/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200716.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 142
Headlines
12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Seeks Review of Decision in Hines Class Suit
AB STAFFING: Misclassifies Employees, Coffey Claims
ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Underpays Employees, Ugale Claims
ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Faces Slomanski FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
ALLSTATE MEDICAL: Reaches Deal on PIP Coverage Under Auto Insurance
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Texas Court Dismisses Hoeffert's Claims
AMERICAN GEZHI-MART: Untimely Pays Wages and Goods, Cheung Claims
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in Donelson Suit to 8th Cir.
ANTHEM INC: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Savett Consumer Suit
APL LOGISTICS: Coleman Wins Preliminary Nod of Class Settlement
ARRIS INT'L: Knowles Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Cir.
AUTOZONE STORES: Suit Mooted When Class Rep. Settles, 9th Cir. Says
BIG FISH: Thimmegowda Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Cir.
BL 62 WEST: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Ayala Claims
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
BROOKLYN FARE: Sosa Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Certification of Rule 23 Class Action Sought
CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Abdullah Suit
CARNIVAL CORP: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
CARNIVAL CORP: Lindsay Sues Over Passengers' Exposure to COVID-19
CHHAYA NEWS: Lugo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Sexual Harassment
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Appeals Order in Consumer Suit to 9th Cir.
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Dillon Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Pinkhasov Files FDCPA Suit in Fla.
COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE: Faces Feist FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
COMPASS GROUP: Remand of Bryant BIPA Suit to State Court Flipped
CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Behboudi Suit Claims
DEFENSE TAX: Chen Wang Suit Seeks Class Certification
DHR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hartman Suit in California Super. Court
DIRECTV INC: Murphy Seeks 9th Cir. Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling
DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon et al. Balk at Unfair Charges of Passes
DOW CHEMICAL: Court Denies Jurisdictional Discovery in Guidry
EBTH.COM LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
EMERALD HOLDING: Facing Steamfitters Suit Over Rights Offering
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ergas Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Shingler FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
EPIC GAMES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Krohm Class Suit
EPIC GAMES: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Ruling in Krohm Suit
FBCS INC: Faces Battiste FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letter
FLORITE PLUMBING: Jackson Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
G-STAR RAW: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Martinez Alleges
GG HOMES: Charman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
GLOBAL PERSONALS: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
GRAND LUX: Court Dismisses ADA NYCHRL Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Class Settlement in Wolf Suit Gets Final Approval
HFM INC: Brigati Suit Removed From Circuit Court to S.D. Florida
HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Golden et al Sue Over Unlawful Collection Letter
HOME DEPOT: Fails to Provide Rest & Meal Periods, Carlson Claims
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Newman Suit Challenges Separation of Match
IDL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces C.B. Mills Suit in New York Supreme Ct.
IDT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment on Hernandez Claims
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
INFINITY AUTO: 11th Cir. Affirms Plantation Breach Suit Dismissal
INTEGRITY SERVICE: Conditional Certification in Moyer Suit Granted
INTELEX USA: Gonzalez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Court Compels Arbitration in Fontaine Suit
K&K BORING: Mackey Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Drill Operators
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Soares Alleges Incorrect Sick Pay & Incentives
KELLER UNLIMITED: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Sellers Suit
KEWAUNEE FABRICATIONS: Faces Hildebrandt Suit Over Unfair Wages
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Continues to Defend Chitturi Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Knoppe Insurance Lawsuit
LOUS|ANA: Settlement in Creppel v. La. Health Dept. Gets Final OK
MASSACHUSETTS: App. Ct. Affirms Denial of Howell's Early Release
MCKESSON CORP: Andrasko Files PI Suit in Ohio
MDL 2958: Breakwater Asks Panel to Consolidate Suits in S.D.N.Y.
MESA AIR: Court Appoints Dekalb as Lead Plaintiff
MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending
MISSION PETS: Failure to Prosecute Dismisses Action
MONSANTO CO: Court Denies Settlement Class Certifcation
MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Noble Seeks Approval to Notify Workers
MUSICTODAY II LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA
NATIONAL PACKAGING: Guzman Seeks Conditional Class Certification
NEW JERSEY: Fischer Appeals Ruling in Teachers Suit to 3rd Cir.
NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Jones FLSA Suit
NEW YORK CITY: S.D.N.Y. Consolidates Azor-El, Inmates COVID Suits
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Maldonado Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Board Files Seven Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NFL: Attorneys' Award in Concussion Injury Suit Partly Upheld
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Court Dismisses Weaver CSPA Violation Suit
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: McClendon Lawsuit Dismissed
NORTHERN TRUST: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Banks Class Suit
NOVA LIFESTYLE: July 20 Final Pretrial Conference in Barney Case
OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Bid in Beard Suit Stricken
OKLAHOMA: Walker Dormitory Infested With Toxic Mold, Melton Says
OLLY SHOES LLC: Gonzalez Alleges Violation under ADA
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: HHR Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit
OVATION CREDIT: Tolling of Statue of Limitations in Diggs Denied
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: $3.75M Settlement in Castro Has Prelim Approval
PHILIPS BRYANT: $975K Settlement in Chang Suit Gets Final Approval
PNS STORES: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Alleging ADA Violation
PORCELANA CORONA: $4.33MM in Attorneys Fees Awarded in Fessler Suit
PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dowe Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Cir.
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Ongoing
ROBERT CLARK: Court Remands Action to State Court
RYB EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Zhang Amended Securities Complaint
SANDALS RESORTS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in McCoy FDUTPA Suit
STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Simmons Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Nguyen Suit Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
SUNSHINE DADE: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Over ADA Violation
TD AMERITRADE: Knowles Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit
TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
TGI FRIDAY'S: Court Dismisses Class Suit on Potato Skins Chips
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Peguero Fraud Suit in C.D. California
TRIANGLE DISTRIBUTING: Lemus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
U GYM: Faces Manzares Employment Suit in California Super. Court
U.S. OIL FUND: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Order in O'Hanlon ADA Suit to 3rd Cir.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Manzini Suit
ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Hanbser Suit Over Wage Pay Violations
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Nedley Seeks Tuition and Fee Refunds
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Ureda Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
VYSTAR CORP: Rotmans Furniture Defends LaChapelle Class Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in JR Personal Injury Suit
WASHINGTON TRUST: Haines Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Ingram Seeks to Certify Car Owners Class
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY: McClanahan Seeks Tuition Refunds Amid COVID-19
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Releases Supersedeas Bond in Petrone
YOUNG LIVING: Appeals Order in O'Shaughnessy Suit to 5th Circuit
*********
12TH MAN FOUNDATION: Seeks Review of Decision in Hines Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Nathan Hines,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation, in the Texas District
Court, Newton County.
The appellate case is captioned as Texas A&M University 12th Man
Foundation v. Nathan Hines, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Case No. 09-19-00454-CV, in the Texas
Court of Appeals, Ninth Court of Appeals.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, David Barron,
writing for Houston Chronicle, reported that a state district judge
in Newton County has approved class action status for a lawsuit
filed by former Texas A&M students against the fund-raising 12th
Man Foundation, the latest development in a long-running dispute
over the university's seating policies at remodeled, expanded Kyle
Field.
The decision by State District Judge Delinda Gibbs Walker, in a
52-page opinion, certified a class of several hundred longtime A&M
endowed donors to join as plaintiffs in a 2017 lawsuit filed by
Nathan Hines of Newton, who says the foundation deprived him and
others of ticketing and parking rights promised when they made
endowment agreements with the 12th Man Foundation in the 1980s and
'90s.
At issue could be up to 400 or more endowment agreements that could
involve as many as a thousand seats at Kyle Field, which was
expanded to 102,733 seats as part of a $480 million project
completed in 2015.
Gibbs Walker, who presided over a Sept. 26 hearing on the request
for class action certification, said the A&M donors meet each of
the requirements set down by state law for class certification.
The class, the judge said, would include "all owners and
beneficiaries of a Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation
Permanently Endowed Scholarship Program Agreement who have not
settled and released their claim (against the foundation) for the
imposition of additional charges or fees for home and away football
game seating benefits and home football parking benefits, and/or
for the (diminishment) of those benefits."
Mr. Hines' lawsuit, initially filed in December 2017, alleges
breach of contract and other violations by the foundation and its
directors. The Plaintiffs seeks either to have what they believe
are their proper seat and parking locations at Kyle Field restored
or, as an alternative, damages, costs and fees in excess of a
million dollars.
Mr. Hines, a 1980 A&M graduate, is among several dozen donors who
filed lawsuits against the foundation since 2011 over seating
and/or parking issues as A&M has expanded Kyle Field and moved from
the Big 12 into the Southeastern Conference.
The endowments, attorneys claim, were critical factors for a
financially challenged A&M athletic department in the 1980s and
'90s. As the department's finances have improved, however, the 12th
Man Foundation has steadily moved to renege on its promises to
longtime donors, attorneys claim.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Nathan Hines is represented by:
Blair A. Bisbey, Esq.
SEALE, STOVER & BISBEY
950 N. Wheeler St.
Jasper, TX 75951
Telephone: 409-384-3463
Facsimile: 409-384-3017
- and -
Claude M. McQuarrie III, Esq.
20887 Sweetglen Dr.
Porter, TX 77365-6391
- and -
Aaron Reitz, Esq.
CLEVELAND TERRAZAS PLLC
4611 Bee Cave Road, Suite 306B
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: 512-639-7177
E-mail: areitz@clevelandterrazas.com
- and -
William J. Cobb III, Esq.
COBB & COUNSEL PLLC
14101 W Highway 290, Suite 400A
Austin, TX 78737
Telephone: 512-693-7570
E-mail: bill@cobbxcounsel.com
Defendant-Appellant Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation is
represented by:
Layne E. Kruse, Esq.
Julie Goodrich Harrison, Esq.
Anne Marie Rodgers, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
Fulbright Tower, Suite 5100
1301 McKinney
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Telephone: 713 651 5194
E-mail: layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com
julie.harrison@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Randall S. Richardson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL S. RICHARDSON PLLC
3701 Kirby Dr., Suite 760
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: 713-960-2919
Facsimile: 832-616-5576
- and -
Lindsey B. Whisenhant, Esq.
LINDSEY B. WHISENHANT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LPPC
130 S. Charlton Street
Woodville, TX 75979
Telephone: 409-200-2118
Toll-Free: 800-397-4989
Facsimile: 409-283-8078
AB STAFFING: Misclassifies Employees, Coffey Claims
---------------------------------------------------
ROBERT COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AB STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Arizona
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01352-JJT
(D. Ariz., July 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Recruiter from approximately
January 2019 to April 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. However,
because Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and those
similarly situated workers as exempt employees, Defendant paid them
their salary without overtime compensation throughout their
employment with Defendant.
AB Staffing Solution, LLC is an employment and staffing company
operating throughout the U,S, and intentionally, including in
Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (602) 328-0262
Fax: (602) 926-1479
Email: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Email: cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Underpays Employees, Ugale Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
JANET UGALI, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEN DISTRIBUTION,
LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005807 (Cal. Sup.
Ct., July 8, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged pattern and practice of wage abuse
against their employees in violations of the California Labor Code
and California Business & Professions Code.
Plaintiff was jointly and severally employed by Defendants as a
non-exempt, hourly-paid from in or about January 2018 to May 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other class members
worked over 8 hours in a day and/or over 40 hours in a week during
their employment with Defendants. However, Defendant failed to
compensate Plaintiff and other class members for all the hours they
worked in excess of 40.
Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and other class
members timely and complete meal and rest periods, and failed to
pay them one additional hour of pay when a meal and rest periods
were missed.
Allen Distribution, LP provides logistics services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Tel: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7502
Website: http://justicelawcorp.com/attorneys/
ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Faces Slomanski FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Collection
Agencies Inc. The case is captioned as John Slomanski and Margaret
Brusewitz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Alliance Collection Agencies Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-00956-WED (E.D. Wis., June 25, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.
Alliance Collection Agencies, Inc., was founded in 1990. The
Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
3620 E Layton Ave.
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: bslatky@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
ALLSTATE MEDICAL: Reaches Deal on PIP Coverage Under Auto Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County,
Florida, announced a settlement of a lawsuit alleging that Allstate
Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property
and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, Encompass Indemnity Company, Encompass Floridian
Insurance Company, and Encompass Floridian Indemnity Company
("Defendant Insurers") have not complied with certain policies of
insurance issued by Defendant Insurers and with Florida law
regarding the payment of personal injury protection ("PIP")
benefits under policies issued with a PIP deductible. The parties
have agreed to settle the case, and the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida ("the Court") has
certified a Settlement Class. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, you may be entitled to receive the benefits of
the Settlement and will be bound by the release and other
provisions of the Settlement if it is approved by the Court.
Who is Included in the Class? You may be entitled to benefits if
you are a person or entity who is an "EIP Class Member" or
"Provider Class Member" who has not been previously compensated.
These include persons who were or are: (i) an Eligible Injured
Person or an assignee of an Eligible Injured Person under a
Defendant Insurer Florida Auto Policy; (ii) where the Eligible
Injured Person was injured in an automobile accident covered by the
PIP coverage of a Defendant Insurer Florida Auto Policy which was
governed by Florida law and the Florida PIP statute; (iii) where
the PIP coverage for such Eligible Injured Person was subject to a
PIP deductible; and (iv) where payment of PIP benefits was
calculated by applying the PIP deductible, or portion thereof, to a
statutorily authorized limitation amount as opposed to the full
amount billed for medical services rendered to the Eligible Injured
person. For more information regarding who is excluded from the
Class, please visit www.AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com.
How Do You Receive a Payment? Under the Settlement, the Defendant
Insurers have agreed to pay a Settlement Payment to Class Members
who submit a fully completed and signed Claim Form. In order to
receive a Settlement Payment, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than November 13, 2020. If you do not submit a
Claim Form you will not be entitled to receive any Settlement
Payment. For more information on submitting a Claim Form, visit
www.AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com.
What Are My Other Options? If you wish to opt out or exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion, postmarked no later than July 28, 2020. If
you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will not be
entitled to receive any payment or benefits from the Settlement,
your claims against the Defendant Insurers will not be released,
and you will be free to separately pursue any claims you believe
you may have. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement,
you may object to the proposed Settlement or intervene in the
Action for the purpose of contesting the proposed Settlement. The
deadline to file the written notice of intent to object and/or
intervene is August 3, 2020. More information on how to exclude
yourself or object to the Settlement can be found at the Settlement
Website.
The Court will hold a Final Fairness Hearing on September 14, 2020,
to determine: (a) the reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the
Settlement; (b) whether Final Judgment should be entered; and (c)
to approve the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid
directly to Class Counsel and the amount of the incentive award to
the Class Representative. The hearing may be postponed or changed
to a different date or time or location without notice. You or your
own lawyer, if you have one, are welcome to attend the hearing at
your own expense, but you are not required to attend.
For more information, please contact:
The Settlement Administrator
Phone: 1-888-279-7565
E-mail: info@AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com
Web site: http://www.AllstateDeductibleSettlement.com/
[GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Texas Court Dismisses Hoeffert's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort
Worth Division, has dismissed Plaintiff's claims in the case
captioned JOHN E. HOEFERT, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES,
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00466-P. (N.D. Tex.).
In September 2017, Hoefert, as an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, filed the instant lawsuit
against American Airlines, an international air carrier, in the
District Court of Arizona. Hoefert, a pilot, alleged that American
violated two provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by failing to provide Hoefert and
other pilots on military absences with the most favorable sick-time
accrual, vacation-time accrual, and operations-based bonus
payments. From July 2012 through December 2018, approximately
1,623 American pilots took military leave. American filed a motion
to transfer, and on June 7, 2018, the case was transferred to the
Texas District Court.
In October 2018, Hoefert filed a Motion for Class Certification in
which he sought to certify the following four classes: (1) Bonus
Class; (2) US Airways, Inc. Sick Time Accrual Class; (3)
Post-Merger Sick Time Accrual Class; and (4) Post-Merger Vacation
Time Accrual Class. In August 2019, Hoefert filed a motion for
partial summary judgment and American filed a motion for summary
judgment.
The Texas Court now considers these motions.
The Court notes that while the USERRA was intended to benefit and
protect service members, it was not intended to provide service
member employees with more favorable treatment than non-service
member employees.
On further review, the Court finds that sick-time accrual,
vacation-time accrual, and bonus payments are not seniority-based
benefits. The Court note that based on language of applicable
CBAs, the real nature of sick-time accrual at issue is for actual
work performed rather than a reward for length of service.
Furthermore, the disputed vacation days accrue not to incentivize
long-term employment, but rather to compensate and provide a
respite from American's pilots' past efforts. The Court also notes
that the bonus payments are non-seniority-based benefits because
they are tied to actually performing services on behalf of
American.
Having concluded that the three benefits that Hoefert claims were
withheld in violation of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4316(a) are non-seniority
benefits and thus are not protected by Section 4316(a), the Court
grants summary judgment on this claim.
Hoefert alternatively asserts that if the original benefits pointed
out are not seniority-based, American violated Section 4316(b) of
USERRA by not providing Hoefert with sick accrual, vacation
accrual, and monthly operations-based bonuses while on military
leave, when American did provide such benefits to pilots on
comparable leaves of absences. According to Hoeffert, these
comparable leaves of absence are for jury duty, union service
("Duty with Association"), sickness, Family Medical Leave Act
("FMLA") absence, and vacation.
On review, the Court opines that:
-- based on purpose and duration, military absences and sick
absences are not comparable, and as such Hoefert is not
entitled to benefits on military leave that other pilots may
accrue while on sick leave;
-- Hoefert is not entitled to benefits that may accrue to other
pilots on leave for Duty with the Association when he is on
military leave;
-- Hoefert is not entitled to benefits while on military leave
that may accrue to American pilots absent while on leave for
jury duty;
-- Hoefert is not entitled to the benefits while he is absent
for military service that pilots absent for vacation may
accrue; and
-- Hoefert is not entitled to the same benefits to pilots absent
for family medical leave when he is absent for military
service.
Having concluded that none of the other benefits Hoefert claims he
was deprived of in violation of the USERRA concerned comparable
absences, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on Hoefert's 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 4316(b) claim.
In sum, the Court finds that Hoefert's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment should be and is hereby denied and that American's Motion
for Summary Judgment should be and is hereby granted. The Court
dismisses Hoefert's claims with prejudice.
Accordingly, Hoefert's Motion for Class Certification is denied as
moot.
A full-text copy of the Texas District Court's January 9, 2020
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r8xaur8 from Leagle.com.
John E Hoefert, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Lawler -
blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - Pilot Law, P.C., Charles Billy , Crystal
Lee Matter , Stonebarger Law APC, 101 Parkshore Dr Ste 100, Folsom,
CA 95630-4726, Gene Joseph Stonebarger -
gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - Stonebarger Law APC, Jonathan T.
Suder , Friedman Suder & Cooke PC,Tindall Square Warehouse No.1,
604 East Fourth Street, Suite 200 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 & Richard
David Lambert , Stonebarger Law APC, 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite
145, Folsom, CA 95630
American Airlines Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark W. Robertson - mrobertson@omm.com - O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Dee J. Kelly, Jr. - dee.kelly.2@kellyhart.com - Kelly
Hart & Hallman, Lars L. Berg - lars.berg@kellyhart.com , Kelly Hart
& Hallman LLP, Sloane Ackerman - sackerman@omm.com - O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Stephanie Drotar - sdrotar@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, pro hac vice & Tristan Morales - tmorales@omm.com - O'Melveny
& Myers, pro hac vice.
AMERICAN GEZHI-MART: Untimely Pays Wages and Goods, Cheung Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND CHEUNG, an individual, et al. v. AMERICAN GEZHI-MART
CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, and YKC MARKETING INC., a
California corporation, ZHAOZHONG ZHOU, an individual, LOHAS FRESH
MART ALHAMBRA, LLC, a California limited liability corporation,
JBROS INVESTMENT, LLC, a California limited liability corporation
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV24520 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to timely pay wages and goods to the
Plaintiffs.
The Employee Plaintiffs include RAYMOND CHEUNG, an individual,
CUNHUI CHEN, an individual, DONG LU, an individual, CHANG LIU, an
individual, HSIUCHEN CHEUNGLEE, an individual, LISA CHANG, an
individual, VICTOR LIU, an individual, DESHENG CHEN, an individual,
SHIHAN SONG, an individual, TIANYU ZHANG, an individual, GUODONG
CHEN, an individual, WENWEN XU, an individual, TUN BEN LIM, an
individual, HE CHEN, an individual, XIAOFANG CHEN, an individual,
JINRU QIU, an individual,
The Vendor Plaintiffs include PANDA TRADING & MANUFACTURING, INC.,
a California corporation, CHUN YUEN TRADING CO., (USA), INC., a
California corporation, SUFOO LIFE, INC., a California corporation.
GW FOOD USA, INC., a California corporation. TAK SHING HONG, INC.,
a California corporation, JUN HAN, an individual, BIG GREEN (USA),
INC., a California corporation, JJWV MARKETING CORPORATION, a
California corporation, FORTUNATE TRADERS, a California
corporation, AA1218 USA, INC., a California corporation, EVERGREEN
PROVISIONS, INC., a California corporation, NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES
LTD. a California corporation, ILLI MARKETING, INC., a California
corporation, KUIYI INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation,
TIFFANY FOOD CORP., a New York corporation, JIMEI IMPORT & EXPORT
TRADING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, CHUNWEI, INC., a
California corporation, KONG ENTERPRISES. INC DBA BIGTREE WHOLESALE
& IMPORTS, a Texas corporation, MAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC., a
California corporation, and E-KEN TELECOM, INC., a California
corporation.
AMERICAN GEZHI-MART CORPORATION; YK.C MARKETING INC.; LOHAS FRESH
MART ALHAMBRA, LLC; and JBROS INVESTMENT, LLC, are businesses
controlled by Zhaozhou Zhou. The Defendants are in variety stores
business.
Prior to January 1, 2020, Zhaozhou Zhou knew that Lohas Fresh Mart
Alhambra LLC would be winding down and that he would be
transferring assets of Lohas Fresh Mart so that no funds would be
available in Lohas Fresh Mart to pay its obligations, including its
debts to suppliers, such as the Vendor Plaintiffs and Employee
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs contend that when Zhaozhou Zhou ordered goods from
the Vendor defendants, Zhaozhou zhou knew that he would not pay
them for the goods once the operations of Lohas Fresh Mart.
Zhaozhou Zhou concealed his intentions from the Vendor Plaintiffs
and the Employee Plaintiffs, who then continued to provide goods
and labor without knowing that they would not be paid for the
respective goods and/or labor that each Plaintiff provided.
The Employee Plaintiffs provided labor for the Defendants. Despite
their respective obligations to pay wages when due, the Defendants,
as the employer for each of the Employee Plaintiffs, failed to pay
the wages due and owing.
The Vendor Plaintiffs relied on Zhaozhou Zhou's statements that he
would pay for the goods and services provided by the Plaintiffs at
the relevant times, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs'
reliance was reasonable because Lohas Fresh Mart had a history of
paying its obligations as required. As the result of the fraud and
deceit of Zhaozhou Zhou, each of the Vendor Plaintiffs and the
Employee Plaintiffs has suffered damages.
The Plaintiffs sue over the Defendants' fraudulent, willful and
malicious conduct intended to deprive them of their legal rights
and property, which entitles each of them to an award of punitive
and exemplary damages.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC.
210 W. Birch Street, Suite 202
Brea, CA 92821
Telephone: (714) 265-2100
Facsimile: (714) 494-8215
E-mail: md@desjardinslaw.com
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Appeals Ruling in Donelson Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Mark Donelson v.
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-01023-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Kansas City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on December 31, 2018.
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., offers brokerage, investment
and financial advisory services. The Company is based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.,
operates as a subsidiary of AMPF Holding Corporation.
The appellate case is captioned as Mark Donelson v. Ameriprise
Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3691, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Mark Donelson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
James F.B. Daniels, Esq.
MCDOWELL RICE SMITH & BUCHANAN PC
350 The Skelly Building
605 W. 47th Street
Kansas City, MO 64112-0000
Telephone: 816-221-5400
E-mail: jdaniels@mcdowellrice.com
Defendants-Appellants Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., James
Cracchiolo, Kelli Hunter Petruzillo, Neal Maglaque and Patrick Hugh
O'Connell are represented by:
Thomas J. Butler, Esq.
Mark David Foley, Jr., Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE
1901 Sixth Avenue, N., Suite 2400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-254-1029
E-mail: tbutler@maynardcooper.com
- and -
Carly D. Duvall, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
Telephone: 816-474-8100
E-mail: cduvall@spencerfane.com
ANTHEM INC: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Savett Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adam Savett filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Adam Savett v. Anthem, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-00274, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio at Cleveland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
wants Anthem to cease placing prerecorded telephone calls to
consumers nationwide, as well as an award of statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Anthem is a health insurance company that placed telephone calls
featuring a prerecorded voice to consumers' residential telephone
lines throughout the nation. Anthem made these calls to consumers'
phones indefinitely regardless of whether the phone numbers had
been reassigned to new subscribers and, thus, no longer belonged to
the same consumers, who enrolled in the first place.
