A. Ciampa and Victor Hidalgo,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00210 (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2020),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and
the New York Minimum Wage Act.
Ciampa Manamgent Company owns, operates, manages and/or controls a
multi-unit residential building located at 1910 Parsons Blvd.,
Flushing, New York where Avelar worked as a superintendent. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime pay including those hours he worked through his break
times. He also claims not to receive any wage statement.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (954) 745-0588
Email: klein@nklegal.com
ramirez@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
CITY BEVERAGE: McGraw Hits Biometrics Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles McGraw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. City Beverage-Illinois, LLC, CITY Beverage
- Markham, LLC and City Beverage, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2020CH00343 (Ill. Cir., January 10, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
City Beverage is a Chicago beverage distributor that owns and
operates multiple Lakeshore Beverage warehouses throughout the
state of Illinois where McGraw worked at their facility located at
4300 S. Halsted St., Chicago. Employees were required to "clock-in"
and "clock-out" using a biometric data reader that scanned
fingerprints. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
CITY OF LAVAL: Residents Affected By Flooding File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephane Giroux, writing for CTV News, reports that some
infrastructure in Laval was inadequate to cope with rising
floodwaters in 2019, and the city is to blame, some Laval residents
argue.
One thousand homeowners affected by the flooding have hired a
lawyer who recently filed a request for a class-action lawsuit
against the city of Laval.
The lawyer, Jean Denis, said flooding in 2017 damaged two bridges.
They were under construction when floodwaters rose over them once
more in 2019.
Property values have dropped in the area, even as citizens worry
waters could soon rise. Part of the reason, Denis argued, is that
the city didn't build the right kind of bridges. They're too low,
he said.
Other infrastructure was also inadequate, including a culvert on
Comptois St. that made the flooding worse, he said.
Poor planning and design have exposed residents to the effects of
other floods, he said.
His claims have yet to be proven in court, and the class-action
lawsuit he filed has yet to be approved.
If it goes ahead, affected homeowners will seek $350,000 each in
damages. [GN]
CLEARVIEW AI: Hall Sues over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY HALL, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC. and CDW
GOVERNMENT LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00846 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' rights to biometric
privacy by illegally acquiring, controlling, and selling of their
biometric identifiers and information without their consent.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to inform them in writing the
specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric
information or identifier is being collected, stored, or used. As
a direct result of these violations, Plaintiff and the Class
suffered and continue to suffer injury and actual, economic, and
emotional damages.
Clearview AI, Inc. is a surveillance database operator that markets
its products to Illinois-based companies and agencies. It is a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York, New York.
CDW Government, LLC is an Illinois company headquartered in Vernon
Hills, Illinois. The company provides equipment and services to
local government agencies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Drew, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC
20 N. Clark Street #3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 967-7220
E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com
- and -
Michael Wood, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 757-1880
E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
COMERICA BANK: El-Hage Files Suit in Michigan
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comerica Bank. The
case is styled as Abass El-Hage, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comerica Bank and Elan
Financial Services, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10294-LJM-DRG
(E.D., Mich., Feb. 5, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Other Contract.
Comerica Incorporated is a financial services company headquartered
in Dallas, Texas. It has retail banking operations in Texas,
Michigan, Arizona, California and Florida, with select business
operations in several other U.S. states, as well as in Canada and
Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ali H. Koussan, Esq.
Koussan Hamood PLC
821 W. Milwaukee
Detroit, MI 48202
Tel: (313) 444-8348
Fax: (313) 444-7814
Email: ali@kh-plc.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Has $53MM Deal in Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Hartnett, writing for Nashville Post, reports that Community
Health Systems executives have settled a securities fraud class
action lawsuit for $53 million, according to a brief filed on
Jan. 7 in federal court.
The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by various shareholders after
Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare leaders - who at the time were
looking to thwart a potential buyout by CHS - accused the company
of multiple counts of fraud by failing to disclose improper
admissions practices. Investors claimed those alleged practices
artificially inflated CHS' stock price.
The class action alleged that CHS misused an in-house admissions
guide that incentivized physicians to admit Medicare patients to
the hospital instead of lower-acuity outpatient facilities and, as
a result, allegedly misled investors on the hospital operator's
success. Plaintiffs initially sued for $891 million.
The lawsuit was dropped in 2016 but resurfaced later that year
after an appeals panel found that CHS executives admitted the
program skewed admissions data in an earnings call in October 2011
- keeping the shareholders' case alive.
The class action was certified in August to cover all people and
entities who bought CHS common stock from July 27, 2006 through
April 8, 2011. A group of New York City pension funds serves as
class representative. [GN]
CONENTRIX SERVICES: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Jones Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirena Jones and Jou Moua, Each Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. CONENTRIX SERVICES US, INC.;
CONCENTRIX CORPORATION; and CONCENTRIX INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-00586-BHH (D.S.C., Feb. 4,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South
Carolina Payment of Wages Act arising from the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation for all hours
worked and all wages due within the appropriate time period after
terminating employment.
The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than forty hours in a week but
the Defendants failed to pay them and similarly situated employees
for up to 15 hours of overtime per week, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have deprived
the Plaintiffs of regular wages and overtime compensation for all
of the hours worked over 40 per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at their office
located in the Greenville Division of the District of South
Carolina.
The Defendants provide business services, such as direct sales,
technical support, customer care, lead management, renewals
management, and back-office processing.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Rothstein, Esq.
ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM, PA
1312 Augusta Street
Greenville, SC 29605
Phone: (864) 232-5870 (Office)
Facsimile: (864) 241-1386
Email: drothstein@rothsteinlawfirm.com
- and -
Sean Short, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
CONXALL CORP: Sirko Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Sirko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONXALL, CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
2020L000148 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's illegal actions in collecting, storing and using the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed
written consent or providing the requisite data retention and
destruction policies, as required by the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies-the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being
required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff
contends. He argues that if the Defendant's database of digitized
fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or
otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable
biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen,
among other serious issues.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to
recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized
collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in
violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois.
Conxall, Corporation, is an Illinois corporation doing business in
DuPage County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
- and -
Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Phone: (630) 333-0333
Email: peter@l-a.law
patrick@l-a.law
CRACK SHACK: DeSalvo Says Website not Blind Friendly
----------------------------------------------------
Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Crack Shack Enterprises, LLC and Does 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00290 (C.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Defendant operates a restaurant with an online presence through
https://www.crackshack.com/, offering classic comfort food menu
items including sandwiches, fried chicken, salads, bowls, sides and
milkshakes. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said site
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES: Rosenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joel Rosenzweig and Feige
Rosenzweig, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. Credit Control Services, Inc.
doing business as: Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00484 (E.D., N.Y., Jan. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Credit Collection Services is a debt collection agency based in
Norwood, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
CREDIT CORP: Meisels Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Raizel Meisels, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Corp
Solutions Inc. dba Tasman Credit and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00507 (E.D., N.Y., Jan. 29, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Credit Corp Solutions Inc is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic st
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CURIOUSER PRODUCTS: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Curiouser Products Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Curiouser
Products Inc., doing business as: Mirror, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00649 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 5, 2020).
Curiouser Products Inc., doing business as Mirror, provides fitness
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DALTON WADE: Faces Caringello Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Caringello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DALTON WADE, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00266-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in
connection with its marketing activities.
To solicit new agents, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of
those messages, according to the complaint. The Defendant makes a
profit by attracting new agents and charging them a monthly fee and
a transaction fee on transactions that each agent completes.
The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be
sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, the Plaintiff avers. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a citizen of Sarasota,
Florida.
The Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in St. Petersburg,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 786.496.4469
Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com
- and –
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.533.4092
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
DCH HEALTHCARE: Rhodes Files Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCH Healthcare
Authority. The case is styled as Nancy Rhodes, Lisa Clary and Billy
Clary, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DCH Healthcare Authority doing business as: DCH
Health System, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00136-LSC (N.D., Ala.,
Jan. 29, 2020).
The case type of the lawsuit is stated as contract: other.
DCH Health System provides healthcare to the residents of West
Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taylor C Bartlett, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS
2224 1st Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel: (205) 326-3336
Fax: (205) 380-8085
Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
DELTA AIR: Fails to Offer COBRA-Compliant Notice, Eierstock Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Eierstock, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00269
(M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing
to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class members with a
COBRA-compliant notice.
Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, the Defendant chose not to use the model form--presumably to
save the Defendant money--by pushing terminated employees away from
electing COBRA, the Plaintiff alleges. Instead of utilizing the DOL
Model Notice and sending a single COBRA notice "written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant"
containing all information required by law, to save money the
Defendant instead opted to break the information into multiple
documents, mailed separately under different cover, containing bits
and pieces of information on COBRA, which neither individually nor
cumulatively contain all of the missing information, the Plaintiff
asserts. In fact, the Plaintiff notes, the DOL Model Notice was
designed to avoid precisely the issues caused by the Defendant
confusing and piecemeal COBRA rights notification process.
The deficient COBRA notices at issue in this lawsuit both confused
and misled her, the Plaintiff contends. She adds that it also
caused her economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance
and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational injuries.
The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the US
Foods Health & Welfare Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by
failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with
adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue
their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event"
as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff further alleges.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant, and
participant in the Delta Health Plan.
The Defendant is the Plan sponsor and the administrator of the
Plan. The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their
beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813-223-5505
Fax: 813-257-0572
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
DELUCA-MAISTO PROPERTIES: Laser Assert Breach of ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Deluca-Maisto Properties, LTD d/b/a Steve Maisto Insurance is
facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Laser and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Deluca-Maisto
Properties, LTD d/b/a Steve Maisto Insurance, Deluca-Maisto
Properties, LTD d/b/a Senior Healthcare Solutions and 57 West Main
Street LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00489 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 28,
2020).
Deluca-Maisto Properties, LTD d/b/a Steve Maisto Insurance offers
auto insurance, life and business insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G. Solotoff
25 Melville Park Road, Ste 108
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
DESERT LAKE GROUP: Coyle Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Coyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Desert Lake Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00076 (S.D. Cal., January 10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Desert Lake Group operate under different brands as First Class
Herb Tincture, First Class Herbalist CBD, First Class Herbalist
Oils and USA Herbalist Oils. It attempted to contact Coyle via SMS
on his cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit their product
using an automatic telephone dialing system. Coyle did not give his
express consent to be contact in this manner, says the complaint.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: nicholas@kazlg.com
- and -
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
DICK'S SPORTING: Jones Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00650 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 5,
2020).
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American sporting goods retail
company, based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DIVERSIFIED FINANCING: CAG Files Interpleader Suit to Pay Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC v. DIVERSIFIED FINANCING, LLC; SONOQUI,
LLC; IRA SERVICES TRUST COMPANY; FERRUM II, LLC; PROVIDENT TRUST
GROUP; VANTAGE RETIREMENT PLANS, LLC; JEFFREY ARNOLD; KATHERINE
ARNOLD; RANDALL BAHJAT; JEFF BROWNE; TOM CHRISMAN; NEAL COLLINS;
ERNESTO DIGIORDANO; DAVID ERNEST; DEBBIE EVANS; EVANS FAMILY TRUST;
WILLIAM FRASER; SHERRIE GEORGE; FEI HAVENOR; GERALD HOLMES; MARIE
JOHNSON; CATHY KAISER; JAMES KARG; JEANINE GORCHEN-KRASLEY; JAMES
LAPPAS; VENETIA LAPPAS; KAREN LAWRENCE; TRISH LAVECK; RICHARD
LESTER; ANG LI; HAROLD LIKEY; ARTHUR MARKS; PEGGY McCAULEY; JOHN
McCORMICK; MITCH McDONALD; TERRY McKNIGHT; JEFF MULLIS; HANH
NGUYEN; DONNA PETERS; PIRRO PETI; SUSAN POLLINGER; MARK POULSEN;
WENDY PYNE; OLIVIA SAN MIGUEL; LUIS SAN MIGUEL; TERRI SALTZMAN;
FRANK SCHENCK; JACKLINE SLEZAK; CARLISE STARGILL; JUDITH TALLETT;
GREGORY TINDALL; BRAD VAN; DAWN VAUGHN; KAREN WARREN; BRIAN WILSON;
LORY WILLIAMS; YU ZHANG; BILL ZOELLIN; JOHN DOE(S) EACH
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Case
No. 7:20-cv-00942 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought as an
interpleader action against the Defendants, including the
Individual Defendants, individually and as proposed representatives
of two proposed Defendant classes--a Diversified Class and a
Sonoqui class.
IRA Services Trust Company is sued as the custodian and for the
assignment and benefit of account numbers IRA550310, IRA550322;
IRA551296, IRA549897, IRA549903, IRA503150, IRA540675 ("IRA
TRUST").
Plaintiff CAG has in its custody more than four million dollars
(the "Current Funds"), and will be receiving additional funds,
potentially in excess of twenty million dollars (the "Future
Funds"). The Current Funds and Future Funds are monies that CAG now
owes, or may become due and owing in the future, to Diversified and
Sonoqui pursuant to the terms of various written loan agreements.
CAG says it cannot pay those funds to the payees because
Diversified and Sonoqui are no longer in good standing, their
principals have been accused of financial crimes, their office
locations have been abandoned, and CAG has not been able to
identify an appropriate agent to properly accept money on behalf of
Diversified or Sonoqui. Numerous claimants alleging an entitlement
to a portion of the Current Funds or Future Funds have contacted
CAG, including people, who allegedly loaned money to Diversified
and/or Sonoqui that they claim was subsequently loaned by
Diversified and/or Sonoqui to CAG.
