/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200707.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 135
Headlines
ABBVIE: Plaintiffs Must Decide on Whether to Continue Class Suit
ABC PHONES: Duplechain Class Certification Bid Shelved
ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Gutierrez Claims Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Mendell Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
AUTOZONE STORES: Akin Gump Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling in Brady Suit
BANC & JACK: Exotic Dancers' Suit Can Proceed as Class
BANK OF AMERICA: Jette Files Suit Over Interest Charges
BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied
BERG'S YACHT: Refinishers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BIMBO BAKERIES: Camp Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
BIMBO BAKERIES: Underpays Employees, Oddo et al Claim
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Posey Sues Over 15% Decline in Share Price
C & L WU: Williams Sues Over Aggressive Hotel Check Out Policy
CAPITAL ONE NA: Fensterer Sues Over Shelved Trip Refund
CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
CHAD WOLF: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in C.G.B. Suit
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Made with Real Milk Claim
COVERT MANUFACTURING: Underpays Employees, Plaster Claims
CREDIT BUREAU: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit
DCM SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Brusewitz Suit
DISKAL INC: Luis Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Coffey Suit
DONALD TRUMP: Gomez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Immigrants
DYNASTY CONTRACTING: Mendoza Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
EOG RESOURCES: Underpays Drilling Supervisors, Cason Suit Says
EVENTPRO SERVICES: George Slams Misclassification, Claims Benefits
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks Overtime Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips
FANSIDED INC: Underpays Site Expert, Carusillo Alleges
FIRST HAWAIIAN: Aloha Accounting Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
FIRST TRANSIT: Pendleton Seeks to Certify FLSA Employee Class
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
GANNETT PUBLISHING: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
GEICO INDEMNITY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Partially Granted
GOLDMAN SACHS: To Seek Review of Abacus CDO Class Action Ruling
GOOGLE INC: May Face Class Action Over Pixel 3 Issues
GOOGLE LLC: Devaney et al. Sue over Ad Monopoly
GRAND CANYON: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 13 Deadline
HAMILTON BEACH: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline
HARBOR FREIGHT: Thomas Sues Over Defective Vehicle Jackstands
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi Alleges Sham Health Insurance Plans
HERSHEY: Patterson Belknap Scores Appellate Win in Class Action
HIGHER PATH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Alleges
HKS CONSTRUCTION: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
HOMELAND HEALTH: Caballero-Tablada Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Cedeno Hits Share Drop Over Defaulted Payments
INFINITY ENERGY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Rigged Treasury Futures, Breakwater Trading Says
KAUFF'S INC: Court Certifies Class of Tow Truck Drivers
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Sues Over Shady Selloff Deal
LA PLAZA LLC: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
LALAJA INC: Cond. Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Hotel, Park Refunds
LOAN DEPOT: Faces Winters Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
LOUISIANA: J.H. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Confined Children
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $4.75 Million Paid in Krammer Settlement
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Still Ongoing in Canada
MAMMOTH MEDIA: Burns Sues Over Data Breach
MARY JANE'S: Faces Keller Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MASON COMPANIES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Gibeau Suit
MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Seeks to Certify Class of Florida Residents
MIDLAND CREDIT: Schultz Suit Granted Class Status
MILLENNIUM STEEL: Charles-Pierre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nguyen Sues Over Unpaid Escrow Fund Interest
NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Manning Claims
NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Otzelberger"
NES GLOBAL: Alvarez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW JERSEY EDUC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Filed
NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS: Mearidy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
OTAY MESA: Court Denies Alvarez Class Certification Bid as Moot
PENN CREDIT: Gurzi Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
PETROCHOICE LLC: Gravely Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
PHILADELPHIA: Adeshigbin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
PINNACLE CLINICAL: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
PNC BANK: Bookmyer Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
PRUCO LIFE: Settlement of Behfarin Suit Wins Final Approval
PURA VIDA: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
RED ROBIN: Settles Rest Break Class Action for $8.5 Million
RELIABLE PCA: Badon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
RELIANCE OILFIELD: Baird Suit Seeks to Certify Class
RELIANCE OILFIELD: Court Certifies Collective in Baird Suit
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class
RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Jance Suit
RYDER SYSTEM: Klein Law Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline
SALEM PLACE: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Parker Suit Says
SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify APP Class
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Jackson Residents' Water Bill Class Suit Nixed
SOUTH HOUSTON MOTORCARS: Jackson Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
TICKETMASTER: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Related Refunds
TO-RISE LLC: Settlement of Lora et al. Case Wins Final Approval
TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Sues Over Defective Highlander Transmissions
U.S. XPRESS: Neely Alleges Unfair Wage Deductions for Truck Drivers
U.S.A.: Cole Seeks to Certify Class of Student Loan Borrowers
UBER EATS: Delivery Driver Files IC Misclassification Lawsuit
UNILEVER: Summary Judgment Upheld in St. Ives Class Action
UNITED STATES: Class Action Pending vs ICE Over Mesa Verde Facility
UNITED STATES: Detainees Sue Over Denied Right to Contact Counsel
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Gold Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal from Decision to Stay Suit Underway
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in PA Suit Wins Preliminary Approval
VAIL CORP: Bellafatto Sues Over Cancelled Ski Passes, Seeks Refund
VAIL CORP: Connolly Wants Ski Pass Refunded Amid COVID-19 Closure
VMSB LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Gonzales Claims
VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Dismisses Salepeople's Dieselgate Class Action
WALMART INC: Gabertan Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
WASTE PRO: Tweedie Suit Seeks to Certify Background Check Class
WHITE COUNTY, IN: Hines Seeks to Certify Confined Persons Class
XTO ENERGY: Shortchanges Oil/Gas Royalty Payments, Brusamonti Says
YOUTUBE: Black Users File Race Discrimination Class Action
[*] AUSTRALIA: Restaurant Owners Urged to Seek Class Action
[*] Court Hears Meatpacker Cos.' Motion to Dismiss Class Action
[*] COVID-19 Class Actions Target Hospitality, Leisure Industry
[*] COVID-19 Employment Class Actions May Face Some Obstacles
[*] EU Countries, Lawmakers Strike Deal on Class Action Lawsuits
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Cannabis TCPA Class Actions
[*] Victorian Gov't. Allows Contingency Fees for Class Actions
*********
ABBVIE: Plaintiffs Must Decide on Whether to Continue Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Inserro, writing for The Center for Biosimilars, reports
that plaintiffs in a novel class-action lawsuit against AbbVie had
until the end of June to try again to pursue their claims that the
maker of the blockbuster originator adalimumab (Humira) had created
a patent thicket of invalid and unenforceable patents as well as
conspired in so-called "pay-for-delay" schemes with competitors to
delay market entry.
The judge in the case, while noting that the patents have made it
nearly impossible for rivals to gain a foothold, said the suit did
not constitute a valid antitrust claim.
In its motion for the dismissal, filed last fall, AbbVie said that
the suit seeks to "upend the well-settled balance between the
patent and antitrust laws," that the complaint would end
international early-entry patent settlements that do not have the
same global market entry date, and that it would "chill medical and
therapeutic innovation."
In his ruling, US Northern District Court Judge Manish Shah
dismissed the consolidated class action suit filed by unions and
local governments without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs until
June 29 to file a statement as to whether they wish to file an
amended complaint or ask that the dismissal convert to a dismissal
with prejudice so they can seek appellate review.
AbbVie has more than 100 patents on Humira, which the plaintiffs
tried to assert was anticompetitive. In addition, the plaintiffs
alleged that the agreements AbbVie reached with Samsung Bioepis,
Mylan, Sandoz, Fresnius Kabi, Momenta, Pfizer, Amgen, and Coherus
to prevent competition in the United States, while allowing entry
in Europe, constituted illegal market allocation based on
geography.
The judge wrote that AbbVie may have acted aggressively to protect
the Humira patents, but wrote that the suit does not meet the
standard for competitive harm that falls under antitrust law.
In his dismissal, the judge said the company is immunized from
antitrust liability by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which holds
that there is immunity for defendants' efforts to petition the
government for relief that allegedly has anticompetitive effects.
Shah would have had to find that the firm's petitions (patent
applications, patent dance exchanges, and resulting lawsuits) are
"objectively baseless." With a success rate of 53.4% of AbbVie's
patent applications resulting in patents, "it compels the
conclusion" that they are not objectively baseless, the court
wrote. As well, the company had a high rate of success during inter
partes review proceedings.
The judge did find that not all of AbbVie's conduct was protected
by Noerr-Pennington during the patent dance, but said that the
"plaintiffs' theory depends on all the components of AbbVie's
conduct as the means to suppress competition."
He also did not find a basis for the assertion that the "European
entry dates are the quid pro quo for the U.S. market entry dates,
and for the period that falls between the two, AbbVie effectively
allocated to itself the U.S. market while allocating to the other
defendants the European market."
These arrangements were not illegal and did not meet the Supreme
Court's standard to be considered an anticompetitive "reverse
payment." Furthermore, the court found that plaintiffs failed to
plead antitrust injury, as the existence of even "one valid and
infringed patent" would have precluded biosimilar manufacturers
from entering the US market prior to 2023.
In addition, the judge said the plaintiffs were not successful in
pleading antitrust injury because they did not allege that all of
AbbVie's asserted patents were invalid or unenforceable.
Some observers think the case is not yet over, calling it an area
of unsettled law, but for now, it appears to give an advantage to
originator firms looking to defend themselves against aggressive
patent portfolios and to settle cases with rivals under the
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
A request for comment from the plaintiffs' attorneys was not
immediately returned. [GN]
ABC PHONES: Duplechain Class Certification Bid Shelved
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTI DUPLECHAIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC
PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC and RICHARD BALOT, Case No.
3:20-cv-00287-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Class:
"Individuals who, within the three-year period preceding
the date of the Court's Order, were employed as Sales
Consultants for ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc., and
who's overtime compensation did not include earned
commissions and who's hours were reduced for lunch
breaks";
2. authorizing notice to allow potential members of the FLSA
Collective Class to opt in to preserve their rights.
3. directing the Defendants to produce to the plaintiff's
counsel within 14 days a computer-readable database that
includes the names of all potential members of the FLSA
Collective Class along with their last known mailing
address and telephone number; and
4. approving the proposed notice and consent form.
The Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of a collective class for
overtime wages wrongfully not paid to them by ABC Phones.
* * *
The Conditional Class Certification bid has been set aside pending
the Defendant's motion to transfer venue of the case to the Western
Division of the Eastern District of North Carolina.
In a June 23 Order, Judge John W. deGravelles gave the Plaintiff
more time to respond to the Motion to Transfer Venue. Plaintiff's
deadline has been extended to August 5 and ABC's deadline to reply
to August 19.
The Court granted ABC's motion to suspend the deadline to respond
to the Motion for Conditional Certification until after the Court
rules on ABC's pending Motion to Transfer Venue, Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim, and Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Judge deGravelles held that, if the Motion for Conditional
Certification is pending in the Court after the Court rules on
these motions, the Court will then issue a Notice of Briefing
Schedule on the Motion for Conditional Certification.
ABC Phones is doing business in Consumer Electronics & Appliances
Stores Industry.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Bullman, Esq.
Brian F. Blackwell, Esq.
BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC
8322 One Calais Ave.,
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: 225 769-2462
Facsimile: 225 769-2463
E-mail: james@blackwell-bullman.com
ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Gutierrez Claims Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01088, (D. Ariz., June
3, 2020) seeks to recover an award of unpaid overtime premiums,
liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and any other remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the Arizona Wage Act.
Advanced Call Center Technologies provides CRM outsourcing programs
for customer service, sales support, fraud & dispute management,
claims processing and other programs and custom solutions, with
locations all over Arizona where Gutierrez worked as a Customer
Service Representative. He claims that he was denied overtime wages
for all hours worked before his shift started, booting up, logging
in to the programs and/or servers and logging into their phone
systems. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen I. Leshner, Esq.
STEPHEN I. LESHNER, P.C.
1440 East Missouri Avenue, Suite 265
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Fax: (602) 266-9134
Tel. (602) 266-9000
Email: steve@steveleshner.com
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Mendell Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL MENDELL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-01227-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a statutory damage class and subclass as
follows:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Confidential Communication Class:
"all persons in California, that never called Defendant,
whose first call from Defendant was recorded without their
consent by Defendant and/or its agent/s from July 1, 2018
through July 31, 2019 (the date when AMR modified its
practice to notify callers of recording at the outset of
the call"; and
Cellular Phone Communication Sub-Class:
"all persons in California, that never called Defendant,
whose first call from Defendant to their cellular phone
was recorded without their consent by Defendant and/or its
agent/s from July 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019 (the date
when AMR modified its practice to notify callers of
recording at the outset of the call";
2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Joshua B. Swigart of Swigart Law Group and
Daniel G. Shay of the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay as
counsel for the class.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the two classes
that enjoins the Defendant from recording future telephone
conversations without first advising the other party to those
conversations at the outset of the call and before recording
commences that such calls are being recorded.
American Medical is a medical transportation company in the United
States that provides and manages community-based medical
transportation services, including emergency, non-emergency and
managed transportation, fixed-wing air ambulance and disaster
response.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Haley G. Christenson, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: 866-219-3343
Facsimile: 866-219-8344
E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
Haley@SwigartLawGroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S. Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: 619 222-7429s
Facsimile: 866 431-3292
E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.comss
AUTOZONE STORES: Akin Gump Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling in Brady Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal R. Marder, Esq. -- nmarder@akingump.com -- Michael Stortz,
Esq. -- mstortz@akingump.com -- Rex Heinke, Esq. --
rheinke@akingump.com -- Marshall L. Baker, Esq. --
mbaker@akingump.com -- and Shelly Kim, Esq., of Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
discusses the premise that the Ninth Circuit limits settling
Plaintiffs' ability to appeal orders denying certification.
Key Points
* The 9th Circuit has held that settlement of a plaintiff's
individual claims moots the appeal of an order denying class
certification, unless the settlement agreement specifically
preserves the plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome on appeal.
* The decision makes it clear that if plaintiffs wish to appeal the
denial of class certification after settling their individual
claims, they must retain a concrete, financial stake in the outcome
of the putative class claims.
* The decision underscores the importance to defendants of
challenging a named plaintiff's individual claims throughout the
case, including through trial, rather than settling on terms that
authorize the plaintiff to appeal the denial of class
certification.
A key inflection point in class actions arises after the trial
court has denied class certification, but not yet addressed the
plaintiff's individual claims on the merits. While a plaintiff may
wish to immediately appeal an order denying class certification,
such orders are interlocutory and, absent a successful petition
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), can only be appealed after entry of
final judgment - and thus after trial or settlement of the
plaintiff's individual claims. Rather than face the risks of trial,
most would-be class representatives elect to settle individual
claims and then appeal the denial of certification. In Brady v.
AutoZone Stores, Inc., No. 19-35122, 2020 WL 2893709 (9th Cir. June
3, 2020), the 9th Circuit limited the ability of such plaintiffs to
do this without running afoul of Article III.
The Underlying Suit and Settlement Agreement
In 2013, plaintiff Michael Brady filed a putative class action in
federal court for alleged violation of Washington's meal break
laws. After the district court twice rejected Brady's attempts to
certify a class, he entered into a settlement agreement that
resolved his individual claims along with his "claims to costs or
attorneys' fees." Id. Although the settlement agreement expressly
did not extend to Brady's class claims (i.e., "was not intended to
settle or resolve Brady's Class Claims"), it otherwise provided
Brady no entitlement to any financial reward if the class claims
ultimately succeeded. Id.
After the parties finalized their settlement agreement, and
pursuant to their stipulation, the district court entered final
judgment. Brady appealed, seeking review of the orders denying
class certification. Because defendants had agreed not to
challenge Brady's right to appeal, neither party raised any
mootness arguments on appeal.
The Appeal
At oral argument, however, the 9th Circuit asked whether Brady's
personal stake in the resolution of the appeal had been mooted as a
result of the settlement of his individual claims. Its recent
opinion holds it is mooted.
The court explained that to preserve the viability of putative
class claims, the settlement agreement must leave the settling
plaintiff with some sort of "concrete" and "financial" interest in
those claims. Id. at *2. For example, the settlement agreement may
preserve the plaintiff's ability to seek an "award enhancement fee"
or attorneys' fees and costs, if a class were ultimately certified
after reversal of an order denying certification. Id. In these
scenarios, "the class representative maintain[s] 'a continued
financial interest in the advancement of the class claims' such
that the case [is] not moot." Id. (citation omitted).
By contrast, a putative class representative cannot retain a
personal stake in the action by merely failing to address the class
claims in the settlement agreement. Instead, the settlement
agreement must affirmatively preserve the plaintiff's concrete,
financial stake in the resolution of the class claims.
The 9th Circuit held that the parties' settlement agreement did not
expressly provide Brady with such an ongoing personal stake in the
outcome on appeal, and therefore dismissed the appeal as moot.
Brady would not "receive any additional compensation for the class
claims," had no "possibility of an award of attorney's fees[,]" and
although he "expressly did not resolve the class claims, he did not
retain a financial stake in them." Id. The court declined to reach
Brady's argument that his purported obligation to repay his lawyers
for advanced litigation costs would provide the requisite personal
stake, noting that Brady had provided no evidence to support the
factual premise of this argument. Id. at *3.
The Takeaways
Brady has changed the calculus for plaintiffs after the trial court
denies class certification. Faced with the risks and expense of
trying individual claims that are often of questionable merit,
plaintiffs and their counsel look for an exit from the trial court
that allows them to appeal the denial of certification. After the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.
Ct. 1702 (2017), would-be class representatives can no longer
dismiss their individual claims while preserving that right. While
such plaintiffs can still settle their individual claims, Brady now
requires that they negotiate a settlement agreement that preserves
their financial stake in the putative class claims or try their
individual claims.
Brady also changes the calculus for defendants who have prevailed
at class certification, because they are more likely to be
presented with settlement terms that allow plaintiffs to recover
incentive awards, fees, or costs by plaintiffs who believe these
terms are required to preserve their right to appeal. Such terms --
along with the risks of appellate reversal of the order denying
certification -- may well be unacceptable to defendants. Defendants
therefore should be prepared both for class certification and then
trial of the plaintiff's individual claims, because a win on
certification may not sound the death knell for the action. Given
that a named plaintiff's individual claims are too often
lawyer-driven and manufactured for purposes of leveraging the
threat of aggregate class liability, defendants would do well to
prepare aggressively for trial of those claims, just as they
aggressively oppose class certification. [GN]
BANC & JACK: Exotic Dancers' Suit Can Proceed as Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JANE DOE 1, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. BANC, JACK &
JOE, LLC dba TITILLATIONS GO-GO BAR, BANC PERO, JOSEPH CARERI, JACK
PERO, ABC COMPANIES 1-10 AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:17-cv-03843-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Katharine S. Hayden
entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the collective action on behalf
of:
"all current and former exotic dancers who worked for
the Defendants at any time between May 31, 2014 to the
present";
2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the date of
this order, to produce to the plaintiff's counsel in
Excel format, a mailing list containing the names, most
recent known addresses and phone numbers, and email
addresses of the collective, so that mailing and emailing
of the notice may be timely accomplished;
3. directing the defendants to post copies of the approved
Fair Labor Standards Act notice and consent to sue form
on 11.0 x 17.0 inch paper in the dressing room/back room
of Titillations; and
4. authorizing the plaintiff to mail a copy of the approved
FLSA notice and consent to sue form to all members
potential members of the collective.