The appellate case is captioned as Adam Savett v. Anthem, Inc.,
Case No. 19-4188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ADAM SAVETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: 216-241-8172
E-mail: bhollowell@karonllc.com
dkaron@karonllc.com
- and -
Michael W. Ovca, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 N. LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312-561-4106
E-mail: movca@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
Defendant-Appellee ANTHEM, INC., is represented by:
Virginia Bell Flynn, Esq.
Alan D. Wingfield, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: 804-697-1480
E-mail: virginia.flynn@troutman.com
alan.wingfield@troutman.com
- and -
Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: 858-509-6000
E-mail: chad.fuller@troutman.com
- and -
Natalia Steele, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
200 Public Square, Suite 1400
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: 216-479-6100
E-mail: nsteele@vorys.com
APL LOGISTICS: Coleman Wins Preliminary Nod of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned RONALD
COLEMAN, an individual v. APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:19-CV-01144-JAM-KJN (E.D.
Cal.).
The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement based on
the terms set forth in the executed Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release. The Court finds that the Settlement falls
within the range of reasonableness and appears to be presumptively
valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the
Final Approval Hearing and Final Approval by this Court.
This Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes
only:
All current and former hourly employees of APL Logistics
Warehouse Management Services, Inc. who worked in the State
of California and were paid and whose wage statements
included Differential Pay or Premium Pay at any time from
June 21, 2018 through July 12, 2019.
The Court provisionally appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators
as the Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints Ronald Coleman
as representative of the Class, and Mayall Hurley P.C. as Class
Counsel.
The Court finds both as to form and content, the Notice of Class
Action Settlement comports with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and all Constitutional requirements, including
those of due process. The Court directs the mailing of the Notice
and related documents to the Class Members by First-Class U.S.
Mail, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement and this
Order.
The Court preliminarily approves the proposed procedure for
requesting exclusion from the Settlement. Any Class Member may
choose to be excluded from the Settlement as provided in the Notice
and set forth in the Settlement. Any such person, who chooses to be
excluded from, and opt out of the Settlement will not be entitled
to any recovery under the Settlement and will not be bound by the
Settlement or have any right to object to, appeal from, or comment
thereon.
Class Members who have not submitted a valid and timely Request for
Exclusion shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement and the
contemplated judgment to be entered based thereon.
A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on September
15, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. (Pacific Time). All briefs and materials in
support of the Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Entering of and Judgment and Application or
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs shall be filed with the Court
on or before August 25, 2020.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybaqwcu7 from Leagle.com
ROBERT J. WASSERMAN--rwasserman@mayallaw.com; WILLIAM J.
GORHAM--wgorham@mayallaw.com; NICHOLAS F.
SCARDIGLI--nscardigli@mayallaw.com; JOHN P.
BRISCOE--jbriscoe@mayallaw.com; RACHAEL
ALLGAIER--rallgaier@mayallaw.com, in Stockton, California,
represent Plaintiff Ronald Coleman and the Putative Class.
ARRIS INT'L: Knowles Appeals N.D. California Decision to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Greg Knowles, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in their lawsuit styled IN RE ARRIS CABLE MODEM
CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case No. 5:17-cv-01834-LHK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
The case is a class action brought by purchasers of certain cable
modems manufactured by Defendant ARRIS International Limited. The
consolidated amended class action complaint included claims under
California law and eighteen claims under the laws of other states.
The four California causes of action were brought on behalf of the
named California Plaintiffs and the California Subclass under (1)
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) (2) the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (3) the False Advertising Law
(FAL) and (4) the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiffs also
asserted a claim for unjust enrichment/quasi-contract individually
and on behalf of the Nationwide Class.
The appellate case is captioned as Greg Knowles, et al. v. ARRIS
International Plc, Case No. 19-17468, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GREG KNOWLES and BRIAN ALEXANDER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:
Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
Dustin Schubert, Esq.
Noah Schubert, Esq.
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-788-4220
E-mail: wjonckheer@sjk.law
dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
nschubert@sjk.law
rschubert@sjk.law
Defendant-Appellee ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC is represented by:
Nancy Louise Stagg, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
11225 El Camino Real, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: 858-350-6156
E-mail: nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com
AUTOZONE STORES: Suit Mooted When Class Rep. Settles, 9th Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Assia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., wrote on The
National Law Review an article titled "Class Action Mooted When
Class Representative Settles, Ninth Circuit Rules".
On June 3, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a wage and hour class
action on the grounds that once the class representative plaintiff
settled his individual claims and no longer had any financial stake
in the litigation's outcome, the entire litigation was moot.
In Brady v. AutoZone Stores, Inc. and Autozoners, LLC, Plaintiff
Michael Brady brought a class action suit against AutoZone Stores,
Inc. and Autozoners LLC for allegedly failing to provide its
nonexempt employees with meal breaks in accordance with Washington
state law. After several years of litigation, Brady settled his
individual claims and simultaneously waived any right to recover
attorney's fees and costs. Even though Brady settled his
individual claims, the settlement agreement included a provision
explicitly stating that Brady did not intend to settle or waive his
class claims.
Upon notice of the settlement the district court entered final
judgment against Brady on the grounds that his class claims were
now moot, despite the attempt to carve out his class claims. Brady
appealed, but the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court and
affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the class.
In its holding, the Ninth Circuit clarified that the dismissal
rested on the fact that Brady no longer maintained any financial
interest in the outcome of the litigation. The Court distinguished
its holding in Brady from Narouz v. Charter Communications. In
Narouz the 9th Circuit found that the plaintiff still held a
financial interest in the outcome of the litigation when he/she did
not waive a right to recover attorney's fees and costs. Because the
class representative still maintained some financial stake, the
Court could not dismiss the action as moot.
The Brady Court further explained that its decision was consistent
with prior Ninth Circuit decisions in Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney
Mickell and Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co., Inc. In Evon,
plaintiff settled her individual claims without any mention to her
class claims - thus rendering her class claims moot. Campion
stands for the proposition that an express carve out of class
claims is still not enough to retain a financial stake in the
outcome of the litigation. Taken together, the Court found that
Brady relinquished any right to recovery, and his claims were
correspondingly moot.
Notably, the Court found that the mere potential of an enhancement
award is not sufficient to create a concrete financial stake that
can save a class action. In short, "we hold that when a class
representative voluntarily settles his individual claims, he must
do more than expressly leave class claims unresolved to avoid
mootness." In light of the 9th Circuit holding in Brady, employers
facing wage and hour class actions in the Ninth Circuit should
consult with legal counsel if settling the class representatives'
individual claims, including a waiver of further right to recover,
makes sense for the litigants' goals and objectives. [GN]
BIG FISH: Thimmegowda Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Manasa Thimmegowda filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00199-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.
The appellate case is captioned as Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish
Games, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-36090, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3, 2020,
Defendants Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as
Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc., et al., Case No.
20-35043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
The lawsuit was filed in the Washington District Court alleging,
among other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by
Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of
monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and
treble and punitive damages.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MANASA THIMMEGOWDA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312-589-6370
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
atievsky@edelson.com
- and -
Todd Logan, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: 415-638-9660
E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com
- and -
Janie Shiel, Esq.
8368 E Cheryl Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: 480-991-7109
- and -
Janissa A. Strabuk , Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com
Defendants-Appellees BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington
corporation; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada corporation;
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE LIMITED, an Australian corporation; and
CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., a Kentucky corporation, are represented by:
Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: 650-632-4715
E-mail: ehenn@cov.com
- and -
Gary Rubman, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: 202-662-5465
E-mail: grubman@cov.com
- and -
Matthew Verdin, Esq.
David Samuel Watnick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
415 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: 415-583-3292
E-mail: mverdin@cov.com
dwatnick@cov.com
- and -
Mark Parris, Esq.
Paul Rugani, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
Telephone: 206-839-4320
E-mail: mparris@orrick.com
prugani@orrick.com
BL 62 WEST: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Ayala Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BL 62 WEST 9TH ST, LLC d/b/a CASA APICII, BL
62 WEST 9TH MANAGEMENT, LLC, APICII, LLC, APICII ADVISORS, LLC,
APICII MANAGEMENT, LLC, THOMAS A DILLON, and BERNARD SCHWARTZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05233 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Hospitality
Industry Wage Order, and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Casa Apicii from approximately
July 2016 until July 2018 to work in the kitchen where he prepared
food.
The complaint asserts these claims:
-- Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime premium from
February 2017 until July 2018 even though he regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week;
-- The wage statements provided by Defendants did not
accurately reflect Plaintiff's overtime rate or the number of
overtime hours worked; and
-- Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff spread of hours.
Thomas A. Dillon has operational control over Defendant Casa
Apicii.
Bernard Schwartz is one of the founders of Casa Apicii.
Corporate Defendants BL 62 West 9th St, LLC d/b/a Casa Apicii, BL
62 West 9th Management, LLC, Apicii, LLC, Apicii Advisors, LLC, and
Apicii Management, LLC own and operate a restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven John Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 E. Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: (631) 824-0200
Email: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEGREEN
VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 9:20-cv-81076-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged illegal
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous calls from
Defendant's Caller ID numbers (216) 279-5134 or (419) 458-5578 --
one on May 26, 2020, six calls on May 27, 2020, and two calls on
June 2, 2020 -- to his residential telephone number of (614)
XXX-1037. Allegedly, Defendant uses telemarketing to promote their
services by illegally calling residential numbers listed on the
national Do Not Call Registry.
Plaintiff affirms that he never consented to receive Defendant's
calls, which caused him harm and injury.
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. provides travel services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
Emails: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
BROOKLYN FARE: Sosa Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Fare Greenwich LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Brooklyn Fare Greenwich LLC and Brooklyn
Fare Kitchen Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05193 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 7, 2020).
Brooklyn Fare Greenwich LLC (doing business as BROOKLYN FARE) is
licensed liquor authority in the county of NEW YORK, licensed by
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Certification of Rule 23 Class Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN KEVIN MOORE, ET. AL, v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, WARDEN F.J. BOWERS, Case No.
3:20-cv-00123-GMG-RWT (N.D.W.Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. granting certification for class action pursuant
to the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and
2. appointing counsel for himself as well as those "similarly
situated" as inmates held in Federal Correctional
Institution in Morgantown.
The Plaintiff says class certification would allow the Court to
consider the underlying claim that the United States Bureau of
Prisons is intentionally violating the civil rights of every inmate
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution located in
Morgantown, West Virginia, a facility under the jurisdiction of the
United States Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for
the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals.[CC]
CAMDEN COUNTY, GA: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Abdullah Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued
an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned HAKIM ABDULLAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. M. BLAQUIERE, Officer, Camden County Sheriff
Department, individual personal capacity, MICHAEL H.L. ROBERSON,
SR., individual personal capacity, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
19-14509 (11th Cir.).
Hakim Abdullah, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court's
dismissal without prejudice of his complaint. He only argues that
the District Court erred because it allowed the Magistrate Judge to
act beyond his jurisdiction in granting Defendant Blaquiere's
motion to reopen and extend the time to file an answer, thereby,
denying Abdullah an entry of default and eventual default judgment
against Blaquiere. Abdullah contends that the Magistrate Judge's
act violated Abdullah's due process rights and rendered the
District Court's dismissal order void.
The District Court may, for good cause, extend the time to perform
an act: (1) with or without motion or notice, if a request is made
before the time expires or (2) on motion after the time expires if
the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. If a
defendant fails to file an answer or responsive motion "and that
failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter
the party's default."
Then, if the Plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain, the clerk upon
motion must enter a default judgment for that amount and costs
against a defendant who has been defaulted. If the Plaintiff's
claim is not for a sum certain, the Plaintiff must move the Court
for a default judgment. "The court may set aside an entry of
default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default
judgment under Rule 60(b)."
The Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to issue the order extending
the time for Blaquiere to file an answer. The rules of civil
procedure grant the authority to extend an already expired deadline
to answer upon a motion asserting excusable neglect. Such a motion
to extend time, filed before entry of a default or a default
judgment, is a non-dispositive pretrial motion that a magistrate
judge may decide. Thus, the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to
issue the order, and Abdullah's challenge to the judgment against
him is unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9rtrqrf from Leagle.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Bronstein Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation & Plc
("Carnival" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCL; CUK) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Carnival securities between January 28, 2020 through May
1, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ccl.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's medics were reporting increasing
events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival was
violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and
severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) in
responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow
the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake
of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to
operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread
COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ccl or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Carnival
you have until July 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
Tel: 212-697-6484
E-mail: info@bgandg.com
[GN]
CARNIVAL CORP: Lindsay Sues Over Passengers' Exposure to COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD C. LINDSAY and CARL E.W. ZEHNER v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION,
CARNIVAL PLC, HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC., HOLLAND AMERICA
LINE-U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00982-TLF (W.D. Wash., June 24,
2020), is brought against the Defendants on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and more than 1,000 similarly-situated passengers, who
sailed on the cruise aboard the MS ZAANDAM, which boarded on March
7, 2020, and embarked on March 8, 2020, originating in Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
The Defendants represent that they are committed to "the health,
safety, and security" of their passengers and promote their
business as one that "always strives to be free of injuries,
illness and loss." However, in early February 2020, the Defendants
became aware of an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the cruise ship the
Diamond Princess, which is operated by CARNIVAL and its subsidiary
Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
The outbreak originated on the Diamond Princess while the vessel
was docked in Yokohama, Japan. Ten cases were originally diagnosed,
and that number rapidly escalated to over 700 cases--over one-fifth
of the passengers onboard. Investigative reporting about the
Diamond Princess alleges that well after CARNIVAL became aware of
the first case aboard the ship, the Defendants worked to "keep the
fun going" by "encouraging guests to mingle," the Plaintiffs
contend.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence and
gross negligence, the Plaintiffs say they were exposed to and
suffered from COVID-19 while onboard the MS ZAANDAM and, as a
direct result of the Defendants' negligence, continues to suffer
from the effects of this illness.
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared
COVID-19 a global health emergency. In early February 2020, experts
in the European Union, led by epidemiologist Dr. Christou
Hadjichristodoulou, released guidelines for the cruise industry
that included an outline of the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks aboard
cruise ships and recommended response protocols. Specifically, the
guidelines directed that, in the event of a COVID-19 case, close
contacts of the case should be quarantined in their cabin or on
shore, and "casual contacts" should be disembarked.
The Plaintiffs are passengers of MS ZAANDAM.
Carnival Corporation is a British-American cruise operator,
currently the world's largest travel leisure company, with a
combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands.
Holland America Line is a British–American-owned cruise line, a
subsidiary of Carnival Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA
Telephone: 206 682 5600
Facsimile: 206.682.2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
Madeline M. Gomez, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: 615 313 9000
Facsimile: 615 313 9965
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
mgomez@lchb.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: 615 244 2202
Facsimile: 615 252 3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
CHHAYA NEWS: Lugo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA LUGO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff v. CHHAYA NEWS INC d/b/a FRESH JUICE BAR, NEWS
AT 31, INC. d/b/a ASTORIA SMOKE SHOP, A&P LOTTERY STORE INC. d/b/a
JAKS CORNER, MINAKSHI PATEL and ASHOK PATEL, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05286 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York
Labor Law (NYLL), the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), and the
New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a juice maker for Defendants'
Fresh Juice Bar on or about June 25, 2019 and was terminated on or
about August 1, 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked for a total of 79.5
hours per week throughout her employment but she was paid by
Defendants at a straight-time rate only regardless of how many
hours she worked each workweek, thereby failing to pay him proper
overtime compensation at one and one-half times her regular hourly
rate for all hours worked over 40 pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to:
-- provide proper wage statements for each payment period;
-- accurately reflect the number of hours worked and their
proper compensation; and
-- provide wage notices at hiring and at dates of all wage
changes thereafter.
Moreover, Plaintiff was subject to regular sexual harassment from
her manager throughout her employment with Defendants.
Minakshi Patel and Ashok Patel own and operate the Stores.
Chhaya News Inc d/b/a Fresh Juice Bar, News At 31, Inc. d/b/a
Astoria Smoke Shop, and A&P Lottery Store Inc d/b/a Kaks Corner are
food convenience establishments, collectively known as the
"Stores". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eight Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
Emails: cklee@leelitigation.com
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Kater Appeals Order in Consumer Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cheryl Kater and Suzie Kelly filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Cheryl Kater, et al. v.
Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00612-RBL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
The appellate case is captioned as Cheryl Kater, et al. v.
Churchill Downs, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-36091, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3, 2020,
Defendants Churchill Downs, Inc., and Big Fish Games, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case
is titled as Cheryl Kater, et al. v. Churchill Downs, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 20-35042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has
joined Big Fish Games in renewing a motion to compel arbitration in
the Washington District Court as to all claims asserted by
plaintiff Suzie Kelly. Big Fish Games also renewed its motion to
compel arbitration against plaintiff Cheryl Kater in the Washington
District Court.
This purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs
Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed on April 17, 2015,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other
claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the
Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish
Games, Inc. ("Big Fish Games") violated Washington law, including
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful
gambling through its virtual casino games (namely the slots,
blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish
Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost,
reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and injunctive
relief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CHERYL KATER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and SUZIE KELLY, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312-589-6370
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
atievsky@edelson.com
- and -
Todd Logan, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: 415-638-9660
E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com
- and -
Janie Shiel, Esq.
8368 E Cheryl Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: 480-991-7109
- and -
Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com
Defendants-Appellees CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC., a Kentucky corporation,
and BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington corporation, are represented
by:
Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: 650-632-4715
E-mail: ehenn@cov.com
- and -
Gary Rubman, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: 202-662-5465
E-mail: grubman@cov.com
- and -
Matthew Verdin, Esq.
David Samuel Watnick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
415 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: 415-583-3292
E-mail: mverdin@cov.com
dwatnick@cov.com
- and -
Mark Parris, Esq.
Paul Rugani, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
Telephone: 206-839-4320
E-mail: mparris@orrick.com
prugani@orrick.com
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Dillon Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Dillon, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled William Dillon, et al. v.
Clackamas County, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00820-YY, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland.
The appellate case is captioned as William Dillon, et al. v.
Clackamas County, et al., Case No. 19-36084, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 29, 2020,
Plaintiffs William Dillon, Scott Vincent Graue, David Michael
Hodges, and Albert Love filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs, former inmates at Clackamas County Jail ("CCJ"),
bring this class action against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Plaintiffs' state statutory and federal
constitutional rights arising from group strip searches at
CCJ.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT VINCENT GRAUE, DAVID
MICHAEL HODGES and ALBERT LOVE, Individually, on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN
4711 SW Huber Street, Suite E-3
Portland, OR 97219
Telephone: (503) 473-8787
E-mail: easyrabbi@yahoo.com
Defendants-Appellees CLACKAMAS COUNTY and CRAIG ROBERTS, both
individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff, are
represented by:
Stephen L. Madkour, Esq.
Shawn A. Lillegren, Esq.
CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL
2051 Kaen Road
Oregon City, OR 97045
Telephone: (503) 742-5395
E-mail: smadkour@clackamas.us
slillegren@clackamas.us
COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Pinkhasov Files FDCPA Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Yuriy Pinkhasov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-22784-CMA
(S.D. Fla., July 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC is a debt collection agency located in
Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden CIty Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE: Faces Feist FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commercial Acceptance
Company. The case is captioned as LINDSEY FEIST, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS v. COMMERCIAL
ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03061-GEKP (E.D. Pa., June 24,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.
Commercial Acceptance is a financial services company based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
COMPASS GROUP: Remand of Bryant BIPA Suit to State Court Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
district court's order remanding a BIPA lawsuit against Compass
Group USA to state court and remanded for further proceedings.
The appellate case is CHRISTINE BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1443 (7th
Cir.).
Section 15(b) of the Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") regulates the collection, use, and retention of a person's
biometric identifiers or information. It requires collectors of
this material to obtain the written informed consent of any person
whose data is acquired. The regime is designed to protect
consumers against the threat of irreparable privacy harms, identity
theft, and other economic injuries arising from the increasing use
of biometric identifiers and information by private entities. As a
matter of state law, anyone "aggrieved" by a violation of the
disclosure and informed consent obligations is entitled to bring a
private action against the alleged offender.
Christine Bryant worked for a call center in Illinois. As a
convenience for its employees, the center had a workplace
cafeteria, in which it had installed Smart Market vending machines
owned and operated by Compass. The machines did not accept cash;
instead, a user had to establish an account using her fingerprint.
Accordingly, during her orientation Bryant and her coworkers were
instructed by their employer to scan their fingerprints into the
Smart Market system and establish a payment link to create user
accounts. Once their accounts were active, employees could
purchase items and add money to their balance using just their
fingerprints. Their fingerprints are "biometric identifiers"
within the meaning of the Act.
In violation of section 15(a) of BIPA, Compass never made publicly
available a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the biometric identifiers and information it was
collecting and storing. In addition, in violation of section
15(b), Compass never: (1) informed Bryant in writing that her
biometric identifier (fingerprint) was being collected or stored,
(2) informed Bryant in writing of the specific purpose and length
of term for which her fingerprint was being collected, stored, and
used, or (3) obtained Bryant's written release to collect, store,
and use her fingerprint.
Bryant does not assert that she did not know that her fingerprint
was being collected and stored, nor why it was happening. She
voluntarily created a user account for the Smart Market vending
machines and regularly made use of the fingerprint scanner to
purchase items from the machines. She contends simply that
Compass' failure to make the requisite disclosures denied her the
ability to give informed written consent as required by section
15(b). Compass' failure to comply with the Act resulted, both for
her and others similarly situated, in the loss of the right to
control their biometric identifiers and information.
Seeking redress for that invasion of her personal data, on Aug. 13,
2019, Bryant brought a putative class action against Compass in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, pursuant to BIPA's provision
providing a private right of action in state court to persons
"aggrieved" by a violation of the statute. Bryant seeks to
represent a class of Illinois citizens who used Compass' Smart
Market biometricenabled vending machines after August 2014. She
alleges that Compass violated her and class members' statutory
rights under BIPA when it collected users' fingerprints without
first making the required written disclosures about use and
retention and without written authorization. For purposes of the
standing issue before the Court, the Seventh Circuit accepts
Bryant's allegations as true.
Compass removed the action to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") on the basis of diversity of citizenship and
an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Compass is
incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in
North Carolina; Bryant is a citizen of Illinois. It is enough to
assure the minimal diversity required by CAFA. The requisite
amount in controversy is also secure: claims of individual class
members are aggregated for purposes of CAFA, and in the case, BIPA
authorizes statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional or
reckless violation. Compass asserts, and Bryant does not contest,
that the alleged class has at least 1,000 members.
Bryant moved to remand the action to the state court, claiming that
the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because
she lacked the concrete injury-in-fact necessary to satisfy the
federal requirement for Article III standing. The district court
found that Compass's alleged violations of sections 15(a) and (b)
were bare procedural violations that caused no concrete harm to
Bryant; accordingly, it remanded the action to the state court.
Compass petitioned the Court for permission to appeal the remand
order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c); on March 13, 2020, the Court
accepted the appeal.
The question now before the Seventh Circuit is whether, for
federal-court purposes, such a person has suffered the kind of
injury-in-fact that supports Article III standing. The Seventh
Circuit concludes that a failure to follow section 15(b) of the law
leads to an invasion of personal rights that is both concrete and
particularized.
The Seventh Circuit finds that the text of the statute demonstrates
that its purpose is to ensure that consumers understand, before
providing their biometric data, how that information will be used,
who will have access to it, and for how long it will be retained.
The judgment of Illinois' General Assembly is that the sensitivity
of biometric information and the risk of identity theft or other
privacy or economic harm that may result from its dissemination,
necessitates that people be given the opportunity to make informed
choices about to whom and for what purpose they will relinquish
control of that information. Compass' failure to abide by the
requirements of section 15(b) before it collected Smart Market
users' fingerprints denied Bryant and others like her the
opportunity to consider whether the terms of that collection and
usage were acceptable given the attendant risks.
It was not a failure to satisfy a purely procedural requirement.
Rather, Compass withheld substantive information to which Bryant
was entitled and thereby deprived her of the ability to give the
informed consent section 15(b) mandates. Equipped with the missing
information, she may have chosen not to use the vending machines
and instead brought her own lunch or snacks. Or she may have opted
for the convenience of the machines. She did not realize that
there was a choice to be made and what the costs and benefits were
for each option. The deprivation is a concrete injury-in-fact that
is particularized to Bryant. Bryant thus meets the requirements
for Article III standing on her section 15(b) claim.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit finds that Bryant did not suffer a
concrete and particularized injury as a result of Compass's
violation of section 15(a). She therefore lacks standing under
Article III to pursue that claim in federal court. As she noted
earlier, the Court has no authority and no occasion to address her
state-court standing to bring the claim.