According to the complaint, CAG does not take a position on whether
the claims asserted with respect to the Current Funds or Future
Funds are valid, because it does not know the source of the funds
that Diversified and Sonoqui loaned to it, does not know whether
Diversified or Sonoqui diverted funds they received from these
potential claimants, ostensibly for the purpose of loaning to CAG,
does not know how many additional claimants exist, does not have
contact information for all potential claimants, and cannot
independently adjudicate the claims being asserted. There are
multiple, conflicting claims and potential claims, and CAG does not
know to whom it should pay the Current Funds and Future Funds.
Potential claimants in this interpleader are all those who have
asserted, or are likely to assert, the multiple, conflicting claims
seeking to recover the Current Funds and Future Funds, as well as
Diversified and Sonoqui. CAG contends it was not responsible for
creating the conflicting claims.
CAG seeks to protect itself from the vexation of multiple lawsuits
and from possibly inconsistent or multiple determinations of
liability, by: (1) depositing the Current Funds into the Court's
registry; (2) obtaining an order permitting it to deposit the
Future Funds, as they become due and payable, to the Court's
registry; (3) obtaining an injunction against all pending and
future proceedings in any other court against CAG by the defendants
and those similarly situated related to the Current Funds or Future
Funds; (4) obtaining declaratory relief that CAG has satisfied its
contractual obligations with respect to the Current Funds and
Future Funds; (5) obtaining discharge from liability and dismissal
from this action; and (6) recovering its attorneys' fees and costs
from the amounts deposited in the Court's registry.
Plaintiff CAG is in the delinquent debt buying business and related
receivable management business.
Defendant Diversified is a Florida limited liability company that
has been administratively dissolved.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Robbin, Esq.
J. ROBBIN LAW, PLLC
200 Business Park Drive, Suite 103
Armonk, NY 10504
Phone: 914-685-5016
Email: jonathan.robbin@jrobbinlaw.com
- and –
Andrew T. Hambelton, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 885-5345
Email: Ahambelton@blankrome.com
DSV AIR & SEA: Kelly Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Kelly and Toni Boardman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DSV AIR & SEA, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-01204 (D.N.J., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to recover overtime pay
from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated routinely worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid an overtime premium
for their overtime hours, says the complaint. The Defendant
suffered and permitted the Plaintiffs and the other similarly
situated individuals to work more than 40 hours per week without
overtime pay.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Ocean Import
Agents.
The Defendant is a logistics and transportation service company,
providing supply chain solutions for thousands of companies in more
than 90 countries throughout the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC
Moorestown Office Center
110 Marter Avenue, Suite 105
Moorestown, NJ 08057
Phone: ((856) 914-9200
Facsimile: (856) 914-9420
Email: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Reena I. Desai, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-256-3200
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
Email: srey@nka.com
rdesai@nka.com
- and -
Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
Michael Brown, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (443) 320-7417
Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
mbrown@nicholllaw.com
EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS: Price Files FCRA Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EDS Service
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Erica Price, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDS Service
Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 -
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01186 (C.D., Cal.,
Feb. 5, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
EDS service solutions is a leading global business optimizer –
from consultancy through to complete turnkey outsource solutions
for business process management, workforce resourcing, and
facilities services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
Nourmand Law Firm APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: (310) 553-3600
Fax: (310) 553-3603
Email: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com
ELK ENERGY: Lupardus Moves for Certification of Inspectors Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Richard Lupardus, on Behalf of Himself and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Elk Energy Services,
LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00529 (S.D.W. Va), the Plaintiff moves the
Court for an order granting conditional certification of a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to a class of
employees defined as:
All inspectors employed by Defendant Elk Energy Services,
LLC in the last three years.
Mr. Lupardus asks the Court to grant his Motion because he has
satisfied his lenient burden to show that a class of similarly
situated inspectors exists that were subjected to the same FLSA
violating practices.
Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, he has provided evidence that
the Defendant pays its entire inspector workforce under a pay
system that fails to compensate its inspectors for the amount of
overtime that the FLSA requires. He insists that these employees
should be informed of this lawsuit and provided an opportunity to
protect their rights under the FLSA by participating in this
action.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8630
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com
- and -
Mark A. Toor, Esq.
MARK A. TOOR, ATTORNEY AT LAW
10 Hale Street, 2nd Floor
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 380-2111
E-mail: mark@marktoor.com
ENERGY TRANSFER: Allegheny County Employee's Fund Hits Share Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy
Transfer LP, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds and Thomas E.
Long, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00200, (E.D. Pa., January 10,
2020), seeks redress for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Energy Transfer is as a Dallas, Texas-based natural gas and energy
transportation and storage company and operates some of the largest
oil and gas pipelines in the United States with approximately
12,200 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines and multiple
natural gas storage facilities.
Energy Transfer's projects include the Mariner East pipeline, a
multibillion-dollar, 350-mile pipeline that carries highly volatile
natural gas liquids across 17 Pennsylvania counties, including
Allegheny County. Energy Transfer's Mariner East pipeline project
was under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
involving alleged bribery with the Pennsylvania Governor's Office
forcing environmental protection staff to approve construction
permits.
On this news, Energy Transfer's unit price fell $0.81 per share, or
6.77%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $11.16
per share on November 13, 2019.
Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System acquired and held
shares of Energy Transfer at artificially inflated prices and lost
upon this revelation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
James M. Ficaro, Esq.
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, PC
22 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 225 -2677
Facsimile: (610) 408-8062
Email: rw@weiserlawfirm.com
jmf@weiserlawfirm.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (212) 554-1493
Fax: (212) 554-1444
Email: avi@blbglaw.com
mikeb@blbglaw.com
hannah@blbglaw.com
EXELON CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Feb. 14 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm reminds purchasers of the securities of Exelon
Corporation between February 9, 2019 and November 1, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important February 14, 2020
deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Exelon investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Exelon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1743.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in unlawful
lobbying activities; (2) the foregoing increased the risk of a
criminal investigation into Exelon; (3) Exelon's subsidiary,
Commonwealth Edison, had revenues that were in part the product of
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as a result,
Exelon's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1743.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Rabinovitz Files Consumer Credit Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Bella Rabinovitz, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00633 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 4, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed over Fraud-Motor Vehicle (Odometer).
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information
services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
F.A. BARTLETT TREE: Stanfield Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The F.A. Bartlett
Tree Expert Company. The case is styled as Arron Stanfield, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, Defendant, Case
No. SCV-265929 (Cal., Super., Jan. 28, 2020).
The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Unlimited Other
Employment.
F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company is a residential and commercial
tree and shrub care company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Lucas Marder, Esq.
Polaris Law Group LLP
501 San Benito St # 200
Hollister, CA
Tel: (831) 531-4214
Fax: (831) 634-0333
Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com
- and -
Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq.
Diversity Law Group, P.C.
515 S Figueroa St, Ste 1250
Los Angeles, CA
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
Email: kagnew@diversitylaw.com
FARMERS GROUP: Grigson's Class Cert. Bid Tossed Due to Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLES GRIGSON AND ROBERT VALE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS v. FARMERS GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Lee Yeakel issued
an order dismissing without prejudice:
* Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed on
March 12, 2019;
* Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike
the Affidavit of Michael Averill, filed on May 20, 2019; and
* Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Strike
the Declaration and Report of Dr. James A. Roberts, filed on
July 18, 2019.
On December 16, 2019, the Court rendered an Order Granting
Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement and Direction of
Notice Under Rule 23(e). In light of the preliminary approval of
the class-action settlement in the case, the Motions are
dismissed.[CC]
FIRSTECH INC: Fane Sues over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
TENEISHA FANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTECH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-162-PP (E.D. Wis., February 3, 2020) is a collective and
class action brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws (WWPCL).
According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, of their wages earned
for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.
The Defendant is a staffing company operating in the State of
Wisconsin with a principal mailing address of 353 Forest Grove
Drive, Suite 200, Pewaukee, Wisconsin 53072.
For purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL,
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed
by Defendant, within the three years immediately preceding the
filing of this Complaint, who have not been compensated for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at the proper,
correct, and lawful overtime rate of pay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemond Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
FLAGSHIP SECURITY: Yates Sues over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
DEWANDA YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated hourly-paid, non-exempt security guards, Plaintiff v.
Flagship Security Company, LLC and Joseph E. Gurley, Sr.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02090 (W.D. Tenn., February 5, 2020)
is a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated who
were employed by Defendants during the three years prior to the
filing of the Complaint, seeking to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sections
201, et seq.
The case alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for one and one-half their
regular hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 within
weekly pay periods.
Flagship Security Company, LLC is a Tennessee Corporation that
provides protection of assets, security, and safety services for
its customers in both Tennessee and Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
FORMULA FUNDING: Abante Rooter Sues over Auto Dialed Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTERS AND PLUMBING, Terry Fabricant, Keith Hobbs, and Sid
Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FORMULA FUNDING, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01075
(C.D. Cal., February 3, 2020) is a class action on behalf of
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated seeking damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Formula Funding.
Defendant Formula Funding is a business lending company.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant placed illegal multiple calls
on cellular phones of Plaintiffs by using automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt
to promote their services even without prior express consent from
Plaintiffs to receive calls; thereby violating the National
Do-Not-Call provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
negligently, knowingly and willfully.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
GATEWAY PLAZA: Reaches Class Settlement with LeFrak Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fenton, writing for The Broadsheet, reports that attorneys
representing Gateway Plaza residents in a class-action suit that
began in 2014 have reached a tentative settlement with the LeFrak
Organization, the landlords at Battery Park City's largest
residential complex, which they value at $42 million.
The suit claimed that conditions such as poorly insulated windows,
along with improperly functioning heating and air-conditioning
units, made apartments within the six-building property effectively
uninhabitable for multiple years. A related complaint alleged that
residents were forced to endure financial hardship by running the
defective heaters in winter and air conditioners in summer, in some
cases 24 hours per day at full power, to compensate for the
structural deficiencies of the buildings, thus incurring massive
electric charges. (The suit further charged that LeFrak,
"improperly profits from the allegedly excessive charges for
electricity paid by tenants at Gateway Plaza through an electrical
submetering system at Gateway Plaza," which is a reference to an
unusual provision of Gateway leases that forces residents to buy
their electric service from the landlord.) While some of these
conditions have since been partially remediated with the
installation of new windows and climate-control units (although
some residents claim that habitability issues persist, and the
electrical metering scheme remains unchanged), the suit and
settlement attempt to offer monetary compensation to current and
former residents for the harm they suffered.
A Notice of Settlement recently distributed to Gateway tenants
asserts that the LeFrak Organization, "denies all allegations of
wrongdoing," and "denies that it has breached the implied warranty
of habitability . . . in any of the respects alleged by the
Complaint," and "denies that it is otherwise liable to members of
the Class in any respect." But the same document goes on to explain
that LeFrak, "is entering this Settlement Agreement solely to
eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of further
litigation."
In the Notice of Settlement, attorneys for the class of residents
who currently live at Gateway (or rented there anytime after April,
2008) outline three primary pools of value that the proposed
agreement will recover. The first is a $10 million cash payment by
the LeFrak Organization, which will cover attorneys' fees and
expenses, as well as defraying claims by current and former
residents. This "settlement amount" will cover any cash
disbursements to current and former residents, which will have the
effect of retroactively and incrementally lowering the rent they
paid during the period covered by the suit. According the documents
filed with the court, the attorneys who worked on the case will
receive fees not to exceed $3.5 million, along with reimbursement
for various expenses, which are expected to cost several hundred
thousand dollars. This will compensate the legal team (comprised of
lawyers from three different firms) for five years of work.
From the same fund, current and former tenants will receive an
amount up to fixed percentages of the overall rent they paid to
LeFrak between 2008 and the present. For current tenants, this
percentage is 1.66 percent. The percentage that former residents
will be paid is 2.39 percent of their overall outlay. According to
settlement documents filed with the court, this means that a
current resident who paid $30,000 in rent during the period would
receive a benefit of $498. A former resident who paid the same
amount in rent during the same period would receive $717. While
these amounts are hypothetical examples, the percentages represent
fixed ceilings, because the $10 million fund (after attorneys' fees
and expenses are deducted) will be distributed on a pro rata basis,
depending on the number of current and former residents who sign up
to receive payments.
The method of distributing these payments will vary, depending on
whether a recipient currently lives at Gateway or is a former
tenant. Residents who have moved away will be issued a check.
Current tenants will see the amount they are to receive appear as a
credit on their rent bills later this year. In some cases, this
credit may take more than one rent cycle to deplete, meaning that
such a tenant would owe no rent until the credit had been fully
absorbed by successive monthly bills.
The second pool of value negotiated by attorneys representing
Gateway tenants is a cap on rent increases for the next two years.
This benefit, which will accrue only to current residents who sign
up as part of the class that will participate in the settlement, is
scheduled to begin in July, immediately after the current program
of rent stabilization at Gateway is slated to expire (unless it is
renewed). The cap outlined in the settlement agreement stipulates a
limit on rent hikes of five percent, compared with estimates of
typical rent increases of six percent. For a hypothetical tenant
currently paying $2,833 per month (or $34,000 per year), this one
percent saving would result in a benefit of $340 per year,
according to documents on file with the court.