Titillations Go-Go Bar is a dance and Night Club in Bloomfield, New
Jersey.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Jette Files Suit Over Interest Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Jette, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-04186 (D. N.J., June 3, 2020) seeks monetary and/or
equitable relief, statutory, treble, punitive or exemplary damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
of suit, including costs of notice, administration and expert fees
and such other legal or equitable relief, including injunctive or
declaratory relief in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, North Carolina Debt Collection Act
Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in North
Carolina. Jette opened a Bank of America credit card in December
2019 which is connected to his personal bank account and authorize
automatic monthly payments of the full balance owed, such that the
card is paid in full each month and no balance carries over. Jette
set up automatic payments through Bank of America's website,
authorizing the latter to withdraw monthly payments from his
deposit account at Chase. His selection, "Amount Due," was intended
to cause Bank of America to withdraw the balance reflected on his
last statement each month by the due date, thus avoiding interest
charges under the Card Agreement. However, Bank of America only
withdrew the minimum amount due from his checking account, thus
incurring interest charges. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
475 White Horse Pike
Collingswood, NJ 08107
Tel: (856) 858-1770
Fax: (866) 300-7367
Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIGIDA ELLIOTT v. BARBEQUE
INTEGRATED, INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-62426-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Raag Singhal entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:
"all Managers who worked at any of the 68 Smokey Bones
locations across the country within the three-year statute
of limitations (September 30, 2016 through September 30,
2019)"; and
2. denying as moot the Defendant Barbeque Integrated, Inc.'s
motion to exclude declarations submitted by the Plaintiff
in support of her motion for conditional certification.
The Court concludes that conditional certification of a nationwide
class of Managers is not warranted in this case. While Plaintiff
has produced evidence of nationwide Smokey Bones' job descriptions
for Managers, the Plaintiff fails to indicate those job
descriptions required the performance of non-exempt work by exempt
employees. Instead, the Plaintiff references just two Smokey Bones
locations, in Massachusetts, where she was the employed Manager.
The Plaintiff claims she and other similarly-situated persons are
wrongfully classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and
consequently have not been paid overtime.
Barbeque Integrated is an American casual dining restaurant
chain.[CC]
BERG'S YACHT: Refinishers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ochoa, Jose Rolando Ochoa Lainez, Ivan Gabriel Ochoa,
Venancio Emilio Gil Alvarado, Elvin Julian Ma Tute Hernandez and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Berg's Yacht
Refinishings, Inc. and Jeffery Berg, Defendants, Case No.
CACE-20-007554 (Fla. Cir., May 5, 2020), requests double damages
and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing
along with court costs, interest and any other relief.
Plaintiff worked for Berg's as yacht refinishers. They claim that
they worked in excess of 40 hours weekly without being paid
overtime wages for work performed. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Tel: (305) 865-6766
Fax: (305) 865-7167
Email: zabogado@aol.com
BIMBO BAKERIES: Camp Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID CAMP and KEITH HADMACK,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BIMBO
BAKERIES USA, INC. and, BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC,
Case No. 18-CV-00378 (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all individuals who, either individually or through a
corporate entity, personally deliver or have delivered the
Defendants' products pursuant to a Distributor Agreement
from a warehouse located in New Hampshire from May 8, 2015
to the present";
The Plaintiffs alleges that they and other drivers are
misclassified as independent contractors for purposes of the New
Hampshire wage laws and that they are employees under N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann. section 275:42.
Bimbo manufactures, sells, and delivers breads and baked goods to
grocery stores and other outlets, including in New Hampshire, under
brand names such as Sara Lee and Nature's.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
- and -
Christopher B. Coughlin, Esq.
COUGHLIN LAW GROUP, PC
35 India Street Suite 3
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 617-758-8888
E-mail: cbc@coughlinlawgroup.com
BIMBO BAKERIES: Underpays Employees, Oddo et al Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ODDO and MICHAEL LENNON, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIMBO BAKERIES U.S.A. INC.,
Defendant, Case No. HUD-L-002309-20 (N.J. Sup. Ct., June 25, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as non-exempt hourly paid
Route Sales Representatives – Oddo was from in or around 1993
through the present, while Lennon was from on or about January 28,
1986 until on or around August 16, 2017.
Plaintiffs claim that they regularly worked over 40 hours per
workweek, but Defendant failed to pay them at least one and
one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked more than
40 in a workweek.
Moreover, Defendant failed to implement a system to track the
number of hours worked each workweek by Plaintiffs and Class
Plaintiffs.
Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. is a baking company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Tel: (856) 685-7420
Fax: (856) 685-7417
Email: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Posey Sues Over 15% Decline in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL POSEY, SR., Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING
INC., LUCINDA M. BAIER, T. ANDREW SMITH, and STEVEN E. SWAIN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00543 (M.D. Tenn., June 25, 2020) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Brookdale securities between August 10, 2016 and
April 29, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint asserts that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among other
things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior living
communities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an
increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results and reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's
financial results were unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On April 30, 2020, Nashville Business Journal reported that a
proposed class action lawsuit had been filed against Brookdale,
which accused the Company of, among other things, purposeful
"chronically insufficient staffing" at its facilities in an effort
to meet financial benchmarks since at least April 24, 2016.
According to the lawsuit, Brookdale misled residents and their
families when it promised to provide basic care and daily living
services. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed class of
plaintiffs "have not received the care and services they paid for."
The lawsuit asks for damages and for Brookdale to "stop the
unlawful and fraudulent practices."
On this news, Brookdale's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or
15.22%, over two trading sessions, closing at $3.12 per share on
May 1, 2020.
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is a Brentwood, Tennessee-based
senior-living community operator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
P. O. BOX 150734
Nashville, TN 37215-0734
Telephone: (615) 248-2828
Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
C & L WU: Williams Sues Over Aggressive Hotel Check Out Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
DRAKE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C & L WU, LLC, CHIN CHU CHU, LEI TIFFANY WU
and DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. RG20065852
(Cal. Sup. Ct., June 25, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged unlawful business practice and
policy in violations of Civil Code Sections 1940.1 and 52.1 and the
Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, Defendant applied a "28 Day Shuffle"
policy to ensure that the occupants, including Plaintiffs and other
persons who rented rooms at the Mission Peak Lodge, would maintain
"transient occupancy status" by routinely requiring them to check
out every 28 days, forcefully locking them out of their rooms on
the 28th day of continuous occupancy, and re-register for another
28 days after two days if they want to keep using the same room
when they returned the next day.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and the class members
experienced one or more form of threats, intimidation or coercion
to deprive them of their statutory rights.
Chin Chu Chu and Lei Tiffany Wu are the owner and operators of the
Mission Peak Lodge hotel.
C & L WU owns and operates the Mission Peak Lodge hotel in Freemont
City, Alameda County, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
SPENCER LAW FIRM
2 Venture, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 240-8595
Fax: (949) 377-3727
Email: jps@spencerlaw.net
- and -
Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Tel: (714) 854-7205
Fax: (714) 854-7206
Email: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
CAPITAL ONE NA: Fensterer Sues Over Shelved Trip Refund
-------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Fensterer, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Capital One, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05558, (D. N.J., May 5, 2020), seeks
redress for unjust enrichment, conversion, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and breach of contract under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.
Fensterer purchased tickets for herself and her family to travel
and visit her child studying abroad and the flight was cancelled a
result of government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to
the COVID19 pandemic. The tickets were secured using Capital One
Venture Card travel services. They cost her approximately $5,000 in
cash and additional consideration in rewards points to secure
them.
She alleged that Capital One offered only travel voucher for the
trip cancellation and not actual cash refunds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy L.B. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
30 East Butler Pike
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 540-8888
Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com
CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around
February 7, 2020 (the "IPO"). Casper investors have until August
18, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for
$12 per share.
On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size
of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely
winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of
its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had
resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer.
On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020
financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98%
increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9
million (a 60% increase year over year).
Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per
share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather
than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important
distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin
in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that Casper was holding a
glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at
steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the
Company's profitability; (4) that Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) that Casper's core operations
were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over
$40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020
alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) that
as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve
profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand
internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents,
as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all
international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global
corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings
in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone
achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) that as a result of
the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and
had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability.
If you purchased Casper securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than August 18, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Casper securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CHAD WOLF: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in C.G.B. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as C.G.B., et al. v. CHAD WOLF,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01072-CRC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Christopher R. Cooper entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining
order, the plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and the
plaintiffs' motion for joinder of additional parties;
and
2. directing the government to provide the court with
updated declarations which shall include the most
recent status of the following information for each
facility where a named plaintiff is detained:
-- the number of positive cases of COVID-19 among
detainees and staff, and the number of detainees
who have been tested;
-- the number of detainees at each facility and the
facility's total capacity, including the number
of detainees in each unit where a named Plaintiff
is being held and that unit's total capacity;
-- a description of the sleeping arrangements used
by each named Plaintiff, if changed;
-- a description of the dining quarters for each
named Plaintiff, if changed;
-- a description of the personal protective equipment
provided to staff and detainees;
-- a description of the hand cleansing and cleaning
materials provided to staff and detainees;
-- a description of detainees' access to medical care,
including whether K.M. and K.S. are being provided
with their antiretroviral medication at a
consistent time; and
-- clarification regarding the extent to which the
detainees have been considered for release under
the Fraihat injunction.[CC]
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 23
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CEMI) between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Chembio
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Chembio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.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.
The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented that the
Company's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 serological
point-of-care test for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies
aided in determining current or past exposure to the COVID-19
virus, that its test provided high sensitivity and specificity, and
that it was 100% accurate. The Complaint further alleges that on
May 11, 2020, defendants took advantage of Chembio's inflated stock
price, closing a public offering of approximately 2.6 million
shares of Chembio stock at $11.75 per share for gross proceeds of
approximately $30.8 million. Then, on June 16, 2020, after the
market closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a press
release disclosing that it had revoked the Company's Emergency Use
Authorization for the Company's DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System "due to
performance concerns with the accuracy of the test" and because
"data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of
the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher
than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected
in the authorized labeling for the device." The complaint alleges,
as a result of disclosure by the FDA letter Chembio shares declined
precipitously.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
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-1883.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.
Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Made with Real Milk Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the lawyer
who questioned the existence of vanilla in ice cream and other
products is now suing the maker of a popular pudding over its "Made
with real milk" claim.
Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates sued Conagra Brands on June
12 in federal court, alleging its Snack Pack, alleging what appears
to be a trademark sign after the "Made with real milk" claim on its
packaging is actually an asterisk, when viewed under a microscope.
And after finding nonfat milk in the ingredients list, Sheehan
filed suit. He says what Conagra is using doesn't meet the Food and
Drug Administration's definition of milk because it doesn't contain
enough milkfat.
Snack Pack Chocolate Fudge Pudding instead gets its fat from palm
oil.
"Palm oil is only fat and lacks any vitamins (such as Vitamin A),
minerals or protein," the complaint says.
"Since Vitamin A is present in milkfat, which is removed from the
nonfat milk in the product, it has negligible Vitamin A compared to
the expected 2% daily value that ‘real milk' would have
provided."
Sheehan is known for his dozens of lawsuits that say companies
misled consumers into thinking their products contained real
vanilla when they actually were made of vanilla flavoring. [GN]
COVERT MANUFACTURING: Underpays Employees, Plaster Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PLASTER, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COVERT MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01403-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 25, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful
pay practices and policies in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a CNC machinist between
April 2017 and January 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees were classified by Defendant as hourly,
non-exempt employees. Allegedly, Defendant only paid them for work
performed between their scheduled start and stop times, and were
not paid for the work performed before and after their scheduled
start and stop time.
The complaint asserts these claims:
-- Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manufacturing employees for all time worked and overtime
at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek; and
-- Defendant failed to keep records of all the hours worked
each workday and the total hours worked each workweek by Plaintiff
and other similarly situated manufacturing employees.
Covert Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures pattern tools and CNC
machined products for its customers in the diesel engine, heavy
truck, agricultural and hydraulic industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LA FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boullevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: 216-696-5000
Fax: 216-696-7005
Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
CREDIT BUREAU: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT BUREAU
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., d/b/a CBCS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00830-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the
plaintiffs' individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
DCM SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Brusewitz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARGARET BRUSEWITZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DCM
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-854 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed
a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff's individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
DISKAL INC: Luis Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Luis, Santiago Hernandez, and Efrain Campoverde,
Individually and on Behalf of the Putative Class Members v. DISKAL
INC. d/b/a GEORGIA DINER, Case No. 708875/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens
Cty., June 30, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to both
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs did not receive overtime premiums for hours worked
over 40 in a given workweek, at times did not receive the statutory
minimum wage, did not receive spread-of-hours premiums when they
worked in excess of 10 hours per day, and did not receive accurate
wage statements or wage notices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees, who worked as dishwashers,
line cooks and food prep employees at the Defendant's diner.
Diskal Inc. operated Georgia Diner from 1976 to March 25, 2018, in
its location at 86-55 Queens Blvd., in Elmhurst, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
DOBBERSTEIN LAW: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Coffey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANNA COFFEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOBBERSTEIN LAW
FIRM, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00826-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs'
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
DONALD TRUMP: Gomez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Immigrants
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, a
Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S.; MIRNA S., a Lawful Permanent
Resident of the U.S.; and VICENTA S., a U.S. Citizen, v. DONALD J.
TRUMP, President of the United States of America, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01419-APM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all individual immigrant sponsors with approved immigrant
visa petitions for a child, including for derivative child
relatives in applicable preference categories, with a
"current" priority date while Presidential Proclamation
10014 is in effect; and whose sponsored child or sponsored
derivative child relative is subject to the Proclamation
and will, as a result of the Proclamation, age out of his
or her current visa preference category by turning 21
years old while the Proclamation remains in effect";
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
3. appointing their counsel as class counsel.
On April 23, 2020, the Defendants, in their official capacities,
temporarily suspended immigration into the United States for the
ostensible purpose of addressing "the impact of foreign workers on
the United States labor market" in light of the toll that the
COVID-19 pandemic has taken on the U.S. economy. The Defendants did
so through the issuance and implementation of a new Proclamation,
titled the "Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who
Represent Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic
Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak," which took effect
approximately 30 hours after it was issued and signed.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Proclamation violates the statutory
and constitutional rights of U.S. visa petitioners and exceeds the
scope of Defendants' authority under the U.S. Constitution and the
Immigration and Nationality Act. The Plaintiffs seek a temporary
restraining order preventing the Defendants from enforcing and
implementing the Proclamation against Plaintiffs and similarly
situated U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have
sponsored children or derivative child relatives who will turn 21
while the Proclamation is in effect.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse M. Bless, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (781) 704-3897
E-mail: jbless@aila.org
- and -
Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
Esther H. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE ACTION CENTER
P.O. Box 27280
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 316-0944
E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org
esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
- and -
Stephen Manning, Esq.
Nadia Dahab, Esq.
Tess Hellgren, Esq.
INNOVATION LAW LAB
333 SW Fifth Avenue No. 200
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 241-0035
E-mail: stephen@innovationlawlab.org
nadia@innovationlawlab.org
tess@innovationlawlab.org
- and -
Laboni A. Hoq, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ
JAC Cooperating Attorney
P.O. Box 753
South Pasadena, CA 91030
E-mail: labonihoq@gmail.com
DYNASTY CONTRACTING: Mendoza Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Mendoza, Bonerge Pacheco, Raul Mendoza, Jose Alberto Carias
Salinas, Roger Mendoza, and Jorge Mendoza, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DYNASTY CONTRACTING LLC,
and ERIC LI, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-02898 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 30, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover
damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Although the Plaintiffs worked for 58-69 hours or more per week
during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as excavator
operators, laborers, rebar ad concrete workers.
DYNASTY CONTRACTING LLC is a corporation organized under the laws
of New York with a principal executive office located in Flushing,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel,
Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action
experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), remind
investors that they have until August 17, 2020 to file lead
plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit filed
against Enphase Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENPH). Shareholders with
significant losses are encouraged to contact the Firm to discuss
their options.
On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management ("Prescience
Point"), a private investment manager that focuses on
investigations of public companies, published a negative research
report on Enphase Energy, Inc. supporting its short position.
According to Prescience Point, its research suggests that at least
39%, or $205 million, of US revenue reported by the company is
potentially fabricated, as is a significant portion of the
company's international revenue. Eiad Asbahi, Founder and Portfolio
Manager of Prescience Point said, "The explosive growth that
Enphase has reported to investors over the last two years is
nothing but a sham which has lined the pockets of those at the top
of the company… We believe the evidence presented in our report
will result in multiple government investigations, a major
accounting restatement, shareholder lawsuits and a delisting of
ENPH shares from the NASDAQ." On this news, the Company's share
price fell nearly 26%.
A lawsuit, Gregory A. Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No.: 5:20-cv-04036, has now been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the Company's common stock between February 26, 2019
and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
alleges that Enphase and certain of its executives failed to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges, in
part, that the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
to investors that Enphase's revenues were inflated, that Enphase
engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices, and the
Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were
overstated.
If you purchased shares of Enphase and would like to discuss the
case and your options as a class member and serving as a lead
plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney
Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via email at
anthony@barjolaw.com; and/or Neil Rothstein via email at
neil@barjolaw.com. BARJO believes strongly that the choice of a
qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
www.barjolaw.com [GN]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel,
Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action
experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON), remind
investors that they have until August 17, 2020 to file lead
plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit filed
against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NasdaqGS: ENPH). Shareholders with
losses exceeding $200,000 are encouraged to contact the Firm to
discuss their options.
The case, Gregory A. Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No.: 5:20-cv-04036, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 26, 2019 and
June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit alleges that Enphase and certain of its executives
failed to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges, in part, that the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose to investors that Enphase's revenues were inflated,
that Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting
practices, and the Company's reported base points expansion in
gross margins were overstated.
On June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience Point Capital Management
published a report in which it wrote, ". . . we believe the
Company's financial statements filed with the SEC are fiction.
Based on our research, we estimate that at least $205.3m of its
reported US revenue in FY 2019 was fabricated. Based on statements
provided by former employees and other solar industry participants,
it appears that the Company inflated its international revenue
significantly as well." The report further stated, "Meanwhile, ENPH
executives and board members, as well as its previous largest
shareholder, appear to have learned of the existence of our private
investigation and are desperately trying to unload their shares
before the ship sinks. In the span of just four days from June 1,
2020 to June 4, 2020, ENPH executives sold an unprecedented 254,097
shares worth a whopping $13.7m in open market dispositions, which
significantly exceeds the 187,508 or $3.9m worth of shares ENPH
executives had sold in the almost 2.5 years prior." On this news,
the stock plummeted approximately 26%.