Recognizing the privacy and economic risks involved in the wide use
of biometric information, the Illinois General Assembly mandated in
section 15(b) of BIPA that private entities make certain
disclosures and receive informed consent from consumers before
obtaining such information. As alleged, Compass did not make the
requisite disclosures to Bryant or obtain her informed written
consent before collecting her fingerprints. By failing to do so,
Compass inflicted the concrete injury BIPA intended to protect
against, i.e. a consumer's loss of the power and ability to make
informed decisions about the collection, storage, and use of her
biometric information. That injury satisfies the requirements for
Article III standing, and so Bryant's claim under section 15(b) may
proceed in federal court.
The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the judgment of the district
court remanding the action to the Circuit Court of Cook County, and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Z3nPD5 from Leagle.com.
CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Behboudi Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMIR BEHBOUDI, an individual, for himself and all others similarly
situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island Corporation and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC -20-585042 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., June 25, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal
periods, to provide rest breaks, and to reimburse business
expenses.
The Plaintiffs each worked as pharmacists for CVS. CVS classified
them as non-exempt employees and paid them hourly, as California
law requires. But, in violation of the Labor Code, CVS required the
Plaintiffs to stay logged into CVS's pharmacy software, respond to
their supervisor's inquiries, and provide customer service during
their meal and rest breaks, says the complaint.
CVS, thus, systematically failed to provide pharmacists with breaks
and owes the Plaintiffs unpaid wages, penalties, interests, and
their attorneys' fees for failing to provide meal and rest breaks,
Mr. Behboudi contends.
CVS Pharmacy is an American retail corporation. Owned by CVS
Health, it is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
GALLO LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA
Telephone: 415 257 8800
E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law
DEFENSE TAX: Chen Wang Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN WANG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEFENSE TAX GROUP INC.;
and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01193-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal., Filed
February 6, 2020), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order
on August 17, 2020, granting his motion for class certification.
Defense Tax Group is a tax relief company based in Los Angeles, CA.
The company was founded in 2013 and offers tax relief services to
individuals and businesses in 50 states (and Washington, DC).[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Parker, Esq.
M.R. PARKER LAW, APC
6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207
West Hills, CA 91307
Telephone: (818) 334-5711
Facsimile: (818) 394-6448
E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com
DHR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Hartman Suit in California Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DHR International
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as CAROL HARTMAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER CURRENT AND FORMER SIMILARLY-SITUATED
AND AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v.
DHR INTERNATIONAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA; KEITH GIARMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; GEOFFREY HOFFMAN, AN
INDIVIDUAL; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE; Case No. CGC20585164 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., June 26, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case
management conference will be held on Nov. 25, 2020 in Civic Center
Courthouse, Room 610.
DHR is a privately held executive search solutions provider with 50
wholly-owned offices around the world (including North and South
America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East). DHR offers
senior-level executive search, management assessment and succession
planning services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union St.
San Francisco, CA 94123-4507
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
DIRECTV INC: Murphy Seeks 9th Cir. Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants DirecTV, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06465-AG-VBK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as John Murphy, et al. v. DirecTV,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56459, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 23, 2020,
Plaintiff John Murphy filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit. That appellate case is styled John Murphy, et al. v.
DirecTV, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-56364.
In the class action lawsuit, Lead Plaintiffs John Murphy, Greg
Masters and Roberta Weiss had claimed that both Best Buy and
DirecTV failed to make it clear that Best Buy leases, rather than
sells, DirecTV equipment. They also alleged that those leases are
unfair and come with exorbitant fees.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN MURPHY, on behalf of himself, and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: 212-594-5300
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
Defendants-Appellants DIRECTV, INC.; DIRECTV MERCHANDISING, INC.;
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES LLC; DIRECTV HOLDINGS, LLC; DIRECTV OPERATIONS
LLC; and THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC., are represented by:
Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
Melissa Dawn Ingalls, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213-680-8400
E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com
melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com
DISNEY DESTINATIONS: Leon et al. Balk at Unfair Charges of Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD LEON, MELISSA MARLENE SANABIRA RODRIGUEZ AND RAMON SANTIAGO
RODRIGUEZ TORRES, AND MATTHEW PAUL SCHWERI AND DURIA R. RODRIGUEZ
SCHWERI, as individuals and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. DISNEY DESTINATIONS, LLC a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01227-PGB-LRH (M.D.
Fla., July 10, 2020) is an action for damages for breach of
contract and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq. ("EFTA"), arising from the sale of an
annual pass to the Defendant's theme parks.
Defendant offers consumers who wish to purchase annual passes to
any of its theme parks an option to pay for the passes by providing
a credit card, debit card, or bank account information. Defendant
represented to the public and the Plaintiffs that the purchase of
annual passes would provide passholders broad and guaranteed access
to Defendant's parks to use as they chose with only specified
restrictions such as pre-disclosed blackout dates.
Defendant automatically debits each installment from the consumer's
credit card, debit card, or bank account on a monthly basis if a
passholder elects to pay for all or part of his or her annual pass
in monthly installments.
In April 2020, Defendant closed its parks due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Due to closing its parks, Defendant suspended the monthly
auto-payments until the parks could reopen.
According to the complaint, upon determining that parks would
reopen in July 2020, Defendant began the process of starting the
auto-payments described above. However, in approximately the first
few days of July annual passholders were shockingly and suddenly
charged for several months' worth of payments all at once.
The amounts charged to annual passholders far exceeded any
authority given to Defendant to take an auto-payment. This caused
harm to annual passholders who were wrongly deprived of their
assets and was a direct breach of the contract between Defendant
and annual passholders.
Disney Destinations, LLC operates theme parks around the world,
including in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine E. Yanes, Esq.
Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
P.O. Box 3396
Tampa, FL 33601
Telephone: (813) 229-1118
Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com
gcentrone@kmf-law.com
- and -
Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
SHRADER LAW, PLLC
612 W. Bay Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 360-1529
Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
E-mail: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com
- and -
Christie D. Arkovich, Esq.
CHRISTIE D. ARKOVICH, P.A.
1520 W Cleveland St.
Tampa, FL 33606-1807
Telephone: (813) 258-2808
Facsimile: (813) 258-5911
E-mail: christie@christiearkovich.com
DOW CHEMICAL: Court Denies Jurisdictional Discovery in Guidry
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has
denied a request to compel jurisdictional discovery in the case
captioned SHEILA GUIDRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, ET AL. v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION
"F". Civil Action No. 19-12233. (E.D. La.).
The case is a toxic chemical class action lawsuit removed to the
Louisiana Eastern District Court for a second time in 10 years in
August 2019. On Sept. 19, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice
the plaintiffs' motion to remand and ordered jurisdictional
discovery directed to determining class size in the case removed
predicated on the Court's Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction.
When the plaintiffs requested a stay of the Court's 9/19/19 Order
pending their request for permission to appeal, on October 23,
2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the request: the
motion was granted as to the plaintiffs' obligation to
affirmatively conduct a sworn claims process within 90 days and
denied insofar as the plaintiffs were ordered to provide defendants
any information in their possession bearing on class size and
amount-in-controversy. The Fifth Circuit ultimately denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.
Ostensibly in an attempt to comply with the Court's orders, on
November 5, 2019, plaintiffs' counsel wrote to defendants' counsel
to advise that "it has 2,774 clients who have sought our
representation with regard to complaints of deleterious effects
from the release at issue. We have internal paperwork and work
product pertaining to those individuals, which we presume is
privileged, but which would not shed any light on other potential
class members."
Counsel for defendants replied to plaintiffs' counsel on November
8, 2019 that "this does not satisfy [the district court's] order."
Counsel for defendants then identified specific categories of
information it seeks from plaintiffs to inform the class size
question, including notices published or mailed to potential class
members, efforts to contact class members, proof of claim forms,
identification of individuals seeking representation, medical
records of any potential class member. Counsel for defendants
requested a privilege log insofar as the plaintiffs invoke
attorney-client privilege over any otherwise responsive material.
Finally, counsel for defendants sought input regarding a proposed
motion to approve public notice or proof of claim process it
intended to file. Counsel participated in a Rule 37 conference but
have failed to reach an agreement.
The parties now dispute the scope of jurisdictional discovery and
sworn claims process.
Before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendants' motion to
approve public notice of proof of claim form process, method of
dissemination and proof of claim form; (2) Defendants' motion to
compel production of information ordered by the Court; and (3)
Plaintiffs' motion to compel jurisdictional discovery responses
from Defendants.
The Court notes that the contested motions offer no actual disputes
for it to resolve at this time.
The plaintiffs have disclosed that some 2,774 clients have signed
up to be members of the class. The plaintiffs also concede that
the Court instructed them to conduct jurisdictional discovery and a
sworn claims process.
The Plaintiffs characterize the Defendants' motion to compel as
harassment and premature.
However, even the Defendants concede that disclosure of the
information they seek by these motions may be rendered moot by the
outcome of a claim form process already underway.
Accordingly, the Court orders that:
(1) Defendants' motion to approve public notice of proof of
claim form process, method of dissemination, and proof of
claim form is DENIED;
(2) Defendants' motion to compel production of information
ordered by the Court on October 23, 2019 is DENIED without
prejudice as premature;
(3) Plaintiffs' motion to compel jurisdictional discovery is
DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vgaxyrp from Leagle.com.
Sheila Guidry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Bartholomew Kelly, III ,
Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, 909 Poydras St Ste 1625 New
Orleans, LA, 70112-4067, Benjamin W. Gulick , Law Offices of
Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, 300 Lafayette Street, Suite 101,
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Catherine Hilton -
chilton@ronaustinlaw.com - Ron Austin Law, LLC, Gregory Pius DiLeo,
Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, 300 Lafayette Street, Suite
101, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Jeffrey P. Berniard , Berniard
Law LLC, 1140 St Charles Ave New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Madro
Bandaries , Madro Bandaries, PLC, 938 Lafayette St Ste 407, New
Orleans, LA 70113, Roderick Alvendia , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest,
LLC, 909 Poydras St Ste 1625, New Orleans, LA, 70112-4067 & Ron
Anthony Austin , Ron Austin Law, LLC,400 Manhattan Blvd, Harvey,
LA, 70058-4442
Ramona Alexander & Vanessa Wilson, Plaintiffs, represented by John
Bartholomew Kelly, III , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, Benjamin
W. Gulick , Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Gregory Pius
DiLeo , Law Offices of Gregory P. DiLeo, PLC, Jeffrey P. Berniard ,
Berniard Law LLC, Madro Bandaries , Madro Bandaries, PLC, Roderick
Alvendia , Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC & Ron Anthony Austin ,
Ron Austin Law, LLC.
Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, David Mark Bienvenu, Jr.,
Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Colin
Patrick O’Rourke, Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco,
Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Patrick Hayes Hunt, Bienvenu,
Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Phillip E. Foco,
Bienvenu, Bonnacaze, Foco, Viator, Viator & Holinga, APLLC 4210
Bluebonnet Blvd, Baton Rouge, LA, 70809-9630
Department of Environmental Quality State of Louisiana, Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Phayer , Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. &
Gregory C. Fahrenholt , Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., 5213 Airline
Drive, Metairie, LA 70001
Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Neil Charles
Abramson -blamy@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, Mark Charles Dodart -
mark.dodart@phelps.com - Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Nora Bolling Bilbro -
nbilbro@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis.
EBTH.COM LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
EBTH.Com LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony Sosa,
on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EBTH.Com LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05201 (S.D.
N.Y., July 7, 2020).
EBTH.Com LLC is a uniquely curated, carefully authenticated and
ever-changing assortment of uncommon art, jewelry, fashion
accessories, collectibles, antiques & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
EMERALD HOLDING: Facing Steamfitters Suit Over Rights Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Holding, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 2, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al.,
C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS.
On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emerald
Holding, Inc. and its directors under the caption Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS.
The complaint alleges that the disclosures made in Emerald's Form
S-3 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on June 19, 2020
regarding the contemplated rights offering (the "rights offering")
described therein omit certain material information. The action
seeks, among other forms of relief, an injunction against the
rights offering. The plaintiff also filed a motion for expedited
proceedings.
Solely to minimize the burden, expense, distraction, and risk
associated with such litigation, Emerald wishes to disclose certain
additional information related to the background of certain
transactions relating to the Company's previously disclosed sale of
its 7% Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock,
including pursuant to the rights offering. Emerald does not believe
that the disclosure of this additional information is required
under applicable laws or that such information is material.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/32lIqOE.
Emerald Holding, Inc. organizes business to business trade shows.
The Company operates live events, as well as offers other marketing
services, including digital media and print publications. Emerald
Expositions Events serves sports, technology, jewelry,
construction, and other sectors in the United States. The company
is based in San Juan Capistrano, California.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Ergas Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Matatiaou Ergas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-05202
(S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC provides debt collection and asset
recovery and reporting services. The Company offers solutions,
including primary, secondary, and warehouse collection, as well as
client liaison services such as reports on status, cancellation,
and payment remittance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
- and -
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
Barshay Sanders, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Shingler FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company. The case is captioned as Johnny Shingler, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, doing business as ERC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02492-JMC
(D.S.C., June 30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Michelle Childs. The suit
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
regarding consumer credit.
ERC is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chauntel Demetrius Bland, Esq.
CHAUNTEL BLAND
463 Regency Park Drive
Columbia, SC 29210
Telephone: (803) 319-6262
E-mail: chauntel.bland@yahoo.com
EPIC GAMES: Fourth Circuit Appeal Initiated in Krohm Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eric Krohm filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
his lawsuit styled Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-00173-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Raleigh.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Terrence W. Boyle dismissed the case without prejudice.
Defendant Epic Games is the developer of Fortnite, a popular
videogame with millions of players in the United States and around
the world. The Plaintiff, like other Fortnite players, was
required to create an account in order to play, which entailed
providing personally identifiable information ("PII"). The
Defendant allegedly promised to maintain appropriate technical
safeguards of player data.
Around November 2018, a cybersecurity firm alerted the Defendant to
a vulnerability in Fortnite's system which allowed cyber-criminals
and unauthorized parties to access and extract PII, payment
information, and other sensitive data associated with Fortnite
players' accounts. Fortnite was allegedly the target of a data
hack in the summer of 2018, which affected millions of players'
accounts. The Defendant allegedly failed to take measures to cure
the cyber vulnerability and to alert customers that their
information may have been compromised.
In response to learning about the cyber vulnerability, the
Plaintiff has taken time and effort to mitigate the risk of
identity theft, including changing passwords and paying for credit
monitoring services. He has also allegedly experienced mental
anguish and anxiety from the fear of identity theft and fraud.
The Plaintiff brought the putative class action on behalf of the
millions of Fortnite account holders potentially affected by the
cyber vulnerability. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence. The
suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.
The Defendant removed the case to federal court in Illinois based
on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Once in federal court,
the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because of a forum selection
clause in the End User License Agreement ("EULA").
The appellate case is captioned as Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc.,
Case No. 19-2442, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
pat@wbmllp.com
- and -
Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq.
Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-893-7002
E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
mmcguire@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
Defendant-Appellee EPIC GAMES, a Maryland Corporation, is
represented by:
Wes John Camden, Esq.
Andrew Robert Shores, Esq.
Robert Charles Van Arnam, Esq.
WILLIAMS MULLEN
P. O. Box 1000
Raleigh, NC 27602-1000
Telephone: 919-981-4000
E-mail: wcamden@williamsmullen.com
ashores@williamsmullen.com
rvanarnam@williamsmullen.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212-248-3191
E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com
EPIC GAMES: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Ruling in Krohm Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Epic Games, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-00173-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Raleigh.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Terrence W. Boyle dismissed the case without prejudice.
Defendant Epic Games is the developer of Fortnite, a popular
videogame with millions of players in the United States and around
the world. The Plaintiff, like other Fortnite players, was
required to create an account in order to play, which entailed
providing personally identifiable information ("PII"). The
Defendant allegedly promised to maintain appropriate technical
safeguards of player data.
Around November 2018, a cybersecurity firm alerted the Defendant to
a vulnerability in Fortnite's system which allowed cyber-criminals
and unauthorized parties to access and extract PII, payment
information, and other sensitive data associated with Fortnite
players' accounts. Fortnite was allegedly the target of a data
hack in the summer of 2018, which affected millions of players'
accounts. The Defendant allegedly failed to take measures to cure
the cyber vulnerability and to alert customers that their
information may have been compromised.
In response to learning about the cyber vulnerability, the
Plaintiff has taken time and effort to mitigate the risk of
identity theft, including changing passwords and paying for credit
monitoring services. He has also allegedly experienced mental
anguish and anxiety from the fear of identity theft and fraud.
The Plaintiff brought the putative class action on behalf of the
millions of Fortnite account holders potentially affected by the
cyber vulnerability. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence. The
suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.
The Defendant removed the case to federal court in Illinois based
on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Once in federal court,
the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because of a forum selection
clause in the End User License Agreement ("EULA").
The appellate case is captioned as Eric Krohm v. Epic Games, Inc.,
Case No. 19-2463, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee ERIC KROHM, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
pat@wbmllp.com
- and -
Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq.
Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312-893-7002
E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
mmcguire@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
Defendant-Appellant EPIC GAMES, a Maryland Corporation, is
represented by:
Wes John Camden, Esq.
Andrew Robert Shores, Esq.
Robert Charles Van Arnam, Esq.
WILLIAMS MULLEN
P. O. Box 1000
Raleigh, NC 27602-1000
Telephone: 919-981-4000
E-mail: wcamden@williamsmullen.com
ashores@williamsmullen.com
rvanarnam@williamsmullen.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212-248-3191
E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com
FBCS INC: Faces Battiste FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Battiste, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc. and Jefferson Capital Systems,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03341-CDJ (E.D. Pa., June 26, 2020), seeks to
recover damages for FBCS's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
In their efforts to collect the debt, the Defendants contacted the
Plaintiff by a letter dated February 3, 2020, according to the
complaint. The Letter alleges that the Plaintiff owed $11,560.90,
but the Plaintiff contends that he did not owe $11,560.90. He adds
that he did not owe any money at all to the entity on whose behalf
the Defendants were seeking to collect.
FBCS is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: 516 203-7600
Facsimile: 516 706-5055
FLORITE PLUMBING: Jackson Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------
CECIL JACKSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FLORITE PLUMBING AND LEAK DETECTION, LLC, and KENNETH
MOON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00153-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 8,
2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in or around February 2018 to work
as a plumber's assistant until Defendant ceased operations.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week
throughout his employment. However, Defendants paid him only
straight time for all the hours he worked in excess of 40.
The complaint asserts that Defendants willingly, deliberately and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated
at one and one-half times their usual hourly rate when they worked
more than 40 hours per week.
Kenneth Moon controls work schedules and conditions of employment
and/or making pay decisions.
Florite Plumbing and Leak Detection, LLC provides plumbing
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
309 NE 1st Street
Gainsville, FL 32601
Tel: (352) 244-2069
Fax: (352) 372-3464
Email: mbirk@gainsvilleemploymentlaw.com
G-STAR RAW: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Martinez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. G-STAR RAW RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALLEN
ARCILLA, an individual, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. CGC
-20-585044 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 25, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by
failing to pay wages for time spent undergoing mandatory bag
searches and wages at separation.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims against the Defendants for sexual
harassment and failure to take reasonable steps necessary to
prevent and correct discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest on wages from
when those wages case due and were payable, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff began his employment with G-Star as brand ambassador,
a.k.a. sales associate, in the Defendant's retail store located in
San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Winer, Esq.
Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
Pataya Ann Surapruik, Esq.
WINER, BURRITT & SCOTT, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 433 1000
Facsimile: (510) 433 1001
E-mail: john@wmlawyers.com
brent@wmlawyers.com
ann@wmlawyers.com
GG HOMES: Charman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GG HOMES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01298-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged unlawful telemarketing practices in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received unsolicited
marketing text messages to his cellular telephone number (619)
***-1119 from Defendant's number (858) 707-7601 on or about May 26,
2017, on or about August 3, 2017, and on or about October 18, 2017
without prior express written consent from Plaintiff.
Allegedly, Defendant has a practice of sending unsolicited,
automated text messages to individuals and real estate
professionals to solicit their services as professional
homebuyers.
However, Defendant's unsolicited and unwanted text messages
transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular device have invaded Plaintiff's
privacy and distracted and annoyed Plaintiff upon receipt.
GG Homes, Inc. offers home buying services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
14410 Via Venezia #1404
San Diego, CA 92129-1666
Tel: (858) 299-5879
Fax: (619) 354-7281
Email: alex@madarlaw.net
GLOBAL PERSONALS: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PERSONALS, LLC d/b/a BANGLOCALS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-at-00682 (E.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an unsolicited text
message from Defendant's telephone number (410) 753-6128 on June 9,
2020 which contained a link of a sexually explicit video of a naked
woman advertising a discreet hookup service by encouraging the
viewer to sign up to meet individuals that want to have sex and by
offering a free membership.
Plaintiff asserts that he never provided Defendant his express
written consent to receive such text message which was allegedly
transmitted through an automatic telephone dialing system.
Moreover, the unsolicited text message sent by Defendant caused
Plaintiff actual harm, inconvenienced, and disruption to his daily
life.
Global Personals, LLC d/b/a Banglocals, LLC provides online
entertainment solutions offering a network of traditional, casual
and niche dating sites. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Emails: ak@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
GRAND LUX: Court Dismisses ADA NYCHRL Suit
------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York Defendants' issued an Opinion and Order granting Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GRAND LUX CAFE LLC, Defendant. No. 19-cv-10345 (MKV). (S.D.N.Y.)
Before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez brings this putative class action
against Defendant Grand Lux Café LLC alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human
Rights Law, (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law
(NYCHRL). Dominguez is blind. He alleges that Grand Lux Café
discriminates against the blind because it does not sell braille,
or otherwise blind-accessible, gift cards.
Grand Lux Café moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Dominguez has failed to establish standing under the ADA because he
does not offer any "non-conclusory factual allegations that
demonstrate a plausible intention to return to a Grand Lux Café
restaurant but for barriers to access. Instead, the First Amended
Complaint merely asserts, in conclusory fashion, that Dominguez
intends to immediately purchase at least one store gift card from
the Defendant as soon as the Defendant sells store gift cards that
are accessible to the blind and utilize it at Defendant's
restaurant.
And it rehearses, in equally conclusory fashion, the legal bases
for finding an intention to return past visits and proximity
without providing any supporting factual details. Specifically, the
First Amended Complaint alleges that Dominguez has been a customer
at Defendant's stores on prior occasions and that he resides within
close proximity to at least one of Defendant's physical locations.
Dominguez fails to offer any factual context, for the allegations
about his past visits or proximity to Grand Lux Café restaurants.
Dominguez fails to offer even that much detail. The First Amended
Complaint says nothing about when Dominguez allegedly visited a
Grand Lux Café restaurant, or the number of prior occasions on
which he was a customer, or how long it has been.
Here, by contrast, Dominguez does not even explain what he means
when he asserts that he intends to go to Defendant's restaurant.
He fails to identify which location or locations of the Grand Lux
Café chain he has visited in the past, which location is in close
proximity to his home, what he means by close proximity or which
location he allegedly wishes to visit in the future. Dominguez thus
offers no plausible basis for the inference that he intend[s] to
return to the subject location, wherever that may be.
Moreover, Dominguez does not explain how the failure of Grand Lux
Café to sell braille, or other blind-accessible, gift cards
creates a barrier to his return to their physical restaurants. To
be sure, the Second Circuit has recognized that deterrence
constitutes an injury under the ADA.
Instead of alleging a particularized injury from a barrier to
accessing a Grand Lux Café restaurant, Dominguez filed a generic
complaint about a failure to sell braille gift cards.
Indeed, Dominguez has filed dozens of substantially identical
complaints in this district against various retail and dining.
The motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED, and this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cowc36 from
Leagle.com
HEWLETT PACKARD: Class Settlement in Wolf Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval of the proposed class settlement in the case
captioned ANNE WOLF, ROBIN SERGI, ANTHONY FEHRENBACH, and CARLOS
ROMERO individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant. Case No. 5:15-cv-01221-TJH-GJSx. (C.D. Cal.).
The Settlement Class is defined as:
All persons or entities residing in the States of California and
Texas who purchased an HP LaserJet Pro P1102w Printer, as well
as all persons or entities residing in California who purchased
an HP LaserJet Pro 200 Color MFP M276nw printer, between April
1, 2014, and the present.