For tenants in rent-regulated Gateway Plaza apartments, the outlook
is more complicated. Under the current regime of rent
stabilization, LeFrak cannot increase rents for Gateway residents
in regulated apartments by more than the threshold set each year by
the City's Rent Guidelines Board, which in recent years has hovered
between 1.25 percent and 2.5 percent. If the Battery Park City
Authority (BPCA) succeeds in negotiating an extension of this
program (which will otherwise lapse in June), the five-percent cap
would not confer any benefit on Gateway tenants already protected
by rent stabilization, because they are currently covered by
tighter restrictions on increases. But if the Authority fails to
renew the agreement that provides rent stabilization for some
Gateway apartments, those residents could face sudden, massive
increases, jumping substantially from their current, below-market
rents. In this scenario, the subset of Gateway residents who live
in rent-regulated apartments would gain a two-year reprieve, which
might amount to many thousands of dollars per year. In total, the
lawyers representing Gateway residents estimate that that value of
the two-year, five-percent cap on rent increase is $13 million.
The third pool of value that the legal team representing Gateway
has incorporated into the settlement agreement is capital repairs
and upgrades, which the Settlement Notice prices at $18 to $20
million. This part of the agreement does not envision or require
any new improvements to the physical plant at the Gateway complex.
Rather, it retroactively incorporates into the settlement
improvements made several years ago, between 2014 and 2017. The
Notice of Settlement makes the argument that the LeFrak
Organization, "acknowledges that this [lawsuit] was a contributing
factor as to both the timing and scope of the capital improvements
undertaken."
Jeffrey M. Norton, a partner at the law firm of Newman Ferrara,
which led the class-action suit against LeFrak, said, "we're really
happy with this settlement. We think it speaks for itself, and we
look forward to presenting it to the court for final approval."
There will be a Fairness Hearing on Monday, March 2, during which
Melissa A. Crane, the judge presiding over the case, will consider
comments on this proposed settlement, either in support or
denunciation of its terms. This session will be held in Courtroom
303 of the New York Supreme Court Civil Branch, at 71 Thomas
Street. The purpose of the hearing will be for the judge to approve
or reject the terms outlined in the Settlement Notice, based on
whether they are, "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests," of Gateway residents, according to a court document.
Apart from the immediate issues outlined above, this proposed
settlement raises a range of questions. Multiple sources directly
familiar with the ongoing negotiations between the BPCA and the
LeFrak Organization over extension of affordability protections at
Gateway Plaza allege that for several years, the landlord has used
the uncertainty arising from the lawsuit as an excuse for delaying
meaningful discussion. Assuming the settlement is approved by the
court, this could remove a roadblock to the preservation of rent
stabilization at Gateway. Conversely, however, a settlement valued
at tens of millions of dollars could arguably erect a new obstacle
to negotiations between the BPCA and LeFrak, with the developer
demanding to be compensated for any loss arising from the
class-action suit, in addition to whatever other financial
incentives were demanded in exchange for extending rent
stabilization.
In another scenario, if the LeFrak Organization remains
intransigent, and refuses to negotiate an extension of
affordability protections, it could argue that the two-year caps on
rent increases are a reasonable substitute, in spite of the fact
that previous affordability agreements have had terms of a decade
or more, and offered more rigorous limits on rent hikes. This could
also provide a fig leaf for public officials, who would otherwise
face political humiliation at having failed to achieve a goal to
which multiple community leaders and elected officials have
committed in recent years.
For more information about the class-action lawsuit against the
LeFrak Organization, and the terms of the proposed settlement (as
well as details about how to sign up to be eligible for benefits,
and deadlines for doing so), please browse:
www.GatewayPlazaSettlement.com. [GN]
GEORGE TYNDALL: Court to Approve $215M Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Yaacoub, writing for Daily Trojan, reports that a federal
judge announced he intends to give final approval for the $215
million class action settlement for former patients of former
campus gynecologist George Tyndall. The settlement includes payouts
ranging from $2,500 to $250,000.
"In this case, the women brought the suit as a class action, fought
for themselves, but also for everybody else who wasn't in a place
where they felt like they could bring a lawsuit," said Annika
Martin, Esq., one of the lead attorneys representing the women who
have come forward against Tyndall through the class action. "I
think that's a really key piece of this — it really was women
standing up for other women."
Final approval, if not delayed by appeals, will allow the
University to begin distributing money to the estimated 18,000
patients Tyndall saw over his nearly 30 years of employment at USC,
regardless of whether they filed claims against him.
The settlement was first proposed in October 2018 but was delayed
in April after a federal judge ruled it needed to be amended to
include more information about the distribution of payouts.
The final version of the settlement increased the size of the panel
deciding payout amounts from one person to three. The panel will
comprise a retired federal judge, a gynecologist and a forensic
psychologist, all of whom will be selected jointly by USC and class
counsel for the survivors.
USC said it was pleased with the tentative approval of the class
action settlement.
"This settlement provides respectful and confidential relief to
Tyndall patients at the student health center and formalizes a
broad array of campus reforms," the University wrote in a
statement.
The class action is the first sexual assault claims settlement to
effect institutional reform as part of the agreement, Martin said.
As a result of the settlement, two independent monitors have been
appointed to work with the University to ensure that changes to the
University's gender-based violence policies are properly
implemented.
Nancy Cantalupo, an external consultant with experience in sexual
violence prevention and response, will serve as one of the
monitors. Cantalupo, who has been at the University since the fall,
helped coordinate the American Association of Universities Campus
Climate Survey at USC in Fall 2019 and is on the task force
assembling a report on the survey results. She has met with
students and faculty and will make recommendations for University
protocol changes regarding gender-based harm.
The other monitor, who will arrive at USC this spring but has not
yet been announced, will act as an independent women's health
advocate and will work closely with USC Student Health, receiving
and confirming investigation into complaints of sexual and racial
misconduct at the student health center.
"One of the really primary goals of the settlement is to make sure
that can never happen again and that whatever policies and
procedures allowed that to happen, that those are changed," Martin
said. "Hopefully we can have some accountability for what's
happened in the past and also make some changes in the future."
More than 700 current and former USC students have accused Tyndall
of sexual assault in what the Los Angeles Police Department has
called the largest single-suspect sex crimes investigation in the
department's history.
However, some attorneys disapproved of the settlement. John Manly,
who represents 234 women in lawsuits against USC alleging abuse by
Tyndall, said he believes the settlement is unfair to the former
patients, citing the removal of a clause that would allow survivors
to appeal payout decisions. He said he considered the University's
crisis response strategy too focused on maintaining the
University's image.
"USC has adopted the Catholic bishops' model, and basically, that's
the model where we spend a lot of money on public relations and
very little time and attention to reform," Manly said. "I can tell
you, until that culture changes there, this will happen again —
it will. And they'll continue to damage the University's
reputation."
The panel of experts will determine the size of each payout using a
tiered system, awarding higher compensation to those who submit
written records and interviews about the abuse. Under the terms of
the settlement, Tyndall will not be responsible for paying any
portion of the settlement nor will he be required to admit
wrongdoing. The University will pay the $215 million in addition to
up to $25 million in legal fees for the former patients.
Tyndall's attorneys did not respond to request for comment in time
for publication.
Tyndall was arrested in June 2019 and charged with 18 felony counts
of sexual assault and 11 of sexual battery taking place between
2009 and 2016, following a Los Angeles Times investigation in May
2018 that uncovered his decades of sexual misconduct and quiet
termination. Tyndall has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the
L.A. District Attorney's Office is conducting the criminal
proceedings separately.
More than 660 women have filed separate lawsuits against USC,
citing the University's failure to protect them from sexual abuse
and its negligence in not immediately reporting Tyndall's actions
to the medical board. The class action settlement is the first in a
wave of expected settlements in connection with the Tyndall case.
[GN]
GEORGE TYNDALL: Judge to OK Sexual Abuse Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Rappleye, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
a federal judge in Los Angeles indicated he will approve a $215
million class-action settlement between the University of Southern
California and more than 18,000 former patients of gynecologist
George Tyndall, MD, who faces criminal charges for sexual
penetration and sexual battery by fraud, The New York Times
reports.
The case is the largest class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in
history by both class size and settlement amount, USC lawyer Shon
Morgan told The New York Times. The former patients may receive
between $2,500 and $250,000. Once the approval is officially filed,
the university will begin the compensation process, according to
the report.
Dr. Tyndall, who denies wrongdoing, served as a student health
gynecologist at USC from 1989 to 2016. After years of complaints
against him, Dr. Tyndall resigned in 2017. He medical license was
suspended in August 2018, and it will expire at the end of January
2020, The New York Times reports.
Nearly 800 patients opted out of the settlement, many planning to
file their own lawsuits. [GN]
GILBERT ROZON: Appellate Court Tosses Sexual Assault Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that in a split decision, Quebec's Court
of Appeal has thrown out a lower court ruling authorizing a $10
million class-action lawsuit brought against entertainment
impresario Gilbert Rozon.
The founder of Just for Laughs had argued for the province's
highest court to overturn the decision allowing the action, by a
group of female accusers who dubbed themselves "Les Courageuses,"
to proceed.
Rozon denies the women's allegations of harassment and sexual
misconduct, which date between 1982 and 2016.
The accusations have not been tested by the courts.
The decision was split - two judges allowed Rozon's appeal, but
Justice Dominique Belanger said she would've rejected it and let
the class action move forward.
The ruling doesn't look at the allegations, but rather the
class-action procedure used by the women instead of proceeding
individually against Rozon.
Rozon's lawyer had argued the 2018 Quebec Superior Court decision
allowing the class action to continue was an error because the
action failed to meet the criteria.
His lawyers argued there was no common link between the allegations
or the women bringing them, and the fact it's a "collective
movement" doesn't justify a "collective action."
Separately, Rozon is also facing criminal charges - one count of
rape and one of indecent assault - for acts allegedly committed in
1980.
That trial will be held in June. [GN]
GLOBAL BROKERAGE: Mega Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Skinner, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that there's
been another development in the large lawsuit targeting Global
Brokerage, Inc. formerly known as FXCM Inc., Dror Niv, and William
Ahdout. Namely, the plaintiff's motion for class certification has
been granted.
According to court documents seen by Finance Magnates, the
Honourable Ronnie Abrams, a United States District Judge, after
considering the motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Representatives and Class Counsel, granted the class action
on Jan. 6, 2020.
The motion, which was also filed Jan. 6, was filed with the New
York Southern District Court by the lead plaintiffs in the
so-called "mega lawsuit" - 683 Capital Partners, LP, and Shipco
Transport Inc., and an additional named plaintiff Sergey Regukh.
According to the document, those who can be included in the class
are: "All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Global Brokerage, Inc., f/k/a FXCM Inc.
("FXCM") securities, including FXCM 2.25% Convertible Senior Notes
due 2018 and Class A common stock, during the period March 15, 2012
through February 6, 2017, both dates inclusive."
Those excluded from the class are: "(i) Defendants; (ii) current
and former officers, employees, consultants and directors of FXCM
and FXCM Holdings, LLC; (iii) siblings, parents, children, spouses,
and household members of any person excluded under (i) and (ii);
(iv) any entities affiliated with, controlled by, or more than 5%
owned by, any person excluded under (i) through (iii); and (v) the
legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any person
excluded under (i) through (iv)."
The Judge has also approved the request to appoint a Class Counsel,
with the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. appointed to the role. The plaintiffs
are pursuing claims on behalf of a class of FXCM investors against
FXCM; Dror Niv, FXCM's co-founder, CEO, and Chairman of the Board;
and William Ahdout, FXCM's co-founder, Chief Dealer, Managing
Director, and director.
It is important to point out that Global Brokerage is no longer
associated with FXCM. Therefore, when Finance Magnates reached out,
the broker denied to comment as it is no longer associated. [GN]
GLOBAL CONTACT: Underpays Call Center Staff, Thompson Says
----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL CONTACT SERVICES, LLC;
EUGENE OHEMENG; FRANK CAMP; ANTOINETTE CURRIE; and JAMIE HOFFMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00651 (E.D.N.Y, February 5, 2020) is a
class action on behalf of all employees who worked at the company
as call center representatives, seeking to pursue claims against
the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated call center representatives were not compensated for the
excess hours that they rendered daily as required by the FLSA and
NYLL. Additionally, the Defendants created and fostered a hostile
work environment through persistent sexual harassment against
Plaintiff, and pursued retaliatory termination in response to her
complaints about the harassment. The case seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the FLSA and NYLL.
Global Contact Services, LLC is a Delaware limited-liability
corporation which owns and operates a call center at 3300 Northern
Boulevard, Long Island City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
GOOGLE LLC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement in Google+ Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that Google
LLC has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle putative class action
litigation filed in connection with its discontinued Google+ media
platform, although class members may receive only $5 each and no
more than $12.
In October and December 2018, Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc.,
acknowledged that software bugs in its Google+ social media
platform potentially exposed users profile information to
unauthorized third parties, including users' names, genders and
email addresses, as well as additional information including users'
occupations and places lived, according to the plaintiffs' motion
in support of the settlement, which was filed Jan. 6 in U.S.
District Court in San Jose in In Re Google Plus Profile
Litigation.
There is no evidence the data was accessed, according to the
motion.
The litigation was filed in October 2018. Google took the platform
offline in April 2019.
Under terms of the settlement agreement, claimants will receive an
initial cash payment of $5 each, which will increase up to $12 per
claimant if sufficient funds remain, or decrease on a pro rata
basis if there are insufficient funds.
Attorneys will receive up to $1,875,000 plus $200,000 for
additional costs. [GN]
A hearing on preliminary agreement of the settlement agreement is
set for Feb. 20 in the San Jose court.
An estimated 10 million users in the United States had account
settings that could have been exposed by the second bug, while the
number impacted by the first bug "cannot be conclusively
determined," according to the plaintiffs' brief.
The plaintiffs' brief states the settlement, which follows
mediation, "provides quick relief for Settlement Class members,
including payments for potentially disseminating their non-public
information to unauthorized third-party application developers.