If you purchased shares of Enphase and would like to discuss the
case and your options as a class member and serving as a lead
plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney
Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520, or via email at
anthony@barjolaw.com, or Neil Rothstein via email at
neil@barjolaw.com. BARJO believes strongly that the choice of a
qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
www.barjolaw.com [GN]
EOG RESOURCES: Underpays Drilling Supervisors, Cason Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS D. CASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EOG RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case
4:20-cv-02189 (S.D. Tex., June 22, 2020) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as drilling
supervisor.
EOG Resources, Inc. explores, develops, produces, and markets
natural gas and crude oil. The Company operates in major producing
basins in the United States, Canada, Trinidad, the United Kingdom
North Sea, China, and from time to time select other international
areas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EVENTPRO SERVICES: George Slams Misclassification, Claims Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine George, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eventpro Services, LLC, The Madison
Companies, LLC, Virgin Fest, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2020-00018421 (Cal. Super., June 3, 2020), seeks actual
and/or compensatory damages, civil penalties, restitution,
equitable relief, costs and expenses of litigation, including
attorneys' fees, and all additional and further relief for
violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties,
equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
Defendants produce music, comedy, art and culinary festivals and
concerts where George worked as a "Street Team Member" who claims
to be improperly classified as an independent contractor rather
than an employee in violation of California labor laws. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Veronica Cruz, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
veronica@kazlg.com
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Seeks Overtime Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendoline Aboah, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Fairfield Healthcare Services, Inc. and
Peter R. Moore, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00763 (D. Conn., June 2,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, redress for missed breaks
and failure to provide wage statements and all applicable statutory
penalties for violations of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
Fairfield Healthcare Services operates as BrightStar Care of
Fairfield and Southbury where Aboah worked as a Home Health Aide
July 19, 2018 to December 8, 2019. She claims she was paid a flat
daily rate for her work and was not paid overtime premiums. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3007
Tel: (860) 249-7180
Fax: (860) 408-1471
Email: NEgbarin@aol.com
FANSIDED INC: Underpays Site Expert, Carusillo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CARUSILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANSIDED, INC. d/b/a FANSIDED,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04766 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Carusillo was employed by the Defendant as site
expert.
Fansided, Inc. is an independent network of fandom-focused sports,
entertainment, and lifestyle sites on the Internet. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 351-0613
FIRST HAWAIIAN: Aloha Accounting Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Aloha Accounting and Tax LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Hawaiian Bank, Bank
of Hawaii, Central Pacific Bank, Hawaiian Electric, Inc. and
Kabbage, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00254 (S.D. N.Y., May 29,
2020), seeks compensation for processing PPP loans, for services
rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration.
The lawsuit asserts violation of the CARES Act, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and conversion.
On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.
Aloha is an accounting practice from Kahului, Hawaii. It sought to
obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its clients
and expected to be paid agent fees from First Hawaiian Bank, Bank
of Hawaii, Central Pacific Bank, Hawaiian Electric, Inc. and
Kabbage, Inc. upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP.
However, it was denied these fees after the loans were released,
asserts the complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William L. Shipley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM L. SHIPLEY
PO Box 1555
Kailua, HI 96734
Tel: (808) 228-1341
Email: 808Shipleylaw@gmail.com
- and -
Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq.
644 S. Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
Email: mark@geragos.com
ben@geragos.com
mhoesly@geragos.com
- and -
Michael E. Adler, Esq.
GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
26500 Agoura Rd., Ste. 102-127
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 532-2833
Facsimile: (818) 532-2834
Email: meadler@graylawinc.com
- and -
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
177 Post St., Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
FIRST TRANSIT: Pendleton Seeks to Certify FLSA Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEVEN PENDLETON, for himself
and all others similarly situated v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-01985-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. granting conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards
Act Employee Class:
"all people who have worked as a Paratransit Driver in the
First Transit depots in Redding, CA, Santa Cruz, CA,
DuPage, IL, Hunterdon, N.J., Cuba, N.Y., Durham, N.C.,
Xenia, OH, Bethel Park, PA, Frankstown, PA, Conshohocken,
PA, Philadelphia, PA, Pike Street, PA and Fort Bend, TX";
and
2. authorizing the Plaintiff to disseminate notice of this
lawsuit to the FLSA Employee Class.
First Transit filed its Answer to Complaint on June 25. On July ,
Plaintiff filed a second motion for protective order to quash
"third party subpoenas on cell phone provider."
First Transit designs, implements, and manages transportation
systems.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 22 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Forescout
Technologies Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If
you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
Class Period: February 6, 2020 - May 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020
During the class period, Forescout Technologies, Inc. allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Forescout was experiencing a significant and
disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
its business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in FSCT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=7446&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSCT) between February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period") of the important August 10, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Forescout investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Forescout class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.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) Forescout was experiencing a significant and
disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.;
and (3) 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 August 10,
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-1875.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.
Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
GANNETT PUBLISHING: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Vicky Aronson v. Gannett
Publishing Services, LLC, et al., Case No. EDCV 19-996-PSG-JEMx
(C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
2. denying the Plaintiff's motions to strike; and
3. mooting the Defendant's motion to strike certification of
the Plaintiff's claims.
The Court said, "the Defendants have also moved for the Court to
deny class certification on Plaintiff's California Labor Code
violations. The Court need not reach the issue of whether common
questions predominate as to the substantive labor code violations.
To recover for substantive labor code violations, Plaintiff must
first establish that the Class Members are employees. To establish
that they are employees, Plaintiff must prevail on the
misclassification claim. As the Court explained above, the
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that common issues predominate as to
the misclassification claim. Therefore, regardless of how the Court
answers the predominance question in the context of the
wage-and-hour claims, individualized issues will invariably exist
as to the Plaintiff's threshold misclassification claim, rendering
the entire case unsuitable for class certification."
Gannett Publishing provides printing and publishing services. The
company offers imaging, ad productions, internal and external
printing and packaging, consumer sales, customer service, internal
and external distribution, and direct marketing services.[CC]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Partially Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that GEICO
Indemnity Co. has blocked some, but not all claims in a lawsuit
alleging the insurer's practices with respect to adjudicating and
paying auto-injury claims violate Montana laws, according to a
federal court ruling in the state.
The order, issued on June 19 by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana, adopted Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto's
report and recommendations in full, dismissing entirely plaintiff
Brendan L. Moe's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court also partially granted GEICO's motion to dismiss Moe's
claims under Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: To Seek Review of Abacus CDO Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs
signaled on June 19 that it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to
review a decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upholding certification of a class of investors who contend the
bank lied about putting clients' interests ahead of its own in
advance of revelations about Goldman's controversial Abacus CDO
offering.
The hint came in the form of a motion asking the 2nd Circuit to
stay the case in advance of Goldman's petition for Supreme Court
review. I sincerely doubt the 2nd Circuit will grant the stay. As
I'll explain, the court has twice agreed to Goldman's interlocutory
requests to review class certification rulings by the trial judge,
U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty of Manhattan. And after the 2nd
Circuit's ruling in April, the bank asked for a rehearing,
mustering considerable amicus support from the business lobby. The
2nd Circuit denied that request on June 15. The new stay motion, in
other words, isn't telling the 2nd Circuit anything it hasn't
already heard from Goldman and its supporters. [GN]
GOOGLE INC: May Face Class Action Over Pixel 3 Issues
-----------------------------------------------------
Kerry Wan, writing for Android Police, reports that law firm
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP (CSK&D) just made
it public that it's beginning to investigate for a potential class
action lawsuit against Google. With a consistent outcry from Pixel
3 users concerning battery drain issues, poor photo and video
quality, and app crashes all around, CSK&D is now looking into
whether these defects are hardware-related -- which would
warrant a lawsuit.
This wouldn't be the first time Google has been taken to court over
one of its phones. The company has a track record of devices going
defective or broken, dating back to the Nexus 6P. The original
Google Pixel suffered from microphone failures even after defects
were RMA'd, costing the company $7,250,000. In those cases, CSK&D
and Google were able to come to resolutions with owners of faulty
devices being compensated up to $500.
In addition to a mountain of complaints of sudden battery drain,
CSK&D is looking into reports that the Pixel 3's "camera app shakes
and vibrates, resulting in poor quality videos and photos" or
crashes altogether. The firm is trying to pin down whether the
problems are caused by hardware defects.
While Google hasn't responded to the investigation, there are many
Pixel 3 users venting on public forums about the issues mentioned.
If you own a Google Pixel 3 or 3 XL (not 3a) and are experiencing
hardware issues, you can file a form on the firm's website to
contact the attorneys handling the investigation. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Devaney et al. Sue over Ad Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DEVANEY; NICHOLAS ARRIETA; and SARA YBERRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-04130 (N.D.
Cal., June 22, 2020) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, when consumers run Google searches,
Google collects and retains data related to the searches. Demand
side platforms (DSP) and advertisers use this information to craft
more effective advertising campaigns. Google, however, withholds
this information from rival DSPs and advertisers using rival
service providers. The result of this policy is that, in order to
gain access to the search data over which Google has monopoly
control, an advertiser must agree to use Google's products in the
separate display advertising services market.
Google similarly uses its dominance in the video-ad publishing
market segment to coerce advertisers to use Google's display
advertising services. Google-owned YouTube runs up to 50% of all
video display ads not appearing on Facebook and Amazon. After
Google purchased YouTube, it initially made YouTube's inventory of
display advertisements available to any advertising service
provider. But in 2015, Google prevented non-Google advertising
service providers from purchasing advertising space on YouTube. As
a result, if an advertiser wants to purchase any of the valuable
advertising space on YouTube, it must use Google's advertising
services and cannot use any of Google's rivals' advertising
services.
Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in
internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
GRAND CANYON: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Grand Canyon Education Corporation ("Grand
Canyon" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: LOPE) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, and indexed under 20-cv-0XXXXX, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Grand Canyon
securities between January 5, 2018, and January 27, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The claims asserted herein are alleged
against Grand Canyon and certain of the Company's senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants"), and arise under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and the rules promulgated thereunder, including SEC Rule 10b-5, 17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Grand Canyon securities
during the class period, you have until July 13, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.
Grand Canyon is an education services company incorporated in the
State of Delaware. This case concerns the Company's July 2018
spin-off of its education assets through a sale to a purported
non-profit entity, Grand Canyon University ("GCU"). Before the
spin-off, Grand Canyon had owned and operated a for-profit
university with a physical campus and through online programs.
After the spin-off, Grand Canyon would purportedly become a
third-party provider of education services to GCU and potentially
other universities, and GCU would operate as a separate, non-profit
entity no longer owned or operated by Grand Canyon.
The Class Period begins with Grand Canyon's January 5, 2018,
announcement that it had applied to regional accreditation body the
Higher Learning Commission ("HLC") for recognition of GCU as a
non-profit institution. The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Grand Canyon told investors that GCU would be
"independent" from Grand Canyon, that the relationship between the
two entities would "no longer be as owner and operator, but as a
third party contract party," and that GCU was "not a related party"
to Grand Canyon. Following the spin-off, Grand Canyon consistently
reported growth in net income and adjusted earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"), and
touted the success of its transition into the role of a third-party
services provider.
In reality, GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet entity to which
Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for
a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand
Canyon's financial results. In addition, GCU was not a proper
non-profit organization but rather remained under the control of
Grand Canyon through the Master Services Agreement ("MSA") and by
virtue of Grand Canyon's employees serving as the executives who
managed GCU.
The truth was revealed in a series of corrective disclosures.
First, on September 9, 2019, short-seller Citron Research
("Citron") published a report examining Grand Canyon's financials
and concluding that the Company "is stuffing GCU with expenses to
inflate its profitability and as a result bankrupting GCU." In
response to this disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock
declined approximately 5% intraday on September 9, 2019, to a low
of $104.20 per share, and closed at $109.62 per share on September
10, 2019.
Then, after the close of the market on November 6, 2019, Grand
Canyon announced that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Education ("DOE") denying its application for
designation of GCU as a non-profit. In response to this
disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined approximately
4% to close at $88.08 per share on November 7, 2019.
On January 28, 2020, Citron published a second report expanding on
the DOE's findings based on hundreds of pages of supporting
documentation from Grand Canyon, which Citron obtained through a
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. Citron concluded that
Grand Canyon was the "educational Enron," using a "captive
non-reporting subsidiary" to "dump expenses and liabilities while
receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins
in order to artificially inflate the stock price." Following this
disclosure, Grand Canyon shares declined approximately 8% to close
at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
HAMILTON BEACH: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a national securities
litigation firm, on June 22 disclosed that securities class action
have been filed against Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company
(NYSE: HBB). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff
have until the deadlines listed below to move the court. Further
details about the cases are described below. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) - Lead Plaintiff
Deadline of July 21, 2020
On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not
timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly financial report due
to "certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of
recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the
classification of certain expenditures within the statement of
operations at its Mexican subsidiary." In addition, the Company
stated that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal
investigation, with the assistance of outside counsel and other
third party experts," concerning "the realizability of certain
assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, shares of Hamilton
Beach Brands common stock fell by approximately 9%, or $1.03 per
share, to close at just $10.43 per share on unusually heavy trading
volume.
If you purchased or acquired shares of HBB and have questions about
your legal rights or possess information relevant to these matters,
please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via
email at cases@blockesq.com, or via the links provided above.
Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors
and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets.
The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional
investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation
throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered
billions of dollars for its clients.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockesq.com
www.blockesq.com [GN]
HARBOR FREIGHT: Thomas Sues Over Defective Vehicle Jackstands
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05898
(C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020), is brought to recover the cost and
property damage associated with the purchase of defective vehicle
jackstands from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims for Strict Products Liability,
Negligence and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability for
the sale of these defective jackstands.
Harbor Freight sells automotive jackstands under the in-house brand
name "Pittsburgh Automotive" that are manufactured by Harbor
Freight in China. Jackstands are meant to secure automobiles in an
elevated position while a worker makes repairs to the underside of
an automobile and is wholly or partly positioned underneath the
automobile.
The "Pittsburgh Automotive" jackstands are defective, hazardous and
unsafe due to inconsistencies in the manufacturing, the Plaintiff
alleges. He explains that the ratchet teeth are manufactured to an
insufficient depth, which does not allow the proper security to the
locking pawl, causing the jackstand to fail under load. He asserts
that Harbor Freight has represented that while under load, and with
a shift in weight, the pawl will disengage from the extension
lifting post, allowing the stand to drop suddenly.
Although the Defendant has issued a recall for jackstands sold with
three identified product ID numbers, jackstands with similar
defects, with at least three different product ID numbers,
including the Plaintiff's, have not been recalled, putting other
consumers at risk of personal injury, property damage, and
worthless purchases, according to the complaint. The Defendant knew
about the latent defect as consumers had reported these failures
before the Plaintiff purchased his jack stand; yet Harbor Freight
failed to disclose this knowledge to the Plaintiff and other
potential members of this class. Had this defect been properly
disclosed, it would have made the jack stands virtually worthless,
says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff purchased a Pittsburgh Automotive three ton aluminum
jackstand with product ID 61627 at the Harbor Freight store on
Farmington Drive in Greensboro, North Carolina, to use the
jackstand on his personal vehicles.
Harbor Freight is a retail discount tool seller and
distributor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Kevin Fisher, Esq.
FISHER & KREKORIAN
P.O. Box 890
Santa Monica, CA 90406
Phone: (310) 862-1220
Facsimile: (310) 388-0805
Email: rkf@fkslaw.net
- and -
Andrew J. Schwaba, Esq.
SCHWABA LAW FIRM
212 North Tryon Street, Suite 1725
Charlotte, NC 28281
Phone: (704) 370-0220
Fax: (704) 370-0210
Email: aschwaba@schwabalaw.com
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Ketayi Alleges Sham Health Insurance Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC KETAYI and MIRYAM KETAYI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH ENROLLMENT GROUP;
ADMINISTRATIVE CONCEPTS, INC.; AXIS, d/b/a AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY;
AXIS SPECIALTY U.S. SERVICES, INC.; ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMERS USA;
LIBERTY HEALTH; HEALTH PLAN INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC; HEALTH
INSURANCE INNOVATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.; FIRST HEALTH GROUP, CORP.;
MARC MUNOZ; KEVIN ROMERO; and JUANITA NICOLUCCI, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01198-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 26, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for conspiracy, fraud and deceit,
false and misleading advertising, and violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in
fraudulent and deceptive advertising, marketing and sale of sham
health insurance by making uniform misrepresentations and omissions
of material fact regarding their limited benefit plans and medical
discount plans. The Defendants deceive consumers, including the
Plaintiffs, into believing that the limited benefit plans and
medical discount plans that they offer are comprehensive Preferred
Provider Organization (PPO) health insurance even though they are
not. In addition, the Defendants do not have the licenses required
by California law to market health insurance plans.
The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered damages as a result
of the wrongful acts and practices of the Defendants as they have
either been duped into paying higher rates than required by law,
pay the same or more money for lesser coverage, or enter into
transactions with the Defendants that were illegal under the law
for the Defendants to inter into.
Health Enrollment Group is a health brokerage firm with its
principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Alliance for Consumers USA (ACUSA) is a corporation that offers
limited health and medical discount memberships, with its principal
place of business in Plano, Texas.
Liberty Health is an unregistered or entirely fictitious entity
with a mailing address in Plainview, New York. It provides limited
benefit plans and medical discount memberships.
AXIS, d/b/a AXIS Insurance Company, is an insurance company with
its headquarters in Bermuda.
AXIS Specialty U.S. Services, Inc. is a company that provides
insurance services with principal place of business in Alpharetta,
Georgia.
Administrative Concepts, Inc. is a claims administrator of health
insurance plans with its principal place of business in Wayne,
Pennsylvania.
Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC is a Delaware corporation
that offers health plans with its principal place of business in
Tampa, Florida.
Health Insurance Innovations Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation that offers health plans with its principal place of
business in Tampa, Florida.
First Health Group Corp. is a full-service national health benefits
company with its principal place of business in Rockville,
Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Fox, Esq.
Joanna L. Fox, Esq.
Russell A. Gold, Esq.
Michael F. Gosling, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (858) 256-7616
Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
joanna@foxlawapc.com
russ@foxlawapc.com
mike@foxlawapc.com
- and –
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (619) 308-5034
E-mail: alan@clgca.com
HERSHEY: Patterson Belknap Scores Appellate Win in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that
Patterson Belknap scored an appellate win for The Hershey Company
in a Class Action Lawsuit.
The class action concerned the labeling of Hershey's chocolates.
The plaintiff alleged that Hershey's product labeling violated
Massachusetts consumer protection laws because it did not disclose
that some cocoa may be indirectly sourced from regions in West
Africa where child labor is used. The plaintiff asserted, in
effect, that a manufacturer must disclose on product labeling every
fact that might affect a reasonable consumer's purchase
decision—even facts unrelated to the safety or core functionality
of the product.