The Court finds the settlement was entered into in good faith, that
the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and that the
settlement satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for
final approval of the class action settlement under California and
federal law, including the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
In addition to any recovery that Plaintiffs may receive under the
Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiffs' efforts and risks
taken on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves the
payment of an incentive award to the Plaintiff Anne Wolf, in the
amount of $5,000, and as to the other Named Plaintiffs in the
amount of $2,000 each.
The Court also approves the payment of attorneys' fees to Class
Counsel in the sum of $859,456.86 and the reimbursement of
litigation expenses in the sum of $81,456.86.11.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/t3udvkg from Leagle.com.
Anne Wolf, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Robin Sergi, Carlos Romero &
Carlos Fehenbach, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd M. Friedman
-tfriedman@toddflaw.com - Law Office of Todd M. Friedman PC &
Adrian Robert Bacon - abacon@ toddflaw.com - Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman PC.
Hewlett Packard Company, Defendant, represented by Marshall L.
Baker - mbaker@akingump.com - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP
& Michael James Stortz - madame@akingump.com - Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer and Feld LLP.
HFM INC: Brigati Suit Removed From Circuit Court to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Steven Brigati, Paul DeSoye,
Dennis Payne, T. Michael Payne, W. O. Pearce, and Gary Scarafoni,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HFM,
Inc. and Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 2020CA000825,
was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, St. Lucie County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft.
Pierce) on June 24, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-14208-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elaine Johnson James, Esq.
Noel Robert Boeke, Esq.
ELAINE JOHNSON JAMES, P.A.
P.O. Box 31512
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Telephone: (561) 245-1144
Facsimile: (561) 244-9580
E-mail: ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com
noel.boeke@hklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles Alvin Wachter, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 4100
P.O. Box 1288 (33601)
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 227-6337
Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
E-mail: cwachter@hklaw.com
- and -
Courtney L. Hayden, Esq.
Jennifer L. Chunias, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
E-mail: chayden@goodwinlaw.com
jchunias@goodwinlaw.com
HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Golden et al Sue Over Unlawful Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK GOLDEN and GENEVA GOLDEN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGGINS BENJAMIN,
PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00627 (M.D.N.C., July 8, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff has an alleged debt, namely homeowners association fees.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs received a written
communication from Defendant dated April 22, 2020 concerning the
debt. However, the statement in the letter failed to inform
Plaintiffs that the debt will be assumed to be valid by Defendant.
The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to meaningfully convey
to Plaintiffs that unless Plaintiffs dispute the validity of the
alleged debt, or any portion thereof, within 30 days after receipt
of the initial communication, the debt will be assumed valid by
Defendant, thereby violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3).
Higgins Benjamin PLLC is a law firm in Greensboro, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chris Brown, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
121 Kendlewick Dr.
Cary, NC 27511
Tel: (888) 332-7252
Fax: (866) 317-2674
Email: cbrown@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Fails to Provide Rest & Meal Periods, Carlson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation; and THE
HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 20-2-10496-5 SEA
(Wash. Super., King Cty., June 26, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated Washington's Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Rebate
Act, and the Industrial Welfare Act by failing to ensure that
supervisors and specialists are provided legally compliant rest
breaks and meal periods.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
in-store supervisors and specialists employed by Home Depot in
Washington state.
Chris Carlson worked as an in-store supervisor for the Defendants
in their Federal Way, Washington store from April 2004 until
September 19, 2019.
Home Depot is the nation's largest home improvement retailer,
supplying tools, construction products, and other goods and
services from big box stores throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Newman Suit Challenges Separation of Match
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NEWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant MATCH GROUP, INC. v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, IAC HOLDINGS,
INC., BARRY DILLER, JOEY LEVIN, SHARMISTHA DUBEY,
AMANDA GINSBERG, ANN MCDANIEL, THOMAS J. MCINERNEY, GLENN
SCHIFFMAN, PAMELA S. SEYMON, ALAN G. SPOON, MARK STEIN, and GREGG
WINIARSKI, the Defendants, and MATCH GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Nominal Defendants, Case No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Del. Ch.,
June 24, 2020), arises from the conflicted, unfair separation and
reorganization of Match from its controlling stockholder, IAC.
The case is a derivative and stockholder Class action complaint
against IAC and Diller for breaching their fiduciary duties as the
Company's controlling stockholders, and against the Director
Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties as directors and/or
officers of Match.
In August 2019, IAC announced that it was considering separating
Match from the remaining businesses of IAC. In response to IAC's
announcement, the Match Board formed a fatally conflicted
three-person special committee to negotiate the terms of the
Separation.
According to the complaint, the Separation will segregate Match's
businesses from IAC's remaining businesses through a series of
transactions that will form two new companies--"New IAC" and "New
Match." As a result of the Separation, Match stockholders will
become stockholders of New Match, which will hold Match's former
businesses and certain IAC financing subsidiaries and be separate
from New IAC, which will hold the other businesses of IAC.
The Plaintiff contends that the transactions are grossly unfair to
Match and its public stockholders. The Plaintiff notes that Match
is providing IAC with a $325 million premium in exchange for IAC's
high-vote Class B stock by assuming costly IAC Options even though
IAC devised the idea for the Separation and will receive a
multitude of non-ratable benefits therefrom. Moreover, the payment
of the premium to IAC violates Match's Charter and compensates IAC
for conversion of its high-vote Match shares into regular common
shares even though IAC will retain effective control over New Match
following consummation of the Separation.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover for the breaches of fiduciary duty,
breaches of contract, breaches of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract
perpetrated by IAC, Diller and the Director Defendants in
connection with the Separation.
The Plaintiff is a beneficial owner of shares of Match.
IAC operates Vimeo, Dotdash and Care.com, among many other
companies, and has majority ownership of both (i) Match, which
includes Match (TM), Tinder (TM), PlentyOfFish (TM), OkCupid (TM)
and Hinge (TM); and (ii) ANGI Homeservices Inc. ("ANGI"), which
includes HomeAdvisor (TM), Angie's List (TM) and Handy (TM).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504-4957
IDL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces C.B. Mills Suit in New York Supreme Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IDL Communications &
Electric, Inc., et al., The case is captioned as C.B. MILLS
ELECTRIC, LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. IDL COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL., Case No.
652691/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 24, 2020).
IDL Communications is an electrical contractor.[BN]
IDT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment on Hernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Elane Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division granted Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned SCOTT MACKEY and DANIEL
HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 6756,
(N.D. Ill.).
Illinois resident Scott Mackey and New Jersey resident Daniel
Hernandez filed an action against IDT Energy, a Delaware
corporation, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
They seek to represent two nationwide classes comprising of: (1)
individuals who received calls on their cell phones that IDT made
using an automatic telephone dialing system; and (2) individuals
whose phone numbers were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and
who received multiple calls from IDT within a one-year period.
IDT Energy filed a motion for summary judgment of Hernandez's
claims. Hernandez argues that the Court lack personal jurisdiction
over IDT with respect to those claims.
Plaintiffs allege that Hernandez received telemarketing calls on
his cell phone from or on behalf of IDT since March 2018. At the
time, Hernandez's number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Plaintiffs allege that IDT's unwanted calls to Hernandez continued
at a rate of three to four calls per day over the next several
weeks, despite Hernandez's requests that IDT stop calling him. In
their response to defendant's motion for summary judgment,
plaintiffs state that Hernandez was called on a New Jersey
telephone number and that Hernandez was in New Jersey when he
received the unwanted calls. Plaintiffs do not claim that
Hernandez received any calls in Illinois or on an Illinois phone
number.
Defendant argues that under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017),
these facts do not support the exercise of specific personal
jurisdiction over it with respect to Hernandez's claims.
Bristol-Myers was a mass tort action in which a group of primarily
non-California residents injured outside of California asserted
claims in a California state court against a pharmaceutical company
not subject to general jurisdiction in California. Reaffirming the
well-settled principle that due process requires a "connection
between the forum and the specific claims at issue," 137 S. Ct. at
1781, the Court reversed the California Supreme Court's conclusion
that the state courts had specific personal jurisdiction over the
claims brought by the nonresident plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that Hernandez's claims do not arise out of
any contact IDT had with him in Illinois. In their view, however,
the jurisdictional limits the Court imposed in Bristol-Myers apply
only to state courts considering claims brought by out-of-state
plaintiffs who allege out-of-state injuries, and do not restrict
federal courts' exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants
sued by out-of-state plaintiffs asserting federal claims.
Judge Bucklo opines, "Illinois law determines the limits of
personal jurisdiction, and the principles of Bristol-Myers apply."
Plaintiffs' final argument is that even if personal jurisdiction
over IDT is lacking with respect to Hernandez's claims, IDT waived
its jurisdictional objection by not raising it sooner. It is true
that objections to personal jurisdiction are waivable, but IDT did
not waive its objection in this case. Unlike in Rice v. Nova
Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1994), the case on which
plaintiffs primarily rely, IDT did not "fail or refuse to press"
the defense or create the impression that it had "abandoned" its
objection. Indeed, contrary to plaintiff's representation, IDT
indicated in its July 10, 2019, motion to compel arbitration and
stay discovery that it intended to seek summary judgment based on
the defense if the undisputed evidence confirmed - as it ultimately
did - that Hernandez's alleged injury occurred outside of Illinois.
Under the circumstances of this case, I decline to hold that IDT
waived its personal jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it
sooner, Judge Bucklo says.
For the foregoing reasons, IDT's motion for summary judgment is
granted, Judge Bucklo rules. In addition, IDT's motion to compel
arbitration and stay Hernandez's claims is denied as moot. To the
extent IDT's request in that motion to bifurcate individual and
class discovery is not also rendered moot by the dismissal of
Hernandez's claims, that motion is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tog8ghx from
Leagle.com.
Scott Mackey & Daniel Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward A.
Broderick - ted@broderick-law.com - Broderick Law, P.C., pro hac
vice, Matthew Mccue - mmccue@massattorneys.net - Law Office Of
Matthew Mccue, Matthew Mccue , Law Office Of Matthew Mccue, pro hac
vice, Samuel J. Strauss - sam@turkestrauss.com - Turke & Strauss
LLP, pro hac vice, Alan W. Nicgorski – mke@hansenreynolds.com -
Hansen Reynolds LLC, Alex S. Phillips - alexp@turkestrauss.com -
Turke & Strauss LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph J. Jacobi -
jjacobi@hansenreynolds.com - Hansen Reynolds LLC & Michael C.
Lueder , Hansen Reynolds LLC, 301 N Broadway Ste 400 Milwaukee, WI,
53202-2660
IDT Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason C. Cyrulnik ,
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue 7th Floor New
York, NY, pro hac vice, Motty Shulman , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,
333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504, pro hac vice & Bennett W. Lasko -
blasko@laskolegal.com - Lasko Legal Services Ltd.
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that
purchasers of Immunomedics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMU) filed a class
action complaint against the company for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April 20, 2016 and June 2,
2016. Immunomedics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products
for the targeted treatment of cancer. The company is developing its
antibody-drug conjugate IMMU-12.
If you suffered a loss as a result of Immunomedics' misconduct,
click https://www.robbinsllp.com/immunomedics-inc-jun-20-lin/
According to the complaint, on April 19, 2016, Immunomedics
announced that the Company would present updated results for
IMMU-132 treatment at The American Society of Clinical Oncology
("ASCO"). However, on June 2, 2016, media outlets reported that
ASCO had removed Immunomedics regarding the Company's IMMU-132
breast cancer drug from ASCO's annual meeting. ASCO explained their
decision, revealing that Immunomedics misrepresented that the
Company's abstract for IMMU-132 contained updated and previously
undisclosed results from a mid-stage study, when in fact that data
was actually old and previously seen. On this news, Immunomedics'
stock fell almost 15% to close at $4.52 per share on June 3, 2016.
Finally, on June 1, 2020, U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden
denied Immunomedics' motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiff
had sufficiently alleged the Company had made false or misleading
statements about its ASCO presentation. Her decision paves the way
for litigation to proceed.
Contact:
Leo Kandinov
Robbins LLP
E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsllp.com
Tel: (619) 525-3990
Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
Web site: http://www.robbinsllp.com/
[GN]
INFINITY AUTO: 11th Cir. Affirms Plantation Breach Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued
an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned PLANTATION OPEN
MRI, LLC, a/a/o JORGE HIDALGO, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 19-10414 and 19-11032 (11th
Cir.).
Plantation Open MRI, LLC, brought this class action against
Infinity Auto Insurance Company for breach of contract. Plantation
(a medical services provider) alleges that Infinity had underpaid
its insureds' personal injury protection benefits.
Infinity later moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim. The contract specified that reimbursement for medical
expenses shall be limited to and shall not exceed 80% of the
schedule of maximum charges set by Florida law. Yet the complaint
alleged that Infinity had to provide 100% coverage of reasonable
medical charges.
Given the contract's clear language to the contrary, the District
Court granted Infinity's motion to dismiss. Plantation moved for
post-judgment relief, which the District Court denied. Plantation
then appeals.
The Appeals Court notes that the District Court did not err in
dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. At the heart
of the complaint is a single allegation: Infinity's contract was at
least ambiguous about whether the insurer would cover 100% of
reasonable medical expenses. Not at all. The contract said that
coverage for medical expenses shall be limited to and shall not
exceed 80% of the schedule of maximum charges set by Florida law.
As Plantation's only support for its full-coverage reading, it
points to language in the section entitled Limits of Liability
hardly a place one would expect to find an expansion of coverage.
And an expansion of coverage is nowhere to be found. Plantation
leans heavily on a sentence in the contract explaining that the
total limit of benefits is based on the difference between such
deductible amount and the total amount of all loss and expense
incurred.
By Plantation's lights, the sentence means that an insured need
only pay a deductible, leaving Infinity to cover the rest of the
medical bill. But the contract does not say that Infinity's
coverage is the difference between the deductible and total medical
expense; it says the coverage is based on that difference. The
contract, like the statutory scheme it follows, first applies the
deductible to the medical bill and only then requires Infinity to
cover 80% of what is leftover. No ambiguity exists: the contract
simply does not support Plantation's reading.
AFFIRMED.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ardxod from Leagle.com
INTEGRITY SERVICE: Conditional Certification in Moyer Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton, granted conditional
class certification in the case captioned James Moyer, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Integrity Service Group, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-198, (S.D. Ohio).
Plaintiffs, who are janitors who worked for Defendants, allege
Defendants failed to pay them and a class of similarly-situated
janitors overtime wages for years. The group of similarly-situated
janitors includes all current and former employees of Defendants
who have worked as janitors from June 28, 2016 through the present
who were not paid time and a half their regular rate of pay for the
hours they worked over 40 hours. Rather, Defendants allegedly paid
the janitors straight time, even for hours worked beyond forty
hours in a workweek.
Plaintiffs seek an order conditionally certifying a collective
action for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), defined as:
Any Janitor currently or formerly working for Integrity Service
Group, LLC, Deanna Church, and/or Rex Church, between the time
period of June 28, 2016 and the present who was classified as
either an exempt employee or a contractor and was not paid time-
and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
In the instant case, Plaintiffs have brought their unpaid wage
claims individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees,
seeking conditional certification of and notice to members. The
allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiffs' declarations agree
that Defendants staff share similar primary job duties and
responsibilities and are alleged to be victims of the same policy,
decision and practice to deny them overtime pay. While Defendants
assert that the named Plaintiffs were supervisors, Plaintiffs
allege that they were paid on an hourly basis without overtime
compensation.
Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join form is accurate
and informative. Both the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form
advises putative collective members of the pending litigation,
describes the legal and factual bases of Plaintiffs' claims,
informs collective members of the right to opt in and that
participation in the lawsuit is voluntary, and provides
instructions on how to opt in.
In order to accurately, efficiently, and quickly facilitate the
Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Join form, the Court orders
Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a list of all putative
class members, including their names, positions of employment,
last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email
addresses, work locations, and dates of employment.
In sum, Judge Rose orders that:
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification, and
Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs is
GRANTED; and
- Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA class is CERTIFIED and Plaintiffs'
proposed Notice of FLSA claim is APPROVED.
Plaintiffs are ordered to propose a procedure whereby notification
of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim will be sent to all potential opt-in
plaintiffs.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Entry and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wamfmbu from Leagle.com.
James Moyer & Karen Moyer, Plaintiffs, represented by Bradley
Lawrence Gibson, Gibson Law, LLC, Brian Greivenkamp , Gibson Law &
Angela Jo Gibson , Gibson Law, LLC, 9200 Montgomery Road, Suite
11A, Cincinnati, OH 45242
Integrity Service Group, LLC, Deanna Church & Rex Church,
Defendants, represented by David Michael Duwel , David M. Duwel &
Associates, 130 W. 2nd St., Ste. 2101, Dayton, OH 45402-1502
Deanna Church, Integrity Service Group, LLC & Rex Church, Counter
Claimants, represented by David Michael Duwel , David M. Duwel &
Associates.
James Moyer & Karen Moyer, Counter Defendants, represented by
Bradley Lawrence Gibson , Gibson Law, LLC, Brian Greivenkamp ,
Gibson Law & Angela Jo Gibson , Gibson Law, LLC.
INTELEX USA: Gonzalez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Intelex USA, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Raymond
Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Intelex USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05218
(S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020).
Intelex cloud-based software manages environment, health & safety,
quality and suppliers for regulatory compliance, and streamline ISO
initiatives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Court Compels Arbitration in Fontaine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Vermont granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to
Stay the Proceedings in the case captioned ASHLEY FONTAINE,
Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a TRADER
DUKE'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00133, (D
Vt.).
Plaintiff Ashley Fontaine commenced the action against Defendant
Interstate Management Company, d/b/a Trader Duke's Restaurant &
Lounge, alleging three state law claims arising from her employment
with Defendant: (1) sexual harassment in violation of 21 V.S.A.
Section 495h, (2) discrimination based on sex in violation of 21
V.S.A. Section 495, and (3) retaliation for reporting sexual
harassment in violation of 21 V.S.A. Section 495.
On September 12, 2019, Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to
stay the proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") on
the grounds that Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration
agreement in which she agreed to arbitrate harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation claims. Plaintiff filed an
opposition on September 23, 2019, arguing that the arbitration
agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
On review, the Court notes that in this case, the Arbitration
Agreement is short, conspicuously labeled, and reminds the
signatory on every page and in bold font that it is an agreement to
arbitrate that affects the signatory's right to bring certain
claims in a court or in an administrative proceeding. The
operative language is non-technical and unambiguous. The claims
Plaintiff seeks to assert in this lawsuit fall squarely within the
scope of "any dispute, past, present, or future" between Plaintiff
and Defendant or its employees, including "without limitation, . .
. claims based upon or related to discrimination, harassment,
retaliation, . . . and all other federal, state, or local legal
claims arising out of or relating to your . . . employment." The
Arbitration Agreement must therefore be enforced under both federal
and state law.
This, however, does not foreclose Plaintiff's claim that it is
unconscionable.
Because the Arbitration Agreement vests the Arbitrator with the
"exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the
validity, applicability, enforceability, waiver, or formation" of
the Arbitration Agreement, "including, but not limited to[,] any
claim that all or any part of [the] Agreement is void or
voidable,", it is the Arbitrator and not this court that must
consider Plaintiff's unconscionability defense.
For the reasons stated, the Court grants Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration for Plaintiff's claims without deciding the
merits of Plaintiff's unconscionability challenges.
Furthermore, the Court refers all of Plaintiff's claims to
arbitration and Defendant requests a stay, the Court grants
Defendant's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sa6jc4v from .com
Ashley Fontaine, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Mabie, Esq. ,
Corum Mabie Cook Prodan Angell & Secrest, P.L.C., 45 Linden Street,
Brattleboro, VT 05301-2966
Interstate Management Company, LLC, doing business as Trader Duke's
Restaurant & Lounge, Defendant, represented by Christopher B.
Kaczmarek, Esq.- ckaczmarek@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Eric D. Jones, Esq. - ejones@langrock.com - Langrock
Sperry & Wool, LLP & Hilary Detmold, Esq. , Littler Mendelson,
P.C., 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 300, Las Vegas, NV 89169, pro
hac vice.
K&K BORING: Mackey Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Drill Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MACKEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFF vs. PABLO GONZALES, DEFENDANT, Case No.
5:20-cv-805 (W.D. Tex., July 10, 2020) is an action brought by
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and Texas Labor Code
Section 61.014.
Plaintiff seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff his final
paycheck after terminating his employment and failure to pay proper
overtime wages under the FLSA within the applicable statutory
limitations period.
Plaintiff performed work for Defendant as a drill operator.
Plaintiff and other Construction Workers who were classified as
independent contractors regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week throughout their tenure with Defendant. Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff and other Construction Workers classified as independent
contractors one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours of work in excess of forty (40) in a single workweek.
Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying Plaintiff and other
Construction Workers as independent contractors rather than
employees entitled to overtime pay.
Defendant Pablo Gonzales does business as K&K Boring, a
construction services provider with projects throughout Texas,
including San Antonio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Soares Alleges Incorrect Sick Pay & Incentives
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE SOARES, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-VOE-2020-5844 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 9, 2020) brings this
complaint against Defendants for their alleged illegal employment
practices in violations of the California Labor Code Sections
201-203, 246, and 2698, and the California Industrial Welfare
Commission's Wage Orders.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid Loader from on or about April 2018 and was terminated
on or about May 4, 2020.
Plaintiff asserts that although Defendants paid him and other
similarly situated employees sick pay and non-discretionary
incentive wages, but it was paid at their base rates of pay rather
than the correct, higher regular rates of pay pursuant to Labor
Code Section 246. Additionally, Defendants routinely deducted taxes
and other withholdings from the wages that it paid Class Members in
the form of sick pay.
Moreover, Plaintiff sent written notice to the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and to Defendants via certified
mail concerning Defendants' violations of the Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA). However, the LWDA has yet to provide notice as
to whether it intends to investigate Defendants' Labor Code
violations.
KEHE Distributors, Inc. operates distribution centers throughout
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Max W. Gavron, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
Website: http://www.diversitylaw.com
- and –
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Tel: (831) 531-4214
Fax: (831) 634-0333
Emails: bill@polarislawgroup.com
KELLER UNLIMITED: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Sellers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Keller Unlimited LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Sellers, et al. v. Keller
Unlimited LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02758-RMG, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the minimum wage
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ryan C. Sellers is a resident of Charleston County, South
Carolina, and worked as a bartender for the Defendants.
The Defendants own and operate Two Keys Tavern and Tow Keys Public
House in South Carolina. Two Keys Public House and Two Keys Tavern
are Restaurants/Sports Bar.
The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Sellers, et al. v. Keller
Unlimited LLC, et al., Case No. 19-2400, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees RYAN C. SELLERS, On Behalf of Herself and
Others Similarly Situated, REBECCA FREEMAN, ALEXIS FORD-DOAN,
HEATHER STEELE, TANDRA PRUSIA, ASHLEIGH BOSEMAN, MATTHEW ROBINSON,
PAIGE RICHARDSON, KRYSTAL GATELY, STEPHEN DANIEL FOWLER, ALISON B.
SANDERS and CHRISTOPHER WASHINGTON are represented by:
Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW FIRM
1037D Chuck Dawley Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: 800-385-8160
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
Defendants-Appellants KELLER UNLIMITED LLC, d/b/a Two Keys Tavern;
57 LIMITED LLC, d/b/a Two Keys Public House; and MARK KELLER,
Individually, are represented by:
Donald Jay Budman, Esq.
SOLOMON, BUDMAN, STRICKER & SCHWARTZ, LLP
Parkshore Centre
1 Poston Road
Charleston, SC 29407-0000
Telephone: 843-763-1118
KEWAUNEE FABRICATIONS: Faces Hildebrandt Suit Over Unfair Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARKIE HILDENBRANDT and BLAKE HILDENBRANDT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEWAUNEE
FABRICATIONS LLC 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54902,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1053 (E.D. Wis., July 11, 2020) is a
collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws, Wis. Stat. Section 109.01 et seq.,
Wis. Stat. Section 104.01 et seq., Wis. Stat. Section 103.001 et
seq., Wis. Admin. Code Section DWD 274.01 et seq., and Wis. Admin.
Code Section DWD 272.001 et seq. ("WWPCL") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of
Defendant, for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and
WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
On March 30, 2020, Defendant hired Plaintiff, Markie Hildenbrandt,
as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working at Defendant's
Kewaunee location in the position of Welder/Fabricator.
In approximately early April 2020, Defendant hired Plaintiff, Blake
Hildenbrandt, as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working at
Defendant's Kewaunee location in the position of
Welder/Fabricator.
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective seek relief on a collective
basis challenging, among other FLSA violations, Defendant's
practice of failing to properly and lawfully compensate employees
for all work performed and/or hours worked at the correct and
lawful overtime rate of pay each workweek, in violation of the
FLSA.
Kewaunee Fabrications LLC is an Oshkosh, Wisconsin-headquartered
heavy fabrications specialist engaging in fabrication, machining,
welding, assembly, and finishing services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Continues to Defend Chitturi Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kingold Jewelry, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 6, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, RAJANI
CHITTURI v. KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02886.