"Importantly, the Personal Information of all Class members was
never disseminated or accessed by hackers or other malicious third
parties, but instead was potentially exposed to third-party
software developers known to google."
Google did not respond to a request for comment.
In August, a federal appeals court struck down Google's class
action settlement meant to resolve claims it invaded the privacy of
millions of computer users by installing "cookies" in their
browsers, but paying those users nothing for their troubles. [GN]
GREEN ROADS: Court Stays CBD Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Kevin McCoy and Benjamin Stearns of Carlton Fields, in an article
for JDSupra, reports that a class action lawsuit alleging that
Green Roads of Florida LLC misrepresented the amount of CBD
contained in various products has been stayed pursuant to the
primary jurisdiction doctrine because the plaintiffs' claims
implicate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's expertise with
regard to a regulated product.
The named plaintiffs allege that the CBD products they purchased
through Green Roads' website did not contain the amount of CBD
stated on the products' labels. As a result, the plaintiffs allege
they were overcharged for the products. The court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims to the extent that they related to products that
neither of the named plaintiffs actually purchased. The judge also
found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of
future injury and therefore lacked standing to assert a claim for
injunctive relief.
However, these rulings did not prevent the case from moving forward
with regard to the plaintiffs' claims related to products they
actually purchased or the damages flowing from those past
purchases. The court stayed these claims pursuant to the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.
The primary jurisdiction doctrine applies "whenever enforcement of
a claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body." The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that
the court could apply existing regulations to their claims and
because it is unclear when and whether the relevant federal
agencies will issue regulations with respect to CBD product-content
labeling.
The judge noted that "[r]egulatory oversight of CBD ingestible
products, including labelling, is currently the subject of
rulemaking at the FDA. The FDA recently has conducted a public
hearing and instituted an agency task force on CBD regulation." The
FDA "made clear" that it was "concerned" with the labeling of
products containing cannabis and hemp-derived compounds, which
include CBD. The judge further noted that the FDA is under
"considerable pressure" from both Congress and the CBD industry to
issue regulations regarding CBD products. After applying a
five-factor test to determine whether the primary jurisdiction
doctrine applied, the court stayed the class action.
First, the court found that there is a need for consistent guidance
with regard to regulation of CBD labeling. Second, regulation of
CBD by the FDA is appropriate, regardless of whether CBD is
determined to be a food additive, supplement, or nutrient, as
regulation of all these categories is within the FDA's purview.
Third, the 2018 Farm Bill explicitly recognized the FDA's authority
to regulate cannabis and hemp-derived products under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Fourth, regulation of CBD
product labeling "requires both expertise and uniformity in
administration," as illustrated by the FDA's concern regarding
"whether CBD products pose safety risks, how the mode of delivery
affects safety, whether there are dosage considerations related to
safety, whether there is a need for manufacturing standards, and
whether there are standardized definitions for the ingredients in,
for example, hemp oil." Lastly, the FDA "obviously has expressed an
active interest in regulating the manufacture and marketing of CBD
products." As a result, the court held that the primary
jurisdiction doctrine applied and that it was proper to stay the
proceedings.
Finally, the court "vehemently disagree[d]" with the plaintiffs'
argument that the current regulatory framework was adequate to
resolve the case, finding that the regulations currently in place
provide little guidance with respect to CBD ingestibles and
labeling requirements. The judge concluded by stating that it would
"benefit greatly from the FDA's regulatory framework." A sentiment
with which many in the industry can probably relate. [GN]
GRIEG SEAFOOD: Faces $500MM Class Action Over Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Antle, writing for CBC News, reports that Norwegian salmon
producers with business interests in North America are facing a
potential class-action lawsuit seeking up to $500 million over
allegations they colluded to fix the prices of product that ended
up on the plates of consumers across Canada.
The Canadian lawsuit, filed Jan. 3 at Federal Court in Toronto,
comes in the wake of other civil actions south of the border, and
regulatory inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic.
The companies deny wrongdoing.
Anti-poverty activist Irene Breckon of Elliot Lake, Ont., who
played a similar role in a past, now inactive class-action effort
against grocery giant Loblaws, is the lead plaintiff in the
just-filed Federal Court proceeding.
It would include anyone in Canada who bought farmed salmon and
related products after July 1, 2015.
"I really believe that we need to fight against these big
businesses that are taking advantage of people," Breckon said in an
interview with CBC News.
The defendants include Norwegian companies Grieg Seafood, Leroy
Seafood Group, Mowi, and a number of their U.S. and Canadian
subsidiaries. (The Newfoundland operation carrying the Grieg name
has a local ownership component, and is not on the list.)
Also named as defendants are SalMar of Norway, and Scottish Sea
Farms Ltd., which is described in court documents as the U.K.'s
second-largest producer of salmon and a joint venture of SalMar and
Leroy.
"The defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators control the
Canadian salmon market through their market share," says the
statement of claim filed by Toronto-based Sotos LLP.
It alleges they were part of a conspiracy "to fix the global and
North American prices of salmon."
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no statements of
defence have been filed at this point.
The lawsuit needs judicial approval to proceed as a class action.
In an emailed statement to CBC News, Grieg Seafood said it has been
made aware of the lawsuit in Canada.
"It is related to the separate investigations by the EU Commission
and the U.S. Department of Justice, where they look into possible
anti-competitive behaviour in the salmon farming industry,"
Kristina Furnes, Grieg Seafood's global communications manager,
wrote.
"We are not aware of any anti-competitive behaviour, not in Norway,
the EU, the U.S.A. or Canada. We are fully collaborating with
European and American authorities in this matter. We will follow up
the lawsuit accordingly."
Mowi, meanwhile, noted that several companies have filed lawsuits
against multiple Norwegian and Scottish salmon farming companies.
"The filings are all based on the inspections made by the EU
Commission last year, alleging anti-competitive conduct," Mowi
group communications director Ola Helge Hjetland wrote in an
emailed statement.
"Mowi has not been involved in price-fixing or other
anti-competitive conduct, and believe that the allegations are
unfounded."
The other companies named as defendants did not immediately return
messages from CBC News.
Collusion probes by EU, U.S. authorities
Nearly a year ago, the European Commission did "unannounced
inspections" of several salmon companies related to possible
collusion.
Civil suits related to alleged price-fixing were also filed in the
U.S. in 2019.
Then in November, Mowi, Grieg Seafood, and SalMar all publicly
disclosed that they were being subpoenaed by the antitrust division
of the U.S. Department of Justice, in relation to a criminal
investigation involving similar allegations.
At the time, Grieg Seafood said it was "not aware of any kind of
practices that support the allegations," and SalMar and Mowi said
they "lack merit and are entirely unsubstantiated." [GN]
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUIDANT CLOBAL INC. D/B/A BARTECH GROUP
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-DML-MJH (E.D. Mich.,
Southern Div., February 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint
brought against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages of
their employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act
(FLSA).
Plaintiff claimed that Defendant Bartech did not pay their workers
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
Instead, Bartech applied straight time for overtime scheme to their
workers paying them the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Bartech, a staffing agency headquartered in Southfield, Michigan,
provides staffing solutions to projects ranging from renewable
energy, engineering, information technology, and manufacturing.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANU, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone: 248-542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
HYATT CORPORATION: Crump Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christine Crump, individually and on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hyatt
Corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
RG19046036, (Cal. Super., December 6, 2019), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 13, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-00295.
Crump seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at
the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated
employees, reimbursement of business-related expenses, costs of
suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief
pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN]
Crump is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
Hyatt is represented by:
Brian Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: bplong@seyfarth.com
- and -
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: mafar@seyfarth.com
ICON TIME SYSTEMS: Bedolla Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO BEDOLLA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ICON TIME SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2020CH01535 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty. Chancery Div., February 5,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA).
BIPA defines a biometric identifier as any personal feature that is
unique to an individual, including fingerprints and palm scans.
Also, BIPA provides that private entities may not collect, capture,
or otherwise obtain an individual's biometric identifiers or any
biometric information, unless they first inform that person or with
the consent of the person; and private entities are prohibited from
disseminating or re-disclosing biometric information without
informed consent.
Defendant is an Oregon corporation which transacts business
throughout Illinois and in Cook County. It is a provider of
employee timekeeping solutions, including timekeeping equipment
that relies on biometric information to track workers' time.
According to the complaint, through the biometric devices it
provides to various businesses and employers, Defendant captured,
stored and disseminated the biometrics of Plaintiff and other Class
members without their informed written consent, thereby violated
BIPA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
aheldut@mcgpc.com
ICON TIME: Faces Bedolla Suit over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
ARTURO BEDOLLA, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Defendant ICON TIME SYSTEMS
INC., Case No. 2020CH01535 (Ill. Cir., February 5, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals whose biometrics were captured, collected,
stored, used, transmitted, disseminated, or otherwise obtained by
or on behalf of Defendant or its technology or equipment which
violated their substantive state rights for biometric privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to inform the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated in writing the specific
purpose and length of term their biometrics were being captured,
collected, stored, and used, which are violations of BIPA
requirements.
Icon Time Systems, Inc. is a provider of employee timekeeping
solutions, including timekeeping equipment that relies on biometric
information to track employees' time. The Company is an Oregon
corporation that transacts business throughout Illinois and in Cook
County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, PC
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
aheldut@mcgpc.com
INA DESIGNS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INA DESIGNS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00140-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2020) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- http://inanyc.com-- is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Ina Designs, Inc. a company registered in the State of New York,
operating a clothing store. The Company advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
J DAVID TAX LAW: Meyer Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J DAVID TAX LAW LLC; Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01073 (C.D. Cal., February
3, 2020) is a class action for negligent violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaintiff Meyer claimed that Defendant has invaded her telephone
privacy by negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting her on
her cellular telephone through an automatic telephone dialing
system in an attempt to sell or solicit its business services.
Moreover, Defendant continued to harass and annoy Plaintiff with
calls despite Plaintiff's repeated efforts to cease its automated
barrage of solicitations.
J David Tax Law LLC is a tax law firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 877-206-4741
Fax: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
JAI MATA INC: Perez Files FLSA Suit in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jai Mata, Inc. The
case is styled as Gaspar Perez, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
Jai Mata, Inc. doing business as: Sitar Indian Restaurant,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00101 (M.D., Tenn., Feb. 4, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards over Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Sitar Indian Restaurant is an Authentic Indian restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Jackson, Shields, Yeiser & Holt (Memphis)
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
Michael D. Ponce & Associates
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Tel: (615) 851-1776
Fax: (615) 859-7033
Email: nina@poncelaw.com
KEN RUBMAN: Faces Dressel Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darrel Dressel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEN RUBMAN, MIAMI BEACH REALTY, LLC, d/b/a KELLER
WILLIAMS MIAMI BEACH REALTY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01143 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020),
seeks damages and remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's home and
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes. The Plaintiff did not have an
established business relationship with the Defendants during the
time of the solicitation calls from them. The Plaintiff expressly
asked the Defendants multiple times to be removed from their call
list beginning in May 2017 and continuing through April 2018. The
Plaintiff did not give the Defendants prior express written consent
for the Defendants to call the Plaintiff's home or cellular
telephone for marketing or solicitation purposes.
The Plaintiff requested for the Defendants to stop calling the
Plaintiff during one of the initial calls, thus, revoking any prior
express consent that had existed and terminating any established
business relationship that had existed, the Plaintiff asserts.
Despite this, the Defendants continued to call the Plaintiff in an
attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National
Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA, thus, repeatedly violating the
Plaintiff's privacy, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Agoura Hills,
California.
RUBMAN is a Real Estate Sales Associate licensed in the State of
Florida. MIAMI BEACH REALTY is a nationwide real estate agent
franchise company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
LCS WYNDEMERE: Kachiroubas Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kachiroubas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LCS WYNDEMERE, LLC, Case No. 2020L000151
(Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks damages and remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting,
storing and using the Plaintiff's and others' biometric identifiers
and biometric information without obtaining informed written
consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction
policies, as required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
In direct violation of each of the provisions of the BIPA, the
Defendant collected, stored and used--without first providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies--the fingerprints and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds of its employees, who are being
required to "clock in" with their fingerprints, the Plaintiff
contends. The Plaintiff argues that if the Defendant's database of
digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data
breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and
immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities
stolen, among other serious issues.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to
recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized
collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in
violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois.
LCS Wyndemere, LLC is an Iowa limited liability company doing
business in DuPage County, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.283.3814
Fax: 773.496.8617
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
- and -
Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Phone: (630) 333-0333
Email: peter@l-a.la w
patrick@l-a.law
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Customers List Production in Schleifer Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order denying Plaintiff's request concerning
Defendant's production of the list of customers receiving the texts
at issue in the case captioned JOSHUA SCHLEIFER, Plaintiff, v.
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN et al., Defendants. No. 17-CV-08789 (AJN) (RWL).
(S.D.N.Y.)
The putative class action stems from texts sent to a previous Honda
of Manhattan customer. The texts sought to introduce previous
Honda of Manhattan customers to Lexus of Manhattan service. The
Second Amended Complaint alleges that the unsolicited text
initiating the exchange read as follows: "Good morning, this is
Jen, the service concierge from Lexus of Manhattan. Can I text you
regarding a special maintenance offer for your Honda Vehicle."
The Court opines that notwithstanding Plaintiff's expansive
proposed class definition ("All persons within the United States,
who received any unsolicited text message from Defendants . . ."),
the discovery sought by Plaintiff is neither relevant nor
proportionate to what actually is at issue in this litigation, and
it comes far too late in the litigation (as Defendant Lexus of
Manhattan produced the customer list in June 2018).