Last year, a federal district court held that Massachusetts law did
not impose this sweeping disclosure obligation and dismissed the
case with prejudice. On June 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit unanimously affirmed in a precedential decision. It
agreed with the argument that product labels need not disclose
everything a consumer might wish to know, holding that "[n]o single
advertisement could possibly include every fact relevant to the
purchasing decision; nor is such comprehensiveness required."
The court also recognized Hershey's "commitment to eliminating
forced child labor in the cocoa supply chain" and found no "basis .
. . to conclude that [it] ha[d] tricked consumers or taken
advantage of their assumptions [about child labor] for capital
gain."
Patterson Belknap advised The Hershey Company with a team included
Steven A. Zalesin (Picture) and Jonah M. Knobler.
Involved fees earner: Jonah Knobler - Patterson Belknap; Steven
Zalesin - Patterson Belknap
Law Firms: Patterson Belknap
Clients: The Hershey Company [GN]
HIGHER PATH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HIGHER PATH, LLC, Defendant, Case
2:20-cv-01252-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal., June 22, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The Higher Path, LLC is a cannabis dispensary located in the
Sherman Oaks, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Yana 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
E-mail: yana@kazlg.com
HKS CONSTRUCTION: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HKS CONSTRUCTION CORP. (D/B/A HKS SCAFFOLDING),
KAMALJIT SINGH, and HAPPI SINGH, Case No. 1:20-cv-05005 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 30, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Plaintiff argues that the
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring him to
work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum
wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law
and regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed as a construction materials dispatcher
at a construction site.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a scaffolding company,
located in Bronx, New York, under the name "HKS Scaffolding."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
HOMELAND HEALTH: Caballero-Tablada Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Caballero-Tablada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Homeland Health Solutions., Inc.,
Betsy Moreno and Jose E. Hernandez, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-22288 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2020), seeks damages excluding
attorneys' fees or costs for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages
and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate as Carecross Medical Center where Tablada
regularly worked between 50–60 hours per work week, often working
from home after office hours and on the weekends. He says that he
was not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess
of forty each week. He also claims to be fired for complaining.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan J. Perez, Esq.
Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC
1414 NW 107th Ave, Suite 302
Doral, FL 33172
Tel. (786) 650-0202
Fax. (786) 650-0200
Email: nathaly@peregonza.com
juan@peregonza.com
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Cedeno Hits Share Drop Over Defaulted Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter L. Cedeno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc., Gotham
Green Partners, Hadley C. Ford, Julius John Kalcevich And Jason
Adler, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03513 (S.D. N.Y., April May 5,
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
On April 6, 2020, iAnthus announced that it had defaulted on $4.4
million in interest payments to private equity firm, Gotham Green
Partners. It failed to disclose to its shareholders that they were
unable to utilize escrowed funds to make necessary interest
payments under debenture agreements. On news of the default,
iAnthus' stock price fell $0.29 per share, or nearly 62%, to close
at $0.179 per share on April 6, 2020.
iAnthus is a holding company that owns licensed cannabis
cultivators, processors and dispensaries throughout the United
States. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
INFINITY ENERGY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik
De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Infinity Energy
Inc., alleging the company failed to pay accurate wages, failed to
provide required meal and rest breaks, and failed to indemnify
employees for business expenses. The Infinity Energy Inc. lawsuit,
Case No. 37-2020-00017124-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the
San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California.
The lawsuit filed against Infinity Energy Inc. alleges "DEFENDANT
intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify
PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required
business expenses incurred by the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA
CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging their duties on
behalf of DEFENDANT." Under California Labor Code Section 2802,
employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses
incurred in the course and scope of their employment.
Additionally, the complaint further alleges Infinity Energy Inc.,
committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.
(the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure
which failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and
rest periods by PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a
result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to
meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate
and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor
Code.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Infinity Energy Inc. or if you would like to know if you qualify to
make a claim, please contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by
calling (800) 568-8020.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Orange County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco
County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees
on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages,
overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and
other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Rigged Treasury Futures, Breakwater Trading Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Breakwater Trading LLC, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan
Clearing Corp., JPMorgan Securities LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03515 (S.D. N.Y., May 5, 2020), seeks
damages and declaratory relief under Section 22 of the Commodity
Exchange Act for unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S.
Treasury futures contracts.
Defendants allegedly manipulated the prices of Treasury Futures by
"spoofing," or bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the
bid or offer before execution including submitting or canceling
bids or offers with intent to create artificial price movements
upwards or downwards. This artificially creates demand, and
correspondingly, futures prices were artificially suppressed or
inflated accordingly.
Breakwater Trading is a liquidity provider for Treasuries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
Marc E. Foto, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (917) 438-9189
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
csanchez@nussbaumpc.com
mfoto@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Kevin B. Love, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Tel: (305) 357-9000
Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
klove@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
KAUFF'S INC: Court Certifies Class of Tow Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as YOSBREY CONCHADO,
individually, and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated v.
KAUFF'S, INC., et al., Case No. (Filed ), the Hon. Judge Donald M.
Middlebrooks entered an order:
1. partly granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify action on behalf of:
"all current and former tow truck drivers employed by
Defendants throughout the state of Florida not properly
paid overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40,
and employed for any length of time since February
2017."). Specifically, it is granted to the extent it
seeks conditional certification. It is otherwise denied
without prejudice.;
2. directing the Parties to confer regarding the contents of
the proposed notice and how prospective class members
should receive such notice by June 18, 2020; and
3. directing the Parties to file a status report regarding
whether they have resolved all notice related issues at
their conferral by June 22, 2020. In the event any issue
remains, the Court will set a briefing schedule to address
the disputed issues.
The Court said, "the Defendants' summary regarding why no similarly
situated employee exists supports the opposite conclusion. All
class members had the same job title (a tow truck driver); they all
work in the same geographic location -- Florida; the temporal scope
would be the same for all drivers -- failure to pay overtime within
the last three years; the Defendant devised a single policy --
requiring and/or allowing tow truck drivers to work in excess of 40
hours per week without paying them overtime; and in order to
prevail, all class members would put on evidence that they worked
over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. In light of
the lenient standard applicable at this notice stage, such
allegations sufficiently establish that similarly situated
employees exist."
The Plaintiff seeks damages for the Defendants' alleged failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He
was previously employed by the Defendants as a tow truck driver.
Kauff's offers towing services.[CC]
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Sues Over Shady Selloff Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Danielle Gamino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc., KPC
Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan Committee, Alerus
Financial, N.A., Kali Pradip Chaudhuri, Kali Priyo Chaudhuri,
Amelia Hippert, William E. Thomas, Lori Van Arsdale, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00962 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), requests that
breaching fiduciaries be ordered to pay the losses to the Plan, to
disgorge any profits, as well as other remedial and equitable
relief for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
On August 28, 2015, Kali Pradip Chaudhuri sold 100% of the stock of
KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc. to the Employee Stock Ownership Plan
which was in excess of fair market value, almost 400% greater than
the price that he had been willing to pay for and at which he
likely acquired the company just two years earlier, asserts the
complaint.
Gamino was employed as a medical coder by KPC Healthcare from May
29, 2008 through December 17, 2016 at the Orange County Global
Medical Center in Santa Ana, California. She is a participant of
the Employee Stock Ownership Plan. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
William E. Donahoo, Esq.
DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC.
440 W. First Street, Suite 101.
Tustin, CA 92780
Tel: (714) 953-1010
Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
skokonas@donahoo.com
wdonahoo@donahoo.com
- and -
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
1735 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 734-7046
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: joe@blockesq.com
colin@blockesq.com
- and -
Major Khan, Esq.
MKLLC LAW
1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (646) 546-5664
Email: mk@mk-llc.com
LA PLAZA LLC: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. La Plaza LLC and Armando Merino,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04186 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2020) seeks
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law, NY Wage Theft Prevention
Act and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
La Plaza LLC operates as Carniceria La Plaza, a Mexican-style Deli
located at 266 New Main Street, Yonkers where Flores worked as a
Deli worker. He usually works in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week.
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their
hours worked and failed to pay Flores the required
"spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.FightForUrRights.com
LALAJA INC: Cond. Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE VAZQUEZ-AGUILAR, JUSTA
HERNANDEZ-ROJO, JOSAFAT JUAREZ-CHAVEZ, SANDRA CATALINA-TORRES, and
SUSANA MENDOZA-BUSTILLO, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons v. ARTURO GASCA, MARIA D. GASCA, and
LALAJA, INC., d/b/a EL CERRO GRANDE MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Case No.
4:19-CV-171-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying this action as a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action for the following three
groups of workers who were employed by one or more of the
the Defendants in the El Cerro Grande Mexican Restaurant
located at 2503 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, New
Bern, North Carolina 28562 at any time in the time period
from November 29, 2016 through March 19, 2019. The
proposed classes are:
a. Tipped Worker Class consisting of:
"all tipped employees of the Defendants who were not
paid cash wages of at least $2.13 per hour and the
minimum and overtime rates required by 29 U.S.C.
sections 203(m), 206(a)(1), and 207(a)(1), and 29
C.F.R. sections 531.50(a)(1), 531.60, and 780.107";
b. Salary Worker Class consisting of:
"all cooks and dishwashers who were paid a flat weekly
wage as employees of the Defendants";
c. Straight Time Worker Class consisting of:
"taco chip servers and other non-exempt employees who
were paid a straight hourly wage for all hours worked
even when they worked more than 40 hours in the same
workweek";
2. approving the sending or delivery of the collective action
Notice by the Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days from the
date on which the Court conditionally certifies any FLSA
claim in this action as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), to each putative member of the
conditional collective action certified by the Court:
a. By U.S. Mail, first class delivery, postage prepaid;
b. By inclusion by Lalaja, Inc. with the next weekly Wage
Statement that defendant Lalaja, Inc. delivers to each
putative member of any conditional collective action
that the Court may certify in response to this Motion;
and/or
c. By text to the cellphone number or WhatsApp number
provided by the Defendants; and
3. directing the Defendants, within 14 days of entry of this
Order and to the extent not already provided, to provide
Plaintiff's counsel (in computer-readable electronic
format) the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone
number, cellphone number, WhatsApp number, dates of
employment, birth dates, and last four digits of the
social security number of all persons who are, have been,
or will be employed by the Defendant as Tipped Employees,
Cooks, Dishwashers, Taco Chip Servers, or other employees
who were paid an hourly wage at the Defendants' restaurant
in New Bern, North Carolina at any time from November 29,
2016, to March 19, 2019.
The Defendants operate a Mexican restaurant.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Willis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
P.O. Box 1828
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Telephone: (919) 821-9031
Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
488 Thompson Street
Pittsboro, NC 27312
E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Julian H. Wright, Jr., Esq.
Brendan P. Biffany, Esq.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
E-mail: jwright@robinsonbradshaw.com
Bbiffany@robinsonbradshaw.com
LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Hotel, Park Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sophia McCullough, writing for NBC 7, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Legoland California and its parent
company for allegedly refusing to refund prepaying guests as the
Carlsbad park shut down during the coronavirus pandemic.
Jessica Bautista of Los Angeles County reserved a two-night hotel
package for her family at the Legoland Castle Hotel on March 6,
according to the suit. The package included four 3-day park tickets
and she bought a birthday package, for a total of $1,900.
Legoland, along with other theme parks and attractions, shuttered
its doors in March as a result of the pandemic. Legoland California
and its onsite hotels have remained closed to the public.
"Immediately following the (Public Health) Order issued by Governor
Newsom, Ms. Bautista contacted Legoland to cancel her upcoming
hotel reservation and requested a refund due to the extenuating
circumstances," the suit said.
The suit alleged that on March 27, Legoland responded and said she
could not receive a refund for her scheduled reservation. Legoland,
after numerous correspondences, offered to "reschedule" Bautista's
trip, the suit said. Given the fluid nature of the pandemic,
Bautista again requested a refund.
The class-action suit claimed Legoland "exploited" Bautista and
other customers during the pandemic to "simply to enrich
themselves." It alleged Legoland engaged in "unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent" business practices.
The suit seeks full refunds for those who reserved a hotel stay or
park tickets for dates that Legoland remained closed, as well as
attorney's fees and costs. Another class-action suit was filed in
early June.
Bautista also requested a trial by jury. Bautista is represented by
the Kazerouni Law Group, APC in Costa Mesa.
NBC 7 reached out to Legoland for comment and has not yet heard
back. Merlin Entertainments, Legoland's parent company, is also
listed as a defendant. [GN]
LOAN DEPOT: Faces Winters Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Loan Depot, LLC,, Case No. 2:20-cv-01290-SPL
(D. Ariz., June 30, 2020), seeks damages and other remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations,
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 did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone.
Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry since at 30 days prior to receiving
such calls. The Defendant 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.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Mesa, Arizona.
The Defendant is a company engaged in the mortgage loan
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 800-400-6808
Fax: 800-520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
LOUISIANA: J.H. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Confined Children
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as J.H., by and through his
mother and next friend, N.H.; I.B., by and through his parents and
next friends, A.B. and I.B., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE;
EDWARD DUSTIN BICKHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; JAMES WOODS,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ACADIANA CENTER FOR
YOUTH; SHANNON MATTHEWS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE BRIDGE CITY CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHAWN HERBERT, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT MONROE;
and RODNEY WARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT COLUMBIA, Case No.
3:20-cv-00293-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a proposed Plaintiff Class defined as:
"all children who are, or will in the future be, confined
at Acadiana Center for Youth in Bunkie; Bridge City Center
for Youth; Swanson Center for Youth at Columbia; and
Swanson Center for Youth Monroe"; and
2. appointing their counsel as Class counsel.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are creating and
maintaining conditions that put the Class at imminent risk of
contracting COVID-19, and they have "acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class."
Louisiana is a state in the Deep South region of the South Central
United States.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
Nishi Kumar, Esq.
Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 529-5955
Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org
- and -
Stuart Sarnoff, Esq.
Lisa Pensabene, Esq.
Laura Aronsson, Esq.
Mariam Kamran, Esq.
David Lash, Esq.
Brandon Amash, Esq.
Benjamin Singer, Esq.
Jason Yan, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
E-mail: ssarnoff@omm.com
dlash@omm.com
bamash@omm.com
bsinger@omm.com
- and -
John Adcock, Esq.
ADCOCK LAW LLC
3110 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 233-3125
E-mail: jnadcock@gmail.com
- and -
Marsha Levick, Esq.
Jessica Feierman, Esq.
Karen U. Lindell, Esq.
JUVENILE LAW CENTER
1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1900A
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 625-0551
Email: mlevick@jlc.com
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: $4.75 Million Paid in Krammer Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that $4.75 million has been paid to
the settlement administrator for distribution to class members in
the lawsuit initiated by Robert J. Kramer.
In November 2017, Kramer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all
current and former store managers, all others with similar job
functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California alleging
violation of the California Labor Code including, among other
items, failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair
business practices.
The Company reached settlement for this matter in the third quarter
of 2019.
As of March 31, 2020, the remaining accrual related to this matter
is $4.75 million, which is included on the condensed consolidated
balance sheet within the caption "Accrual for Legal Matters and
Settlements- Current."
Payment of $4.75 million was made to the settlement administrator
on April 6, 2020, for distribution to class members.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class
action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll
and Osagie Ehigie.
In August 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie
Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training,
installation sales managers and similarly situated current and
former employees (collectively, the "Mason Putative Class
Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA) and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by
classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt. The
alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class
Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning
three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling
period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason
Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and
(ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior
to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the
disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class
Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in
connection with NYLL.
The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.
In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all store managers and store managers
in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations
period. In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs’
motion for conditional certification.
The litigation is in the discovery stage, which was extended by the
Court from May 2020 to December 18, 2020.
The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees' claims and
continues to defend the matter vigorously.
Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Still Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action lawsuit in Canada initiated by Sarah Steele.
On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice
against the Company.
In the complaint, Steele's allegations include strict liability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by
concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but
seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.
Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a loss
associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.
MAMMOTH MEDIA: Burns Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
Connor Burns, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Mammoth Media, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-04855 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 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.
Mammoth Media developed the mobile application, "Wishbone," a
social polling app where users compare anything from favorite
artists, TV shows, fashion and beauty trends, politics, etc. and
create and vote in side-by-side poll cards. Connor had a Wishbone
account since 2016, when he was just 14 years old where he was
required to provide his personal information. On May 23, 2020,
Connor received an email from Mammoth saying that Wishbone was
hacked and resulted in compromised data included usernames, emails,
phone numbers, time-zone/region, full name, bio, gender, hashed
passwords and profile pictures. He alleges that Mammoth failed to
implement and maintain reasonable safeguards and failed to comply
with industry-standard data security practices, contrary to the
representations made in Mammoth's privacy statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Mark A. Clifford, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
mclifford@tzlegal.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
- and -
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
Email: jbourne@pswlaw.com
MARY JANE'S: Faces Keller Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLI KELLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), vs. MARY JANE’S CBD DISPENSARY, INC.,
d/b/a MARY JANE’S CBD DISPENSARY, Defendant(s), Case No.
2:20-cv-01207-RFB-DJA (D. Nev., June 25, 2020) alleges that
Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed
unsolicited automated text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal
law that was designed to curtail abusive telemarketing practices.
According to the complaint, Defendant has violated TCPA by using an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to bombard consumers'
mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text
messages without prior express written consent.
The complaint further states that the text message Defendant sent
to Plaintiff consisted of pre-written templates of impersonal text
and was identical to text messages Defendant sent to other
consumers.
Mary Jane's CBD Dispensary is a cannabidiol products provider
organized under the laws of the State of Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6069 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
MASON COMPANIES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Gibeau Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTINA GIBEAU, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MASON COMPANIES
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00822 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs' individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
MAYO CLINIC: Kuhr Seeks to Certify Class of Florida Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NATALIE KUHR, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MAYO CLINIC
JACKSONVILLE, a Florida not for profit corporation and PROFESSIONAL
SERVICE BUREAU, INC., a Foreign corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-00453-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class action, for settlement
purposes only, defined as:
"all Florida Residents who, according to readily
accessible data and other electronic records of MAYO and
PSB, at any time during the applicable Class Period, were
charged medical-related fees in excess of the amount
allowed under section 627.736(5)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. By
Defendant MAYO and/or PSB acting on MAYO's behalf, and
includes all members of the Mayo Class and FDCPA Subclass
as defined in the Complaint, and as set forth in this
Agreement."
Excluded from this proposed Settlement Class are any: (i)
individuals who are or were, during the proposed Class
Period, officers or directors of the Defendant or any of
their respective affiliates; (ii) any justice, judge, or
magistrate judge of the United States or any State, their
spouses, and persons within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such
persons; and (iii) all borrowers who file a timely and
proper request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in
accordance with Section 2.07 of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Class Period runs from January 9, 2017
through June 1, 2020 or the date of execution of the
Settlement Agreement, whichever is later.;
2. preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed Settlement
Agreement;
3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative and
Plaintiffs counsel as Class Counsel for settlement
purposes;
4. establishing a schedule to complete the tasks necessary to
effectuate the proposed settlement; and
5. providing that if the Settlement Agreement is not finally
approved (or terminates for any reason) all parties shall
retain, without prejudice, all objections, arguments, and
defenses with respect to class certification.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the Total Settlement Amount is
$1,000,402.58, broken down as follows: $515,502.58 in Refunds and
Waivers. Settlement Class Members who were charged amounts in
excess of the amount allowed under section 627. 736(5)(a)(4), Fla.