On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit styled RAJANI CHITTURI v.
KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02886, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.
The complaint was filed on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the
Company between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020.
The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts
and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon
investors, and knowingly or recklessly disseminated or approved
statements about the Company's business operations, financial
performance and prospects that were materially false and
misleading.
The complaint asserted claims for violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The claim sought damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.
Founded in 2002, Kingold Jewelry, Inc. is a leading producer of
24-karat jewelry in China, and currently supplies large
wholesalers, as well as dozens of retailers nationwide. Kingold has
distinguished itself as a major brand - both in terms of its
world-class designs and superior quality. The company is based in
Wuhan, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court Dismisses Knoppe Insurance Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CHARLES A. KNOPPE,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT of
INSURANCE, and NANCY G. ATKINS, COMMISSIONER, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:18-CV-264-RGJ, (W.D. Ky.).
Charles Knoppe commenced the class action complaint against
defendants Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, the Department
of Insurance (DOI), and the Commissioner in Nelson County Circuit
Court. Knoppe is an insured under a long-term disability insurance
policy issued by Lincoln to the City of Bardstown for its Kentucky
resident employees.
The class action complaint alleges breach of contract, bad faith,
unfair claims settlement practices under KRS Section 304.12-230,
and unfair and deceptive practices under KRS Section 304.12-010.
Knoppe alleges that Lincoln calculated improperly, and continues to
calculate improperly, the monthly long-term disability benefits
payable under the insurance policy to Knoppe and others similarly
situated.
Lincoln removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) and 1441(a).
Knoppe now moves to remand the matter to Nelson Circuit Court.
Knoppe argues that the DOI and Commissioner are not fraudulently
joined, so no diversity exists, and the amount in controversy is
not satisfied. Additionally, the DOI and Commissioner move to
dismiss, arguing Knoppe's failure to state a claim against them.
The Court notes that under Kentucky law, when administrative
remedies exist, they must be exhausted before seeking judicial
relief. Kentucky statutes provide a detailed administrative
process to seek relief for violating Kentucky insurance statutes
and regulations.
Knoppe does not argue that he exhausted this remedy and the record
does not reflect that Knoppe filed a complaint with the
Commissioner or DOI. Instead, Knoppe argues that he did not have
to exhaust his administrative remedies. This argument fails
because, with limited exception, Kentucky courts defer to the
doctrine of exhaustion to promote uniform regulation and
consistency, the Court opines.
Moreover, Knoppe has not shown that filing a complaint with the DOI
and Commissioner would be an exercise in futility, the Court points
out. Without an exception, Knoppe must first exhaust his remedies
under the insurance code, after which he may seek judicial review.
Because Knoppe did not provide the DOI with the opportunity to
correct its own alleged error, Kentucky state courts would lack
jurisdiction over his claims, regardless of their merit. As a
result, Knoppe's claims do not present a colorable cause of action
relief against the DOI and Commissioner. Thus, the DOI and
Commissioner are improperly joined and disregarded for diversity
jurisdiction. Knoppe's motion to remand is denied, the thus
rules.
In addition, because Knoppe has not exhausted his administrative
remedies against the DOI and Commissioner, his claims against the
DOI and Commissioner will be dismissed without prejudice and the
DOI's and Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss is granted, the Court
holds.
As to the amount-in-controversy, the Court finds that Lincoln
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy is met, even without a clear showing for damages for
mental anguish.
Even if Lincoln had not shown by a preponderance of evidence that
Knoppe's individual claim meets the threshold, the
amount-in-controversy is satisfied under the Class Action Fairness
Act, the Court adds.
The purported class is limited to Kentucky residents. Lincoln
provides sufficient evidence the class is estimated at 153 people
seeking $4,333,415 in past benefits, plus mental anguish damages,
and punitive damages. The compensatory damages alone would total
around $6.5 million, without having to determine an appropriate
multiplier for punitive damages to meet the required threshold
amount. The amount-incontroversy would thus also be satisfied
because the putative class could exceed the $5 million dollar
threshold.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r8xe4cd from
Leagle.com
Charles A. Knoppe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Grabhorn , Grabhorn
Law Office, PLLC & Michael D. Grabhorn , Grabhorn Law Office, PLLC,
2525 Nelson Miller Pkwy, Ste 107, Louisville, KY 40223
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Edmund S. Sauer -
tmyers@bradley.com - Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP.
LOUS|ANA: Settlement in Creppel v. La. Health Dept. Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana has granted final approval of the proposed
class settlement in the case captioned DONNELL CREPPEL, ET AL., v.
REBEKAH GEE, ET AL, Civil Action No. 19-00324-BAJ-RLB, (M.D. La.).
On review, the Court found the terms of the Settlement fair,
reasonable and adequate. The Court orders that the Settlement
Agreement be effective, binding and enforced according to its terms
and conditions.
The Court found that for purposes of the settlement the
requirements for certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 are satisfied.
The Class is defined as: All current and future Medicaid
recipients under the age of twenty-one (21) in Louisiana who are
certified in the Children's Choice Waiver, the New Opportunities
Waiver, the Supports Waiver, or the Residential Options Waiver who
are also prior authorized to receive extended home health services
or intermittent nursing services which do not require prior
authorization but are not receiving some or all of the hours of
extended home health services or intermittent nursing services as
authorized by the Defendants.
Based on the settlement agreement, the Court dismisses the
Complaint and Action against the Defendants with prejudice.
Class Counsel is awarded $94,500 in attorneys' fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2020 Final Approval Order
is available at https://is.gd/3xrV3j from PacerMonitor.com.
A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yx4rtsh4 from Leagle.com.
Donnell Creppel, a minor child by and through his mother & Sarah
Washington, a minor child by and through his mother, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amitai Heller , Advocacy Center, 8325 Oak Street New
Orleans, LA 70118, Elizabeth Edwards , National Health Law
Program, pro hac vice, 1444 I St. NW, Ste. 1105, Washington, D.C.,
District of Columbia, Jane Perkins , National Health Law Program,
1444 I St. NW, Ste. 1105, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia,
pro hac vice, Martha Jane Perkins , National Health Law Program,
1444 I St. NW, Ste. 1105, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia &
Ronald Kenneth Lospennato , Advocacy Center, 8325 Oak Street, New
Orleans, LA 70118
Jessica Michot, a minor child by and through his mother & Kodi
Wilson, a minor child by and through his mother, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amitai Heller , Advocacy Center, Elizabeth Edwards,
National Health Law Program, pro hac vice, Martha Jane Perkins ,
National Health Law Program & Ronald Kenneth Lospennato , Advocacy
Center.
Rebekah Gee, in her official capacity as Secretary of Louisiana
Department of Health & Louisiana Department of Health, Defendants,
represented by Kimberly Lacour Sullivan, Louisiana Department of
Health & Hospitals, Rebecca Claire Clement , Department of Health
and Hospitals & Ryan Jude Romero , Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals.
MASSACHUSETTS: App. Ct. Affirms Denial of Howell's Early Release
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order
affirming the Trial Court's Order denying the Defendant's Motion
for Early Release in the case captioned COMMONWEALTH v. BRIAN
HOWELL, Case No. 20-P-582 (Mass. App.).
The Defendant currently is serving a sentence at the Massachusetts
Correctional Institution at Shirley for various convictions.
According to him, that sentence is due to expire in mid-August of
this year. Pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a), as appearing in 435
Mass. 1501 (2001), the Defendant filed what he styled a "motion for
release from unlawful restraint."
The motion sought the Defendant's early release from his sentence
because of the risks posed to him by the COVID-19 pandemic while he
is incarcerated. According to his motion and accompanying papers,
he is at particular risk based on his suffering from chronic
respiratory ailments.
Before the Appeals Court is the Defendant's expedited appeal from
the order denying motion for early release. The Appeals Court
affirms the denial.
The Supreme Judicial Court has made it clear that judges have
limited authority to release inmates serving custodial sentences
due to the threats posed by COVID-19, citing Committee for Pub.
Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court, 484 Mass. 431,
450 (2020). A motion seeking such relief properly lies only where
"a defendant (1) has moved under Mass. R. Crim. P. 29, [as
appearing in 474 Mass. 1503 (2016),] within sixty days after
imposition of sentence or the issuance of a decision on all pending
appeals, to revise or revoke his or her sentence, (2) has appealed
the conviction or sentence and the appeal remains pending, or (3)
has moved for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30."
None of those circumstances apply here. Instead, the Defendant is
arguing that relief is necessary and appropriate because his
continued detention under the present circumstances amounts to a
violation of the Federal and State Constitutions (such as the
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment
to the Unites States Constitution). He correctly points out that,
were an inmate to prove that the conditions of an inmate's
confinement amounted to a constitutional violation, a judge
presumably could remedy that violation. The question remains,
however, what the proper vehicle would be to assert such a claim.
The Defendant contends that, in a trio of recent cases involving
juvenile sentences, the Supreme Judicial Court has recognized
motions brought pursuant to rule 30(a) as a proper vehicle to
challenge sentences as cruel and unusual. However, in each of those
cases, it was the sentence itself that was being challenged as
unconstitutional.
In the case before Appeals Court, the Defendant is not challenging
his sentence. Rather, he is making a claim that the fact-specific
conditions of his confinement on a valid sentence render that
confinement unconstitutional. As the Supreme Judicial Court has
recognized, the proper vehicle for such a claim is an original
action of the sort raised in Foster v. Commissioner of Correction
(No. 1), 484 Mass. 698 (2020) (class action brought on behalf of
vulnerable prisoners and confined persons facing heightened risks
from COVID-19 pandemic).
In sum, the Defendant has not shown that the judge abused his
discretion in denying his rule 30(a) motion, which was not a proper
vehicle for asserting his claims.
Order denying motion for relief from unlawful restraint affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72cmffn from
Leagle.com
MCKESSON CORP: Andrasko Files PI Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKesson Corporation.
The case is styled as Tiffany Andrasko, Malia Leitch and Allison
Parish, individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby M.K.,
Plaintiffs v. McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC, Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc n/k/a Actavis, Inc, Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
Actavis, LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.,
DEPOMED, Inc., Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt PLC, SpecGX LLC, Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Noramco,
Inc., Indivior, Inc., CVS Health Corporation, Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Eastern Co., Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Inc
f/k/a Walmart Stores, Inc., H.D. Smith, LLC, H.D. Smith Holdings,
LLC and H.D. Smith Holding Company, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-op-45195-DAP (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed over Diversity-Personal Injury.
McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing
pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology,
medical supplies, and care management tools.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
Cooper Law Firm
1525 Religious Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Tel: (504) 309-0009
Fax: (504) 309-6989
Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
MDL 2958: Breakwater Asks Panel to Consolidate Suits in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In MDL No. 2958, IN RE: TREASURY FUTURES SPOOFING LITIGATION,
Plaintiff Breakwater Trading LLC asks the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for an order that the related actions
pending outside the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, as well as any cases that may be subsequently filed
asserting related or similar claims be transferred to the Southern
District of New York for consolidated or coordinated pretrial
proceedings.
Four class actions have been filed against units of JPMorgan Chase
& Co. and certain unidentified defendants for their manipulation of
U.S. Treasury futures contracts and options on those contracts
(Treasury Futures) that trade on United States-based exchanges.
The Plaintiff contends that centralization of the related actions
will promote the goals of 28 U.S.C. section 1407 by conserving
judicial resources, reducing litigation costs, preventing
potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, eliminating duplicative
discovery, and permitting the cases to proceed more efficiently.
The Plaintiffs in all of the related actions allege that JPMorgan
and the John Doe Defendants manipulate Treasury Futures to their
advantage, and to the detriment of class members, who traded in
Treasury Futures.[BN]
Plaintiff Breakwater Trading LLC is represented by:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
MESA AIR: Court Appoints Dekalb as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting Dekalb County Pension Fund's Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the case captioned David G
Lowthorp, Plaintiff, v. Mesa Air Group Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants. No. CV-20-00648-PHX-DLR. (D. Ariz.)
Before the Court is Dekalb's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of its selection of lead counsel.
This is a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Mesa Air Group, Inc. (Mesa) securities
pursuant Mesa's initial public offering registration statement in
August of 2018 that seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants'
alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The PSLRA establishes a rebuttable presumption that the most
adequate plaintiff is the person or entity that: (1) "has either
filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice (2)
has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The three movants claim to have suffered the following financial
losses as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Act:
1. Mr. Glover: $46,725 2. Pittsburg: $137,606.66 3. Dekalb:
$308,151.
No one disputes the accuracy of these figures. Dekalb therefore has
the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.
Dekalb also satisfies Rule 23's typicality and adequacy
requirements. Dekalb meets the typicality requirement because,
like the other purported class members, it claims to have purchased
Mesa stock pursuant and/or traceable to the initial public offering
at process that were allegedly artificially inflated and sustained
damages as a result.
Dekalb is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (Faruqi) as lead
counsel and the DeConcini Firm (DeConcini) as liaison counsel.
Dekalb has demonstrated that Faruqi and DeConcini are qualified,
experienced, and capable of conducting successful securities
litigation.
Dekalb's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
its selection of lead counsel is GRANTED.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc64g9a7 from Leagle.com
MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that the defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss in a consolidated class action suit
spearheaded by Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois.
On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two
purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc.,
et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et
al. filed February 26, 2018).
The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as
lead plaintiff.
On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken,
Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and
Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP.
The amended complaint (the "Securities Class Action Complaint")
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a
class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018.
Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various
defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended
complaint.
The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint against the Company,
Michael Senken, Pete Petit, William Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert &
Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March
30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020.
MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and
an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and
distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected
processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based
in Marietta, Georgia.
MISSION PETS: Failure to Prosecute Dismisses Action
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order dismissing the Action in the case captioned
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MISSION PETS, INC., Defendant. No. 20 Civ. 1263
(KPF). (S.D.N.Y.)
Plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, filed the
putative class action complaint in this action, alleging that
Defendant, Mission Pets, Inc., failed to make its website
accessible to Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and New York City Human Rights Law.
Service was Mission Pets on February 13, 2020, by service upon the
Mission Pets' registered agent. On March 2, 2020, the Court
scheduled an initial pretrial conference in this action for May 6,
2020. Mission Pets' answer was due on March 5, 2020.
However, Mission Pets never filed an answer or otherwise appeared
in this action. On April 30, 2020, the Court reached out to counsel
for Plaintiff by email, to see if Plaintiff had any contact with
Mission Pets or knew whether Mission Pets would be appearing in the
action. The Court never heard back from Plaintiff's counsel.
On May 4, 2020, the Court adjourned the initial pretrial conference
in this case and notified Plaintiff that if he intended to move for
a default judgment he should do so in accordance with the Court's
Individual Rules on or before June 5, 2020.
Plaintiff did not file any papers on the docket nor did he make any
contact with the Court's Chambers. On June 9, 2020, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause, on or before June 19, 2020, why
this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff has not done so. Notably, between when the Court issued
its order for Plaintiff to show cause, on June 9, 2020, and June
19, 2020, Plaintiff in this action filed at least nine other case
in this Court (one of which was assigned to the undersigned),
represented by the same counsel, against other defendants alleging
similar claims to those he raises in the Complaint in this case.
The Court is thus assured that both Plaintiff and his counsel
continue to actively litigate during the pandemic.
This case is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qbe75o from Leagle.com
MONSANTO CO: Court Denies Settlement Class Certifcation
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as City of Long Beach v. Monsanto
Company, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order on July 13, 2020:
1. denying, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion for:
-- certification of settlement class;
-- preliminary approval of class action settlement;
-- approval of notice plan;
-- appointment of class action settlement administrator;
and
-- appointment of class counsel.
2. directing the the Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion no
later than July 27, 2020.
3. advising the Plaintiffs that the court will not grant the
renewed motion unless it includes a discussion of the
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requirements, including but not limited to evidentiary
support, where appropriate.
The Court said, "while the motion sets forth the proposed terms of
the settlement, it largely fails to cite to the specific provisions
of the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the class certification
discussion fails to provide sufficient information, particularly
with respect to the commonality and predominance factors, to permit
the court to certify the class. In a case such as this where
plaintiffs seek to certify a class for settlement purposes, the
court must pay "undiluted, even heightened, attention" to class
certification requirements."
The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, it was acquired
by Bayer as part of its crop science division.[CC]
MT. WASHINGTON PIZZERIA: Noble Seeks Approval to Notify Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Donald Noble, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, v. Mt. Washington Pizzeria,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00489-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order authorizing him to send notice of the
pendency of this action to his similarly situated co-workers.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to notify the following
employees:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at
Defendants' LaRosa's Pizza stores between the date three
years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date
of the Court's Order approving notice."
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at Defendants' LaRosa's Pizza franchise stores.
Donald Noble alleges that Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are
all employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage
minus a tip credit for all hours worked while completing
deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver the Defendants'
pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery
related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms
result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
lroselle@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
MUSICTODAY II LLC: Sosa Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Musictoday II, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony
Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Musictoday II, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05182 (S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020).
Musictoday is an entertainment marketing company located in Crozet,
near Charlottesville, Virginia. It was founded and run by Coran
Capshaw, the manager of Dave Matthews Band. Musictoday is a pioneer
in pre sales of concert tickets, by starting fan clubs for hundreds
of artists.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
NATIONAL PACKAGING: Guzman Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Libna Guzman On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. National Packaging
Services, Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01722-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional class
certification and approving court-facilitated notice to:
"all hourly NPS employees who, during the time period on or
after three years in advance of the Court’s decision granting
conditional certification, received shift differential pay,
wellness program payments, or an annual bonus from NPS."
National Packaging manufactures miscellaneous converted paperboard
products. The Company provides sorbents, wipes, towel and tissues,
and other related products.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: 414 271-4500
Facsimile: 414 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
NEW JERSEY: Fischer Appeals Ruling in Teachers Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck filed an appeal from
a court ruling issued in their lawsuit titled Susan Fischer, et al.
v. Governor of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 1-18-cv-15628, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Laura Waters,
writing for the74, reports that Susan G. Fischer teaches Italian in
New Jersey public schools. All in all, she calculates that she's
involuntarily ceded about $30,000 of hard-earned salary to union
dues during her 30-year teaching career. Mandatory payments
increase annually; her tab last year was $1,222. While she harbors
no resentment toward the $25 a year she pays to her local
bargaining unit at Ocean Township Public Schools and the $50 per
year she pays to the Monmouth County unit, praising the collegial
relationships and professional development opportunities, she's
always resented the $200 per year she pays to the National
Education Association and, most adamantly, the $800 per year--Ms.
Fischer calls it "highway robbery"--that goes to the state union,
the New Jersey Education Association.
According to the report, this system of involuntary payments to
support lobbying that she mostly disagrees with was supposed to end
with the Supreme Court's ruling this past June in Janus v. AFSCME,
which bars union shops from mandating membership and dues payments.
Mandatory union membership, said SCOTUS, is a violation of the
Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech. But this
system didn't end in New Jersey, because legislators, with a heavy
assist from NJEA sycophant Gov. Phil Murphy, preemptively
circumvented the Janus ruling through a law called the Workplace
Democracy Enhancement Act. Now, Fischer and her colleague Jeanette
Speck have filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against
Murphy, NJEA, and the Township of Ocean Education Association.
The appellate case is captioned as Susan Fischer, et al. v.
Governor of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 19-3914, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SUSAN G. FISCHER and JEANETTE SPECK, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated, are represented by:
Michael P. Laffey, Esq.
MESSINA LAW FIRM
961 Holmdel Road
Holmdel, NJ 07733
Telephone: 732-332-9300
E-mail: mlaffey@messinalawfirm.com
- and -
William L. Messenger, Esq.
Aaron B. Solem, Esq.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22151
Telephone: 703-321-8510
Defendant-Appellee GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY is represented by:
Jana R. DiCosmo, Esq.
Lauren A. Jensen, Esq.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
DIVISION OF LAW
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112
Trenton, NJ 08625
Telephone: 856-469-1477
Defendants-Appellees NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and OCEAN
TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION are represented by:
Raymond Baldino, Esq.
Robert A. Fagella, Esq.
Jason E. Sokolowski, Esq.
ZAZZALI FAGELLA NOWAK KLEINBAUM & FRIEDMAN
570 Broad Street, Suite 1402
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 609-951-9520
E-mail: rbaldino@zazzali-law.com
rfagella@zazzali-law.com
jsokolowski@zazzali-law.com
NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Jones FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Bill Jones, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in their lawsuit entitled Bill Jones, et al. v. New Orleans
Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Incorporated, Case No.
2:17-CV-8817, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, New Orleans.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought an order conditionally certifying this action as a
collective action on behalf of:
"all individuals employed by New Orleans Regional Physician
Hospital Organization, Inc. at any point from September 8,
2014, to the present in the Network Development or Pharmacy
Operations Departments and held the positions of Ancillary
Contracting Specialist, Contracting Specialist, Contracting
Specialist â€" Hospitals, Operations Specialist, Pharmacy
Part D Specialist, Physician Contracting Specialist,
Project Coordinator, Provider Relations Representatives,
Regulatory Specialist, Senior Contracting Specialist, and
Senior Provider Relations Representative, and worked
overtime for which he/she was not compensated."
The appellate case is captioned as Bill Jones, et al. v. New
Orleans Regional Physician Hospital Organization, Incorporated,
Case No. 19-31027, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants BILL JONES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; JENNIFER BRANCH, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; LAURA ROMERO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; MELISSA BREAUX; IVETTE
M. PEREZ; GINA AUSTIN; NICOLE CROWDER; and CONNIE HALL are
represented by:
Dale Edward Williams, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DALE EDWARD WILLIAMS
212 Park Place
Covington, LA 70433-0000
Telephone: (985) 898-6368
E-mail: dale@daleslaw.com
Defendant-Appellee NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL PHYSICIAN HOSPITAL
ORGANIZATION, INCORPORATED, doing business as Peoples Health
Network, is represented by:
Elizabeth Anderson Roussel, Esq.
ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P.
Hancock Whitney Center
701 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: 504-585-0445
E-mail: elizabeth.roussel@arlaw.com
NEW YORK CITY: S.D.N.Y. Consolidates Azor-El, Inmates COVID Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation
and Request for Pro Bono Counsel in the case captioned JEAN
AZOR-EL, ANTHONY BROWN, JAMES CARTER, DAKWAN FENNELL, RAMON GOMEZ,
ANTONIO GRAHAM, ANTHONY MEDINA, LANCE KELLY v. KISA SMALLS, WARDEN,
NORTH INFIRMARY COMMAND, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
CITY OF NEW YORK; and JANE/JOHN DOE, NORTH INFIRMARY COMMAND
RESPIRATORY THERAPIST, Case Nos. 20 Civ. 3650 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3979
(KPF), 20 Civ. 3980 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3982 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3983 (KPF),
20 Civ. 3984 (KPF), 20 Civ. 3985 (KPF), and 20 Civ. 3990 (KPF)
(S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Jean Azor-El, Anthony Medina, James Carter, Dakwan
Fennell, Lance Kelly, Ramon Gomez, Antonio Graham, and Anthony
Brown jointly signed and filed their pro se complaint under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs filed requests to proceed in
forma pauperis, which the Court granted. The Plaintiffs requested
counsel at the time of filing the initial Complaint. The Plaintiffs
are all detained in the North Infirmary Command (NIC) on Rikers
Island and qualify as indigent.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated their
constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs, all of whom suffer from
preexisting medical conditions, bring this complaint in light of
the current dangers posed by the COVID-19 virus. They allege that:
(i) their health and current confinement conditions put them at an
elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19 and dying as a result of their
preexisting conditions; and (ii) Defendants are not taking
sufficient health and safety measures to protect the Plaintiffs
from the COVID-19 virus.
The Plaintiffs also claim that they will be denied a fair and
meaningful opportunity to present a defense because their
state-court criminal cases are being held in abeyance due to
COVID-19. They also allege that the Defendants punish detainees,
who receive infractions by denying them full commissary purchases
before the Defendants have served said detainees with a misbehavior
report or held a disciplinary proceeding.
Because these actions involve common issues of law and fact as well
as the same Defendants, both equity and judicial economy support
the consolidation of these cases. The Clerk of Court is, therefore,
directed to consolidate these cases.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y92lnme5 from Leagle.com
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Maldonado Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from a judgment entered on
November 26, 2019, in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 19-4251, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Elizabeth Maldonado is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
Email: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
NEW YORK: Board Files Seven Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's rulings in
the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.
The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4015;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4016;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4020;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4034;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4035;
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4054; and
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 19-4055.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Imedla Belgrave, Maxine Horne, Julio Hilario,
Eduardo Mendez, Trina Smith, Yvonne Wilson and Margaret Tapp are
represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:
Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-356-2400
E-mail: gpestana@law.nyc.gov
NFL: Attorneys' Award in Concussion Injury Suit Partly Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part
and remanded in part the district court's attorneys' fee award in
the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation.
