/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201124.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 235
Headlines
A&L THAI: Olivarez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
AA FOREST INC: Yuan Files FLSA Suit in New York
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Egidio Files Suit in Massachusetts
ALLFAST FASTENING: Seeks Arbitration in Landeros Suit
ANTILLANA 167: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BAPTIST HEALTH: Court Revises Class Definition in Whitley Suit
BATH & BODY: Strauch Wage & Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
CASCADE MOUNTAIN: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
CENLAR CAPITAL: Chapman FDCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
CHARLES SCHWAB: Removal Provision Violates DGCL, Lovoi Suit Says
CHOKDEE NYC: Barro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Blackerby Settlement Gets Final Approval
CPT USA LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
DNATA US: Moore Employment Class Suit Goes to N.D. California
DOUBLE DOWN: Second Bid for Protective Order in Benson Suit Granted
DRNS CORP: Thorne Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
FCI LENDER: Diaz Settlement Has $82,587 Class Fund
FIJI WATER CO: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
FILMATIQUE LLC: Mejico Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
FNP INC: Boose Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to D. Montana
FNP INC: Lepiane Wage Violation Class Suit Removed to D. Montana
GERBER PRODUCTS: Gavilanes Balks at Deceptive Infant Formula Labels
GOODWILL OF SILICON: Pacheco Sues Over Illegal Background Check
GRAMMERCY FARMER: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzales Suit Claims
GREEN RUSH: Faces Beal Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
HAIR CLUB: Gastelum FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
HARD ROCK CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Picknell Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: Pizarro ERISA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga.
HOST HEALTHCARE: Blount Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
HR OUTSOURCING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo-Rodriguez Says
HYATT CORPORATION: Brumbach Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
IIK. TRANSPORT: Improperly Pays Truck Drivers, Prokhorov Suit Says
INFINITY ENERGY: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Voicemails
INTERNATIONAL STEEL: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Steel Workers
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: NexPoint Merger Lacks Info, Erickson Suit Says
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Bid to Stay Convery Suit
KING WINDSOR GROUP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
LONGFIN CORP: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
MIDLAND FOOD: Faces Ward Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
NEW YORK: Face Malcolm FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEWELL BRANDS: Schmitt Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Car Seats
OHIO STATE: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Daniels Suit Claims
PITA PARK INC: Vilorio Files FLSA Suit in New York
PONY BAMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Exotic Dancers, Lowry Says
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Clark Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
RIVER STREET SWEETS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of December 7 Deadline
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
SABER HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Kuchar Claims
SAN YSIDRO RANCH: Davis Suit Asserts ADA Breach
SOUP N BURGER: Petronilo Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
SPEED NORTH: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Brown Claims
STATER BROS: Armenta Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
SUNSET FOOD: Railey BIPA Suit Removed from Cir. Court to N.D. Ill.
TARGET CORP: Gordon Sues Over Deceptive Infant Formula Labels
TIFFCO CARE2: Dickens Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
TREEHOUSE CALIFORNIA: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
UNILEVER UNITED: Libbey Says Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Irritation
UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Jairam Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
VILLA OF GREENFIELD: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Parker Claims
VOODOO DOUGHNUT: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
WEATHERFORD US: Granillo Labor Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
WESTERN UNION: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Douglas Suit
XEROX CORP: Vollmer Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
ZEVIA LLC: Cruz Alleges Violation under American Disabilities Act
*********
A&L THAI: Olivarez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ADELFO OLIVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&L THAI RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
AYADA THAI, and DUANGJA THAMMASAT, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05465 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from in or around
January 2014 until in or around March 2020 to perform primary
duties that include prepping food, cleaning, delivery service and
performing other miscellaneous duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 65
or more hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendants, and 13 or more hours per day, 5 days a week from in or
around November 2014 until in or around March 2020. However, the
Defendants failed to pay him one and one-half times his regular
rates of pay for hours worked over 40 and an extra hour at the
legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours.
Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements, and failed to keep
accurate payroll records.