Stat, receive 100% of those funds refunded or waived. In other
words, each Settlement Class Member will receive 100 cents on the
dollar for actual damages sustained. In addition to a refund of any
actual damages, Settlement Class Members will automatically receive
a pro-rata portion of a $500,000 Statutory Damage Fund.
Ms. Kuhr alleges that the Defendant Mayo collected and/or attempted
to collect medical bills that were in excess of the amount
permitted by Florida law, and that Defendant PSB assisted Mayo in
doing so.
Mayo Clinic is a comprehensive medical center belonging to the Mayo
Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
The Defendant is represented by:
Jordan E. Shaw, Esq.
Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
kslaven@zpllp.com
mperez@zpllp.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Schultz Suit Granted Class Status
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR., et
al. v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-04415-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
all natural persons with addresses within the state of New
Jersey, to whom, beginning July 20, 2015 through and
including April 25, 2016, Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
sent a Section 1692g initial communication or "LT1Y"
letter in an attempt to collect a consumer debt with an
original creditor of Capital One, and a current balance of
less than $600 at the time the letter was sent, which
contained the statement: "We will report forgiveness of
debt as required by IRS regulations. Reporting is not
required every time a debt is canceled or settled, and
might not be required in your case";
2. appointing Flitter Milz, P.C., and the Kim Law Firm LLC as
counsel for the class;
3. appointing Robert and Donna Schultz as class
representatives;
4. certifying claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act on behalf of the class.
Midland is specialty finance company providing debt recovery
solutions.[CC]
MILLENNIUM STEEL: Charles-Pierre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUES CHARLES-PIERRE, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLENNIUM STEEL, INC. a Florida
corporation, and RICARDO WRIGHT, individually, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-61248-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020) brings this complaint
against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Iron Worker.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked over 40 hours a week. But, Defendant
paid them the same regular rate for the overtime hours they worked
instead of paying them at one and one-half times their regular rate
pursuant to the FLSA.
Ricardo Wright owns and operates Millennium Steel, Inc.
Millennium Steel, Inc. is a construction company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Camar R. Jones, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: 561-447-8888
Fax: 561-447-8831
Emails: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nguyen Sues Over Unpaid Escrow Fund Interest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trung Q. Nguyen and Sally H. Nguyen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a MR.
COOPER, Case No. 3:20-cv-01227-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant has a uniform, unlawful policy of not
paying interest to borrowers, including the Plaintiffs, as required
under California law.
The Defendant fails to pay interest on borrower funds held by it in
escrow, according to the complaint. The Defendant's nonpayment of
interest on these escrowed sums violates California law requiring
mortgage lenders to pay a borrower a minimum of 2% in simple
interest for money received in advance from the borrower to satisfy
tax and insurance obligations. Mortgage lenders and servicers often
require borrowers to pay funds into escrow to cover property taxes,
insurance premiums, and other property-related expenses.
The Plaintiffs, the Nguyens, purchased a single-family home located
in San Marcos, California, and simultaneously entered into a
mortgage loan to finance their purchase. They contend that the
Defendant violated, and continues to violate, California law by not
paying interest to them on funds that it has held in escrow for
them at various times since 2018.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC is one of the largest servicers of
residential mortgages in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Manning Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MANNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01727-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., June 25,
2020) is a class action complaint and demand for jury trial brought
by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against the Defendant to obtain redress for
concussion-related injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Southern University and A&M College student-football players.
According to the complaint, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Southern University
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them,
despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries like those
Plaintiff experienced, to save the profitable business of amateur
college football.
As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Southern University football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association serves as the
governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees 23 college
sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate
athletics across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: 312.589.6378
Email: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCB MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Otzelberger"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OTZELBERGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCB
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00831-WED (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification
in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic
class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case
from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting
to "moot" the named plaintiffs' claims by tendering the plaintiffs'
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
NES GLOBAL: Alvarez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Loyda Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NES Global, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01933 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
NES is a staffing company that provides recruitment services to the
oil and gas industry. NES assigned Alvarez to XTO Energy in
Carlsbad, New Mexico and Midland, Texas as a Project Scheduler from
September 2019 until April 2020. She claims to be paid a day-rate
basis without paid overtime for the hours she worked in excess of
40 hours each week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NEW JERSEY EDUC: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as C.P., individually and on
behalf of F.P., a minor child; D.O. individually and on behalf of
M.O., a minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a
minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor
child; John and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor
child, James Doe; Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of
their minor child, C.H.S.; J.M. and E.M. on behalf of their minor
children, C.M. and E.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.;
Roberta Roe, on behalf of her minor child Robin Roe; E.P.,
individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P.; and on behalf
of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; LAMONT REPOLLET, Acting Commissioner of Education, Case
No. 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification; and
2. appointing John Rue & Associates as class counsel.
The New Jersey Department of Education administers state and
federal aid programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and
non-public elementary and secondary school children in the state of
New Jersey.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Rue, Esq.
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
694 Route 15 South, Ste 206
Lake Hopatcong, NJ 07849
Telephone: (862) 283-3155
E-mail: john@johnruelaw.com
NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS: Mearidy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CLORINDA MEARIDY, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NTHRIVE SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00387 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action and for court-
authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act;
2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
3. producing names, last known mailing addresses, last-known
cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15
days of the Order; and
4. distributing the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class
mail, email, and/or text message to all putative
plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with
a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial
mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs.
The Defendant helps hospitals and health care providers with a
combination of revenue cycle services, technology, education,
analytics and advisory services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com
OTAY MESA: Court Denies Alvarez Class Certification Bid as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACINTO VICTOR ALVAREZ,
JOSEPH BRODERICK, MARLENE CANO, JOSE CRESPO-VENEGAS, NOE
GONZALEZ-SOTO, VICTOR LARA-SOTO, RACQUEL RAMCHARAN, GEORGE RIDLEY,
MICHAEL JAMIL SMITH, LEOPOLDO SZURGOT, JANE DOE, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE,
Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00782-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw
entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction;
and
2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for certification
of the following class:
"all people detained pretrial or post-conviction by the
United States Marshal Service at Otay Mesa who are aged 45
or older or who have medical conditions that place them at
heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19."
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs are requesting the Court to impose
a reduction of the prison population at OMDC as the first step in
addressing the facility's COVID-19 outbreak. The Court, however,
cannot order such relief without first following the PLRA's
requirements. The Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to establish a
likelihood of success on the merits of their claim."[CC]
PENN CREDIT: Gurzi Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA GURZI, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PENN CREDIT,
CORPORATION, Case No. 6:19-cv-00823-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff has filed placeholder motion for class certification.
Penn Credit is a nationwide accounts receivables management
firm.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
909 Davis St., Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 729-5288
Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
- and -
Larry P. Smith, Esq.
David Marco, Esq.
SMITH MARCO, P.C.
55 W Monroe St., Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (888) 822-1777
E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
dmarco@smithmarco.com
PETROCHOICE LLC: Gravely Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TAMARA GRAVELY, et al. v.
PETROCHOICE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05409-CDJ (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective, defined
as:
"all persons presently or formerly employed by the Defendant
during the past three years in the position of Administrative
Assistant, Billing Specialist and/or Account Billing
Specialist, and/or Accounts Payable, or in positions with
substantially similar job duties who were paid on an hourly
basis and subject to the Defendant's unpaid meal break
policy."
The Defendant is a lubricant distributor.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 267-273-1054
Facsimile: 215-525-0210
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
PHILADELPHIA: Adeshigbin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ADRIANE ADESHIGBIN, and all
those similarly situated v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06079-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff files a motion
for court-authorized Fair Labor Standards Act notice of collective
action.
The Plaintiff is seeking to have FLSA lawsuit be conditionally
certified by the Court as Plaintiff and the proposed collective
members are similarly situated.
By conditionally certifying this matter, the Plaintiff will mail
and email approved notices and consent forms to those employees who
are part of the Collective.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and
other American Revolutionary sites.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Weinert, Esq.
Edward T. Kang, Esq.
KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: 215-525-5850
Facsimile: 215-525-5860
E-mail: ekang@KHFlaw.com
mweinert@KHFlaw.com
PINNACLE CLINICAL: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE PEREZ and SAMANTHA
GALLEY, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PINNACLE CLINICAL RESEARCH, PLLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-112-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all hourly employees who received a bonus at any time
since January 30, 2017";
2. directing the Defendant to produce the contact information
of the putative collective members no later than one week
after the date of the entry of the Order granting the
current motion;
3. approving the Notice and Consent to join;
4. approving the distribution of the Notice and Consent;
5. approving the distribution of Postcards;
6. approving the notice through U.S. Mail and email; and
7. granting Plaintiffs' counsel a period of 90 days from the
date the Defendant fully and completely releases the
potential collective members' contact information, to
distribute the Notice and file Consent forms.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Pinnacle Clinical conducts late phase clinical trials in the areas
of Hepatology and Gastroenterology.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Holland, Esq.
Inez McBride, Esq.
Holland & Holland, LLC
North Frost Center
San Antonio, TX 78209
Telephone: 210-824-8282
Facsimile: 210-824-8585
E-mail: mholland@hollandfirm.com
imcbride@hollandfirm.com
PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES, Case No. 7:20-cv-00086-DC
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
conditional certification for the following Fair Labor Standards
class:
"all Construction Managers, Project Managers, Drilling
Consultants, and Completions Consultants employed by, or
working on behalf of, Pioneer who were classified as
independent contractors and paid a day-rate during the
past 3 years."
The Plaintiff alleges that Pioneer did not pay its construction
management and wellsite contractor workforce overtime as required
by the FLSA. Instead, Pioneer misclassifies these workers as
independent contractors and pays them a set daily rate with no
overtime pay. Pioneer's pay practice violates this FLSA because
these workers should have received overtime pay for hours worked
over 40 in a week.
Pioneer is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the
Cline Shale, which is part of the Spraberry Trend of the Permian
Basin, where the company is the largest acreage holder.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, 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
cfitz@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
PNC BANK: Bookmyer Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
----------------------------------------------
William Bookmyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank, N.A., The Huntington
National Bank, N.A., Fifth Third Bank, N.A., CME Federal Credit
Union and ABC Banks 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02284 (S.D.
Ohio, May 5, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of the CARES Act.
On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.
Bookmyer is a certified public accountant from Powell, Ohio. It
sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its
clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the Lenders upon
funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, he was either
denied or would be paid only fifty percent of the mandated fees.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Arnold, Esq.
Damion M. Clifford, Esq.
Gerhardt A. Gosnell II, Esq.
Tiffany L. Carwile, Esq.
ARNOLD & CLIFFORD LLP
115 W. Main St., 4th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 460-1600
Email: jarnold@arnlaw.com
dclifford@arnlaw.com
ggosnell@arnlaw.com
tcarwile@arnlaw.com
PRUCO LIFE: Settlement of Behfarin Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Richard Behfarin v. Pruco
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-05290-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order granting the
settlement motion and the fee motion.
The Court awards Class Counsel $3,500,000 in fees and $500,000 in
litigation costs, to be paid by the Defendants. The Court also
awards the Named Plaintiff an incentive award of $25,000. Upon
completion of administration of the Settlement, the parties shall
file a declaration that includes:
-- the total number of claims submitted (broken out by group
and by requested relief);
-- the total number of claims approved (broken out by group
and by requested relief); and
-- a summary and amount of the settlement relief granted
(broken out by group and requested relief).
The Court finds that a $50,000 award to the Plaintiff would be
excessive given that this action only lasted several years and did
not proceed to trial. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff's declaration
demonstrates that he expended significant time and effort in this
action and provided expertise throughout the litigation process.
Therefore, the Court finds the award of $25,000 appropriate.
Pruco offers individual life insurance, variable life insurance,
term life insurance, and individual variable annuities.[CC]
PURA VIDA: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Ruiz and other similarly situated individuals v. PURA VIDA
MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-22700-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June
30, 2020), is brought to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 60 hours every
week. However, he was paid for hours. Sometimes, the Plaintiff was
paid for some overtime hours, but there is a substantial number of
overtime hours that were not paid to him at any rate, not even at
the minimum wage rate, as required by the FLSA.
The Plaintiff clocked in and out for a few months, and then he
didn't, but the Defendant always was in complete control of the
Plaintiff's working hours, and it was able to keep track of the
hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals, says the complaint. Therefore, the Defendant willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked over 40, in
violation of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt local
driver.
PURA VIDA MEDICAL CENTER is a medical center that provides a
complete range of medical services, including transportation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
RED ROBIN: Settles Rest Break Class Action for $8.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Red Robin has agreed to pay $8.5 million to
settle a class action accusing the restaurant chain of violating
California law by failing to provide breaks and failing to pay
thousands of workers for time spent laundering uniforms. [GN]
RELIABLE PCA: Badon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STACEY BADON on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated v. RELIABLE PCA AND SIL
AGENCY, LLC AND QUENTINA DAWSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-12503-EEF-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Court entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action and facilitate notice;
2. approving proposed Notice and Opt-In Forms; and
3. directing the Defendants to provide a list of all the last
former known addresses and telephone numbers of all
current or former employees who may be members of the
collective class to counsel to the Plaintiff within 14
days of the date of this Order.
Reliable PCA is a licensed home and community based services.[CC]
RELIANCE OILFIELD: Baird Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLBY BAIRD and BYRUM KETRON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RELIANCE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00191-F (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a putative collective of and
facilitate notice to:
"all current and former workers who were employed as
hourly-paid, non-exempt Operators (or similar hourly, non-
exempt field personnel) by the Defendant in the three
years preceding the Complaint filing, and who received a
job bonus in one or more workweeks working as an Operator
(or similar hourly, non-exempt field personnel)";
2. directing the Defendant within 30 days after the entry of
an Order granting this motion, to produce to Plaintiff's
counsel the names, last known home addresses, email
addresses to the extent they are known to Defendant, and
employment dates (Employee Information) of the Putative
Collective Members";
3. directing the Defendant to provide the Employee
Information in a native Excel spreadsheet format;
4. giving the Plaintiff's counsel of 21 one days from the
date of receipt of the Employee information to distribute
a Notice of Collective Action and Consent to Become a
Party Plaintiff form to the Putative Collective Members;
and
5. directing the Parties to promptly meet and confer about an
appropriate discovery plan within seven days following the
close of the Opt-In Period, after the identity of the opt-
in plaintiffs is known.
Reliance Oilfield provides oilfield services. The company offers
high-pressure control tools, drilling solutions, well testing, and
wireline services.[CC]
The Plaintiff are represented by:
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (281) 572-0727
E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
- and -
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
www.siegellawgroup.biz
4925 Greenville, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 790-4454
- and -
Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
Oklahoma Bar No. 16359
MCINTYRE LAW, P.C.
8601 S. Western Avenue
Olkahoma City, OK 73139
Telephone: (405) 917-5250
Facsimile: (405) 917-5405s
E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com
RELIANCE OILFIELD: Court Certifies Collective in Baird Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLBY BAIRD and BYRUM KETRON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RELIANCE OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00191-F (W.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Friot entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a defined putative collective:
"all current and former workers who were employed as
hourly-paid, non-exempt Operators (or similar hourly,
non-exempt field personnel) by the Defendant in the three
years preceding the Complaint filing, and who received a
job bonus in one or more workweeks working as an Operator
(or similar hourly, non-exempt field personnel)";
2. directing the Defendant within 30 days after the date of
this Order, to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel the
names, last known home addresses, email addresses to the
extent they are known to Defendant, and employment dates
(Employee Information) of the Putative Collective
Members;
3. directing the Defendant to provide the Employee
Information in a native Excel spreadsheet format;
4. approving the Notice and Consent Form. The Plaintiffs'
counsel will have 21 days from the date of receipt of the
Employee Information to distribute the Notice to the
Putative Class Members in accordance with the below-
provided procedure;
5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Notice and
the Consent Form with a self-addressed, postage paid
return envelope for U.S. postal mailing;
6. providing the Putative Class Members of 60 days after the
date the Notice and Consent are initially mailed to file a
Consent form opting into this litigation; and
7. directing the Parties to promptly meet and confer about an
appropriate discovery plan within seven days following the
close of the Opt-In Period.
Reliance offers high-pressure control tools, drilling solutions,
well testing, and wireline services.[CC]
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-03712-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff Edgardo Guerrini will
move the Court on October 8, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying case as class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as class counsel.
This is a federal securities action against the Defendants
Restoration Robotics, Inc.; the Individual Defendants; the Venture
Capital Defendants; and the Underwriter Defendants for violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, stemming from
the initial public offering of Restoration's common stock that
commenced on October 12, 2017 and closed on October 16, 2017.
Restoration Robotics is a medical device company developing and
commercializing the ARTAS (TM) and ARTAS iX (TM) Robotic Hair
Restoration System.[CC]
The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
- and -
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
stornatore@zlk.com
RSI ENTERPRISES: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Jance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHPRESA JANCE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RSI ENTERPRISES,
INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00847-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff's individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "the parties did not dispute that all
eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the
district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception
applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual
claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to
the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v.
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling
was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which
refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class
certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
RYDER SYSTEM: Klein Law Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 22, 2020 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ryder
System Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R)
Class Period: July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
The R lawsuit alleges Ryder System, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the
class period that: (1) Ryder's financial results were inflated as a
result of the Company's practice of overstating the residual values
of the vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no reasonable basis to
believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles for the amounts
that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual values for its
fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be
realized upon the sale of those vehicles; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in R:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?id=7446&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
SALEM PLACE: Fails to Pay Lawful Overtime Wages, Parker Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Parker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00799-JM (E.D. Ark., June 30, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay lawful overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others were paid one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 48 hours per week. The Defendant, however, did not pay the
Plaintiff and others an overtime premium of one and one half times
their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid licensed
practical nurse from June 2018 until June 2020.
The Defendant owns and operates a nursing home in Faulkner
County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Odom, Esq.