The appellate case is In Re: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS'
CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. MELVIN ALDRIDGE; PATRISE ALEXANDER;
CHARLIE ANDERSON; CHARLES E. ARBUCKLE; CASSANDRA BAILEY,
individually and as the Representative of the Estate of JOHNNY
BAILEY; ROD BERNSTINE; REATHA BROWN, Individually and as the
Representative of the Estate of AARON BROWN, JR.; CURTIS CEASAR,
JR.; LARRY CENTERS; TREVOR COBB; DARRELL COLBERT; ELBERT CRAWFORD,
III; CHRISTOPHER CROOMS; GARY CUTSINGER; JERRY W. DAVIS; TIM
DENTON; LELAND C. DOUGLAS, JR.; MICHAEL DUMAS; CORRIS ERVIN; ROBERT
EVANS; DOAK FIELD; JAMES FRANCIS; BALDWIN MALCOLM FRANK; DERRICK
FRAZIER; MURRAY E. GARRETT; CLYDE P. GLOSSON; ANTHONY GUILLLORY;
RODERICK W. HARRIS; WILMER K. HICKS, JR.; PATRICK JACKSON; FULTON
JOHNSON; RICHARD JOHNSON; GARY JONES; ERIC KELLY; PATSY LEWIS,
Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of MARK LEWIS;
RYAN McCOY; EMANUEL McNEIL; GERALD McNEIL; JERRY JAMES MOSES;
ANTHONY E. NEWSOM; WINSLOW OLIVER; JOHN OWENS; ROBERT POLLARD;
DERRICK POPE; JIMMY ROBINSON; GLENELL SANDERS; THOMAS SANDERS; TODD
SCOTT; NILO SILVAN; MATTHEW SINCLAIR; DWIGHT A. SCALES; RICHARD A.
SILER; FRANKIE SMITH; ERIC J. SWANN; ANTHONY TONEY; HERBERT E.
WILLIAMS; JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.; BUTCH WOOLFOLK; KEITH WOODSIDE;
MILTON WYNN; JAMES A. YOUNG, SR.; LUBEL VOYLES, LLP; WASHINGTON &
ASSOCIATES PLLC; THE CANADY LAW FIRM, Appellants, Case Nos.
18-2012, 18-2225, 18-2249, 18-2253, 18-2281, 18-2332, 18-2416,
18-2417, 18-2418, 18-2419, 18-2422, 18-2650, 18-2651, 18-2661,
18-2724, 19-1385 (3d Cir.).
Retired professional football players sued Defendants NFL and NFL
Properties, LLC for failing to take reasonable actions to protect
players from the chronic risks posed by concussive and
sub-concussive head injuries.
The District Court appointed Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP
to serve as the Co-Lead Class Counsel. Seeger took the lead in
managing the case and communicating with the Court. The Court also
established an Executive Committee to handle the coordination of
the proceedings, and a Steering Committee, to handle all necessary
pretrial tasks. In addition, it appointed a time-and-expense
auditor to monitor the counsels' fees and expenses. Thereafter,
master complaints were filed to supersede the many complaints, and
the Defendants moved to dismiss.
While the motion was pending, the parties participated in a
mediation and reached a settlement. The class counsel then filed a
class action complaint and moved for preliminary class
certification and approval of the settlement. The Court denied the
motion because it had doubts that the capped fund for paying claims
would be sufficient. The parties thereafter reached a revised
settlement that uncapped the fund for compensating retired
players.
Several groups filed objections to the revised settlement,
including seven former NFL players, known as the Faneca Objectors.
They argued, among other things, that the interests of all class
members were not adequately represented and that the revised
settlement would not compensate all afflicted class members. To
address these concerns, the class counsel filed a second motion for
preliminary class certification, which was granted, and the
District Court preliminarily approved the settlement, conditionally
certified the class, approved class-wide notice, and scheduled a
final fairness hearing. The Faneca Objectors and others renewed
their objections to the settlement, complaining about other
purported defects in the settlement.
Thereafter, the District Court held a day-long fairness hearing and
heard argument from the class counsel, the NFL, and several
objectors. It appointed the Faneca Objectors' counsel to present
the objectors' arguments. After the hearing, the Court proposed
several changes to benefit class members, which the parties
adopted, and it thereafter granted the motion for class
certification and final approval of the amended settlement. The
Appellate Court affirmed.
In addition to benefits to the class, the settlement required the
Defendants to pay the class counsel reasonable fees and costs up to
$112.5 million. On behalf of the counsel, Seeger filed a fee
petition seeking the full $112.5 million. After receiving Seeger's
recommendation and the objections, the District Court held a
hearing. During the hearing, firms challenging Seeger's proposed
fee allocation were each given an opportunity to present oral
arguments. After considering the arguments and submissions, the
Court issued a detailed opinion allocating the attorneys' fees.
Various firms appeal the awards and lodge multiple challenges.
Among other things, the Appellants claim that the method used to
allocate the fees among counsel, including Seeger's recommender
role, was improper. Other Appellants, like the Faneca Objectors,
object to the specific award that they received.
The Third Circuit first considers whether it was proper for the
District Court to permit Seeger to make a recommendation to the
Court regarding how to allocate the more than $100 million in fees
to himself and all the other counsel. The Third Circuit finds that
at all times, the District Court understood its role as the
ultimate decision-maker and fulfilled its obligation to make an
independent assessment of each fee petition. In making allocation
decisions, the Court considered whether the fee applicant held an
"appointed leadership" role in the case, whether counsel was
meaningfully involved throughout the litigation, whether counsel
demonstrated the legal acumen necessary to construct and defend the
unique settlement, and the "value" counsel provided to the
settlement negotiations and the defense of the settlement on
appeal.
Given the Appellate Court's deference to the District Court's
methodology in making its fee awards that the record supports the
method used, and that the Court acted independently in its
allocation decisions, the Third Circuit concludes that it acted
well within its discretion in both its fee calculation methodology
and allocation procedure.
The Third Circuit next addresses the only area in which the
District Court's fee award requires additional attention on remand:
the explanation for its award to the Faneca Objectors. Unlike its
explicit fact finding and the fulsome explanations it provided for
the other fee applicants, the Third Circuit cannot discern the
factual basis for the District Court's $350,000 award to the Faneca
Objectors. Despite recognizing that the Faneca Objectors are
entitled to compensation for the work they performed for the class,
the District Court awarded them $350,000, a 0.08 multiplier of
their $4.3 million lodestar. The Court gave no explanation for how
it came up with this amount. Nor did it explain why it awarded the
Faneca Objectors a multiplier less than the full amount of their
lodestar or why the Faneca Objectors' work warranted a multiplier
far below that awarded to every other counsel.
The Court noted only that the Faneca Objectors' $20 million
requested fee (nearly five times its $4.3 million lodestar) was
"unreasonable" and that $350,000 was sufficient in consideration of
the service provided as liaison counsel and the firms' role in
providing benefits to the class. Because the Court did not
identify the facts that led it to reach these conclusions, the
Third Circuit is unable to review it. Therefore, the Third Circuit
will remand for the District Court to provide the facts that
supported its fee determination.
For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and
remand in part with respect to the attorneys' fee awarded to the
Faneca Objectors.
A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's April 24, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ApXX0x from Leagle.com.
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Court Dismisses Weaver CSPA Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
GREGORY P. WEAVER, individually and On behalf of a class of those
persons Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER &
GAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-1339, (N.D. Ohio).
Plaintiff Gregory P. Weaver commenced a class action against North
American Power & Gas LLC ("NAPG") on June 10, 2019, alleging
violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA"), breach
of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealings.
NAPG filed a motion to dismiss in August 2019, arguing that the
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ("PUCO") has exclusive
jurisdiction over Weaver's claims, that Weaver's claims under the
CSPA fail as a matter of law, and that Weaver's claims for breach
of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Greenberg issued his Report and
Recommendation (R&R) on December 16, 2019, in which he recommends
that the District Court deny NAPG's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, grant the motion to dismiss on
Weaver's CSPA claim, and deny the motion to dismiss on Weaver's
breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair
dealings.
Judge Polster finds that PUCO does have exclusive jurisdiction over
Weaver's case. In so finding, the Court finds guidance in two
forms: (1) PUCO's regulatory scheme and (2) existing precedent.
PUCO's Regulatory Scheme
PUCO's regulatory scheme is ambiguous on the issue of when, if
ever, PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints involving
Certified Retail Energy Suppliers (CRES) such as NAPG.
PUCO certifies and supervises public utilities and Certified Retail
Energy Suppliers (CRES). CRESs purchase electricity from a company
that produces electricity and resells the electricity to end-use
consumers. To supply electricity, a CRES must obtain certification
by PUCO regarding the CRES's managerial, technical, and financial
capabilities to provide that service and provides financial
guarantee sufficient to protect customers and electric distribution
utilities from default.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction
over CRESs only in cases involving acts PUCO regulates. He found
that "service" as used in 4928.16(A)(1) means the specific act
which is the basis of the complaint. Because Weaver's complaint is
based on NAPG's pricing scheme, and NAPG's pricing scheme is not
subject to PUCO certification, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
PUCO does not have exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's case.
NAPG argues that the meaning of service is more expansive. NAPG
asserts that service means the type of act in which the actor is
engaging. Here, NAPG supplies electricity. CRESs must be
certified in order to supply electricity. Because PUCO's act of
supplying electricity is subject to certification by PUCO and the
underlying pricing dispute is a result of PUCO supplying
electricity, NAPG argues that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over
Weaver's case.
The Court finds that both interpretations of service are equally
plausible. Accordingly, the Court looks to existing precedent for
further guidance.
Existing Precedent
Existing Precedent suggests that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction
over Weaver's claims, the Court notes.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Ohio courts have not addressed
the issue of whether PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over CRESs.
NAPG argues that both the "Hull" and "Saks" cases, which involve
retail natural gas suppliers, show that PUCO has exclusive
jurisdiction over Weaver's claims. (Hull, 850 N.E.2d at 1191, and
Saks, 971 N.E.2d at 500).
As NAPG indicates, the jurisdiction statute for retail natural gas
suppliers, ORC Sec. 4929.20, parallels the jurisdiction statute at
issue here, ORC Sec. 4928.16(A)(1). Thus, both Hull and Saks
support that that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over CRESs for
cases involving pricing disputes, the Court notes.
Accordingly, the Court finds that PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction
over CRESs for claims that involve CRESs supplying electricity.
Here, Weaver's claims are based on the rate that NAPG, a CRES,
charges for electricity. The pricing scheme for electricity
involves the supply of electricity. Thus, the Court finds that
PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over Weaver's claims.
In sum, the Court rejects the R&R. Judge Polster thus grants
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/MDjKcL from Leagle.com.
Gregory P. Weaver, Individually and on behalf a classof those
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keith L.
Gibson , Brotschul Potts & Tricia L. Putzy , Brotschul Potts, 30 N
LaSalle Street Suite 1402, Chicago, Illinois 60602
North American Power & Gas LLC, Defendant, represented by Greil I.
Roberts - groberts@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
Gregory D. Brunton - gbrunton@grsm.com - Gordon & Rees Scully
Mansukhani & Peter G. Siachos - psiachos@grsm.com - Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani.
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: McClendon Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed with prejudice the case
captioned MARIETTA McCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00404. (N.D.
Tenn.).
The parties gave the Court notice that all matters in the dispute
between them have been compromised and settled. And thus, the
parties stipulate to the dismissal of the action with prejudice.
Both parties are in agreement that the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement executed by all
parties. Each party to bear its own fees and costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/eefVjD from PacerMonitor.com.
Previously, in a January 2020 Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/tgja9l6 from Leagle.com, the Court denied
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The Court found that
Plaintiff cannot establish the prerequisites to class certification
of typicality and adequacy of representation.
Marietta McClendon, Plaintiff, represented by Annika K. Martin ,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Avery S. Halfon , Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 250 Hudson St Fl 8, New York,
NY 10013-1413, J. Bradley Ponder , Montgomery Ponder, LLC, Luke
Montgomery , Montgomery Ponder, LLC, 2226 1st Avenue South - Unit
105, Birmingham, Alabama 35233 & Mark P. Chalos , Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 250 Hudson St Fl 8, New York, NY
10013-1413.
North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Maria Q. Campbell - mcampbell@bonelaw.com - Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Raquel L. Bellamy , Bone, McAllester &
Norton, PLLC, 511 Union Street, Suite 1600, NASHVILLE, TN, 37219,
Sean C. Kirk - skirk@bonelaw.com - Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC,
Shea T. Hasenauer - shasenauer@bonelaw.com - Bone, McAllester &
Norton, PLLC & Stephen J. Zralek - szralek@bonelaw.com - Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC.
NORTHERN TRUST: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Banks Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lindie L. Banks and Erica LeBlanc filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Lindie Banks, et al. v.
Northern Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09141-JFW-JC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge John F.
Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs Banks and LeBlanc brought the present action against
Defendants Northern Trust Corp. and The Northern Trust Co.,
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
accounting, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, and violations of the Elder Abuse
and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare and Institutions
Code Section 15600 et seq.
The appellate case is captioned as Lindie Banks, et al. v. Northern
Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-80178, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners LINDIE L. BANKS and ERICA LEBLANC, on their
own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, are
represented by:
Thomas John Brandi, Esq.
Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BRANDI
354 Pine St., Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-989-1800
E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
Telephone: (415) 989-1800
Facsimile: (415) 989-1801
E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
bjm@brandilaw.com
- and -
Derek G. Howard, Esq.
DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: (415) 432-7192
Facsimile: (415) 524-2419
E-mail: derek@derekhowardlaw.com
Defendants-Respondents NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION and NORTHERN
TRUST COMPANY are represented by:
David Singer, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 239-2206
E-mail: dsinger@jenner.com
- and -
Amanda Amert, Esq.
Brienne Letourneau, Esq.
Craig C. Martin, Esq.
Daniel Weiss, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312-222-9350
E-mail: aamert@jenner.com
bletourneau@jenner.com
cmartin@jenner.com
dweiss@jenner.com
NOVA LIFESTYLE: July 20 Final Pretrial Conference in Barney Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that a trial court has
entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for
July 20, 2020, in the putative class action suit initiated by
George Barney.
On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the
"Barney Action").
Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint.
In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal
securities laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through
December 20, 2018.
Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported
strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead
designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer's
planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company
inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two
major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon the
aforementioned Seeking Alpha blog in which it was claimed that an
investigation of the Company failed to confirm the existence of
several entities identified as significant customers, Plaintiffs
purported to verify some of the information alleged in the Seeking
Alpha blog.
By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants have
accordingly filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint denying its
material allegations.
The Court also entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial
conference for July 20, 2020.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.
OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Bid in Beard Suit Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BEARD, et al., v.
SCOTT CROW, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Case No.
5:19-cv-00310-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi W. Dishman
entered an order on July 13, 2020:
1. striking, without prejudice, to re-filing the motion
for class certification; and
2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended complaint to add allegations regarding the
Plaintiffs' future risk of exposure to COVID-19
Accordingly, the only claim now at issue in this lawsuit is
Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect the
Plaintiffs from violence.
The motion requests that the Court certify a class of plaintiffs
based on "overcrowding and inadequate staffing not only because of
violent conditions but combined with the COVID-19 pandemic."
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is an agency of the state of
Oklahoma. DOC is responsible for the administration of the state
prison system. It has its headquarters in Oklahoma City, across the
street from the headquarters of the Oklahoma Department of Public
Safety.[CC]
OKLAHOMA: Walker Dormitory Infested With Toxic Mold, Melton Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAH MELTON v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel., THE UNIVERSITY OF
OKLAHOMA; DAVID ANNIS; TRENT BROWN; DAVID SURRATT; KENNETH D. ROWE;
and JAMES GALLOGLY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00608-F (W.D. Okla., June 24,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all individuals
similarly situated against the University of Oklahoma and current
and former employees of the University arising out of their
intentional and egregious failure to remediate a known and
dangerous condition in Walker Dormitory.
According to the complaint, the Defendants were fully aware of
extensive infestation of toxic mold in and around the Plaintiff's
Dormitory room. Exposure to this toxic mold directly caused the
Plaintiff's serious, and in some cases, life-long injuries.
As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, including
their knowing decision to conceal information about the presence of
toxic mold in the University's dormitories from students and
parents--the Plaintiff was formally diagnosed with a litany of
serious conditions.
The Plaintiff was formerly enrolled as a freshman student at the
University in the Fall of 2018.
The Defendant University is a public university in the State of
Oklahoma. The University's principal campus is in Norman, Oklahoma.
The Individuals Defendants are officers of the University.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Love, Esq.
TITUS, HILLIS, REYNOLDS, LOVE, P.C.
15 East Fifth Street, Suite 3700
Tulsa, OK 74103-4334
Telephone: (918) 587-6800
Facsimile: (918) 587-6822
OLLY SHOES LLC: Gonzalez Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Olly Shoes LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Raymond
Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Olly Shoes LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05216
(S.D. N.Y., July 7, 2020).
OLLY Shoes is a children's footwear company that caters to the
needs of infants up to age 10.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: HHR Appeals Decision in Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Emergency Shelter Coalition, Housing is a Human Right
Orange County, Darren James and Duane Nichols filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Housing is a Human Right
Orange County, et al. v. City of San Clemente, et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-00388-PA-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.
The appellate case is captioned as Housing is a Human Right Orange
County, et al. v. City of San Clemente, et al., Case No. 19-56474,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Housing is a Human Right Orange County and Duane Nichols filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is
titled as Housing is a Human Right Orange County, et al. v.
USDC-CASA, Case No. 19-71889, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT ORANGE COUNTY, an
unincorporated association; EMERGENCY SHELTER COALITION, a
non-profit corporation; DUANE NICHOLS; and DARREN JAMES are
represented by:
Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 393-3055
E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com
Defendant-Appellee CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE is represented by:
Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Telephone: (949) 553-7514
E-mail: rgrabowski@jonesday.com
rnaeve@jonesday.com
javogt@jonesday.com
- and -
Jacob Moshe Roth, Esq.
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: 202-879-7658
E-mail: yroth@jonesday.com
OVATION CREDIT: Tolling of Statue of Limitations in Diggs Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, denied a request
to toll the statute of limitations for future opt-in plaintiffs in
the case captioned VERNON DIGGS, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES,
INC., TERRY D. CORDELL, and AMY MYERS, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-367-J-34MCR, (M.D. Fla.).
In March 2018, Plaintiff, individually and in a representative
capacity, filed the Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
By September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking conditional
certification of a collective action and asked the Court to approve
his proposed class notice form. On September 28, 2019, the Court
granted the Motion to Certify "to the extent [Plaintiff sought]
conditional certification of the putative class identified in the
Motion [to Certify]." However, given the number of objections to
Plaintiff's proposed class notice form, as well as the amount of
time that had passed since the parties last conferred on the
issues, the Court directed the parties to meaningfully confer to
try to resolve Defendants' objections to the proposed class notice
form. The parties have since narrowed their disputes but two
issues remain for the Court to resolve with regard to the class
notice.
Additionally, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Toll requesting that
the Court toll the statute of limitations for future opt-in
plaintiffs as of the filing of the Motion to Certify, arguing that
the Court's delay in ruling on the Motion to Certify has prejudiced
future opt-in plaintiffs.
In support of its request, Plaintiff maintains that without tolling
of the statute of limitations, each and every potential Opt-in
Plaintiff stands to lose either a significant portion or their
entire collectable period due to time that has elapsed since the
Plaintiff filed the Motion to Certify, depending on the ultimate
factual determinations in the case, regarding willfulness and
depending on the date which notice issues.
In their Response, Defendants contend that the amount of time in
which the Motion to Certify was pending does not constitute an
extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling.
Upon consideration, the Court agrees that the Motion to Toll is due
to be denied.
Actions brought pursuant to the FLSA must be commenced within two
years from when the cause of action accrues or, in the case of
willful violations, within three years. An FLSA cause of action
for unpaid overtime accrues at the end of each pay period in which
the employer improperly fails to pay the employee overtime
compensation.
Here, the Motion to Certify was ripe for almost ten months before
the Court issued its ruling. Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments,
however, this length of time is not unusual. Nor has Plaintiff
established that the pendency of the Motion to Certify prevented
putative opt-in plaintiffs from otherwise timely pursuing their own
FLSA claims. Thus, the Court is of the view that equitable tolling
is not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Court joins
numerous district courts within the Eleventh Circuit in holding
that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for future
opt-in plaintiffs is not warranted in an ordinary FLSA collective
action because of the amount of time that passes before the court
rules on a motion to certify.
Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Toll Statute of
Limitations.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/qpqlezc from Leagle.com.
Vernon Diggs, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch -
afrisch@forthepeople.com - Morgan & Morgan, PA & Chanelle Ventura -
cventura@forthepeople.com - Morgan & Morgan, PA.
Ovation Credit Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Terry
D. Cordell, Individually & Amy Myers, Individually, Defendants,
represented by Eric James Holshouser - eholshouser@rtlaw.com -
Rogers Towers, P.A. & Michael J. Lufkin - MLufkin@rtlaw.com -
Rogers Towers, P.A.
Gerald Thomas Harper, Mediator, pro se.
PARAGON INDUSTRIES: $3.75M Settlement in Castro Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of
similarly situated members of the general public and other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, Plaintiff, v. PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC., a California
Corporation d/b/a as BEDROSIANS, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00755-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale E. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class action and
collective action settlement.
Defendant Paragon is a manufacturer, importer, and distributor of
ceramic and porcelain tiles, decorative and glass mosaics, and
natural stone. Plaintiff Castro was employed by defendant as an
hourly, non-exempt employee between September 2016 and June 2017.
The Plaintiff originally filed the class and collective action
complaint in Fresno County Superior Court on May 14, 2018, alleging
various wage-and-hour claims. The Defendant answered on June 22
and July 3, 2018, denying all of the Plaintiff's allegations and
maintaining that it has complied with all relevant California and
federal laws. Between June 29 and Sept. 6, 2018, the Plaintiff
conducted discovery by propounding interrogatories, requesting the
production of various documents, and deposing the Defendant's
Person Most Knowledgeable witness. The parties then entered into
private mediation before the Honorable Steven M. Vartabedian (Ret.)
on Feb. 18, 2019.
With the stipulation of the parties, the Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") in Fresno County Superior Court. That
FAC alleges violations of the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), which the Plaintiff claims are also violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law and give rise to penalties
under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The
Defendant then removed the case to the federal court on May 29,
2019.
On Oct. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the present motion for
conditional certification and preliminary approval of the class and
collective action settlement. After the hearing on the motion, the
Court identified several issues of concern regarding the settlement
and directed the parties to submit responsive supplemental
briefing, which the Plaintiff did on Dec. 20, 2019. After further
reviewing the settlement, the Court requested additional
supplemental documentation on April 8, 2020, which the Plaintiff
provided on April 15, 2020.
For settlement purposes, the parties request certification of the
following class of an estimated 1,447 individuals: With respect to
all Released Class Claims, all individuals who are current or
former hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant in the State
of California during the period from May 14, 2014 through the date
the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement.
For settlement purposes, the parties request approval of the
following collective ("FLSA Collective"): The FLSA Collective will
consist of all FLSA Members who cash, deposit, or otherwise
negotiate their check for payment of their share of the Net FLSA
Settlement Fund and who will be bound by the settlement and
resolution of the Released FLSA Claims. FLSA Members are, with
respect to all Released FLSA Claims, all individuals who are
current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of the Defendant in
the State of California during the Settled Period.
Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants will pay a total of
$3.75 million, allocated as follows: (1) up to $1,312,500 for
attorneys' fees and up to $55,000 for litigation costs; (2) up to
$15,000 as an incentive award for the Plaintiff; (3) $75,000 in
civil PAGA penalties; (4) an estimated $15,000 for settlement
administration costs; and (5) approximately $95,000 in employer
payroll taxes and contributions.
Assuming these allocations are awarded in full, approximately $2.2
million will be available for distribution to the Class Members who
do not submit a timely and valid request for exclusion, and the
Participating FLSA Class Members. From the Net Settlement Fund,
80% will be allocated to the Class Settlement, and 20%, to the FLSA
Settlement. The Net Class and Net FLSA Settlement Funds will be
distributed to their respective members on a pro rata basis based
on the number of weeks worked by each member. The Plaintiff
estimates that Participating Class Members will receive between
$505.74 and $4,045.96 in Non-FLSA Payments, and Participating
FLSA-Members will receive between $126.44 and $1,011.49 in FLSA
Payments, depending on the number of Workweeks of each member. The
entire Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Participating
Class and FLSA Class Members with no reversion to the Defendant.
Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The groups satisfy
the requirements for preliminary certification under Rule 23, the
proposed FLSA collective also satisfies the FLSA's less stringent
requirement that the members be "similarly situated." Conditional
certification of the FLSA collective is therefore appropriate.
Judge Drozd also finds that the settlement of the Plaintiff's PAGA
claims is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the PAGA's
public policy goals. The parties' negotiation constituted genuine,
informed, and arm's-length bargaining. The resulting $75,000 civil
penalty represents 2% of the $3.75 million Gross Settlement Fund.
Having reviewed the proposed $15,000 incentive award, Judge Drozd
notes that the amount requested may be disproportionate given the
possible disparity with the settlement's average or median award.
However, in recognition of the initiative and general
well-preparedness demonstrated by the Plaintiff thus far, the Judge
will preliminarily approve the incentive award on the condition
that the plaintiff demonstrate at the final approval stage that the
requested award is commensurate with and does not dwarf the average
or median award received by the Class and FLSA Members.
The Judge next finds that the notice and the manner of notice
proposed by the Plaintiff meet the requirements of Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and that
the proposed mail delivery is appropriate under the circumstances.
The parties have agreed to retain Phoenix Class Action
Administrative Solutions to handle notice and claim administration
process and request that Phoenix be appointed to serve as the
Settlement Administrator. The estimated cost of administering this
settlement is $15,000, which will be deducted from the Gross
Settlement Fund. The Judge will appoint Phoenix Class Action
Administrative Solutions as the Settlement Administrator.
The Plaintiff has submitted the following implementation schedule:
a. Deadline for Defendant to provide Phoenix with a list of
Class and FLSA Members ("Class List") - 15 days after
entry of Preliminary Approval Order
b. Deadline for Phoenix to send a Notice Packet to each
Class and FLSA Member - 10 days after receipt of the
Class List
c. Deadline to file a Notice of Objection, Request for
Exclusion, or a Workweeks - 45 days after the initial
mailing of the Notice Packet ("Response Deadline")
d. Deadline to submit a Notice of Objection - 15 days
after the Response
e. Deadline Request for Exclusion, or a Workweeks Dispute
for Re-Mailed Notice Packets
f. Deadline for Phoenix to send a cure letter to a
defective Class Members who submit a defective - Three
days after receipt of Request for Exclusion Request
for Exclusion
g. Deadline for recipients to cash Settlement Checks -
180 days from the date of issuance
h. Final Approval Hearing - Approximately six months after
the hearing for preliminary approval of the class
settlement
The Judge finds that the schedule is appropriate and will adopt
it.
For all of these reasons, Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The
Plaintiff's counsel, Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Joanna
Ghosh of Lawyers for Justice, PC, are appointed as the class
counsel; named Plaintiff Castro as the class representative; and
Phoenix Class Action Administrative Solutions as the settlement
claims administrator.
The proposed notice and claim forms are approved in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The proposed settlement is approved on a preliminary basis in the
manner detailed.
The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set
for Nov. 30, 2020 at 3:00 p.m., with the motion for final approval
of class action settlement to be filed at least 28 days in advance
of the final approval hearing. The settlement implementation
schedule set forth is adopted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/vQAzpp from Leagle.com.
PHILIPS BRYANT: $975K Settlement in Chang Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW CHANG and RYAN SANTOS, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS
BRYANT PARK LLC d/b/a BRYANT PARK HOTEL, PHIL COLUMBO and MICHAEL
STRAUSS, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-8816 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Laura
Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted final approval of the parties' proposed class
settlement.
Previously, on Jan. 9, 2020, the Court entered an Order
preliminarily approving the settlement on behalf of the Rule 23
class and FLSA collective set forth therein, conditionally
certifying the settlement class, appointing Lee Litigation Group,
PLLC as the Class Counsel, appointing Rust Consulting, Inc. as the
Settlement Administrator, and authorizing notice to all the Class
Member. A full-text copy of the Court's January 9, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rverons from Leagle.com.
The Parties entered into a final settlement totaling $975,000.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement on April 30, 2020, as well as a Motion for Service
Award. The parties entered an addendum on June 5, 2020.
Upon consideration of the record on the case, Judge Swain confirmed
as final the Court's certification of the Class for settlement
purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order
and in the absence of any objections from Class Members to such
certification.
Pursuant to 29 Section U.S.C. 216(b), Judge Swain approved the FLSA
Settlement and certified the collective class under the FLSA.
The Judge confirmed as final the appointment of Plaintiffs Andrew
Chang and Ryan Santos as the representatives of the Class, both
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b). The Judge likewise confirmed as final the appointment of
C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as the Class Counsel for the
Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for
individuals who opted into the Litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).
Judge Swain granted the Motion for Final Approval and finally
approved the proposed settlement. The Judge granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel
$325,000, which is approximately one-third of the Settlement Fund.
The Judge also awarded the Class Counsel reimbursement of their
litigation expenses in the amount of $4,903.67. The attorneys'
fees and the amount in reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund.
Judge Swain approved the two service awards for named Plaintiffs
Andrew Chang and Ryan Santos each in the amount of $1,000, in
recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of the class.
The Judge also approved the requested release payment to the named
Plaintiff Andrew Chang in the amount of $20,000 in return for his
General Released Claims. These amounts will be paid from the
Settlement Fund, subject to the terms of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement and Release.
The Judge approved the payment of the Settlement Administrator's
fees in the amount of $30,000, which will be paid out of the
Settlement Fund, according to the terms of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement and Release.
The Judge fully and finally dismissed the matter and Litigation in
its entirety and with prejudice. Neither party to the Litigation
is or will be considered a prevailing party.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Final
Approval Order is available at https://is.gd/u7bAjK from
Leagle.com.
Andrew Chang, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig -
anne@leelitigation.com - Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee ,
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New
York, NY 10016
Ryan Santos, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.
Philips Bryant Park LLC, doing business as Bryant Park Hotel, Phil
Columbo & Michael Strauss, Defendants, represented by Arthur J.
Robb - ajrobb@cbdm.com - Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP, Carla Gunther
- cbgunther@cbdm.com - Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP & Robert A.
Wiesen -rawiesen@cbdm.com - Clifton Budd & DeMaria, LLP.
PNS STORES: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LONGHINI v. PNS STORES INC. d/b/a BIG LOTS, Case No.
0:20-cv-61253-AHS (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated mobility-impaired
individuals seeking injunctive relief, declaration of rights,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant owns, operates and oversees a Commercial Property,
its general parking lot and parking spots. The subject Commercial
Property is open to the public and is located in Pembroke Pines,
Broward County, Florida.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the businesses
located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
Commercial Property and at the businesses located within the
Commercial Property. He wishes to continue his patronage and use of
each of the premises. The Plaintiff has also encountered
architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, says the
complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Beverly Virues, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
4937 S.W. 74th Court
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
bvirues@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
PORCELANA CORONA: $4.33MM in Attorneys Fees Awarded in Fessler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amos L. Mazzant granted in part and denied in part Class
Counsel Nathan Carpenter and Rebecca Bell-Stanton's Motions for
Approval of Award of Attorneys' Fees and Request for Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses in a class action complaint against
Porcelana Corona de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., et al., over alleged
defective toilet tanks.
The case is MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ANDREW HOCKER, KEVIN REUSS,
MATTHEW CARRERAS, CHARLES AND MICHELLE HANDLY, AARON AND STACEY
STONE, and DANIEL AND SHARON SOUSA, on Behalf of Themselves and
Those Similarly Situated, v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MÉXICO, S.A. DE
C.V f/k/a SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens, AND STEVEN
AND JOANNA CONE, MARK AND AMBER FESSLER, ANDREW HOCKER, MATTHEW
CARRERAS, CHARLES AND MICHELLE HANDLY, AARON AND STACEY STONE, and
DANIEL AND SHARON SOUSA, on Behalf of Themselves and Those
Similarly Situated, v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V
f/k/a SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens, Civil Action
Nos. 4:19-cv-00248, 4:17-CV-00001 (E.D. Tex.).
The action arises from alleged manufacturing and/or marketing
defects in certain ceramic Vortens toilet tanks. The toilet tanks
at issue were manufactured, designed, produced, and distributed by
Sanitarios Lamosa, now known as Porcelana Corona.
After a mediation conference on Aug. 28, 2018, the parties reached
a partial settlement with respect to past and current owners of
Vortens tank models #3412 and #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1,
2011, through Dec. 31, 2011, who previously expended funds to
repair and replace tanks. And after a mediation conference on Oct.
16, 2018, the parties further resolved claims brought by owners of
tank models #3412 and #3464 manufactured between Jan. 1, 2011, and
Dec. 31, 2011, providing relief to class members that incurred
property damage other than to the product itself. However, the
parties were originally unable to reach agreement regarding the
Plaintiffs' remaining claims.
On April 2, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever
the distinct and severable subclass of owners of tank models #3412
and #3464 ("2011 Settlement Class") in order to render final
judgment on those settled claims while a second motion for class
certification on numerous unresolved claims ("Remaining Claims")
was pending before the Court. On June 18, 2019, the Class Counsel
for the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Approval of Service
Awards, Award of Attorneys' Fees, and Request for Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses for the newly severed 2011 Settlement Class.
Briefing of that motion was completed on July 26, 2019.
On Aug. 29, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. It approved the
settlement for the 2011 Settlement Class but noted that the
determination of the Class Counsel's reasonable fees and costs to
be paid by the Defendant would be addressed in a separate order.
But then, after the Court took the Class Counsel's fee application
for the 2011 Settlement Class under advisement, the parties were
able to settle the Remaining Claims. The Class Counsel submitted a
second application for attorneys' fees on the basis of the new
settlement; however, the Class Counsel expressed concern about the
impact a ruling on the first fee application in the 2011 Settlement
Class would have on the second fee application. Accordingly, the
Court held a telephonic hearing and suggested that the Class
Counsel submit a consolidated fee application to address the
appropriate award of attorneys' fees for the entire case --
essentially, treating the fee application as if the 2011 Settlement
Class had not been severed from the Remaining Claims. No party
objected, and the Court denied the Class Counsel's original motion
for attorneys' fees as moot.
The Class Counsel submitted its consolidated Motion for Approval of
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Request for Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses on March 9, 2020. The Defendant filed its
response on March 19, 2020. On March 20, 2020, the Class Counsel
filed a notice purporting to waive its reply; yet the Class Counsel
included four annotated cases and a new proposed order along with
the "waiver." Recognizing that there was a need to respond to the
case law and revised proposed order submitted by the Class Counsel,
the Defendant filed its sur-reply on March 27, 2020.
The Class Counsel submit that the lodestar is $4,388,405.50 and
argue that a multiplier of 2.9 based on the Johnson factors is
warranted. By the Court's calculation, it comes out to a request
for $12,726,376 in attorneys' fees. The Class Counsel also request
$373,476.05 for their litigation expenses.
Judge Mazzant first determines the base lodestar by calculating the
product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate, removing any
duplicative or unnecessary hours in the billing submitted by Class
Counsel. Then, the Judge analyzes the Johnson factors to determine
whether the lodestar should be adjusted upward as Class Counsel
suggests, or whether it should be adjusted downward as Defendant
suggests.
After conducting the analysis described above, the Judge determines
that the base lodestar is $4,333,949.50. The Judge calculates the
base lodestar by reviewing and accepting the Class Counsel's
proposed hourly rates, adjusting the hours submitted by the Class
Counsel to account for several unnecessary and duplicative
submissions, and then multiplying the two numbers. But that
computation does not end the inquiry. After reviewing the Johnson
factors, paying particular attention to the results-obtained
factor, the Judge finds that neither enhancement nor reduction of
the lodestar is appropriate. Further, after reviewing the Class
Counsel's submitted litigation expenses and costs for
reimbursement, the Judge determines that the Class Counsel is
awarded $371,354.98 in litigation expenses and costs that were
reasonable and necessary to prosecuting and settling these class
actions.
For these reasons, Judge Mazzant granted in part and denied in part
the Class Counsel's Motions for Approval of Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Request for Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. The
Class Counsel is awarded $4,333,949.50 in attorneys' fees and
$371,354.98 in litigation expenses and costs.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 24, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/uYyFP3 from
Leagle.com.
PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Richard Logan.
In September 2019, a complaint, captioned Richard Logan,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., (the "Logan
Lawsuit"), was filed against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.
In April 2020, Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje Administration
A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma
Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System,
and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit, individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020, filed a second amended class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas in the Logan Lawsuit, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate or
misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation,
cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves
customers in North America. The company is based in Midland,
Texas.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dowe Appeals Arbitration Order to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Esther Buckram, Maureen Dowe and Elvie Moore filed an
appeal from the District Court's opinion and order issued on
November 22, 2019, granting Prudential's motion to compel
arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Dowe, et al. v. Prudential
Financial Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-11633, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Denise
Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (i) granted Prudential's motion to compel arbitration; (ii)
denied LMB's motion to compel arbitration; and (iii) granted LMB's
motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs Dowe, Moore, and Buckram are former employees of
Prudential and former clients of the law firm Leeds & Morelli, P.C.
or its successors ("LMB"). In the putative class action, the
Plaintiffs allege that LMB conspired with Prudential to settle
discrimination claims against Prudential for less than their true
value, in exchange for side payments from Prudential to LMB.
Beginning in 1997, LMB solicited Prudential employees to become
clients of the firm and bring employment-discrimination claims
against Prudential. Dowe was one such client, and in January 1998,
she signed a retainer agreement providing that LMB would represent
her in "negotiating a settlement against" Prudential and that LMB
would receive one third of the settlement as attorneys' fees.
On Feb. 13, 1998, LMB entered into a five-page Dispute Resolution
Agreement ("DRA") with Prudential. The DRA provided that
Prudential and the employees represented by LMB had agreed to
utilize confidential and informal dispute resolution procedures for
the resolution of" the employment-discrimination claims.
Despite these representations, the Plaintiffs allege that LMB had
not shown the DRA to its clients and never did so. Instead, LMB
later presented its clients with a signature page for the DRA and
instructed them to sign. The Defendants have submitted a signature
page executed by Dowe on March 8, 1998. It is entitled Execution
and Acknowledgement and contains a declaration under penalty of
perjury.
Unbeknownst to Dowe or the other employees, LMB and Prudential had
also executed a side agreement on Feb. 13, 1998--the same day they
entered into the DRA. In a letter to LMB, Prudential agreed that
it would pay LMB $1.5 million within one week of LMB's execution of
the DRA. Between 1998 and 2000, Prudential paid LMB an additional
$6 million in fees.
In February 1999, LMB informed Dowe that Prudential had offered
$150,000 to settle her claim. LMB recommended that Dowe accept the
settlement, and she did so. Dowe signed a settlement agreement on
Feb. 6, 1999. That agreement was made between Dowe and Prudential.
Prudential therein agreed to pay Dowe $150,000 in exchange for
release of her claims. Dowe agreed not to disclose "any
information regarding the amount of, terms of, or facts or
circumstances underlying" the settlement. The settlement agreement
also included an arbitration clause.
The appellate case is captioned as Dowe, et al. v. Prudential
Financial Inc., et al., Case No. 19-4246, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Maureen Dowe, individually and on behalf of
those Class Members similarly situated, Elvie Moore and Esther
Buckram are represented by:
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, Esq.
233 Broadway
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (212) 791-5600
E-mail: ALB@bluestonelawfirm.com
Defendants-Appellees Leeds, Morelli and Brown PC; Leeds, Morelli
and Brown LLP; Lenard Leeds; Steven A. Morelli; Jeffrey K. Brown;
Eric Schwimmer; Leeds Brown Law P.C.; Prudential Securities
Incorporated; and Leeds and Morelli, PC, are represented by:
Janice J. DiGennaro, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: 516-357-3000
E-mail: janice.digennaro@rivkin.com
Defendant-Appellee Prudential Financial Inc., parent and successor
in interest to Prudential Securities Incorporated, is represented
by:
Vincent Anthony Sama, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212-836-8000
RITE AID: Consolidated Stafford Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2020 that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Byron Stafford v.
Rite Aid Corp.
The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.
A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was
consolidated with this lawsuit in November, 2019.
The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated
to charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies a "usual and
customary" price for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company
failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.
Rite Aid said, "At this stage of the proceedings, the Company is
not able to either predict the outcome or estimate a potential
range of loss and is defending itself against these claims."
Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates
through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite
Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.
ROBERT CLARK: Court Remands Action to State Court
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order remanding the Action to State Court in
the case captioned FRANCISCO J. ALDANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ROBERT CRAIG CLARK, et al., Defendants. Case No. 20-cv-349-BAS-BGS.
(S.D. Cal.)
The Court ordered Defendants to show cause why removal was proper,
specifically, why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
this case and why removal was timely.
Plaintiffs Francisco J. Aldana and the Law Offices of Francisco
Javier Aldana filed a civil action in California state court
against Robert Craig Clark and Clark & Treglio for (1) breach of
written contract, (2) money had and received, (3) restitution, (4)
unjust enrichment, and (5) imposition of a constructive trust. The
civil action seeks to enforce an alleged fee sharing agreement that
arises out of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' representation of
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit entitled Arellano, et al. v.
Kellermeyer Building Services, Case No. 13-cv-0533-BAS-BGS
("Arellano") that was adjudicated before this Court.
Defendants removed the case to this Court in February 2020.
Defendants claim that Plaintiffs here are now seeking to enforce
the alleged fee agreement to split fees 50/50. Defendants claim the
Court has jurisdiction over this fee dispute due to the language of
the Settlement Agreement and Court's order.
The Settlement Agreement states: the court has jurisdiction over
this case and shall retain jurisdiction with respect to the
implementation and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, and all Parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Court
for purposes of implementing and enforcing the Settlement
Agreement.
Defendants point out that they stipulated to the Court retaining
exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Agreement, including
the issue of attorney fees.But simply because parties stipulate to
something does not confer any burden on the Court, instead, the
Court must look to the language of its own order. Indeed, the issue
of the division of fees set forth in the Settlement Agreement
involves implementation and interpretation of the Agreement. But
the Court retained jurisdiction over this action and the Parties
for purposes of interpreting and implementing the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court did not retain jurisdiction over issues between the
attorneys in the case, even though those issues relate to the
Agreement. The present case does not concern the parties from
Arellano or the action itself, nothing about the resolution of the
class action depends on the resolution of the fee dispute.
The Court finds it did not retain jurisdiction over a fee dispute
between counsel.
The Court declines to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over this
case and REMANDS this matter to California state court.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9extq6 from Leagle.com
RYB EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Zhang Amended Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Queens County issued a Decision/Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint in the case
captioned YIQING ZHANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. RYB EDUCATION, INC., CHIMIN CAO,
YANLAI SHI, PING WEI, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), MORGAN
STANELY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, and BNP PARIBAS
SECURITIES CORP., Defendants. Docket No. 717923/2018, Sequence No.
1.
Plaintiffs bring this class action against defendants alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.
Following an incident in November 2017 involving the mistreatment
of students at an RYB facility, the complaint alleges that various
statements about teacher training, qualifications, and student
safety contained in RYB's Registration Statement and Prospectus
related to its initial public offering (IPO) were false and
misleading.
RYB's argument that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege
standing under Section 12(a)(2) is insufficient, according to Judge
Joseph Risi.
The crux of plaintiffs' amended complaint is that defendants failed
to accurately describe and/or omitted significant information
regarding RYB's teacher training program, teacher qualifications,
and safety and security protocols, which were core aspects of its
business, thereby misleading the public. However, the exact type of
risks of which plaintiffs complain were disclosed in the Offering
Documents themselves.
Notably, the Offering Documents address the possibility of teachers
not uniformly following RYB's service standards and, in fact,
mentions an April 2017 incident involving the mistreatment of a
student by an intern and trainee in an RYB facility in violation of
RYB's policies and training program. In view of the foregoing, RYB
specifically cautioned investors about the relevant risks
associated with its service standards, teacher training, and the
nature of its business, Judge Risi said.
As to plaintiffs' allegation that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose the deficiencies in RYB's teacher training program
regarding issues of student safety, security, and discipline, the
Court finds that no such material misstatements or omissions were
made. The Offering Documents, coupled with the RYB training
materials, adequately describe the content of RYB's teacher
training program and included risk disclosures which describe the
limitations of the training program.
Section 15 of Securities Act makes control persons, or persons who
control defendants liable under Sections 11 and 12. The purpose of
this section is to help investors collect damages in cases where
the defendant is insolvent or does not have enough money to pay the
investor.
Since the Court has concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately
state claims under Section 11 or 12(a)(2), the third cause of
action for violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act is
dismissed as moot.
A full-text copy of the Queens County Supreme Court's July 2, 2020
Decision/Order is available at https://is.gd/CEeu4Y from
Leagle.com
RYB is a provider of early childhood education with approximately
1,000 facilities in 300 cities.
* * *
By letter dated August 29, 2019, counsel for Liang Meng, one of the
directors of RYB, informed the trial court that plaintiffs
attempted to serve Mr. Meng in Hong Kong under the Hague
Convention, he accepted service and under the Rules of the Hong
Kong High Court, service was effectuated on or about August 10,
2019. The Court further noted that Liang Meng is listed as an
individual defendant in the amended complaint dated March 1, 2019,
although he is not listed in the caption. As he had notice of the
action and is not contesting service and has appeared in the
action, under these circumstances and given the absence of
prejudice, the Court agreed to treat the fact that Mr. Meng was
omitted from the caption as an error, and under CPLR Sec. 2001,
permit an amendment to the caption to include his name.
Furthermore, by letter e-filed to the Court, Mr. Meng sought to
join in fully in RYB's motion to dismiss which was not opposed by
any party. Accordingly, the Court permitted Mr. Meng to join in the
motion to dismiss.
SANDALS RESORTS: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in McCoy FDUTPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael McCoy filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Michael McCoy v. Sandals Resorts International, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-22462-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order granting Defendant Unique Vacations, Inc.'s
(UVI) Motion to Dismiss this Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action asserting two claims
for violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA), and one claim for unjust enrichment against the
Defendants for allegedly charging guests at certain Sandals resorts
throughout the Caribbean a local government tax that the Defendants
secretly retained. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants'
marketing structure presents consumers with a single price for a
vacation package, which the Defendants represent includes all
taxes, while also noting that this price is subject to change at
any time due to the imposition of taxes or other government
charges.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael McCoy v. Sandals Resorts
International, et al., Case No. 19-15045, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL MCCOY, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: 305-536-8220
E-mail: howard@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
adams@moskowitz-law.com
adam@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Daniel Wayne Grammes, Esq.
Jason Robert Marqulies, Esq.
Marc E. Weiner, Esq.
Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
LIPCON MARGULIES ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, PA
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-962-6988
E-mail: dgrammes@lipcon.com
jmargulies@lipcon.com
mweiner@lipcon.com
mw@lipcon.com
Defendants-Appellees SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD, d.b.a.
Sandals, and UNIQUE VACATIONS INC., d.b.a. Unique Vacations, are
represented by:
Oscar Andres Campos, Esq.
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esq.
COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
9150 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: 954-703-3705
E-mail: jose.campos@csklegal.com
thomas.scott@csklegal.com
- and -
James E. Gillenwater, Esq.
Claudia Ojeda, Esq.
Mark A. Salky, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
333 SE 2nd Ave., Suite 4400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-579-0500
E-mail: gillenwaterj@gtlaw.com
ojedac@gtlaw.com
salkym@gtlaw.com
STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Simmons Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Simmons, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Staffing
Solutions Southeast, Inc., doing business as Prologistix, Case No.
2020CH04260, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on June 24, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03716 to the proceeding.
The suit demands $75,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
Staffing Solutions provides staffing services. The Company offers
temporary, managed workforce, temp-to-hire, talent match, direct
hire, outsourcing, and seasonal personnel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Haley Renee Jenkins, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Megan Shannon, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mshannon@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mary A. Smigielski, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 463-3377
Mary.Smigielski@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Michael James Roman, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 463-3472
E-mail: Michael.Roman@lewisbrisbois.com
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Nguyen Suit Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUY NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly
situated v. STEPHENS INSTITUTE D/B/A ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04195-DMR (N.D.
Cal., June 25, 2020), is brought to seek refunds on behalf of those
who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at the
Academy of Art University.
As a result of Defendants' response to COVID-19, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated did not receive the benefit and services for
which they bargained for when they provided payment for tuition and
various fees.
On March 11, 2020, Academy of Art University announced that because
of COVID-19 they would suspend all in-person classes for the
remainder of the Spring Semester 2020 and that all learning would
transition to online.
As a result of the Defendants' closure, the Defendants have not
complied with their obligation to provide in-person educational
services along with other experiences, opportunities, and services
he and the Class paid for, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff contends that he and Class Members are entitled to a
pro-rata refund of the tuition and fees they paid to the Defendants
for in-person educational services, as well as other marketed
collegiate experiences and services that were not provided.