Accordingly, the Court ruled that the request for a conference is
denied, and the request to compel production of a class list beyond
customers of Honda or Manhattan that received the solicitation is
denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sd4fszc from Leagle.com
Joshua Schleifer, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Easley
Apostola - ea@zemellawllc.com - Zemel Law LLC & Daniel Zemel ,
Zemel Law, 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013
Lexus of Manhattan, Defendant, represented by Thomas Arthur Leghorn
- tleghorn@londonfischer.com - London Fischer LLP, Jason Marc Myers
- jmyers@londonfischer.com - London Fischer LLP & Salvatore A.
Giampiccolo - SGIAMPICCOLO@MDMC-LAW.COM - McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.
Zipwhip, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bezalel Adin Stern –
bstern@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Paul Andrew
Rosenthal – prosenthal@kelleydrye.com - Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
& Steven Anthony Augustino – saugustino@kelleydrye.com - Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP.
Bay Ridge Automotive Management Corporation, doing business as Bram
Auto Group, Defendant, represented by Jason Marc Myers , London
Fischer LLP.
LISA VANDERPUMP: Faces Class Action Over Wages at Restaurants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Hirsch, writing for Page Six, reports that life isn't all
rose and diamonds for Lisa Vanderpump and Ken Todd.
The restaurateurs are being sued for failing to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failing to provide meal breaks - or compensation in
lieu of breaks - and for violating California's unfair competition
law at their various restaurants including Tom Tom, SUR, Pump and
Villa Blanca, according to Los Angeles Superior Court documents
obtained by Page Six on January 7.
A former employee, Adam Pierce Antoine, filed the class-action
lawsuit on Dec. 16, 2019, claiming that the behavior has gone on
for "at least four years prior to the filing," and he hopes to
include employees who worked at the restaurants during that
timeframe in the suit. Antoine also claims in his complaint that
time records were manipulated after the fact to be in accordance
with California state law, although employees commonly exceeded
40-hour work weeks and 12-hour days.
Antoine worked for Vanderpump and Todd from September to Dec. 24,
2018.
"These are disgruntled ex-employees that had been written up with
many warnings by management and subsequently let go," a source
close to the case said.
An initial court date has been set for March 13.
Meanwhile, the former "RHOBH" couple is still fixing up Pump after
a Ferrari crashed into the glass wall between the patio and the
sidewalk Sunday. One woman was taken to the hospital for cuts.
[GN]
MANHATTAN PARKING: De La Cruz Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARTIN DE LA CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN PARKING GROUP LLC d/b/a
MANHATTAN PARKING GROUP, METRPOLITAN PARKING GROUP LLC, UPTOWN
PARKING CORP., RELIABLE PARKING, CORP., PROVO PARKING LLC, POO
PARKING CORP., MP GARDEN OPERATING LLC, MP WEST 30 LLC, 1020
PARKING LLC, LAWRENCE LIPMAN, GREG GONZALES, RAFAEL MALDONADO and
JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-977 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 5, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint
brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL).
Defendants own and operate more than 100 parking facilities
throughout the New York City area and their employees move
interchangeably from location to location as needed, and use
stationery and equipment bearing the Group's name and logo.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a
parking attendant from February 2013 until his termination on or
around August 15, 2019. Despite regularly working over 10 hours per
day, Plaintiff and others similarly situated never received
spread-of-hours compensation as required under the NYLL.
Additionally, Defendants' timekeeping and payroll policies
functioned to reduce the paid hours of Plaintiff and other
similarly situated; and Defendants also failed to make and keep
accurate payroll records and provided Plaintiff and other similarly
situated with fraudulent wage statements which are in violation of
the FLSA and NYLL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1188
MARIO'S ITALIAN BAKERY: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Mario's Italian Bakery Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Laser and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Mario's Italian Bakery Corp. d/b/a Mario's
Pasticceria, Eugene Berruti and Jacqueline Berruti, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00486 (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 28, 2020).
Mario's Pasticceria offers bakery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G. Solotoff
25 Melville Park Road, Ste 108
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
MEDICREDIT INC: 5th Cir. Reverses Certification of Threats Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that debt
collection agency Medicredit Inc. doesn't have to face a certified
class action alleging the company falsely threatened legal action
for unpaid medical bills after the Fifth Circuit Jan. 8 cited a
lack of evidence regarding the medical center's intent to sue.
The lack of evidence regarding the class-wide intent of Seton
Medical Center means the plaintiffs can't satisfy the requirements
of commonality, typicality or predominance, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said. It reversed a trial court's
class certification order. [GN]
MESA PACKING: Miguel-Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages and Reimbursement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Miguel-Sanchez, Luis Antonio Meza-Estrada, Luis Antonio
Meza Estrada, and others similarly situated v. MESA PACKING, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00823 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought to
assert the Plaintiffs' right to pay for all hours of work,
compliance with the terms of their working arrangement, overtime
under California law, reimbursement of necessary expenses, meal and
rest break wage premiums, and lawful, accurate and complete
paystubs.
The Plaintiffs allege they were compensated on a piece rate and
hourly basis but the Defendant typically only recorded hours worked
for those tasks, which the Defendant chose to compensate on an
hourly basis. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's practice
underreported the number of hours that they worked resulting in
unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs were all employed as field workers in the harvest,
planting and maintenance of agricultural fields and were seasonal
agricultural workers.
Mesa Packing, LLC is a farm labor contractor licensed by the State
of California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dawson Morton, Esq.
Santos Gomez, Esq.
Maria Esmeralda Vizzusi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
1003 Freedom Boulevard
Watsonville, CA 95076
Phone: 831-228-1560
Fax: 831-228-1542
Email: dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
esmeralda@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
MICHAEL SCHNELL: Gonzales and Towne Sue over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL GONZALES and AARON TOWNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL SCHNELL,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00303 (D. Colo., February 5, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for failure
to pay federal minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Schnell is a resident of Canada who conducted business within the
State of Colorado managing, running, owning and controlling Legion
Rig Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 3929 County Road 39, Lucerne,
Colorado 80646.
Plaintiff Raul Gonzales was employed by Legion Rig as a shop
foreman, while Plaintiff Aaron Towne was employed as a truck
driver. Both Plaintiffs assert that Schnell failed to compensate
them for work they performed, 130 hours for Gonzales and 182.5
hours for Towne, in September and October 2019. Moreover, there are
at least 25-30 other individuals who were employed by Schnell and
were not paid any wages or overtime compensation for hours they
worked in September and October 2019. These similarly situated
workers were all terminated by Schnell in October 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: 303-839-1650
E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
AHarrison@sawayalaw.com
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Reminds of March 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm announced on Jan. 8 the filing of a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Mohawk
Industries, Inc. between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Mohawk investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Mohawk class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1752.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Mohawk was engaging in fraudulent channel stuffing; (2)
Mohawk's statements regarding sales growth and the demand for its
conventional flooring products were false and misleading; (3) the
Company falsely assured stockholders about its increasing accounts
receivable and inventory levels during the Class Period by falsely
attributing those increases to external factors like rising raw
material costs and inflation; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 3,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1752.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com. [GN]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mathis Asserts Breach of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management Inc. The case is styled as Aryan Mathis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Monarch Recovery Management Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00222 (M.D., Fla., Jan. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is an accounts receivable
management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
Zeig Law Firm, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Tel: (754) 217-3084
Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MONARCH RECOVERY: Reus Sues over Unfair Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA REUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC. and
COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00236-SMB
(D. Ariz., January 31, 2020) is a class action brought against
Defendants for alleged abusive debt collection practices which
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The FDCPA is a strict liability statute that was enacted by
Congress to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt
collectors and to protect consumers.
Monarch and Collins are both debt collectors who at all relevant
times was engaged in the business of attempting to collect debts
from debtors by using mails and telephone.
Plaintiff alleges that Monarch acted on behalf of Collins at all
relevant times to collect or attempt to collect the debt from
Plaintiff. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff received an initial
written communication which is based on a template that falsely
represents that a debtor must dispute the alleged obligation in
writing in order to prevent Monarch from assuming the validity of
the alleged obligation.
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Monarch violated a key provision
of the FDCPA which requires a debt collector to send, within five
days of its initial communication with a consumer, a written notice
which provides information regarding the debt and informs the
consumer of his or her right to dispute the validity of the debt,
and/or request the name and address of the original creditor,
within 30 days of receipt of the notice. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (602) 388-8898
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
NARY'S GRILL & PIZZA: Arista Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Arista, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Nary's Grill &
Pizza, Inc., Leonel Rodriguez, Sr., Leonel Rodriguez, Jr. and
Barbara Rodriguez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00219
(N.D. Ill., January 12, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance.
Nary's Grill & Pizza is a family enterprise owned by the Rodriguez
family engaged in the restaurant business. Arista worked an average
of 78 hours per week, 6 days per week without overtime premiums for
the hours he worked in excess of 40 each week, asserts the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Luka
MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
120 S. State Street, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312) 508-6010
Email: paul@mendozalaw.net
service@mendozalaw.net
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Mullen Files Suit in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage
LLC. The case is styled as James Mullen, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
doing business as: MR. COOPER, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 9:20-cv-80165-RLR (D., Ariz., Feb. 4, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Real Property:
Other filed for Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers
mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan,
re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
The Moskowitz Law Firm
2 Alhambra Plaza #601
Miami, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Fax: (786) 298-5737
Email: blewis@cspalaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Miami, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Email: joseph@moskowitz-law.com
NAVISTAR: Settlement in MaxxForce Engine Action Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Cole, writing for CCJ, reports that a federal judge has
approved Navistar's proposed $135 million settlement that will be
paid out to owners of certain International trucks equipped with
defective model year 2011-2014 MaxxForce 11- or 13-liter engines.
Judge Joan Gottschall of a U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the final approval on Jan. 3. The
judge concluded that the class action settlement is a "fair,
reasonable and adequate resolution" of the truck owners' claims.
The approval follows an objection filed in October by four large
fleets.
As part of the settlement, those who purchased or leased
International trucks with the defective engines can choose from
three forms of relief for each affected truck they owned or leased.
They can choose to receive up to $2,500 in cash, up to a $10,000
rebate on a new Navistar truck with proof of ownership/lease, or up
to $15,000 in repayment for repair costs.
The order states that Navistar will contribute $85 million to fund
claims for the cash payout and repair repayment options. The
remaining $50 million will be used for rebates.
Owners and lessees of affected trucks have until May 11 to file
their claims for any of the three options, according to the law
firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, which represented the
class in the settlement. [GN]
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Calif. Court Junks Retirees ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corp. and its benefits administrator, Alight
Solutions LLC, convinced a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss
a proposed class action by retirees who say they were misled about
their pension benefits.
Northrop retiree Stephen Bafford failed to show that the defendants
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by overstating
workers' pension benefits and later recalculating those benefits at
a significant reduction, Judge Otis D. Wright II of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California held. [GN]
NSC TECH: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Thompson on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NSC Technologies, LLC, BAE Systems, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2020-00001726, Cal.
Super., January 10, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.
NSC Technologies offers workforce management solution.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Scott A. Brooks, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com
NUSIL TECHNOLOGY: Bell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Nathan Bell, individually and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NuSil
Technology, LLC, Avantor Performance Materials, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-102982, (Cal.
Super., October 19, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on January 13, 2020, under
Case No. 20-cv-00061.
Bell seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
NuSil Technology is represented by:
Melissa J. Fassett, Esq.
Timothy E. Metzinger, SBN 145266
PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-0011
Facsimile: (805) 965-3978
Email: mjf@ppplaw.com
tem@ppplaw.com
NVENT THERMAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardimon Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA HARDIMON, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Defendants NVENT
THERMAL, LLC and ERICO INTERNATIONAL CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-00246
(N.D. Ohio, February 5, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to
compensate her and similarly-situated employees overtime wages as
mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act; and O.R.C. Sec. 4113.15 (Ohio's "Prompt Pay
Act.")
According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
removed time from the timecards of Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated employees. As a result, they were not paid
overtime wages earned by them and owed to them under the FLSA and
OMFWSA.
nVent Thermal, LLC is a manufacturer of electric enclosures,
electric heat-tracing solutions, and heat-management systems. It is
a Delaware limited liability corporation with its international
headquarters and principal place of business located in Solon,
Ohio.
ERICO International Corporation is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business in Solon, Ohio. The company
manufactures electrical and fastening solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
THE FUCHS FIRM LLC
3961 Silsby Road
University Heights, OH 44118
Telephone: (216) 505-7500
Facsimile: (216) 505-7500
E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com
OAHU INTERSCHOLASTIC: Title IX Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee, writing for Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that a lawsuit
seeking to represent all current and potential future female
athletes at Hawaii's largest high school in sex discrimination
claims against the state Department of Education cannot move
forward as a class action case, a federal judge recently ruled.
The Dec. 31 ruling from U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi is
the first significant development to come out of the Title IX suit
since it was filed a little over a year ago. It marks a setback for
the ACLU of Hawaii, which filed the case on behalf of the
students.
The civil rights organization on Jan. 14 petitioned the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals for permission to appeal.
"The decision is a setback in the sense we cannot currently proceed
as a class action, but our current plaintiffs can continue with
their individual claims," said ACLU of Hawaii legal director Mateo
Caballero.
"We have every expectation that the court erred in its ruling, and
that will be addressed on appeal."
The plaintiffs are four female students at Campbell High School who
participate in varsity water polo, swimming and soccer.