Josh Sanford, 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: thoma@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SANDHILLS EMERGENCY: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify APP Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KENNETH DENNIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANDHILLS
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, P.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-00273 (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of this collective
action and authorization to send an initial and a reminder
Court-supervised Notice to:
"all individuals who currently work, or have worked, for
the Defendant as an Advance Practice Provider (i.e., Nurse
Practitioner or Physician Assistant) at any time with the
proceeding three years from the date of filing the
complaint (Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs)";
2. certifying a class of:
"all similarly situated Advance Practice Providers (APP)
for a North Carolina state law wage claim (NCWHA) under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (Putative Class Members)";
3. directing the Defendant to produce a computer-readable
data file containing the names, addresses, e-mail
addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment for
all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within seven days of the
Court's Order;
4. authorizing notice under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) to
Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs;
5. certifying his North Carolina state law wage claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3);
6. appointing his Counsel as Class Counsel;
7. approving the proposed Notice forms;
8. authorizing the Plaintiff to send initial and reminder
Notice forms, at his expense, by First Class U.S. Mail and
e-mail to all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs to inform them
of their rights and options regarding this lawsuit;
9. directing the posting of the Notice forms by the Defendant
at a location in each of the Defendant's local offices
where Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and Putative Class
Members are likely to view it; and
10. providing Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs with 60 days after
the date Notice forms are mailed to return a Consent to
Join form opting-in to this litigation and/or for Putative
Class Members to notify Class Counsel of the decision to
opt-out of the North Carolina state law class, unless the
Parties agree to permit late filings or good cause can be
shown as to why the form and/or opt-out notification was
not returned prior to the deadline.
The Plaintiff seeks payment of unpaid regular and overtime wages
owed to him and other similarly situated employees due to the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
Sandhills Emergency Physicians is an independent and democratic
group of emergency medicine specialists whose physician members are
all board-eligible or board-certified by the American Board of
Emergency Medicine or the American Osteopathic Board of Emergency
Medicine.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Craig L. Leis, Esq.
GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: 704-612-0038
E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com
craig@gibbonsleis.com
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Jackson Residents' Water Bill Class Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Vicory, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports that
bill that would provide relief for Jackson water bill ratepayers
has passed both houses of the Legislature with unanimous support
and now awaits the governor's signature.
Senate Bill 2856, authored by Sen. John Horhn, would allow the city
of Jackson to establish a flexible payment plan for water and sewer
bills to help residents who need more time to bring their accounts
current.
The bill would also give the city more clarity on what water bill
cases can be considered for review and possible debt forgiveness.
Water billing fight: Judge rejects Jackson residents' class-action
lawsuit against Siemens
Those cases include residents who have been affected by natural
disasters -- such as the Pearl River flood, faulty water and sewer
line equipment or those considered "disproportionately impoverished
or needy."
The bill applies to any municipality in the state with a population
of 150,000 residents or more, making it specific to Jackson, the
state's largest city.
Water collection challenges in Jackson
The inability to collect on water revenue has been the city's
greatest financial challenge, resulting in multi-million dollar
shortages to its bottom line each year. It has also affected the
city's bond rating since the city has been forced to borrow from
its general fund to cover the shortfalls.
The bill -- if signed by the governor -- would also address the
bond issue.
It would allow the city to shuffle existing debt into a separate
"uncollectible" account so its bond rating would not be negatively
affected. The better the bond ratings the more money a city can
borrow at lower interest rates to fix infrastructure.
Bill meant to 'incentivize' payments
Many residents in the city have complained of high water bills,
while some others still say they aren't receiving a bill at all.
The poverty rate in Jackson, close to 30%, means many residents
struggle to pay those bills. When they finally receive a bill, it
can be in the thousands of dollars.
Horhn said the bill is a way to "incentivize" Jackson residents to
pay their water bill. He proposed the city could forgive some debt
for qualifying residents who make consecutive "good faith"
payments.
"Let's say you have a resident who consecutively pays their bill
for seven months. On the eighth month, the city could put that
monthly payment into an uncollectible account," he said.
Recent water billing lawsuits
A recent class action lawsuit brought by several Jackson residents
to hold Siemens Industry, LLC accountable for the water bills was
recently dismissed in federal court. The company was brought on by
the city in 2012 to fix its billing and water system. It led to
widespread billing issues that persist to this day.
The city of Jackson filed its own lawsuit against Siemens last
summer and recently settled for the full amount of the $89.8
million contract, which was the largest in city history. That led
to an improvement in the city's bond rating, but officials
recognize more measures are needed.
The bill passed the House on June 17 by a 118-0 vote. It passed the
Senate March 5 by a vote of 51-0. Gov. Tate Reeves has 14 days from
June 17 to sign the bill.
Horhn said he will reach out to the governor to "ease any
heartburn" the governor might have with the bill. He proposed the
city could forgive some debt for qualifying residents who make
consecutive "good faith" payments.
"Let's say you have a resident who consecutively pays their bill
for seven months. On the eighth month, the city could put that
monthly payment into an uncollectible account," he said.
Recent water billing lawsuits
A recent class action lawsuit brought by several Jackson residents
to hold Siemens Industry, LLC accountable for the water bills was
recently dismissed in federal court. The company was brought on by
the city in 2012 to fix its billing and water system. It led to
widespread billing issues that persist to this day.
The city of Jackson filed its own lawsuit against Siemens last
summer and recently settled for the full amount of the $89.8
million contract, which was the largest in city history. That led
to an improvement in the city's bond rating, but officials
recognize more measures are needed. [GN]
SOUTH HOUSTON MOTORCARS: Jackson Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasha Jackson, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. South Houston Motorcars, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01955 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2020), seeks
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
South Houston Motorcars operates as South Houston Nissan, a Nissan
dealership in Houston. It utilizes prerecorded messages to place
calls to unsuspecting consumers on their cellular telephones for
the purpose of selling its goods and services. At no point in time
did Alvarez provide them with his express written consent to be
contacted using an automated dialer, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Ignacio Hiraldo
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
Email: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com
- and -
Angelica Gentile, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
TICKETMASTER: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Related Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Pagan, writing for WSYX/WTTE, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed against Ticketmaster is looking to force the company
to refund tickets for events postponed during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Over the months, some of you have said you've been left in limbo
with money tied in tickets. "They're holding back $157 of my money
on me that I could really use right now," Brian Baumberger told us
in April. He says he still has not received a refund, as his event
is technically still "postponed."
The complaint, filed in California's Northern District, claims
several people "have not been provided refunds for the ticket
purchase price, including fees and costs for postponed or
rescheduled events . . . " It also says Ticketmaster "sought to
retroactively change their policies for refunds . . ." and "quietly
force their buyers to endure the financial losses."
We reached out to the attorneys on the case, but have not heard
back.
On their website, Ticketmaster says "in many cases, event
organizers will provide you the option to request a refund or a
credit . . ."
However, if your event is specifically postponed, your tickets are
still technically valid and the money could be tied up until the
organizer cancels.
Ticketmaster would not comment on the lawsuit because it is still
pending. [GN]
TO-RISE LLC: Settlement of Lora et al. Case Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EILEEK LORA, JEFFREY GOMEZ,
SERGIO MOSCOSO, BERNARDO MENDOZA, NICHOLAS MITRANO, KEVIN MANCO,
and WILMER MARIN GARCIA, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. TO-RISE, LLC AND JORGE SALCEDO A/K/A JORGE E.
SALCEDO JR., Case No. 16-CV-3604-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order:
1. granting motion for final approval of New York Labor Law
class and Fair Labor Standards Act collective on behalf
of:
"all former and current non-exempt persons employed by
Defendants at any time between June 29, 2013,” and
September 15, 2017";
2. giving the Plaintiffs' counsel an award of $209,166.67 in
attorney's fees and $25,000 for the Settlement
Administrator's Fee; and
3. giving all Named Plaintiffs, except Eileek Lora, a service
awards of $10,000 each, and giving Eileek Lora a service
award of $15,000.
This action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. By
operation of the entry of this Order and Final Judgment, all
Released Class and Authorized Claimant Claims, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement, are fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged pursuant to the terms of the release
set forth in the Settlement Agreement as to all Collective Members
who became Authorized Claimants by filing a Claim Form and all
Class Members, the Court says.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Sues Over Defective Highlander Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis and Deborah Murphy, individually, and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC., a California corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
California corporation, and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a Japanese
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05892 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose material facts and
safety concern to consumers that certain vehicles have defective
8-speed transmission.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants on behalf of all
persons in the United States, who purchased any 2017 to present
Toyota Highlander or 2017 to present Toyota Sienna vehicles ("Class
Vehicles") equipped with the defective 8-speed transmission.
The Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the
Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles'
transmissions were defective, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles' Direct Shift-8AT
Transmission is defective in its design and/or manufacture in that,
among other problems, it causes harsh or delayed shifting and
engagement, delayed acceleration, hesitation, jerking, unintended
acceleration, lurching, excessive revving before upshifting (also
known as excessively high RPM shift points), and lack of power when
needed (such as from a stop) (the "8AT Transmission Defect"). The
Plaintiffs contend that the 8AT Transmission Defect is inherent in
each Class Vehicle and was present at the time of sale.
Despite these widespread and well-known problems, the Plaintiffs
allege, Toyota continued to market the Direct Shift 8AT
Transmission not only as a fuel-efficient model, but one that would
achieve "quick and smooth response to accelerator pedal operation"
which would "create an 'as desired' direct driving feel..."
Although the Defendants were sufficiently aware of the 8AT
Transmission Defect from pre-production testing, design failure
mode analysis, calls to the customer service hotline, and customer
complaints made to dealers, this knowledge and information was
exclusively in the possession of the Defendants and their network
of dealers and, therefore, unavailable to consumers, the Plaintiffs
insist.
The Plaintiffs add that despite access to aggregate internal data,
the Defendants have actively concealed the existence of the defect.
Had the Defendants disclosed the 8AT Transmission Defect, the
Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased or leased the
Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased a new 2018 Highlander XL from Groove
Toyota, an authorized Toyota dealer in Englewood, Colorado.
The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted, and/or serviced the Class Vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-4811
Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
Email: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
U.S. XPRESS: Neely Alleges Unfair Wage Deductions for Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case ESTELE RAY NEELY, Individually and on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. XPRESS
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, U.S. XPRESS, INC., a
Nevada Corporation, and U.S. XPRESS LEASING, INC., a Tennessee
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00174 (E.D. Tenn., June
25, 2020) alleges that Defendants erroneously designated Named
Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent contractors
and unlawfully deducted from and withheld portions of the wages
owed to them in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required Named Plaintiff
and those similarly situated to cover the costs of the truck,
insurance, and fuel by intentionally reducing the wages of Named
Plaintiff and those similarly situated below the federal minimum
wage.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid "over the
road" truck driver.
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., U.S. Xpress, Inc., and U.S. Xpress
Leasing, Inc. own and operate a fleet of long haul trucks, and
provide trucking/distribution services to business entities
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel 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
U.S.A.: Cole Seeks to Certify Class of Student Loan Borrowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KORI COLE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his
official capacity as United States Secretary of Treasury, ELISABETH
DEVOS, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of
Education, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, and UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01423-TFH (D.
Colo., Filed ), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certify a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2):
"all borrowers of student loans issued or held by ED whose
federal tax refunds have been or will be offset by ED and
Treasury between March 27, 2020 and September 30, 2020,
and whose federal tax refunds that were offset during that
time period have not been fully returned to the
borrowers"; and
2. appointing Student Defense and Democracy Forward
Foundation as class counsel.
Despite the clear instruction by Congress, after the CARES Act's
enactment on March 27, 2020, the Defendants continued to offset tax
refunds through fully automated, computerized system (TOP) to
offset student loan debt held by ED. Ms. Cole seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief to end and reverse the Defendants' failure to
implement the CARES Act.
Ms. Cole, is one of thousands of Americans whose tax refunds have
been unlawfully offset since the enactment of the CARES Act. She
took out federally-held student loans to attend Heritage College in
Lakeside.
USDT is the national treasury of the federal government of the
United States where it serves as an executive department.
ED is a Cabinet-level department of the United States.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alice W. Yao, Esq.
Daniel A. Zibel, Esq.
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: dan@defendstudents.org
eric@defendstudents.org
alice@defendstudents.org
- and -
Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
Sean A. Lev, Esq.
DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
1333 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 448-9090
E-mail: jdubner@democracyforward.org
slev@democracyforward.org
UBER EATS: Delivery Driver Files IC Misclassification Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that an Uber Eats delivery
driver filed a lawsuit on June 18 claiming he was misclassified by
Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER) as an independent contractor
and denied certain job protections under AB 5, California's
get-tough bill on independent contractor misclassification,
ClassAction.org reported. The plaintiff, who began working for Uber
Eats in January 2020, is represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- an
attorney known for launching class-action lawsuits against Uber and
other human cloud platform firms over the issue of worker
misclassification -- and looks to represent all Uber Eats drivers
who have worked in California. [GN]
UNILEVER: Summary Judgment Upheld in St. Ives Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that two women who say they
used a facial scrub and would not have purchased it had they known
that it causes "micro-tears" in the skin which, they assert, is now
shown by scientific findings, have no personal claims against the
manufacturer, Unilever, absent evidence of harm to themselves from
use of the product, and have no cognizable class claims, the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.
The memorandum opinion upholds a summary judgment granted on Dec.
17, 2018, to Unilever, an international manufacturing giant, by
District Court Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of
California.
The plaintiffs, Kaylee Browning -- a former California resident,
now living in Arizona, who purchased Unilever's St. Ives Apricot
Scrub while in this state -- and Sarah Basile, a denizen of New
York, sued on the basis of recent revelations about the product.
Their District Court complaint asserts that "St. Ives is unfit to
be sold or used as a facial scrub" and "is completely worthless."
Unilever was derelict, they contend, in failing to disclose the
drawbacks inherent in using its scrub.
Potential Ill-Effects
The pleading, citing studies, says:
"Unfortunately for consumers, use of St. Ives as a facial exfoliant
leads to long-term skin damage that greatly outweighs any potential
benefits the product may provide. St. Ives' primary exfoliating
ingredient is crushed walnut shell, which has jagged edges that
cause micro-tears in the skin when used in a scrub. While this
damage may not be immediately noticeable to the naked eye, it
nonetheless leads to acne, infection and wrinkles."
In opposing summary judgment, Browning and Basile relied on a
declaration by a Florida dermatologist, Mark Nestor, who opined
that "use of St. Ives as directed leads to facial skin irritation
and impaired barrier function" and other potential medical
problems.
District Court's View
Guilford declared that Browning and Basile "haven't provided
sufficient evidence of a safety hazard or product defect that
Defendant was required to disclose" and that their "allegations are
too generalized and conjectural to survive summary judgment."
Assailing their fitness to represent a class, he said:
"Browning and Basile are asymptomatic class representatives. Even
if the Court found there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding
the safety hazard created by the walnut shell powder in St. Ives,
it does not appear to have afflicted Browning or Basile . . .
Browning and Basile don't claim they suffered from micro-tears,
infection, or other physical ailments when they used St. Ives . . .
.At best, Plaintiffs assume they suffered from micro-tears which
they could neither see nor feel."
Ninth Circuit Opinion
The Ninth Circuit on June 18 expressed agreement, saying:
"Plaintiffs provided no summary judgment evidence linking
'micro-tears' caused by Unilever's facial scrubs to any concrete
injuries. Dr. Nestor's summary judgment declaration opined only
that an impaired [outer layer of the skin] 'can increase chances'
of a host of recognized long-term health risks, but he was unable
to observe or quantify any of those risks in his two-week study.
Moreover, Plaintiffs used the products for years and showed no
symptoms of the 'dry irritated skin or infections' that Dr. Nestor
warned could be caused by micro-tears."
The opinion says that the plaintiffs' "failure to present summary
judgment evidence linking use of the product to actual injury
undermines their fraudulent omission theories" and finds no fault
with Guilford's rejection of other theories.
The case is Browning v. Unilever United States, Inc., 19-55078.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Class Action Pending vs ICE Over Mesa Verde Facility
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Davis Vanguard reports that earlier this month, a federal judge
granted a preliminary injunction to lawyers challenging conditions
of detention filed on behalf of everyone detained at the Mesa Verde
Detention Facility in Bakersfield.
The judge's order supplemented his TRO (temporary restraining
order) in late April that required ICE to identify people to
release in the face of the social distancing and other problems at
the center.
At that time, Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court of
Northern California rejected the government's argument for a delay
and voiced impatience with attempts by ICE to slow down the class
action.
We have now learned that on June 19, 2020, government lawyers
disclosed that a medical provider at the Mesa Verde Detention
Center in Bakersfield, CA, tested positive for COVID-19. The
disclosure came at a hearing in connection with a class action
lawsuit challenging conditions of confinement in ICE detention
facilities during COVID-19. Federal District Court Judge Vince
Chhabria ordered ICE to present by Monday, June 22, at 5pm what ICE
has done and will do in response.
"ICE dropped the bombshell news that a medical provider at its
privately run detention center in Bakersfield tested positive for
COVID-19. It is incomprehensible that, amidst a global pandemic,
ICE has failed to take even the most minimal steps to ensure access
to testing," said Emi MacLean, an attorney in the San Francisco
Public Defender's Office. "It is outrageous that ICE is doing
virtually nothing to protect people from the threat of COVID-19
despite the extraordinary risks the pandemic poses for people in
detention. There are no excuses. ICE detention in this context is
unconscionable."
Despite being several months into the pandemic, ICE has not
mandated testing in its facilities, and has tested no staff or
detainees at the Mesa Verde Detention Center. ICE reported that the
medical provider in question obtained a test independently. ICE did
not disclose any measures it was taking to ensure the health and
safety of its other staff and the people in ICE custody.
"Enough is enough. We demand accountability. We also join with key
leaders and organizations throughout California to insist that the
state launch an independent investigation into the practices of GEO
and ICE during this pandemic, which have put lives at risk," says
Francisco Ugarte, Manager of the Immigration Defense Unit at the
San Francisco Public Defender's Office.
In the previous order, Chhabria openly chided ICE and its
"obstinance" in opposing release of individuals "on a blanket
basis" in "positions that are downright irrational, not to mention
inhumane."
The order noted, "ICE's conduct and attitude towards its detainees
at Mesa Verde and Yuba County Jail since the pandemic began have
shown beyond doubt that ICE cannot currently be trusted to prevent
constitutional violations at these particular facilities without
judicial intervention."
Chhabria knocked ICE's representation to the court that it was
quarantining people transferred into Mesa Verde and Yuba Jail. In
fact, it's been learned that at least two people previously held in
jail populations with dozens of coronavirus infections were
released directly into the main population without any isolation.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Detainees Sue Over Denied Right to Contact Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Gomez Carranza and Ruben Torres Jauregui, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew T. Albence,
Acting Director of ICE, Department of Homeland Security, Chad F.
Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
Corey A. Price, Field Office Director for the El Paso Field Office,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00424, (D. N.M., May 4, 2020), seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy alleged violations of
the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals held in
government custody pending immigration proceedings pursuant to the
First and Fifth Amendment Clauses.
Carranza and Jauregui, citizens of Honduras and Cuba respectively,
are held in detention facilities under the custody of the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They claim to be denied
placing telephone calls necessary to consult with or obtain
counsel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. David Hosp, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
222 Berkeley St. Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 880-1886
Facsimile: (617) 880-1801
Email: dhosp@orrick.com
- and -
Paige Pavone, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 506-3604
Facsimile: (212) 506-5151
Email: ppavone@orrick.com
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Gold Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Gold, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. The University of Miami, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-22316 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining the University of
Miami from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition,
fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be just
and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis,
together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
The University of Miami is a private institution located in Miami,
Florida. Gold's son was a full-time undergraduate student during
Spring 2020 semester. The University of Miami decided to close
campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes
to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus
Disease. Gold claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person
instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and
other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already
paid fees and tuition. The University of Miami refused to provide
reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: (954) 889-3359
Fax: (954) 889-5913
Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Tel: (516) 873-9550
Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal from Decision to Stay Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the appeal from the order of the Chester
County, Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania granting a stay on the
putative class action suit with Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ, is still
pending.