A&L Thai Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Ayada Thai is a restaurant owned
and operated by Duangja Thammasat. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
AA FOREST INC: Yuan Files FLSA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AA Forest, Inc. The
case is styled as Qunbin Yuan, Jian Kang Liu, Changli Gao and Ming
Xiang, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AA Forest, Inc., doing business as:
Lasership, Lasership, Inc., doing business as: Lasership,
Amazon.com, Inc., You Liang Guo, also known as: Kevin Guo and Brett
Bissell, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05484 (E.D., N.Y., November
11, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A A Forestry L L C was founded in 2005. The company's line of
business includes providing forestry services on a contract or fee
basis.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Troy Law, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-2332
EmaiL: johntroy@troypllc.com
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Egidio Files Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All-Clad
Metalcrafters, LLC. The case is styled as Carol Egidio,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC and Groupe Seb,
Inc, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-12025 (D., Mass., November 11,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract
Product Liability filed pursuant to the Diversity-Product
Liability.
All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC is a U.S. manufacturer of cookware with
headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
Greg Coleman Law
16748 McCormick St
Encino, CA 91436-1020
Tel: (917) 471-1894
Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
ALLFAST FASTENING: Seeks Arbitration in Landeros Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled PORFIRIO LANDEROS,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. ALLFAST FASTENING SYSTEMS, LLC and TRIMAS
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-09859 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2020),
Plaintiff is opposing the request of Defendant to send the case to
arbitration.
A hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration is set for Dec. 7,
2020, at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Stephen V. Wilson.
Judge Wilson previously set an initial status conference for Jan.
11, 2021 at 3:00 p.m.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged employment
discrimination.
Allfast Fastening Systems, LLC is a company that offers solid and
blind rivets, bolts, and installation tools, headquartered in
California.
TriMas Corporation is a manufacturer of proprietary products based
in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com
ANTILLANA 167: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO BAUTISTA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTILLANA 167 FRUITS & VEGETABLES,
INC. (D/B/A ANTILLANA 167 FRUITS & VEGETABLES), ANTONIO R. CABRAL,
and MARY CABRAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09702 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 18, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime
pay, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to furnish
accurate wage statements.
Mr. Gonzalez was employed as a produce handler at the Defendants'
grocery store in New York from approximately April 22, 2020 until
on or about November 1, 2020.
Antillana 167 Fruits & Vegetables, Inc., d/b/a Antillana 167 Fruits
& Vegetables, is a grocery store owner and operator located at 212
E. 167th Street, Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BAPTIST HEALTH: Court Revises Class Definition in Whitley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN WHITLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH; BAPTIST
HEALTH HOSPITALS; DIAMOND RISK INSURANCE LLC; ADMIRAL INSURANCE
COMP ANY; ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMP ANY; IRONSHORE INDEMNITY, INC.;
and IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-624-DPM (E.D. Ark.), Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central
Division, has entered an Order revising the class definition.
Judge Marshall finds that the current class definition stands-with
some clarifications prompted by the recent briefing. None of the
changes compromises all the parties' good work on the class
spreadsheets. First, keeping faith with the provider agreements
requires that acceptance is the criterion, not receipt. Second,
Whitley has helpfully clarified exactly which other sources are in
play: third-party motor vehicle accident liability, uninsured
motorist coverage, and underinsured motorist coverage. Third, the
specification of other sources eliminates the need for the vexed
carve-outs list. Last, the Judge confirms the Court's ruling at
the June 12th hearing that patients in these mixed circumstances
remain in the class.
His ruling is not just for notice purposes, as Baptist contends.
Rather, the ruling is on the merits because Baptist's acceptance of
money from one of the six insurers is what triggers liability,
which is not eliminated by Baptist's also having accepted payment
from some government source.