Duy Nguyen was an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020
semester. Academy of Art University charged him $11,556.00 in
tuition during the Spring 2020 semester.
Stephens Institute is a for profit corporation, which does business
as Academy of Art University. Academy of Art University is a
private university whose principal place of business is located in
San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Shoop, Esq.
Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
SHOOP, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 620-9533
E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com
Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
Jeremy Francis, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 969-7810
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
SUNSHINE DADE: Faces Longhini Suit in Florida Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG LONGHINI v. SUNSHINE DADE INVESTMENTS LLC and DADELAND SERVICE
STATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-22646-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 25,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking injunctive
relief, declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendants own, operate and oversee a commercial property, its
general parking lot and parking spots at 8033 S Dixie Hwy., in
Miami, Florida.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the businesses
located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
Commercial Property and at businesses located within the Commercial
Property. The Plaintiff wishes to continue his patronage and use of
each of the premises. The Plaintiff has also encountered
architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, says the
complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Beverly Virues, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
4937 S.W. 74th Court
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
bvirues@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
TD AMERITRADE: Knowles Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Russell D. Knowles, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's memorandum and order, and judgment issued on
November 15, 2019, in their lawsuit entitled Russell Knowles, et
al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-00047-RFR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska, Omaha.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class
action lawsuit was filed on January 31, 2019.
The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Other Breach of
Contract.
TD Ameritrade is a brokerage firm based in Omaha, Nebraska with
major trading centers in Southlake, Texas and St Louis, Missouri.
The letters TD are derived from Toronto-Dominion Bank, the largest
shareholder. The Company provides services for individuals and
institutions that are investing online.
The appellate case is captioned as Russell Knowles, et al. v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 19-3684, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Russell D. Knowles, individually and as
attorney in fact for Bernard A. Knowles, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; and Bernard A. Knowles, through
his attorney-in-fact Russell D. Knowles, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ronald B. Cox, Esq.
Robert D. Proffitt, Esq.
PROFFITT & COX LLP
140 WIldewood Park Drive, Suite A
Columbia, SC 29223
Telephone: 803-834-7097
- and -
Jason W. Grams, Esq.
LAMSON, DUGAN LAW FIRM
10306 Regency Parkway Drive
Omaha, NE 68114-3743
Telephone: (402) 397-7300
Facsimile: (402) 397-7824
E-mail: jgrams@ldmlaw.com
- and -
Alonzo J. Holloway, Esq.
Brady R. Thomas, Esq.
RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
2700 Middleburg Drive, Suite 220-D
Columbia, SC 29204
Telephone: 803-722-1721
E-mail: aholloway@rpwb.com
bthomas@rpwb.com
Defendants-Appellees TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD
Ameritrade, TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., and TD Ameritrade
Investment Management, L.L.C., are represented by:
Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
The Omaha Building
1650 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68102-0000
Telephone: 402-346-6000
E-mail: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com
- and -
Theodore Kornobis, Esq.
K & L GATES, LLP
1601 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-0000
Telephone: 202-466-6300
E-mail: ted.kornobis@klgates.com
- and -
Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq.
K & L GATES, L.L.P.
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-0000
Telephone: 202-778-9328
E-mail: stephen.topetzes@klgates.com
TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Huff filed with the Supreme Court of the United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter entitled
JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Petitioner v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.; TELECHECK
INTERNATIONAL INC.; FIRST DATA CORPORATION, Respondents, Case No.
19-785.
The Lower Court Case is styled James Huff v. Telecheck Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-5438, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Huff asked
the Honorable Elena Kagan, as Circuit Justice for the Sixth
Circuit, for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition
for writ of certiorari from a final judgment of the Sixth Circuit,
up to and including December 16, 2019.
A petition for writ of certiorari was due on October 17, 2019,
which is ninety days from July 19, 2019, when the Sixth Circuit
denied Huff's petition for rehearing en banc.
The lawsuit is a putative class action alleging that TeleCheck, a
check verification company, systematically violated Section 1681g
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by omitting linked information
from required disclosures to consumers, the substance of which
TeleCheck relies on to make credit determinations about those
consumers.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner James Huff, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
TGI FRIDAY'S: Court Dismisses Class Suit on Potato Skins Chips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Lustrin, Benjamin Mitchel, and Melissa Pallett-Vasquez of
Bilzin Sumberg wrote on JD Supra on the dismissal of the class
action against TGI Friday's.
On June 8, 2020, Judge Katherine Polk Failla in the Southern
District of New York dismissed a putative class action against TGI
Friday's ("Friday's") for alleged deceptive advertising.
The Plaintiff claimed the labeling of Friday's "Sour Cream & Onion
Potato Skins" chips is misleading because it led her to believe the
snack contained real potato skins and was thus a healthier option
than most chips. According to the Plaintiff, she—and the members
of the putative class she sought to represent—would not have
purchased the purportedly falsely labeled chips if she had known
they did not contain real potato skins.
The Court was unconvinced. Judge Polk Failla concluded that a
reasonable consumer would understand the obvious differences in
nutrition, substance, and taste between a bag of prepackaged snack
chips and a hot appetizer prepared in a restaurant. Additionally,
the Court pointed to a total lack of evidence that Friday's was
involved in the chips' packaging, noting that Friday's had licensed
its trademark to Inventure Foods Inc., the manufacturer of the
product, and a separately named defendant in the case. Plaintiff's
fraud claims against the manufacturer survived.
The case represents the latest in a growing trend of dismissals of
food and beverage mislabeling complaints. Indeed, federal district
court judges across the country are growing increasingly skeptical
of class action claims grounded on unreasonable consumer
expectations disassociated from actual, concrete harm to consumers.
[GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Peguero Fraud Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales,
USA, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Natasha Peguero and
Zulema Chapa, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.; Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., a California corporation; and Toyota Motor
Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05889-DMG-SK
(C.D. Cal., June 30, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee. The suit
demands $5 million in damages and alleges violation of
fraud-related laws.
Toyota Motor is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and
distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
steven.weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq.
Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: dmanning@glancylaw.com
lglancy@glancylaw.com
mgodino@glancylaw.com
- and -
Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW APC
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
TRIANGLE DISTRIBUTING: Lemus Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LEMUS and MINH NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of
aggrieved employees v. TRIANGLE DISTRIBUTING CO., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20NWCV00355 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2020), seeks
civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked and all hours
worked in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek,
pursuant to the Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs are hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of the
Defendants.
Triangle Distributing distributes alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverages. The Company offers beers, porters, and other malt
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Areen Babajanian, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
U GYM: Faces Manzares Employment Suit in California Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U Gym LLC. The case
is captioned as Giovanni Manzares, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. U Gym LLC, a Nevada corporation; UFC
Gym; and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00281182-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., June 26, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws.
U Gym provides fitness facilities. The Company offers gym, spas,
saunas, fitness classes, and training services, as well as retails
accessories and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: 818-230-8380
Facsimile: 818 230-0308
U.S. OIL FUND: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders of the United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the
"Fund") (NYSE: USO). The class action is on behalf of shareholders
who purchased USO securities between March 19, 2020 and April 28,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of United States Oil Fund, LP,
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of United States Oil
Fund, LP, you may, no later than August 18, 2020, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of United States Oil Fund, LP.
To join case, click
https://www.whafh.com/case/united-states-oil-fund-lp-nysearca-uso/
USO is an exchange-traded fund ("ETF") supposedly designed to track
the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West
Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma.
The lawsuit alleges that defendants stated that USO would achieve
its investment objective by investing substantially all of its
portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. Due to
extraordinary market conditions in early 2020, USO's purported
investment objective and strategy became unfeasible. According to
the complaint, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to
the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares
in March 2020.
Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was
forced to abandon its investment strategy. It was not until late
April and May 2020 that defendants acknowledged the extreme threats
and adverse impacts that the fund had been experiencing at the time
of the March offering, but which they failed to disclose to
investors.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com
kcooper@whafh.com
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800)575-0735 or
(212)545-4774 [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Order in O'Hanlon ADA Suit to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Rasier CA LLC, Rasier LLC and Uber Technologies Inc.
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Paul
O'Hanlon, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No.
2-19-cv-00675, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to remedy ongoing discrimination against persons with
mobility disabilities who want to, but cannot, use the on-demand
transportation service operated by Uber Technologies, Inc.
According to the complaint, Uber's policies and practices are
discriminatory and deny individuals, who need wheelchair accessible
vehicles equal access to the service it provides, and prevent them
from obtaining the benefits of its service. In the Pittsburgh area,
Uber provides no wheelchair accessible vehicles through its
transportation service at all. Such conduct violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs contacted Uber to request
that it reasonably modify its policies and practices so that
persons who need wheelchair accessible vehicles would have full and
equal access to the on-demand transportation service Uber provides
in Allegheny County. But Uber failed to make such modifications,
thereby leaving the Plaintiffs no choice but to file this lawsuit.
The appellate case is captioned as Paul O'Hanlon, et al. v. Uber
Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 19-3891, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees PAUL O'HANLON, an individual; JONATHAN
ROBISON, an individual; GAYLE LEWANDOWSKI, an individual; IRMA
ALLEN, an individual; and PITTSBURGHERS FOR PUBLIC TRANSTIT, a
project of Thomas Merton Center, Inc., a Pennsylvania non-profit
corporation, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated, are represented by:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-322-9243
E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Michelle B. Iorio, Esq.
Melissa Riess, Esq.
Stuart J. Seaborn, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: 510-665-8644
E-mail: miorio@dralegal.org
mriess@dralegal.org
sseaborn@dralegal.org
- and -
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
COHEN & GRIGSBY PC
625 Liberty Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-297-4838
Defendants-Appellants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and RASIER LLC, a Delaware Corporation, are
represented by:
Anne M. Estevez, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: 305-415-3330
E-mail: annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com
- and -
Patrick A. Harvey, Esq.
Stephanie B. Schuster, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 North
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: 202-373-6284
E-mail: patrick.harvey@morganlewis.com
stephanie.schuster@morganlewis.com
- and -
Christopher K. Ramsey, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
301 Grant Street
One Oxford Centre, Suite 3200
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412-560-3323
E-mail: christopher.ramsey@morganlewis.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Manzini Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nicolas A. Manzini filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Nicolas Manzini v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 1:19-cv-24387-PCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 19-27603-CA-22) was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Oct. 23,
2019.
The appellate case is captioned as Nicolas Manzini v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 19-14774, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant NICOLAS A. MANZINI, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, of West Miami, Florida,
appears pro se.[BN]
Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by:
Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq.
Brian Ercole, Esq.
Bruno Reategui, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 415-3447
Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
E-mail: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com
brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
bruno.reategui@morganlewis.com
ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Hanbser Suit Over Wage Pay Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
SHAHARA HANSBER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. ULTA
BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-20-101599 (Calif. Super., Kern Cty., July 10, 2020) is an
action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees of Defendant and/or DOES who:
-- worked a shift of at least five hours without receiving a
meal period; worked four, or a major fraction thereof, without
receiving a 10-minute net rest break;
-- worked qualifying shifts without receiving second meal
periods and second and third rest breaks;
-- were not provided accurate itemized wage statements;
-- were not paid all wages owed twice per month;
-- were not paid compensation for all time worked at the
straight, overtime, or double time rate; and
-- were not paid waiting time penalties,
in violations of the California Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 (PAGA), California Labor Code Section 2698 et. seq.
Plaintiff and similar aggrieved employees were and are employed in
the State of California by the Defendant and/or DOES as all persons
who performed services at Defendant's distribution centers and/or
warehouses in the state as hourly, non-exempt workers, pickers,
warehouse workers, shipping and receiving coordinators, shipping
and receiving clerks, production workers, or similar job
designations and titles, and all other similarly situated
non-exempt, hourly workers who performed services for Defendant
through staffing agencies or other non-Ulta Beauty entities during
the relevant time period. Plaintiff was employed in a non-exempt
capacity.
Defendant and/or DOES failed to pay all wages owed to Plaintiff and
to other terminated or resigned members of the aggrieved employees,
failed to timely pay wages during employment, as well as failed to
pay Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees all wages earned twice
per month.
Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC is a California-based company which
offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and salon
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
Matthew Crawford, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650
Camino del Rio North, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 234-2833
Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Nedley Seeks Tuition and Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMMA NEDLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-03109-TJS (E.D.
Pa., June 25, 2020), is brought to seek refunds on behalf of all
persons, who paid tuition and/or fees to attend the University for
an in-person, hands-on education for the Spring 2020 semester,
Summer 2020 semester, and any future semester where their course
work was moved to online learning.
According to the complaint, such persons paid all or part of the
tuition for this semester and mandatory fees that include a General
Fee, Technology Fee, and Clinical Fee (collectively the Mandatory
Fees). Students may have incurred additional fees based on whether
they were a freshman or transfer student, or depending upon which
program they were enrolled in.
Because of the University's response to the Coronavirus Disease
2019 pandemic, by mid-March, the University ceased or severely
limited any of the services or facilities the Mandatory Fees were
intended to cover.
The Plaintiff contends that the University has not refunded any
amount of the tuition or any portion of the Mandatory Fees, even
though it has implemented online distance learning since mid-March
2020.
Emma Nedley is a citizen of Pennsylvania. She paid to attend the
Spring 2020 semester at the University of Pennsylvania as an
undergraduate student.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private research, Ivy League
university founded in 1740. The University offers numerous major
fields for undergraduate students, as well as an array of
internationally prominent of graduate programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
ncolella@carlsonlynch.com
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Ureda Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine & Kebartas
LLC. The case is styled as Mark Ureda, individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Valentine & Kebartas
LLC and LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01018-WED
(E.D. Wis., July 7, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Valentine & Kebartas LLC is a collection agency headquartered in
Lawrence, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben J Slatky, Esq.
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
3620 E Layton Ave
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: bslatky@ademilaw.com
- and -
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
3620 E Layton Ave
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: jfruchter@ademilaw.com
- and -
Mark A Eldridge, Esq.
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
3620 E Layton Ave
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
- and -
John D Blythin, Esq.
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
3620 E Layton Ave
Cudahy, WI 53110
Tel: (414) 482-8000
Fax: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
VYSTAR CORP: Rotmans Furniture Defends LaChapelle Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 that Robert LaChapelle's
class action complaint against Rotmans Furniture, a company
subsidiary, is underway.
On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans
Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including
Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior
Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay
pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the
Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the
Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and
150).
Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him
and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis
overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or
premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours
they worked on Sundays.
Vystar said, "Rotmans is in the process of investigating these
claims to determine whether it may be liable to the members of the
putative class for unpaid overtime and Sunday pay and, if so, the
approximate amount of such amounts."
Vystar Corp. creates natural rubber latex. The Company's product is
used in an extensive range of products including balloons,
textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives, foams,
furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment, sporting
equipment, and especially health care products such as condoms,
surgical and exam gloves.
WALGREENS BOOTS: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in JR Personal Injury Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs J R, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit titled J R, et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00446-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina at Charleston.
The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury.
The appellate case is captioned as J R, individually and on behalf
of her minor minor children A.R. and H.K.; J H, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; B Y, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; J S, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE INC.; WALGREEN CO.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-2404, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants J R, individually and on behalf of her minor
minor children A.R. and H.K.; J H, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; B Y, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and J S, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Adair Ford Boroughs, Esq.
4532 Meadowood Road
Columbia, SC 29206
Telephone: 843-608-0498
- and -
Charles W. Byrd, Esq.
Aimee J. Hall, Esq.
Michael J. Moore, Esq.
C. Neal Pope, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY PC
3392 Peachtree Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: 404-523-7706
E-mail: chuckbyrd@popemcglamry.com
aimeehall@popemcglamry.com
michaelmoore@popemcglamry.com
nealpope@popemcglamry.com
- and -
Wade H. Tomlinson, III, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY PC
1200 Sixth Avenue
Columbus, GA 36901
Telephone: 706-324-0050
E-mail: triptomlinson@popemcglamry.com
- and -
Edward L. Hardin, Jr., Esq.
EDWARD L. HARDIN JR. LAW OFFICE
PO Box 530567
Birmingham, AL 35253-7223
Telephone: 205-908-7223
- and -
Arthur Raphael Miller, Esq.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
1545 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-0000
- and -
William Norman Nettles, Esq.
Frances Cornelia Trapp, Esq.
BILL NETTLES LAW
2008 Lincoln Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: 803-814-2826
E-mail: bill@billnettleslaw.com
fran@billnettleslaw.com
Defendants-Appellees WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., and WALGREEN
CO. are represented by:
David Eidson Dukes, Esq.
Adam J. Hegler, Esq.
Amanda Sally Kitts, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
P. O. Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: 803-255-9451
E-mail: david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com
adam.hegler@nelsonmullins.com
amanda.kitts@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Kate Heinzelman, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
1501 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-1401
Telephone: 202 736 8416
E-mail: kheinzelman@sidley.com
- and -
Scott David Stein, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
1 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603-0000
Telephone: 312-853-7520
E-mail: sstein@sidley.com
WASHINGTON TRUST: Haines Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HAINES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WASHINGTON TRUST BANK, Case No. 20-2-10459-1 SEA (Wash.
Cir., King Cty., June 25, 2020), seeks monetary damages,
restitution and declaratory relief from WTB arising from the unfair
and unlawful assessment and collection of overdraft fees, which WTB
charges when it pays certain items.
The Plaintiff contends that through the imposition of these fees,
WTB makes millions of dollars. These fees are, by definition, most
often assessed on consumers struggling to make ends meet with
minimal funds in their accounts, according to the complaint. These
practices work to catch account holders in an increasingly
devastating cycle of bank fees.
Mr. Haines is a natural person, who is a citizen of Washington, and
resides in Clayton, Washington. He has a personal checking account
with WTB.
WTB is one of the largest banks in Washington. WTB is headquartered
in Spokane, Washington, and maintains branch locations across the
state of Washington. WTB has assets of more than $6 billion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Ingram Seeks to Certify Car Owners Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MELISA INGRAM, STEPHANIE
WILSON, and ROBERT REEVES, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, Case No.
2:20-cv-10288-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons who own a vehicle (or other property within a
vehicle) that has been or will be seized by Defendant
Wayne County on or after February 5, 2018 and before the
date of class certification, whether pursuant to
Michigan's Controlled Substances Act, the Public Nuisances
chapter of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, or the
Omnibus Forfeiture Act. "Seizure" includes Wayne County's
impounding of vehicles prior to a judicial determination
of forfeiture";
2. certifying an Innocent Owner Subclass;
"all persons who own a vehicle (or other property within a
vehicle) that has been or will be seized by Defendant
Wayne County on or after February 5, 2018 and before the
date of class certification, whether pursuant to
Michigan's Controlled Substances Act, the Public Nuisances
chapter of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961, or the
Omnibus Forfeiture Act when the owner was not present at
the time of seizure or, although present, not suspected of
any wrongdoing";
3. designating the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
4. appointing their consel as class counsel.
If the Court does not certify the class or Innocent Owner Subclass
as proposed, the Plaintiffs alternatively request that the Court
modify the class definitions or limit certification to those issues
it deems appropriate.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
granting leave to begin class discovery.
Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan. As of 2019, the United States Census estimated its
population as 1,749,343 making it the 19th-most populous county in
the United States.[CC]
The PlaintifFs are represented by:
Wesley Hottot, Esq.
Kirby Thomas West, Esq.
Jaimie Cavanaugh, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
600 University Street, Suite 1730
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 957-1300
E-mail: whottot@ij.org
kwest@ij.org
jcavanaugh@ij.org
- and -
Barton Morris, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BARTON MORRIS
520 North Main Street
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 541-2600
E-mail: barton@bartonmorris.com
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY: McClanahan Seeks Tuition Refunds Amid COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE MCCLANAHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Webster University, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00907 (E.D. Mo., July 10, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly
situated individuals who are students at Webster University who did
not receive the in-person educational experience that they paid for
during part of the 2020 Spring Semester as a result of Webster
effectively closing its campuses and switching to online
instruction due to risks associated with the Novel Coronavirus
Disease ("COVID-19").
According to the complaint, based on Defendant's actions Plaintiff
and Class Members received a diminished educational experience and
received no or reduced value from student fees that they paid
associated with the in-person educational experience. Despite this,
Plaintiff and Class Members have not been refunded for any tuition
or student fees.
Plaintiff does not challenge Defendant's decision to effectively
close its campuses and transition to online-only classes because of
the COVID-19 pandemic, but the effect of this decision was that
Plaintiff and Class Members were deprived of the many benefits of
the full in-person university experience for which they paid.
Defendant's actions as alleged herein constitute a breach of
contract, violate the equitable principles of unjust enrichment and
money had and received, constitute a breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and violate the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Section 407.010 et seq, by
means of unfair practices.
Webster University is a non-profit corporation organized under the
laws of, and registered in, Missouri. It is a private university,
with its home campus in St. Louis County, Missouri, and locations
across the United States and in several other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5799
Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
- and -
Mark Goldenberg, Esq.
Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Kevin P. Green, Esq.
GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-5150
Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
tom@ghalaw.com
kevin@ghalaw.com
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Releases Supersedeas Bond in Petrone
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Nebraska issued a
Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Mandate and for Order Approving Release of Supersedeas Bond in
the case captioned PHILIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER
ENTERPRISES, INC., AND DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC; Defendants. Nos.
8:11CV401, 8:12CV307 (D. Neb.)
Before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Mandate
and for Order Approving Release of Supersedeas Bond.
This case is a class action arising out of an eight-week training
program operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nebraska law, by
failing to compensate trainees adequately for short-term breaks or
for time spent resting in their trucks' sleeper-berths. A jury
ultimately found in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $779,127
on the short-term break claim and found in favor of Defendants on
the sleeper-berth claim.
The Court found that Plaintiffs did not have good cause to extend
the reporting deadline. The Court of Appeals found that the Court
erred in granting Plaintiffs' request to extend the Rule 16(b)
disclosure deadline, despite finding that good cause for the
extension had not been shown, based on an erroneous application of
Rule 37(c)(1).
Having found the resolution of this issue dispositive, the Court of
Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to this Court for
proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The only evidence Plaintiffs presented to the jury on damages in
this case was expert testimony by Kroon and his new report. Indeed,
the reason Judge Strom permitted Plaintiffs to file their untimely
report was because it was useful and necessary to the disposition
of the case on the merits. If there was other evidence presented to
the jury that could have supported the verdict, reliance on Rule
37(c) would have been harmless and the Court of Appeals would not
have vacated the judgment.
There is clearly more analysis to be done of the evidence in this
case than simple arithmetic. The evidence was such that even
Plaintiffs' expert made significant errors which rendered his first
report likely inadmissible. A jury could not accurately determine
damages regarding the pay and time records for 55,000 class members
without expert testimony in this case.
Plaintiffs could not have proved damages but for the admission of
Kroon's untimely expert report. Therefore, the only proceeding
consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals is dismissal of
this action with prejudice.
Defendants' Motion to Enter Judgment on the Mandate and For Order
Approving Release of Supersedeas Bond is granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86f54wq from
Leagle.com
YOUNG LIVING: Appeals Order in O'Shaughnessy Suit to 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Young Living Essential Oils, L.C., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Julie
O'Shaughnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, et al., Case No.
1:19-CV-412 on 2019-04-12, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accuses the Defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act by operating an illegal pyramid scheme
created under the guise of selling essential oils for
quasi-medicinal purposes.
Young Living Essential Oils, LC, is a Utah limited liability
company with its principal offices and headquarters located in
Lehi, Utah. The Young Living Foundation is a Utah non-profit
corporation, and an affiliated entity created by founder Gary
Young. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
Young Living.
Young Living purports to sell "essential oils" via a complicated
multi-level marketing ("MLM") operation. The Plaintiff alleges
that the complex and intentionally hard-to-understand multi-layer
compensation/participation structure of Young Living is a hallmark
of illegal MLM pyramid schemes.
The appellate case is captioned as Julie O'Shaughnessy v. Young
Living Essential Oils, et al., Case No. 19-51169, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY, Individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert Eric Linkin, Esq.
DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO, L.L.P.
600 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 744-9300
E-mail: rlinkin@dwmrlaw.com
- and -
James David Rowe, Esq.
DUBOIS, BRYANT & CAMPBELL, L.L.P.
303 Colorado Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 457-8000
E-mail: drowe@dbcllp.com
- and -
Austin P. Tighe, Jr., Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, L.L.P.
3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78746-0000
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, L.C,, doing
business as Young Living Essential Oils; YOUNG LIVING FOUNDATION,
INCORPORATED; MARY YOUNG, Co-conspirator; JARED TURNER,
Co-conspirator; and BENJAMIN RILEY, Co-conspirator, are represented
by:
Thomas M. Melsheimer, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN, L.L.P.
2121 N. Pearl Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: 214-453-6401
E-mail: tmelsheimer@winston.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***