A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at
the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the
Underwriters, in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ.
The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
On September 20, 2019 the Court granted the defendants' Petition
for Stay and stayed the Chester County action until the
Consolidated Action reaches a final disposition. On October 18,
2019, plaintiff filed an appeal
USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in PA Suit Wins Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the
settlement in the consolidated class action suit with Docket No.
19-cv-04565.
As previously reported, various putative shareholder class action
complaints had been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company, its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer at the relevant time, its
directors at the relevant time, and the investment banks who served
as underwriters in the May 2018 follow-on public offering of the
Company (the "Underwriters").
These complaints alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
These various actions were consolidated by the Court into one
action (the "Consolidated Action"), and the Court granted the
Motion to Transfer filed by the Company and its former chief
executive officer, and transferred the Consolidated Action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Docket No. 19-cv-04565.
On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 3, 2020. The Court
has not yet ruled on the motions to dismiss.
The parties participated in a private mediation on February 27,
2020 which resulted in a settlement.
On May 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed documents with the Court
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, with the defendants
supporting approval of the settlement.
On June 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and issued a scheduling order for further action on the
settlement.
The settlement provides for a payment of $15.3 million which
includes all administrative costs and plaintiff's attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Company's insurance carriers are anticipated to
pay approximately $12.7 million towards the settlement and the
Company is anticipated to pay approximately $2.6 million towards
the settlement, which has been recorded as a liability in the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.
Payments will not be distributed pursuant to the settlement until
and unless an opt-out process is completed successfully and the
Court grants final approval of the settlement.
USA Technologies said, "The Company expects but cannot assure that
those events will occur later in the calendar year. Should the
settlement not be approved the parties will resume litigation of
the claims."
USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
VAIL CORP: Bellafatto Sues Over Cancelled Ski Passes, Seeks Refund
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bellafatto, an individual person on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Vail Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01585, (D. Colo., June 2, 2020), seeks
restitutionary damages, a full cash refund, an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract/warranty and violation of The
Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Vail operates ski resorts in Colorado where Bellafatto purchased
season passes for the 2019-2020 ski season but was canceled as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic. She claims to be denied a refund.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
Email: jllurie@pomlaw.com
VAIL CORP: Connolly Wants Ski Pass Refunded Amid COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MCKENNA CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. THE VAIL CORPORATION
d/b/a Vail Resorts Management Company, a Colorado Corporation
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01881 (D. Colo., June 25, 2020) is a
class action complaint by the Plaintiff for Defendant's negligence,
reckless, and/or intentional practice of effectively canceling
Plaintiff's and Class Members' ski and snowboard passes without
issuing any refund.
According to the complaint, Defendant sells hundreds of thousands
of their popular Epic Passes throughout the country, many of which
cost hundreds of dollars or as much as a thousand dollars. In March
of 2020 and in the face of the spreading COVID-19 pandemic,
Defendant initially suspended operations at all of its ski areas in
North America from March 15, 2020 until March 22, 2020. Defendant
stated that it would refund all lift tickets that were valid for
March 15-22, 2020; however, Defendant refused to provide refunds of
any portion of the monies passholders paid to purchase Epic Passes.
On March 17, 2020, Defendant stated that it would close all of it
ski areas in North America beginning March 20, 2020.
Defendant announced for the first time on April 27, 2020, that it
would issue credits- varying in amount based on the type of pass
and the usage prior to the shutdowns- to impacted 2019-2020
passholders. However, those credits may only be applied toward the
purchase of new passes for the 2020-2021 season and Defendant
continues to refuse to offer refunds of any kind for the Epic
Passes for the 2019-2020 season.
Plaintiff Connolly, who purchased the Epic Local Pass on October
12, 2019 for $719.00, seeks for herself and Class Members monetary
and injunctive relief compensating consumers on a pro-rata basis
for the unused portions of their Epic Passes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
nlange@carlsonlynch.com
VMSB LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Gonzales Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAVIER A. GONZALEZ, and other similarly individuals,
Plaintiff v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from on or about January 1,
2019 through approximately March 13, 2020 as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly line cook.
Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working 6 days per week
with more than 40 hours every week, Defendant denied him of the
overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40.
Moreover, Plaintiff suffered a deduction of 3 hours every week for
the 30 minutes lunch breaks which constitute additional overtime
hours that Defendant failed to pay.
VMSB, LLC d/b/a Casa Casuarina d/b/a Gianni's operates a hotel and
restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Dismisses Salepeople's Dieselgate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has
dismissed a proposed class action by Volkswagen salespeople who
said the automaker's diesel emissions cheating scheme fooled them
into taking their jobs and resulted in their compensation declining
when the scandal became public.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco ruled on June
18 that in claiming VW and auto supplier Robert Bosch GmbH
committed racketeering and fraud, the salespeople at VW dealerships
failed to adequately allege the scheme was what caused them to earn
less in commissions due to a drop in sales. [GN]
WALMART INC: Gabertan Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Charlie Gabertan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-05520 (W.D. Wash., June 1, 2020), seeks statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Walmart is a multinational retail corporation that operates a chain
of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores. To
promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en
masse via an auto dialer. Gabertan did not give express consent to
receive such texts. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
aaron@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
THE HARBOR LAW GROUP
3615 Harborview Drive NW, Suite C
Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129
Tel: (253) 251-2955
Email: Kira@theharborlawgroup.com
WASTE PRO: Tweedie Suit Seeks to Certify Background Check Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CANDISS TWEEDIE, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WASTE PRO
OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit corporation, and WASTE PRO USA,
INC., a Florida profit corporation, Case No. 8:19-cv-01827-TPB-AEP
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a Background Check Class of:
"all WastePro employees and job applicants in the United
States who were the subject of a consumer report that was
procured by WastePro within two years of the filing of
this complaint through the date of final judgment in this
action as required by 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A) and
as to whom WastePro used the purported disclosure and
authorization form, or substantially similar forms";
2. designating herself as Class Representative;
3. appointing her counsel and her firm as class counsel; and
4. allowing for notification to the Class members.
The Plaintiff alleges when WastePro procured her consumer report,
it violated her rights pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sections
1681b(b)(2)(A))(i)-(ii). Without providing her a lawful disclosure,
WastePro failed to obtain her lawful authorization before obtaining
her consumer report.
WastePro operates several waste-related businesses, including waste
collection and recycling, dumpster rentals and transfer/landfill
services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: 813-223-5505
Facsimile: 813-257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy S. Tingley, Esq.
Matthew J. Pierce, Esq.
Jennifer Elouise Belbeck, Esq.
STOVASH, CASE & TINGLEY, P.A.
The VUE at Lake Eola
220 N. Rosalind Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
E-mail: atingley@sctlaw.com
mpearce@sctlaw.com
jbelbeck@sctlaw.com
WHITE COUNTY, IN: Hines Seeks to Certify Confined Persons Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JUSTIN A. HINES, on behalf of
himself and a class of those similarly situated v. SHERIFF OF WHITE
COUNTY, INDIANA, in his official capacity, Case No.
4:20-cv-00043-TLS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons currently confined, or who will in the future
be confined, in the White County Jail"; and
2. appointing himself as counsel for the class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
White County is a county located in the U.S. state of Indiana. As
of the 2010 census, the population was 24,643. The county seat is
Monticello.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
Stevie J. Pactor, Esq.
ACLU OF INDIANA
1031 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Telephone: 317 635-4059
Facsimile: 317 635-4105
E-mail: grose@aclu-in.org
spactor@aclu-in.org
XTO ENERGY: Shortchanges Oil/Gas Royalty Payments, Brusamonti Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Brusamonti and Lisa Brusamonti, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. XTO Energy. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00652 (W.D. Pa., May
4, 2020), seeks compensatory losses and damages allowed by law,
including prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs and
expenses of litigation and such other further relief resulting from
breach of contract.
XTO Energy produces gas and its constituents in Western
Pennsylvania under various standard form oil and gas leases. Peter
and Lisa Brusamonti, a married couple, are the owners of mineral
interests in real property located in Butler County, Pennsylvania.
XTO allegedly breached the oil and gas leases by artificially
reducing the royalties it paid and failed to pay royalties due on
production. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
swatkins@peircelaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
YOUTUBE: Black Users File Race Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that four black content
creators have sued YouTube for allegedly engaging in race-based
discrimination by restricting and de-monetizing videos that carry
titles or tags like "black lives matter," "racism," and "white
supremacy."
In a class-action complaint filed in federal court in San Jose,
YouTube users Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera, Catherine
Jones, and Denotra Nicole Lewis allege that the company uses
artificial intelligence, algorithms and other filtering tools "to
limit or prevent revenue generation from videos" based on racial
identity or viewpoint.
Google's YouTube "knowingly used and continue to use discriminatory
content filtering review tools and procedures that 'target'
plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated, for access
restrictions because they are African American, persons of color,
or are identified by defendants as having an ethnicity or other
personal immutable traits and/or viewpoints, not because the actual
video content or material violates YouTube's purportedly neutral
content rules," the lawsuit alleges.
Newman and the other plaintiffs are not the first to accuse Google
of viewpoint discrimination.
For example, Prager University sued YouTube for allegedly violating
the First Amendment by de-monetizing and restricting access to
conservative clips.
In that matter, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February
that Google is not bound by the First Amendment's prohibition
against censorship, because the First Amendment only applies to
government entities and not private companies like YouTube.
But Prager's complaint, unlike the one filed last week, did not
also accuse Google of violating federal laws that prohibit
race-based discrimination.
The new class-action complaint comes as web companies' content
practices are under increased scrutiny.
In [May], President Trump issued an executive order that aims to
task the Federal Communications Commission with developing
regulations to link web companies' legal protections to their
content moderation policies. [GN]
[*] AUSTRALIA: Restaurant Owners Urged to Seek Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sky News host Rowan Dean says restaurant owners in Victoria should
seek a class action law suit against the government for destroying
their businesses after the premier reinstituted lockdown measures.
Victoria has recently experienced a spike in coronavirus cases with
the state recording over 100 current active cases of the virus,
forcing the premier to hold off on planned easing of lockdown
restrictions. "This is what happens when you vote in Labor
governments and Labor authoritarian individuals," Mr Dean told Sky
News host Paul Murray. [GN]
[*] Court Hears Meatpacker Cos.' Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Fisher, writing for News-Press NOW, reports that a lot of
attention has been placed on the meatpacking industry and its
prices over the last several months.
There has been trouble over the last several decades, according to
the head of a cattleman rights organization.
A class-action lawsuit was filed in a federal circuit court in
Minnesota against the four main meat-production companies for
rigging prices.
"That's what was held on June 8, was the Minnesota federal district
court heard oral arguments on the packer's motion to dismiss the
case," Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of R-Calf USA, said.
"In May they were the highest beef prices on record that consumers
were paying. This strongly suggests to us that the marketplace is
broken and it is in dire need of immediate action."
R-Calf has been involved in lawsuits for years with meat
processors. This time there is momentum at every level of
government on the group's side, which is something Bullard said is
unique to the industry.
Bullard also said that the COVID-19 pandemic played a huge role in
getting legislators involved. There are 11 state attorney generals,
commissioners of agriculture, members of Congress and even
President Trump listening to this issue.
The lawsuit is filed in Minnesota, but the litigation impacts
producers in every state in the nation. The case is still in the
early stages but has the potential to change some federal laws on
what the big four meat processors are allowed to do in terms of
setting prices.
While there are still a lot of steps and victories needed to get to
that stage, Bullard said those on his side are taking things one
step at a time.
"If we prevail in this, which we hope to do, we will then move on
to the discovery phase. Now in our lawsuit we alleged that the
meatpackers conspired to artificially depress prices and violation
of the law," Bullard said. [GN]
[*] COVID-19 Class Actions Target Hospitality, Leisure Industry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaikaran Singh, Esq. -- jsingh@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, reports that plaintiff's
lawyers trying to capitalize on the chaos created by the COVID-19
pandemic have filed class action lawsuits against hospitality and
leisure industry companies, like hotels, timeshares, fitness and
social clubs, amusement parks, ski resorts, and even homeowner's
associations, among others, seeking refunds of monthly fees and
dues based on alleged lack of access or use of facilities and
amenities caused by a business' compliance with state and local
operations restrictions and agency guidelines.
Most of the cases filed to date have focused on breach of contract,
tort and statutory consumer protection law theories of liability
and recovery.
Unfortunately, there is reason to anticipate that this activity
will continue, and potentially even escalate in some states.
Companies that charge monthly membership dues or fees should be
prepared to respond quickly, decisively and strategically if their
business becomes a target for a COVID-19 related class action.
This article offers a litigation checklist with a high-level look
at some important procedural and strategy considerations that may
apply on a case by case basis for defending against these types of
class claims. Depending on the specific facts at issue, the options
presented in this checklist, where available, may factor into an
approach for companies to use in working with counsel to
effectively manage and address a class action related to COVID-19.
Procedural and Venue Considerations
Removal to Federal Court: If the plaintiff filed the case in state
court, consider removal to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), or possibly traditional diversity
jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Because COVID-19
related claims are typically being asserted on behalf of all
members or customers, the CAFA requirements of minimal diversity,
at least 100 class members and greater than $5 million in
controversy for federal jurisdiction are often satisfied. To the
extent an arbitration agreement exists, a federal court venue is
preferable for seeking to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act.
Arbitration Provision with Class Action Waiver: Is there an
agreement to arbitrate that can serve as a basis to compel
arbitration (i.e., user agreement, membership agreement, service
contract, online enrollment form)? Most asserted COVID-19 related
claims targeting the hospitality and leisure industry arise from or
involve providing services or other performance pursuant to a
consumer contract, which often contain an arbitration provision
with class action waiver. Arbitration agreements with class action
waivers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. See AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
Choice of Venue: If arbitration is not available, is there a
consumer contract with a choice of venue provision or forum
selection clause that governs where any litigation is to proceed?
Consider whether a motion to change or transfer venue to a more
favorable forum exists based on contract or some other ground, like
the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Atlantic
Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013); see also 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).
Choice of Law: A related contract consideration is whether a choice
of law provision exists that dictates what law applies? If so, does
that choice of law provision cover contract based claims and
non-contract based claims? Depending on the wording of the choice
of law provision, there may be a question of what law applies to
non-contract based claims, like tort or statutory consumer
protection law claims. Note also that the law of the forum state
where a class action is venued does not necessarily govern the
claims of all class members. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,
472 U.S. 797 (1985).
Specific Jurisdiction Challenge: Under Bristol-Meyers Squibb v.
Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), district courts are
precluded from exercising specific jurisdiction over the claims of
non-resident plaintiffs in state mass tort actions unless the
plaintiff can show sufficient contacts with the forum and the facts
giving rise to the plaintiff's claim. Although courts in different
jurisdictions are split on the application of Bristol-Myers to
nationwide class actions, depending on the venue, a challenge to
specific jurisdiction for out-of-state plaintiffs is worth
consideration at the early litigation stage.
Defense Strategy Considerations
Lack of Standing: Did the named plaintiff suffer an injury in fact
or harm sufficient to confer Article III standing? See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Depending on the
service or performance at issue, the named plaintiff (and other
consumers) may not have sustained cognizable injury or harm because
of actions taken by the defendant to mitigate damages, provide
reasonable alternatives or substitutions for performance, make
reparation, or postpone performance (as opposed to cancelation) for
a later time when not prohibited or restricted, or when otherwise
more feasible to do.
No Breach of Contract: Depending on the language of a consumer
contract, an argument may exist to support a showing of no breach
if an agreement allows for reasonable modifications, substitute
performance or the ability to make reparations during the contract
term, which was done or offered by the non-performing party.
Class Certification: The details of a defense plan to defeat class
certification will depend on the case-specific facts. However, with
COVID-19 related class claims, it is likely that the most effective
certification defense will focus on differences within the proposed
class concerning contract terms, performance, derived benefits,
causation and injury, harm or damage, and the existence of state
and local orders or directives or other circumstances affecting the
defendant's ability to perform. Variation among putative class
members will shape arguments related to the Rule 23 requirements of
predominance and typicality.
Force Majeure: Does the consumer contract contain an applicable
force majeure provision? The use by a nonperforming party of a
force majeure provision is contract language specific, and turns on
the particular facts at issue. Accordingly, the first step is to
determine whether a COVID-19 related event qualifies as force
majeure under the contract. If so, was nonperformance by the
defendant foreseeable and able to be mitigated by the plaintiff,
and is performance by the defendant actually impossible, such that
it is excused. State and local government imposition of
prohibitions and restrictions on business operations, travel, venue
capacity, gatherings and movement in general should be considered
to assess whether the circumstances in a particular case give rise
to a qualifying event for force majeure.
Frustration of Purpose: Where a force majeure defense is not
available, the common law defense of frustration of purpose may
exist when an event unforeseen at the time of contracting
undermines the parties' principal purpose for entering into a
contract such that any reasonably available means to perform is
materially different from what the parties contemplated when they
formed the contract. One consideration when asserting this defense
is that if successful, the contract is terminated, which, depending
on the situation, may not be a desirable outcome.
Impossibility or Impracticability of Performance: A related, but
different, common law defense to frustration of purpose is the
doctrine of contract impossibility or impracticability. Contract
impossibility occurs where performance of a contract duty is
excused based on a change in circumstances, which the parties did
not anticipate at the time of contracting, that makes performance
of the contract literally impossible. Given the difficulty of
proving actual impossibility, many courts have shifted to an
impracticability standard where contemplated performance of a duty
is excused on a showing that it is unreasonably difficult or
excessively costly to perform, although possible, because of an
unforeseen change in circumstances.
Change of Law: A change in the law may render a valid contract
unenforceable as illegal if it is not possible to achieve the
object of the contract without violating a law. Recent state and
local orders, guidelines or directives in effect in some
jurisdictions to address the COVID-19 pandemic may, in certain
instances, require compliance that is inconsistent with the
contract objective or performance. Because these types of public
policy laws apply immediately based on overriding public-interest
considerations, many businesses are not able to comply while at the
same time providing contracted-for services or other performance
that was contemplated at the onset. [GN]
[*] COVID-19 Employment Class Actions May Face Some Obstacles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dalton McGrath, Esq. -- dalton.mcgrath@blakes.com -- Birch Miller,
Esq. -- birch.miller@blakes.com -- James Sullivan, Esq. --
james.sullivan@blakes.com -- and Andrea York, Esq. --
andrea.york@blakes.com -- of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that putative class actions filed in
connection with COVID-19 employment-related matters may face some
obstacles in proceeding. Certain hurdles exist in the common law
provinces in Canada that may prove insurmountable.