Their December 2018 Title IX lawsuit against the DOE and Oahu
Interscholastic Association alleged discrimination on the basis of
sex over lack of equal access as student male athletes to locker
rooms, practice and competitive facilities, equipment and supplies,
coaching resources, travel opportunities and publicity and
promotion, among other things.
The suit also alleged retaliation by Campbell school administrators
after they allegedly threatened to cancel the girls' water polo
program after players complained about the school's failure to
secure a practice pool.
The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all current and
future female students at Campbell — a grade 9-12 school whose
total female student count in 2017-18 was 1,506 among a total 3,123
— who were or might be deterred from participating in school
athletics due to these barriers.
In the 2018-19 school year, there were 366 female student athletes
at the Ewa school, according to the ACLU.
The suit seeks an injunction against the DOE and OIA for a halt to
the discriminatory actions and a court order to remedy the Title IX
violations.
Having this case proceed as a class action would permit a wider
review of girls and boys athletic programs to see how they're
experiencing access, said Kim Turner, senior staff attorney at
Legal Aid At Work, which is co-representing the plaintiffs with the
ACLU.
"Title IX really requires a program-wide analysis of girls and boys
athletics because you can't see inequity unless you're comparing
one to the other," she said. "You can't look at one single girls
sport in a vacuum."
In her 26-page ruling, Kobayashi said the plaintiffs failed to
satisfy one of four criteria needed to establish class
certification — that a class size is so numerous, joining
individual members to the suit would be impractical.
"The proposed class members are limited to the female student
population from a single high school," Kobayashi wrote. "The
proposed class members are geographically tied to one area of
Hawaii, and identifiable through school and athletic records."
The judge also disagreed that the plaintiffs' claim of retaliation
was typical of claims of the proposed class, reasoning it was only
unique to the girls' water polo players' allegation.
A hearing on the motion was held in September. At the end of that
hearing, Kobayashi requested the ACLU provide additional
information on how it calculated the number of female athletes at
Campbell who would fall within the class definition.
In its petition to appeal, the ACLU argues the district judge
applied "a more onerous burden than required by controlling
precedent" in her class certification finding and also didn't
consider other important related or unique factors to the case.
The brief also argued the judge relied on "dated and out-of-circuit
district court cases in inapposite contexts" in reaching her
decision.
It also notes that courts generally find that proposed class sizes
of 40 or more individuals make joining more parties to a lawsuit
impractical and that courts routinely certify similarly-sized Title
IX high school athletics cases.
"A class action would save significant judicial resources by
ensuring all Title IX claims from the same school are adjudicated
in an efficient and consistent manner," the petition states.
Nanea Kalani, a DOE spokeswoman, said since the case was still in
litigation, the DOE could not comment on the ruling.
The ACLU's suit was filed months after the organization sent a
demand letter to the DOE after publication of a Civil Beat article
in February 2018 exposing the lack of girls' athletic locker rooms
at Campbell High that caused softball players and track and
fielders to change into uniform by the school bleachers or run to a
Burger King off school grounds to use the restrooms, while male
athletes didn't face the same barriers.
The developments triggered a broader Title IX compliance effort
within the state DOE, including training for athletic directors and
coaches, and a proposed slate of school construction projects
calling for girls' athletic locker rooms, field improvements and
renovations at schools across the state.
The DOE, which is represented by the state Attorney General's
Office, has two weeks to file a response to the ACLU's bid to
appeal to the 9th Circuit. A decision by that court on whether to
grant the petition to appeal could take several months. A ruling on
the appeal could take up to a year.[GN]
ORANGE TWIST: Gavin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Missed Breaks Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Gavin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ORANGE TWIST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; BODY CONCEPTS BY ORANGE TWIST 1 CORP., a California
corporation; ORANGE TWIST, a business organization, form unknown;
ORANGETWIST BRANDS, INC., a business organization, form unknown;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV04602 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought for
representative claims based on the Private Attorneys General Act on
behalf of current and former aggrieved employees of the Defendants
for violations of the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage
Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
The complaint challenges alleged systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code
against individuals, who worked for the Defendants. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants failed to properly provide off-duty
meal and rest periods, to pay additional compensation for missed
meal and rest periods, to pay overtime wages based on the correct
regular rate of pay that factored in any non-discretionary
incentives, and to provide accurate itemized wage statements to its
employees.
The Plaintiff was employed in the position of Licensed Esthetician,
from July 31, 2018, until her wrongful termination on May 31,
2019.
The Defendants operate, maintain and manage various locations of
medical spas in the State of California, including in Los Angeles
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: Has to File Documentation on Settlement Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order directing the Filing of Supplemental
Briefing and Documentation in the case captioned ELIZABETH CASTRO,
individually, and on behalf of similarly situated members of the
general public and other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. PARAGON
INDUSTRIES, et al., Defendants. No. 1:19-cv-00755-DAD-SKO. (E.D.
Cal.)
The Court's directive is in connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action and
Collective Action Settlement.
The Court's directive has been issued to address these issues,
among other things:
-- The fairness and reasonableness of including the employer's
share of payroll taxes and other mandatory contributions as
part of the Settlement Fund, and the estimated value of the
payroll taxes and other mandatory contributions, in both
absolute and percentage terms.
-- With respect to the FLSA collective action, additional
information and detail regarding the existence of a bona
fide dispute (i.e. whether there are legitimate questions
about the existence and extent of defendant's FLSA
liability), including the basis on which defendant denies
any liability of any kind associated with the claims and
allegations and maintains that it has complied with the
applicable laws in all respects.
The parties shall file a brief responsive to these issues without
delay, the Court further rules.
A full-text copy of the District Court's December 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wwhwtw8 from Leagle.com
Elizabeth Castro, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and on behlaf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -
edwin@lfjpc.com - Lawyers for Justice, PC, Arby Aiwazian -
arby@lfjpc.com - The Aiwazian Law Firm & Joanna Ghosh -
joanna@lfjpc.com - Lawyers For Justice, PC.
Paragon Industries, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark D. Kruthers -mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -
Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Gerald Andrew Slater -
aslater@dowlingaaron.com - Dowling Aaron Incorporated & William H.
Littlewood - wlittlewood@dowlingaaron.com - Dowling Aaron Inc..
PERIWINKLES CATERING CORP: Laser Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Periwinkles Catering Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Laser and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Periwinkles Catering Corp. d/b/a Periwinkles Catering
& Cafe and Audrey South LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00487
(E.D. N.Y., Jan. 28, 2020).
Periwinkles Catering & Cafe offers a sit-down coffee bar with
snacks and full lunch menu; Gourmet To Go, meals prepared to be
taken home; and full service event planning and catering.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
Law Office of Darryn G. Solotoff
25 Melville Park Road, Ste 108
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (516) 695-0052
Email: ds@lawsolo.net
PNC BANK: E. Thomas Proposes Class Action for TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Spiezio, writing for Reuters, reports that a California
resident has brought a proposed class action against PNC Bank,
N.A., alleging the bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by repeatedly calling her without her consent.
Plaintiff Eve Thomas said in the complaint, filed on Jan. 7 in
Riverside, California federal court, that she and potentially
thousands of other class members nationwide suffered increased
cellphone charges and a loss of privacy due to PNC Bank's calls.
[GN]
POROS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA/IMWL, Cruz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juventino Cruz, Miguel Rodriguez and Jennifer Baltic, on behalf of
and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. POROS, INC. d/b/a
BENTLEY'S PANCAKE HOUSE And PETE GIAFIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00830
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
unpaid wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collections Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not pay them proper
wages, including overtime wages of one and one-half time their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in a
work week. Additionally, the Defendants utilized a tip credit for
tipped employees, however, Plaintiff Baltic did not receive the
required minimum wages for tipped employees for all hours worked.
Instead, Plaintiff Baltic was paid $4.95 per hour for 25 hours per
week and did not receive any hourly wages for hours worked past 25
hours and, instead, only received tips.
The Defendants also deduct wages from the Plaintiffs' pay without
consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs argue that they and
similarly situated employees were not exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA.
Plaintiffs Cruz and Rodriguez worked as kitchen staff and Plaintiff
Baltic worked as a server for the Defendants.
Poros, Inc. is an Illinois corporation doing business as Bentley's
Pancake House located in Bloomingdale, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: 630.355.7590
Fax: 630.778.0400
POTOMAC FAMILY DINING: Colburn Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company, LLC is facing a
class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Gaynell Colburn,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company, LLC d/b/a
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00253-ADC (E.D. N.Y., Jan. 29, 2020).
Potomac Family Dining Group is a Franchisee of Applebee's and
operates 69 restaurants in the east coast states of VA, MD, WVA PA
and NC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E David Hoskins, Esq.
The Law Offices of E David Hoskins LLC
16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21202
Tel: (410) 662-6500
Fax: (410) 662-7800
Email: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com
- and -
R Bruce Carlson , Jr, Esq.
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
PUBLIC REPUTATION: Austin Wants Consumer Privacy Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Austin and Jesaniel Marrero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PUBLIC REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC D/B/A PR.BUSINESS, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 9:20-cv-80161-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The TCPA is a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of automated and
prerecorded telephone calls, which were rightly regarded as in
invasion of privacy.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant made pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to Plaintiffs and other putative class members
without their consent. Plaintiff Marrero alleges that the Defendant
made multiple calls to his number despite his phone number's
presence on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiffs and
putative class members never consented to receive these calls.
Because prerecorded voice marketing campaigns generally place calls
to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons, who received illegal robocalls
from or on behalf of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs seek to obtain
redress for the Defendant's wide-scale illegal telemarketing and is
consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the
TCPA.
Plaintiff Robert Austin resides in Arkansas. Plaintiff Jesaniel
Marrero resides in Pennsylvania.
Pr.Business offers marketing services, with a focus on internet
based presence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
RALEIGH RADIOLOGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mammograms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Rodriguez, writing for ABC11, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed in Wake County, North Carolina, against
Raleigh Radiology Blue Ridge concerning its mammography services.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Wake County resident and other
patients who got mammograms at the Raleigh Radiology location on
Blue Ridge Road between Nov. 7, 2017 and Nov. 6, 2019.
The practice lost its accreditation due to the technical quality of
mammography images. This comes after reviews by the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and American College of Radiology (ACR).
The Paynter Law Firm, which is representing the clients, said
patients were sent a letter telling them to contact their health
care providers and informing them they may need to have mammograms
reviewed or repeated.
The lawsuit said patients should get their money back for
screenings and costs associated with re-reviews or repeats of
mammograms.
"They have not offered to compensate patients for the breast cancer
detection services that they paid for that were obviously
deficient," said Stuart Paynter, Esq. -- stuart@paynterlaw.com --
who owns the law firm.
ABC11 reached out to Raleigh Radiology about the lawsuit January 6
and January 7 and hasn't heard back. But the practice did
previously post a video on their website explaining their
suspension.
"The majority of the cases reviewed were acceptable to the ACR,"
said Dr. Laura Thomas, of Raleigh Radiology. "And neither the ACR
nor the FDA has indicated that any visible cancer or disease on any
image was overlooked."
Raleigh Radiology has not told ABC11 how many patients got
mammograms during the time in question.
Paynter said he also hasn't been given the number but that there
could be hundreds, if not thousands of women.
"This is class action litigation so if the court certifies the
class, the lawsuit would cover everyone who had a mammogram during
that period of time," Paynter said.
The mammogram suspension only impacts the Raleigh Radiology office
on Blue Ridge Road. [GN]
RES-CARE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Black Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Black, individually, And on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RES-CARE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00384-JRS-MPB (S.D.
Ind., Feb. 4, 2020), is brought against the Defendant pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from its failure to properly
pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages.
The Plaintiff contends that she would routinely work over 40 hours
in a workweek, and the Defendant would pay her a weekly salary
instead of her overtime rate for the hours worked over 40 hours. On
July 17, 2019, the Defendant changed the Plaintiff's classification
to non-exempt. She asserts that the failure to pay her one-and-one
half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek is a plain and simple violation of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff worked as a Community Specialist for the Defendant.
She seeks unpaid paid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and
all other relief permitted.
The Defendant is a Kentucky for-profit corporation, authorized to
conduct business in the State of Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Robert Panico, Esq.
PANICO LAW LLC
9465 Counselors Row, Ste. 200
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Phone: (317) 759-7464
Email: panico.avoue@gmail.com
RHT INC: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RHT INC. d/b/a BATHWRAPS, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01116 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 4, 2020), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes. The Plaintiff contends
that the Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular
telephone.
Based on the Plaintiff's experiences of being called by the
Defendant after requesting it stop calling, the Defendant failed to
establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to
effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the
regulations prescribed under the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County,
California.
RHT INC. d/b/a BATHWRAPS is a home furnishing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
RING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hacked Camera
---------------------------------------------------
WMC Action News 5 reports that a Desoto County woman has filed a
class action lawsuit against Ring after she says hackers gained
access to a camera in her daughter's bedroom.
Ashley LeMay first spoke with WMC Action News 5 in early December.
She says the camera was only up for a few days before someone
hacked the device.
"I did a lot of research on these before I got them. You know, I
really felt like it was safe," said LeMay.
The camera was supposed to bring a level of comfort for LeMay and
her husband, a way to keep a watchful eye on three of daughters and
alert them to a medical emergency since one of their daughters has
a history of seizures.
Instead, LeMay says a hacker spoke to her daughter through the
camera, played music and even shouted slurs.
"They could have watched them sleeping, changing. I mean they could
have seen all kinds of things," said LeMay. "Honestly, my gut it
makes me feel like it's either somebody who knows us or somebody
who is very close by."