Section 21 of the Alberta Workers' Compensation Act (Act) bars any
claim or causes of action against the employer for any compensation
as a result of any accident happening to the worker. The Act, which
is similar to other legislation throughout the common law
provinces, grants jurisdiction over such claimed injuries to be
determined through the mechanisms outlined in the Act; for example,
please see Section 26 of Ontario's Workers' Compensation Act,
Section 127 of the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Act and
Section 43 of The Workers' Compensation Act in Saskatchewan.
Interestingly, the Act and similar provincial legislation supplant
not only all rights and causes of action, statutory or otherwise,
to which a worker would otherwise be entitled, but it also applies
to the worker's legal personal representatives and dependants.
Similarly, Section 23 of the Act, and similar provisions in
corresponding common law jurisdictions, provides that if an
accident happens to a worker or even the worker's dependants, which
would give rise to compensation under the Act, neither the worker,
the worker's legal personal representatives, the worker's
dependants nor the worker's employer has any cause of action in
respect of or arising out of the personal injury suffered by, or
the death of, the worker as a result of the accident. The terms
"dependant" and "accident" are broadly defined in the Act and
similar provincial legislation. The latter definition includes a
wilful and intentional act, a chance event, disablement and a
disabling or potentially disabling condition caused by an
occupational disease.
Under the Act, if a worker contracts COVID-19 as a direct result of
the duties of their employment, he or she may be entitled to
compensation from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) if the
nature of employment involves sufficient exposure to the source of
infection, and the nature of employment is shown to be the cause of
the condition or the nature of employment creates a greater risk of
exposure for the worker. For more information, see the WCB
Worksheet and WCB Fact Sheet.
Alberta and other common law courts in Canada take a strict
approach to ensuring that worker compensation claims are dealt
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the WCB, and not the courts.
Attempts to circumvent that legislation by commencing actions
directly against officers and directors, who are not subject to the
Act, have generally proven to be unsuccessful as it is generally
difficult to establish that a particular officer or director has
acted beyond her or his scope of duties and obligations.
In the context of COVID-19, it is likely that the courts will
continue to confirm the jurisdiction of the WCB to award
compensation through that regime instead of through the courts. In
Stewart v. Enterprise Universal Inc., 2010 ABQB 259, the plaintiff
was a nurse at the Holy Cross Centre in Calgary and brought a class
action as the representative plaintiff against the owner and
operator of the hospital -- and his employer -- together with the
officers and directors of that corporation, on the basis that he
and other nurses had allegedly been exposed to asbestos from
renovations which resulted in health issues. Enterprise brought a
summary judgment application prior to certification of the class
action based upon the Act. Justice Sheila Martin -- as she then was
prior to her elevation to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) --
granted summary judgment dismissing the claim and citing the
express provisions of the Act and a plethora of cases which
precluded recovery in civil actions where the Act applies. Justice
Martin also dismissed the proceeding against the directors of the
employer, finding that they were protected by the corporate veil
and that it had not been pierced in the circumstances.
The particular circumstances of each case would need to be examined
in light of the specific provisions of the Act, and other
provincial legislation as applicable, to determine whether such
legislation would preclude civil actions, including class actions.
A further obstacle arising for unionized employees under a
collective agreement is the SCC decision in Bisaillon v. Concordia
University, 2006 SCC 19, where the SCC denied an employee's attempt
to bring a class action against their employer on the basis of a
dispute over pension plan funds. In doing so, the SCC held that to
allow the class action to proceed would be incompatible with the
exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators and the
representative function of certified unions. In coming to that
conclusion, the court participated in an analysis as to whether the
dispute arose out of the collective agreement and specifically,
whether the dispute, "in its essential character, arises from the
interpretation, application, administration or violation of the
collective agreement." Some litigants have attempted to circumvent
that common law jurisprudence, which has been adopted in many
common law jurisdictions, by arguing that the courts should have
residual jurisdiction over all matters not falling within such
collective agreement; however, to date, those attempts have been
unsuccessful. While the SCC's decision in Bisaillon v. Concordia
University arose out of a Quebec labour dispute, the principles set
out therein have been adopted across the country.
Based on the above principles outlined in common law provincial
legislation, combined with the common law jurisprudence, employees
subject to WCB legislation or collective agreements will face
significant and perhaps insurmountable obstacles in commencing
civil actions, including class actions, related to COVID-19 claims.
[GN]
[*] EU Countries, Lawmakers Strike Deal on Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foo Yun Chee, writing for Reuters, reports that European Union
countries and lawmakers struck a deal late on June 22 to pave the
way for Europeans to team up and sue companies for defective
products but with built-in safeguards to guard against the excesses
of U.S. class action lawsuits.
The move to boost consumers' rights gained pace following
Volkswagen's diesel cheating scandal which has led to thousands of
regulatory investigations and lawsuits.
The European Parliament said such lawsuits could cover data
protection, financial services, travel and tourism, energy,
telecommunications, environment and health, and air and train
passenger rights.
The agreement between representatives of EU governments and the
European Parliament will need to be rubber stamped by the 27 EU
countries and the legislative body in the coming weeks. The bloc
will have two years to convert the EU legislation into national
laws.
The European Commission announced the proposal in 2018, but it was
delayed by disagreements among EU countries and EU lawmakers.
"We have sought to strike a balance between the legitimate
protection of consumer interests and the need for legal certainty
for businesses," lawmaker Geoffroy Didier said in a statement.
European consumer lobbying group BEUC welcomed the agreement.
"This deal is a huge landmark to make justice available to all EU
consumers. Consumers can finally go to court as a group when their
rights have been harmed by the same trader," BEUC director general
Monique Goyens said.
Under the agreement, each EU country will have to name at least one
consumer organisation or public body to launch class actions on
behalf of consumers.
Safeguards to prevent frivolous or abusive litigation include the
"loser pays" principle which ensures that the defeated party in a
lawsuit pays the costs of the proceedings for the successful party.
[GN]
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Cannabis TCPA Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Dummit, Esq., Stanley Jutkowitz, Esq., and Robert Milligan,
Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
THC, CBD, CBN . . . the Cannabis industry is quite familiar with
acronyms. But it's another nasty little four letters, TCPA, that
are -- or should be -- on the top of mind for every dispensary,
delivery service, CRM platform, and private equity holding company.
This as the US Supreme Court decides what the byzantine 30-year-old
law will look like following a landmark decision expected by the
end of June or July.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which regulates
robocalls and unsolicited texts to consumers, has been the vehicle
for a number of class action suits against Cannabis companies over
the past year, including an uptick of such suits during Covid-19.
And with the advertising restrictions and younger demographics of
the industry, the class actions are now bring brought in droves,
with over 10 being brought over the last 6 weeks alone. Like a
tremor before a larger quake, the impact of this trend is only
beginning to be felt -- just ask Eaze (the "Uber" of marijuana
retail), who has been told by a California federal judge twice that
its proposed $3.4 million settlement, based on the actions of a
third party texting technology, is insufficient, and who was at the
same time hit with another separate TCPA suit based on their
current terms and conditions.
But it doesn't take a seismologist to know the Big One(s) are right
around the corner for the Cannabis industry, who should have
noticed last week as an established cruise line company looked to
consummate a $76 Million TCPA settlement from 2017, only to have
the Plaintiffs' counsel ask the court to bump its initial $15
million fee by another $3.49 million.
Assuming the TCPA is not radically altered by the upcoming Supreme
Court decision, this article highlights the most relevant
Cannabis-related TCPA class action activity to-date, and more
importantly, some of the ways Cannabis companies can best avoid and
defend these high exposure class action suits -- including proper
consent, opt outs, coordination with the Federal Do Not Call List,
use of respectable marketing contractors and experienced marketing
counsel, arbitration provisions, class action waivers, and the use
of a more data-centric approach to customer data.
The Perfect Storm: TCPA + Cannabis Industry Factors
The TCPA was enacted in 1991 to combat a rising tide of unwanted
telemarketing calls and faxes, and has since been expanded to cover
calls to cell phones and non-consensual text messaging. The
original intent was to restrict automated or prerecorded (robo)
calls unless the receiving party consents to receive the call,
though critics have noted that technology has outpaced the federal
statutes regulating telemarketing, leaving marketers uncertain as
to what is and is not permitted under what was already a complex
and difficult law to comply with.
And the law certainly has some teeth -- given the statutory damages
of $500-$1,500 per call or text, one can see how settlements can be
in the nine figures. The law also has some reach, essentially
imposing strict liability even when the texts/calls are made by a
third party marketing company on behalf of their client. As such,
compliance with the TCPA was already difficult for even the most
established industries and companies.
Nevertheless, with state-by-state regulations restricting the
advertising methods in the nascent Cannabis industry, automated
text messaging has become the preferred (or even necessary) method
of reaching the primarily-younger consumers. Any cannabis consumer
with a cellphone knows that these dispensaries and other services
are often collecting phone numbers in connection with loyalty and
rewards programs, which are then used for direct marketing purposes
usually via SMS text messaging.
As such, even the more deliberate and careful Cannabis companies
face the inherent difficulties of complying with (and avoiding
class action exposure from) the TCPA. Making matters even dicier is
the flood of new Cannabis companies looking to enter the market as
quickly and directly as possible. Given all of the other regulation
hurdles these companies need to jump over, it is the unknown or
ignored TCPA speed bumps that could have the potential to cause the
most damage regardless of whether the non-compliance is caused by
recklessness or well-intentioned scrappiness.
For these reasons, a target has formed on the backs of Cannabis
companies for Plaintiffs' counsel looking to take advantage of the
TCPA and the nascent Cannabis industry, which are often funded by
private equity or high net worth individuals/celebrities. When
these holding companies also perform managerial or advisory
services, the potential for them to be named as Co-Defendants in
these class actions increases significantly – proving that
securities litigation may not be the only class action trend worth
watching as the money behind marijuana companies expands and
becomes more integrated.
Eaze-y-Does It: Cannabis-related TCPA Class Action Activity
The TCPA Class Action suits against Cannabis companies have, in one
form or another, been based on the following fact patterns: (1)
Texting non-clients who have never signed up or consented due to
mass texting policies or practices; (2) Texting non-clients who
have never signed up or consented due to third party inputting
error; (3) Texting client consumers who did not give adequate
consent to being texted; and (4) Texting clients who have opted out
of being texted (and/or are on the Federal Do Not Call List).
The most high-profile and widely applicable case study has to be
the Eaze, the well-known online marketplace and technology platform
for marijuana deliveries that's been described (in a Complaint) as
the "Uber" of the Cannabis industry. In what feels like a lifetime
ago, Eaze user Farrah Williams brought suit on behalf of herself
and others who, beginning in 2017, received alleged unwanted and
unsolicited marketing text messages without their consent and
without offering the option to opt out. Eaze sought to have the
case sent to arbitration based on a "clickwrap" agreement in its
terms of service, which Plaintiffs did not deny agreeing to, but
instead tried to dispute the legality of the contract itself due to
marijuana's nebulous federal legal status. In a notable yet limited
victory for the Cannabis industry, the court did not specifically
rule on whether there was a legal contract, but it did find that
the arbitration clause was severable from the contract as a whole,
and sent the case to arbitration.
But not to rest on the laurels of any "victories", the same
plaintiffs' counsel filed another lawsuit in 2018, this time with
lead plaintiff Kristine Lloyd and over 51,000 class members, who
allege they never enrolled in or used Eaze's services but
nonetheless were "inundated" with the company's unsolicited,
autodialed text messages (sent by a third party technology
provider). Eaze argued that Lloyd's claims are based on
verification texts that were accidentally sent to her when another
user in Ohio apparently entered a single digit wrong when signing
up for the service.
In April 2019, Eaze initially agreed to a $1.75 million proposed
settlement of this class action claim, which also required Eaze to
implement several "significant changes to its consumer marketing
practices going forward." The changes were to include instituting
TCPA compliance training and marketing oversight of key personnel
involved in text messaging; refraining from continuing to work with
the third party company that sent most of the offending texts;
inserting opt-out notices in all verification text messages;
ensuring that verification reminder texts do not include
advertising copy; and adjusting its user verification process to
prevent nonusers from mistakenly and repeatedly receiving messages
they had never requested, according to the motion.
This proposed settlement was rejected by a federal judge in the
Northern District of California, who was skeptical of the low
dollar amounts and felt the proposed claims processes were lacking.
Subsequently, a second proposed settlement which increased the
monetary sum to $3.49 Million was also rejected, leaving the
parties to continue litigating to this day, albeit with the
inclusion of a new class of plaintiffs who are willing users of the
app that may or may not have agreed to arbitration.
But Eaze is by no means alone. In June 2019, a group of plaintiffs
filed a class action suit against Baker Technologies and its parent
company Tilt Holdings Inc., alleging violations of the TCPA and
California's Unfair Competition Law. Tilt Holdings specializes in
cannabis technology, and its subsidiary Baker Technologies provides
customer relationship management services to retail stores,
including online ordering, customer loyalty, messaging and
analytics. Specifically, the suit alleges that Baker Technologies
collected cell phone numbers, provided them to its cannabis
dispensary clients and facilitated telemarketing text messages to
those mobile numbers without first obtaining the necessary consent.
The companies maintain that messages were only sent to customers
who have voluntarily signed up to receive messages at dispensaries
and that those customers may opt-out at any time -- in full
compliance with the TCPA.
But, that doesn't stop the case from going forward or discovery
from taking place. Baker Technologies urged the court last month to
stay the action given the upcoming Supreme Court decision and the
complexity of the case, which could implicate more than 1,000
dispensary clients, but that discussion may become moot with the
decision expected soon.
Any potential uncertainty around TCPA certainly hasn't stopped or
slowed down the Plaintiffs' bar, who in anticipation of the
upcoming ruling, have instead hit the Cannabis industry with more
than a dozen class action TCPA suits over the last 6 weeks alone,
targeting dispensaries and other companies in Oregon, Denver,
Nevada, Florida, Arizona, and California -- with the majority of
cases brought in California.. While the Cannabis TCPA trend was
emerging over the past year, the volume seems to be increasing over
the past few months at an alarming rate, with headlines about "The
Latest TCPA Suit Filed Against Cannabis Company" becoming almost
ubiquitous in the industry trades.
What To Do
The current US Supreme Court case asks whether the government debt
collection exception to the TCPA is an unconstitutional,
content-based carveout. The justices will soon be deciding whether
to uphold the provision, sever the provision, or strike down the
law entirely. It is unclear what changes may result from the
decision to be handed down any day now, but for purposes of this
article, we will assume the TCPA remains substantially intact.
In the meantime, it is clear that even established Cannabis
companies need to take proactive steps with their text messaging
and marketing systems to minimize the risk of unwanted legal
actions, knowing that full reliance on a third party to comply with
the TCPA will not shield them against direct liability. And it is
abundantly clear that younger companies who willfully or
inadvertently fail to comply with the TCPA, or those who fail to
adequately vet similarly-new third party marketing services, may be
exposing themselves to significant liability.
Companies should therefore not only diligently vet the third party
marketing companies to ensure proper TCPA compliance protocols, but
should also take additional steps as a second layer of protection.
One relatively straightforward step would be to routinely
cross-check the Federal Do Not Call List, which essentially acts as
a published dating service between Plaintiffs' attorneys and
prospective Plaintiffs. Of course the ability to initially opt out
is a basic requirement, but companies need also provide for the
continuing ability to opt out, and ensure those subsequent opt outs
are complied with. This is already an issue that has been recurring
in the Cannabis TCPA litigation.
Before the text messages can be sent, the customer information must
first be obtained through proper consent procedures – that again
is a given. But the terms and conditions by which consent is given
are of increasing importance, especially in light of the recent
Eaze ruling which enforced the arbitration provision despite
questions about the legality of the underlying subject of the
contract. A clear, conspicuous and enforceable arbitration
provision and class action waiver will go a long way in limiting
the potential TCPA class action exposure. However, it must be noted
that California law has its own treatment of class action waivers
and arbitration provisions, often resulting in challenges on
various grounds. In attempting to invalidate these agreements,
Plaintiffs will typically argue that such a provision cannot be
enforceable if it waives an unwaivable public or statutory right,
or whether it deals with a waiveable private right. For that
reason, choice of law provisions and venue provisions should also
be considered when drafting the terms and conditions. Additionally,
companies need to ensure that a binding agreement has been formed
as part of their sign up process, with appropriate click boxes.
Once the terms are agreed to, the opt outs are in-place, and the
other "improvements" outlined in the proposed Eaze settlement,
companies would also be wise to employ a more data-centric approach
to customer data. Tracking and utilizing current customer data will
not only bring all the usual marketing benefits, but it may also
assist in defeating class certification by arguing individualized
issues predominate over any common issues presented by the class,
or that there are not in fact enough class members to warrant a
class action. In one recent example, California cannabis delivery
company Xaler defeated class certification in a TCPA suit this past
January, when a federal judge found there were not enough consumers
to justify bringing the case on a class basis (the suit has
subsequently been dismissed in March).
Precautions should be taken by Cannabis companies, but this is one
area of the law where violations can happen even in the absence of
negligence, with the potential for millions in damages. Prudent
Cannabis companies should select their marketing providers wisely
and use competent counsel to navigate these minefields. As the
Cannabis industry landscape continues to evolve even during
Covid-19 and as the smoke clears, without appropriate precautions
in place, TCPA may soon become as recognizable as THC. [GN]
[*] Victorian Gov't. Allows Contingency Fees for Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that the
Victorian government has passed legislation making it easier to
secure justice by class actions that weighs up legal costs and
eases the burden on unsuccessful clients.
Bringing class actions for silicosis, wage theft and other forms of
wrongdoing is is easier to secure with a new law that ensures
claimants do not face the burden of the legal costs if their case
is unsuccessful. Plaintiff lawyers will now also receive what will
be a percentage of the settlement or damages, or a "contingency
fee".
The reforms follow results from independent advice and
recommendations lodged with the Victorian Law Reform Commission
(VLRC), which found that Victoria's class action regime is
under-utilised with an average of five or less class actions filed
per year.
State Attorney-General Jill Hennessy said: "We are removing
barriers to class actions to allow people with genuine claims --
who may not be in a position to take on financial risks of a case
-- to bring their class action to court.
"Class actions play a critical role in our justice system and it's
important that people with meritorious claims are provided with
every opportunity to have their matter heard."
The VRLC, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Productivity
Commission have recommended the introduction of contingency fees
for class actions despite them historically being prohibited in
Australia. This means that clients will no longer need to pay legal
fees if unsuccessful but lawyers still receive a monetary reward
for assisting.
Shine Lawyers head of class actions Jan Saddler said the new law
will make securing justice much more accessible and affordable by
providing alternative funding plans.
"It means worthy cases with a modest value can proceed in
circumstances where the litigation funding would be difficult to
obtain," Ms Saddler said. "So long as companies do the right thing
by people, they should have no reason to fear this important
reform."
This new legislation will also expand powers for the Independent
Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) to include the
ability to arrest a potential witness who is suspected of corrupt
activity and who they believe are at risk of fleeing the state.
[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 ***