In mid-December, Ring responded to reports of recent hacks,
including LeMay's story, which garnered national attention. The
company notified its users that some account credentials, like
usernames and passwords, may have been swiped from an external,
non-Ring service.
Now LeMay has filed a class action lawsuit against Ring.
The filing reads, ". . . instead of helping families protect their
homes, Ring security devices have had the opposite effect by
permitting hackers to exploit security vulnerabilities in the Ring
system to spy on and harass Ring customers inside their own
homes."
Cyber security experts say with the right tools hackers can break
into your home using these cameras without ever stepping foot
inside. That's why installing two-factor authentication is crucial
to protecting your accounts from cyber criminals.
In a statement from LeMay's attorney, Hassan Zavareei, said, "Ever
since this crisis broke out, Ring has been trying to blame
consumers instead of taking responsibility for its own sloppy
security practices. Ring says its customers should have used better
security measures, like dual-factor authentication. The truth is
that Ring never asked its customers to use dual-factor
authentication. Ring also allows hackers (and hacker software) to
try as many passwords as they want without ever locking them out,
meaning that Ring's system can be hacked by a basic computer
program that enters as many codes as possible until one works. And
these are only two examples of Ring's apathetic approach to
protecting its customers' privacy. These breaches were Ring's
fault, not our clients'." [GN]
SEATTLE'S CHILDREN'S: Aspergillus Victims File Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deedee Sun, writing for KIRO 7, reports that people who contracted
Aspergillus while at Seattle's Children's Hospital have filed
another lawsuit, and this time, it's a class-action lawsuit.
The suit alleges that Children's Hospital "kept a deadly secret"
and that the hospital "engaged in a cover-up designed to reassure
its patients, doctors, nurses, and the public that its premises
were safe, when in fact they were not."
Parents Katha and Micah Hutt from Lacey say their baby girl,
Elizabeth Hutt, contracted Aspergillus during either or both of her
surgeries at Children's Hospital in August or November of 2019.
The baby's girl's surgeries took place during a period when
Children's reopened its operating rooms, in between two outbreaks.
The lawsuit says Children's Hospital "represented that its
operating rooms were safe" and opened them on July 4 after a
shutdown. Then closed them again on Nov. 10. "This is when the
Defendant admitted that the Aspergillus contamination outbreak had
never been resolved in the first place," the lawsuit says.
Elizabeth is now 5 months old and continues to fight for her life.
The Washington State Department of Health released a statement on
Jan. 8 in regards to their on-site investigation of Seattle
Children's Hospital:
"The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has completed an
on-site investigation of Seattle Children's Hospital. This
investigation was initiated in November 2019 after the hospital
self-reported a case of Aspergillus to us. We looked at governance,
physical environment, infection control, and quality assurance.
Based on our extensive interviews and reviews of the environment,
we found that they were following the rules. DOH found no evidence
of deficient practices, but during the course of the investigation,
inspectors verified the presence of mold on the premises. Serious
mitigation efforts are currently underway to address the mold,
including major HVAC renovation to address the airflow system in
several operating rooms. This action is being undertaken by the
hospital. Members of the DOH Construction Review Services team will
coordinate with Seattle Children's until the HVAC renovation
project is complete.
"The Department of Health's role as a regulator is to ensure all
facilities in the state of Washington comply with licensing
standards. Those standards require hospitals to maintain a safe
physical environment, and when problems occur, determine root
causes, and put steps in place to prevent future occurrences."
[GN]
SECOND ROUND: Keener Files FDCPA Suit in West Virgina
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Second Round Sub,
LLC. The case is styled as Randall Keener, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Second Round Sub, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00106 (S.D., W.V., Feb. 5, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Second Round Sub, LLC is a receivables management firm that serves
businesses of all types nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
P. O. Box 959
Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
Tel: (304) 574-2727
Fax: (304) 574-3709
Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
SRS DISTRIBUTION: Counce Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Counce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SRS Distribution, Inc. and Advanced Building Products,
INc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex., January 13,
2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants own and operate a warehouse that sells roof shingles
where Counce was employed as an inside sales representative. He
claims to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was
denied overtime pay. Counce also claims that she responded to
work-related calls and texts from her supervisors even after office
hours. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Lowinger Balks at Sale to Blackstone Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TALLGRASS ENERGY, LP, WILLIAM R. MOLER,
MARCELINO OREJA ARBURUA, GUY G. BUCKLEY, ROY N. COOK, THOMAS A.
GERKE, WALLACE C. HENDERSON, MATTHEW J.K. RUNKLE, and TERRANCE D.
TOWNER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00985 (S.D.N.Y., February 5,
2020) is a class action lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against
Defendants for allegedly submitting false and misleading
information to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the proposed sale of Tallgrass Energy, in violation
of Securities Exchange act of 1934.
On December 16, 2019, the members of the board of directors of TGE
caused the Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan merger
with Prairie Private Acquiror LP and Prairie Merger Sub LLC and
under the terms of the Merger Agreement, TGE stockholders will
receive $22.45 in cash, without interest, for each share of TGE
Stock they hold. Moreover, on January 21, 2020, the Board
authorized the filing of a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC
to convince stockholders of TGE to vote in favor of the merger.
The complaint says the proxy statement is materially incomplete and
misleading because Defendants failed to disclose material
information necessary for stockholders of TGE to properly assess
the fairness of the plan merger, in violation of Exchange Act
Sections 14(a) and 20(a).
According to a Moody's Investors Service report, Prairie ECI
Acquiror was established by affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure
Partners together with affiliates of Enagas S.A., GIC Private
Limited, South Korea's National Pension Service and Universities
Superannuation Scheme. Blackstone et al. as sponsors will acquire
all of the publicly held outstanding Class A Shares of Tallgrass
for approximately $3.5 billion. The sponsors will contribute up to
approximately $2.92 billion of equity and borrow up to $575 million
to fund the acquisition. The transaction is expected to close in
the second quarter of 2020.
Defendant Tallgrass Energy, LP is a Delaware limited partnership
with its principal executive offices located at 4200 W. 115th
Street, Suite 350, Leawood, Kansas 66211. TGE is a publicly traded,
growth-oriented limited partnership that owns, operates, acquires
and develops midstream energy assets in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Klein, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
Email: mklein@aflaw.com
TECH USA: Lillard Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
TECH USA: Lillard Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MATTIE LILLARD, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TECH USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00308-ADC
(D. Md., February 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Tech USA provides consulting, workforce, and recruitment solutions
to clients across the nation.
Plaintiff Lillard worked for Tech USA as an Account Executive and
Recruiter from January 2019 through April 2019. Plaintiff claimed
that she was not guaranteed a salary, though she worked more than
8-hour daily shifts and over 50 hours per week; and was only paid
at the hourly same for all hours worked including those in excess
of 40 in a workweek. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCHNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
E-mail: rburch@bruchnerburch.com
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Mendoza Sues Over Defective Valve Springs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00076 (C.D. Cal. January 13, 2020), seeks
compensatory, exemplary and punitive remedies and damages and
statutory penalties, including interest, injunctive and equitable
relief in the form of a recall and program to repair, modify,
and/or buy back all defective vehicles and to fully reimburse all
costs and economic losses, disgorgement of all or part of the
ill-gotten profits they received from their sale or lease of the
concerned vehicles, all applicable statutory and civil penalties,
award of costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief
for breach of warranty and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
In 2014, Mendoza purchased a used Scion FR-S from a Toyota
dealership in Northridge, CA. It exhibited a manufacturing defect
causing the engine valve springs to fracture.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA distributes Toyota vehicles in the United
States.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Mobasseri, Esq.
David Alan Cooper, Esq.
Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. MOBASSERI, PC
1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 282-2000
Fax: (213) 282-3000
Email: robertm@mobasserilaw.com
dcooper@mobasserilaw.com
brohr@mobasserilaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Cheng Sues Over Defective Low-Pressure Fuel Pumps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Cheng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00629
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating of
New York's consumer protection statute and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act; breach of express warranty; breach of implied
warranty; negligent recall/undertaking; and unjust enrichment.
On January 13, 2020, Toyota submitted a safety recall report to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration voluntarily
recalling nearly 700,000 Toyota and Lexus vehicles manufactured
between August 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, with defective
low-pressure Denso fuel pumps. In the Recall Report, Toyota
identified a dangerous defect in the low-pressure fuel pump, which
can fail and cause the Recalled Vehicles to unexpectedly stall and
cause engine shut down.
According to the complaint, 695,541 Recalled Vehicles are covered
by the Recall, but the same dangerous condition is present in all
2018-2019 Toyota manufactured vehicles equipped with low-pressure
fuel pumps with part number prefix 23220- or 23221- ("Class
Vehicles") that gave rise to the Recall. Toyota concluded that the
Fuel Pump Defect in Class Vehicles presents an immediate risk of
physical injury when used in their intended manner and for their
ordinary purpose.
The Plaintiff contends that Toyota has long known of the Fuel Pump
Defect in the Class Vehicles, despite marketing Class Vehicles as
safe and dependable. Toyota admitted in the Defect Information
Report accompanying the Recall Report that it received thousands of
warranty requests related to the Fuel Pump Defect in Class
Vehicles.
The Fuel Pump Defect in the Class Vehicles exposes occupants and
others to extreme danger, or even death, the Plaintiff avers. A
vehicle that stalls or suffers engine shutdown is at heightened
risk for collision. Fuel pump failure can prevent the driver from
accelerating at the necessary and anticipated pace. Diminished
acceleration ability creates unexpected hazards, startling drivers
of the Class Vehicles and other drivers in their proximity.
Finally, once a Class Vehicle fuel pump fails, the vehicle becomes
totally inoperable and will not start.
While Toyota knew about the Fuel Pump Defect and the associated
dangers, Toyota manufactured, marketed, sold, leased, and warranted
Class Vehicles, and, in its quest for corporate profits, did not
disclose to the unsuspecting public that Class Vehicles were
inherently defective, dangerous and create a grave risk for bodily
harm or death, the Plaintiff contends. Compounding its wrongdoing,
the Plaintiff notes, despite admitting in the Recall Report that
the Fuel Pump Defect increases the likelihood of accidents,
egregiously, Toyota has not recommended or advised that consumers
stop driving the Class Vehicles until the Fuel Pump Defect can be
repaired or replaced. Given the inherent dangers of driving Class
Vehicles, Toyota at a minimum should have contacted purchasers and
lessees and offered them free loaner vehicles of the type of Class
Vehicle they drive until it could devise and implement a fix or
take other action to protect consumers' safety, the Plaintiff
adds.
The Plaintiff also asserts that with or without a viable remedy for
the Fuel Pump Defect, the Recall has decreased the intrinsic and
resale value of the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff and other Class
members have been damaged as a result. Toyota's marketing of the
Class Vehicles was and is replete with assurances about their
safety and dependability. A vehicle that can suddenly stall and
lose power during normal operating conditions is inherently unsafe
and renders Toyota's marketing of the Class Vehicles untrue and
materially misleading, the Plaintiff contends.
Plaintiff Cheng leased a new 2019 Lexus RX 350 from Smithtown Lexus
in St. James, New York, in January of 2019.
Toyota is the world's second largest manufacturer of automotive
vehicles and sells its vehicles across the United States through a
network of over 1,200 dealers, including those in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Demet Basar, Esq.
Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
Kate McGuire, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
Email: basar@whafh.com
brown@whafh.com
mcguire@whafh.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.williams@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Elbert F. Nasis, Esq.
FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP
333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
Uniondale, NY 11553
Phone: (516) 248-1700
Email: enasis@forchellilaw.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Barbero Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Tracey Barbero, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00506 (E.D., N.Y., Jan.
29, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Hanks Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
KIM HANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY OF ARIZONA, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00244-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal., February 3, 2020) is a class
action complaint for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, Defendant has negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone by using an automatic telephone dialing system, even
without prior express consent, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff
to purchase Defendant's services; thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy which is a violation of the TCPA and the National
Do-Not-Call provisions.
Travel Transparency of Arizona, LLC is a travel marketing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund, The Arbitrage Fund and the Water
Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P.
and additional named plaintiffs the FNY Partners Fund LP and FNY
Managed Accounts, LLC on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THE
ARBITRAGE EVENT-DRIVEN FUND, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, PETER M.
KERN, CHANDLER BIGELOW, CRAIG A. JACOBSON, ROSS LEVINSOHN, PETER E.
MURPHY, LAURA R. WALKER, OAKTREE TRIBUNE, L.P., OAKTREE CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, L.P., and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-06175 (CPK) (N.D. Ill.), appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from each and every aspect of:
(1) the Memorandum Opinion dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice; and the
(2) final Judgment by the District Court, both entered on
January 6, 2020.
The appellate case is captioned as THE ARBITRAGE EVENT-DRIVEN FUND,
et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, PETER M. KERN, CHANDLER BIGELOW, CRAIG A.
JACOBSON, ROSS LEVINSOHN, PETER E. MURPHY, LAURA R. WALKER, OAKTREE
TRIBUNE, L.P., OAKTREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., and MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, Case No. 20-1177, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Sept. 10,
2018, The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a putative securities
class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint") against the
company and members of its senior management in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The Securities Complaint alleges that Tribune Media Company and its
senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by misrepresenting and omitting material facts concerning
Sinclair's conduct during the Sinclair Merger approval process.
On December 18, 2018, the Court appointed The Arbitrage
Event-Driven Fund and related entities as Lead Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 710-5960
Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
- and -
Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10171
Phone: (212) 894-7200
Email: jporter@entwistle-law.com
bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com
- and -
Michael H. Moirano, Esq.
MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC
135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 614-1260
TRUEACCORD CORP: Deiker Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. The
case is styled as William Deiker, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trueaccord Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00669 (N.D., Ill., Jan. 29, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181 x116
Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Howard Smith Law Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
February 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Trulieve
Cannabis Corp. ("Trulieve" or the "Company") (OTC: TCNNF)
securities between September 25, 2018 and December 17, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Trulieve investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On December 17, 2019, Grizzly Research published a report alleging
that most of the Company's cultivation space comes from "hoop
houses that produce low quality output," that there were extensive
ties between Trulieve and ongoing FBI investigations into
corruption, that the Company's initial license approval "stinks of
corruption," and that the Company engaged in undisclosed related
party transactions.
On this news, Trulieve's share price fell $1.51, or more than 12%,
to close at $10.40 per share on December 17, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its
biological assets; (2) that Trulieve's reported gross profit was
inflated; (3) that Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party
real estate sale with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) that as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Trulieve securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than February 28, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]
US POSTAL SERVICE: Stole Wages from Mailmen, Tran et al. Allege
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAVERICK TRAN, RAFAEL ZAMBRANO-LAY, and VICTOR BARRIENTOS, on
behalf of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00807 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., February 3, 2020) is a
collective action complaint against the Defendant for alleged
willful and systematic stealing wages earned by city letter
carriers employed at USPS's facilities in San Jose, California.
According to the complaint, Defendant has required the Carriers to
continue to work off the clock after their shifts have ended; has
instructed them to submit false time records indicating that their
shift ended before it actually had; and has had management
officials falsify the Carriers' time records without the Carriers'
knowledge or permission, thereby depriving the Carriers' of massive
amounts of hard-earned overtime wages.
However, while finding USPS culpable of willful misconduct, the
Carriers' union known as the National Association of Letter
Carriers, AFL-CIO, limited the possible recovery to less than the
Carriers are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiffs bring this action to recover the full amount owed under
federal law to them and to other similarly situated Carriers who
join the action, including damages for the full period allowed
under the applicable three-year statute of limitations, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees.
Defendant USPS is an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the United States Government which operates postal
facilities throughout the United States, including 12 in San Jose,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce A. Harland, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel: (510) 337-1001
Fax: (501) 337-1023
Email: bharland@unioncounsel.net
- and -
Joshua J. Ellison, Esq.
COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4869
Tel: (212) 563-4100
E-Mail: jellison@cwsny.com
VIKING GROUP: Class Action Settlement Over Fire Sprinklers Reached
------------------------------------------------------------------
Viking VK457 Settlement Administrator on behalf of Viking Group,
Inc., The Viking Corporation, and Supply Network, Inc., d/b/a
Viking Supplynet (collectively, "Viking") and Plaintiffs' law
firms, Sauder Schelkopf LLC and Kramon & Graham PA, announced a
proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned Jackson,
et al. v. Viking Group, Inc., et al., No. 8:18-cv-02356-PJM (D.
Md.).
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
granted preliminary approval to the proposed class action
settlement on December 30, 2019. The proposed settlement resolves
claims regarding those Viking VK457 fire sprinklers sold between
January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2015 (referred to as "Subject
Sprinklers"). Plaintiffs allege that these products, which mainly
were used in residential buildings, are defective and can activate
in the absence of a fire. Viking rejects the allegation that these
sprinklers are defective and notes that the products were certified
by all appropriate industry standards organizations. The
settlement agreement is not, and does not include, an admission of
a defect.
"At Viking, we are committed to taking care of our customers," said
James Golinveaux, President and CEO of Viking. "While we continue
to stand by our products and processes, we believe this agreement
is in the best interests of all involved parties. This settlement
agreement will ensure our focus remains where it belongs –
providing outstanding customer service and manufacturing
best-in-class fire protection products."
"This settlement is an outstanding result for class members.
Significantly, it offers a nationwide replacement program at no
cost to property owners," said Joe Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf LLC,
counsel for the plaintiffs. "We are pleased that Viking is taking
the appropriate action through this significant settlement and we
look forward to having the program implemented."
The class action settlement will be presented for final approval in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
June 18, 2020. If finally approved, the settlement will provide
for (1) a Replacement Remedy where Settlement Class Members may
choose to have Subject Sprinklers replaced with a Viking VK494 fire
sprinkler or a reasonably equivalent Viking fire sprinkler of equal
or greater quality, and (2) an Activation Remedy for non-fire
sprinkler activations occurring within a defined time period that
will pay 70% of reasonably proven and unreimbursed reasonable costs
incurred to (a) remediate water damage and/or repair or replace
damaged property, (b) cover reasonable material and labor costs,
and (c) cover alternative lodging and meals for those displaced by
a non-fire activation. Replacement Claims must be submitted within
eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date. Activation Claims
must be submitted within 180 days after the non-fire activation.
The Settlement Class is defined as "All Persons that currently or
at any time previously have owned a residential or commercial
structure in the United States while it contains or contained
Subject Sprinklers or while the structure sustained water damage
from a non-fire activation of a Subject Sprinkler, including their
spouses, joint owners, heirs, executors, administrators,
mortgagees, residents, tenants, creditors, lenders, predecessors,
successors, trusts and trustees, and assigns ("Occupant Persons");
as well as all Persons who have standing and are entitled to assert
a claim on behalf of any such Occupant Persons, such as, but not
limited to, a builder, contractor, installer, distributor, seller,
subrogated insurance carrier, or other Person who has claims for
contribution, indemnity or otherwise against Viking based on claims
for a non-fire activation of a Subject Sprinkler with respect to
such residential or commercial structures. The Settlement Class
includes all Persons who subsequently purchase or otherwise obtain
an interest in a property covered by this Settlement without the
need of a formal assignment by contract or court order." There are
certain exclusions to the Settlement Class that are detailed on the
settlement website at www.vk457sprinklersettlement.com.
For more information or to obtain a Claim Form, visit
www.vk457sprinklersettlement.com or contact
info@vk457sprinklersettlement.com. The settlement website contains
all relevant dates regarding the settlement, relevant court
documents, and answers to frequently asked questions concerning the
settlement. Claims can also be submitted through the settlement
website. [GN]
WELLS FARGO BANK: Lizana Files Civil Rights Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Ann Lizana and Gladys Copeland, and
people similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mike Potier, Julio
Barragan, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee on behalf of the
Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley abs Capital Inc. Trust 2005,
John Doe, Jane Doe and Does 1-10, inclusively, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01128-AB-PLA (C.D., Cal., Feb. 4, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
[*] Florida Court Seeks FCC/11th Cir. Guidance on ATDS Matter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Daly -- Michael.Daly@dbr.com -- and Matthew J. Adler --
matthew.adler@dbr.com -- of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in
an article for The National Law Review, reports that it can fairly
be said that the statutory definition of "automatic telephone
dialing system" ("ATDS") has generated far more questions than
answers - for courts and litigants alike. This is especially true
in the wake of ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir.
2018), where the D.C. Circuit set aside the FCC's sweeping
interpretation of the ATDS definition, and thus handed the baton
back to the Commission to provide guidance on what is (and is not)
an ATDS. But almost two years later, the FCC has yet to issue its
ruling.
In the many TCPA cases that turn on the definition of ATDS,
defendants may wish to file a motion to stay the action so that the
court can await guidance from the FCC's anticipated ruling on this
issue. Indeed, over the course of the last year, multiple federal
judges, at least in Florida, have been willing to grant such
motions, particularly because the ATDS definition is also center
stage in an appeal pending before the Eleventh Circuit. See Glasser
v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, No. 18-14499 (11th Cir. filed
Oct. 24, 2018).
Most recently, on January 2, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted a motion to stay in a putative
class action where plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were
vicariously liable for telemarketing calls made without prior
express written consent. See Barnes, et al. v. CS Marketing LLC, et
al., No. 19-24218, 2020 WL 30373 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2020). Relying
on its inherent power to control its docket, the court stayed the
action pending the forthcoming FCC ruling and also the Eleventh
Circuit's decision in Glasser. The court noted that Plaintiffs
could only succeed if Defendants placed the calls using an ATDS.
Thus, the court reasoned, it would be prudent to defer resolution
of this threshold issue. As to the FCC's ruling, the court noted
that the public comment period had closed, and the ruling is
"expected to be forthcoming." Regarding Glasser, the court observed
that oral argument occurred in December 2019, and the Eleventh
Circuit's decision could have an impact given that it will review a
summary judgment order finding that the defendant's dialing system
was not an ATDS. The Barnes court further reasoned:
[I]f the FCC adopts a definition that provides . . . that to be an
ATDS, equipment must (a) use a random or sequential number
generator to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers
without human intervention, or (b) that predictive dialers do not
meet the statutory ATDS definition, that decision will bind the
Court and may require dismissal or summary judgment in Defendants'
favor. . . . The calls . . . were all made to telephone numbers
provided by the Plaintiffs on [the alleged caller's] website rather
than from any random or sequential lists generated by [the
caller's] dialer; if such calls are not deemed a violation of the
TCPA, the case will be over. . . . The parties and the Court would
certainly benefit from a clarification of the definition of an
ATDS. Id. at *3.
The Barnes court also based its decision, in part, on the fact that
it was not writing on a blank slate. Three other judges in the same
District had recently stayed similar TCPA suits while awaiting the
FCC's ruling. See Reyes v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., No.
16-24077 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 200; Secure v. Ultimate Fitness
Group, LLC, No. 18-20483 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 64; Buhr v. ADT,
Inc., No. 18-80605 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 40. Indeed, the same judge
in Barnes had also issued a similar order last year in Wijesinha v.
Bluegreen Vacations Limited, Inc., No. 19-20073 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt.
No. 81, where it issued a stay also to await both the FCC ruling
and the outcome in Glasser.
These cases provide useful illustrations of how a temporary stay
can conserve party and judicial resources and avoid resolution of a
threshold issue before having the benefit of anticipated regulatory
and/or appellate guidance. Because the ATDS issue is central to so
many TCPA cases, we expect to see other stay orders follow suit in
the wake of Barnes, certainly within the Eleventh Circuit - and
perhaps elsewhere too. [GN]
[*] Ontario's Proposed Class Action Changes Harder for Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Balakrishnan, writing for Law Times, reports that a proposal
to adopt U.S.-style class action certification tests in Ontario may
make it harder for plaintiffs to move forward with class actions,
says Sotos LLP lawyer Mohsen Seddigh.
"People who will be most impacted by this are consumers, employees
and anyone who is in a normally vulnerable position that needs
access to justice through class actions," says Seddigh, an
associate in the litigation group.
The proposed changes come from bill 161, a wide-ranging justice
system overhaul architected by Ontario Attorney General Doug
Downey.
The bill states that a class proceeding is the "preferable
procedure" only if "it is superior to all reasonably available
means of determining the entitlement of the class members to relief
or addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant." In addition
to being "superior" to quasi-judicial proceedings, administrative
proceedings, or case management of individual civil claims, the
class action claim must also be predominated by "questions of fact
or law common to the class members."
Although the class action certification changes are a small part of
the bill, they could have a "massive impact," says Seddigh. This
framework would be similar to that used in the U.S., Seddigh says.
"I think the most important point in this statute and in these
amendments is going to be the certification test, which has
unfortunately gone way backwards, and contrary to the to the rest
of the country. It's even more cumbersome, to some extent, than the
United States, because they don't have a cost regime United
States," says Seddigh.
Jasminka Kalajdzic, director of the Class Action Clinic at Windsor
Law and co-principal researcher and co-author of the LCO Class
Action Report, said the superiority and predominance tests are
"radical" changes which "would take class actions backward." She
estimated that famous cases, such as the Indian Residential Schools
cases, would not have moved forward under the proposed system.
"Because so much of [b]ill 161 is about modernizing the justice
system, it is especially troubling," she wrote in a blog post. "The
new superiority and predominance tests are conservative American
principles that make many types of mass wrong impossible to
litigate as class actions."
Several law firms have released their analyses of the large justice
bill, with mention of the certification tests.
Fasken's Tony Di Domenico -- adidomenico@fasken.com -- likens the
proposal to U.S. Federal Rule 23(b)(3), a paradigm which could
create a challenge for certain practice areas, such as competition
class actions or those focused on liability. The so-called
preferability test could cause future class actions to fail the
test "because individual issues focused on harm and damages
outweigh the commonality," wrote Di Domenico.
"Historically, the lack of a predominance requirement is likely
what has made Ontario (consistent with other provinces) a friendly
jurisdiction for class actions that typically involve many
individual issues, such as product liability and personal injury
cases," concurred Bennett Jones LLP lawyers Cheryl Woodin,
Charlotte Harman and Katrina Crocker. "In the United States, such
cases rarely achieve certification."
While most of the changes in bill 161 provide "much-needed"
modernization to the class action system in Ontario, Lenczner
Slaght Partner Paul-Erik Veel commented that "there will
undoubtedly be a difference in opinion on this."
"Undoubtedly this new requirement will have some effect in raising
the bar for certification," wrote Veel. "If any certified common
issues really do pale in comparison to any individual issues, then
it is important to ask what the point of obtaining certification
even is."
But Kalajdzic said in her blog that "[a]lmost none of the
stakeholders who contributed to the LCO Class Action Project
advocated for the predominance test. The only exception: a joint
submission by the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian
Life and Health Insurance Association."
Unlike many of the positive changes in bill 161, using the
superiority and predominance test "disrupts 30 years of Supreme
Court of Canada jurisprudence, and positions Ontario as the
outlier," Kalajdzic added.
"It is a big move, in the wrong direction." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***