The following is the revised class definition which reflects all
the Court's rulings as of Aug. 7, 2020:
All Arkansas residents who, since 30 July 2011, received any
type of healthcare treatment from any Arkansas entity owned,
controlled, or managed by Baptist Health or Baptist Health
Hospitals; (i) the treatment was covered by valid, in network,
health coverage that was underwritten, administered, or
supported by (a) QualChoice of Arkansas, (b) Health Advantage,
(c) Blue Cross Blue Shield, (d) Humana, (e) Aetna, or
(f) UnitedHealthcare; (ii) Baptist submitted the charges for
the treatment to the patient's health insurer for payment;
(iii) Baptist accepted payment from the health insurer for the
treatment; (iv) Baptist (itself or through its agents) sought
payment for the treatment from sources other than the health
insurer (defined only as third-party motor vehicle accident
liability, uninsured motorist coverage, or underinsured
motorist coverage) by maintaining or asserting hospital
lien(s) for the treatment after accepting payment from the
health insurer; and (v) the individual sustained damages.
Covered liens include only those for amounts exceeding
copayments, deductibles, coinsurance, and services not
covered by the health insurance plan.
Judge Marshall therefore confirms the Court's tentative thinking,
and rules as a matter of law on liability. During the recoupment
period, Baptist's use of liens violated neither the provider
agreements nor the ADTPA, because of the harmonious operation of
Arkansas's medical lien, primary coverage, and recoupment statutes.
But it violated the agreements and the ADTPA when it asserted or
persisted in a lien after the recoupment period, causing a patient
to sustain damages. Where the provider agreements bar third-party
beneficiaries, the conduct would still violate the ADTPA because
Arkansas's insurance statutes and regulations don't specifically
permit the conduct. In any event, the potential class members will
have to document damages. If there was no delay damage or payment
damage, then the patient will drop out and recover nothing.
The list for notice will be Baptist's alternative class list
provided on June 18th using Column BA, with one exception. Baptist
no longer needs to include the 125 encounters discussed during the
June 12th hearing the encounters added by using the first
transaction date across all encounters for a given patient. Baptist
must file the June 18th spreadsheet under seal in digital format,
and provide courtesy digital and paper copies to chambers.
Whitley must update the class definition by incorporating the
Court's earlier edits, and the ones directed by the Order. Whitley
must replace the paragraph beginning, "This notice is not," with:
"The Court has ruled that Baptist had a statutory right to seek
payment using hospital liens, but only for a limited period. You
may or may not be entitled to get some money. To show whether you
were damaged or not, you will need to submit a claim form, which
you will receive in due course. This notice is sent to advise you
of the pendency of this action and your rights with respect to it."
After making these changes, Whitley must send notice as soon as
practicabl. He must also promptly report when he has done so.
The Judge suspended the Second Amended Final Scheduling Order. He
denied without prejudice as moot the motions in limine. Baptist's
deposition-designation objections are likewise overruled without
prejudice as moot.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxq72fak from Leagle.com.
BATH & BODY: Strauch Wage & Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAI-LINH STRAUCH, on behalf of herself and the
Class members v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, BATH & BODY WORKS DIRECT,
INC., and L BRANDS, INC., Case No. VCU282736, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01603-NONE-SAB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
timely and accurate wage statements, and for unfair competition.
Bath & Body Works, LLC is an American retailer under the L Brands
umbrella, headquartered in Reynoldsburg, Ohio.
Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. is a company that manufactures and
supplies personal care products, with its principal place of
business in Reynoldsburg, Ohio.
L Brands, Inc. is an American fashion retailer, with its principal
place of business in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq.
Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq.
Brandon Marvisi, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com
khornbeck@HuntonAK.com
bmarvisi@HuntonAK.com
CASCADE MOUNTAIN: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Cascade Mountain Technologies, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cascade Mountain
Technologies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09474 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 11, 2020).
Cascade Mountain Technologies, LLC is offering a selection of
quality gear for outdoor adventures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CENLAR CAPITAL: Chapman FDCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID CHAPMAN, an individual, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. CENLAR
CAPITAL CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV38974, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10401 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the California's
Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
Cenlar Capital Corporation is a company that provides banking
services, headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Regina J. McClendon, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 318-8810
Facsimile: (415) 676-5816
E-mail: rmcclendon@lockelord.com
- and –
Thomas J. Cunningham, Esq.
Jamie M. Cheng, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 485-1500
Facsimile: (213) 485-1200
E-mail: tcunningham@lockelord.com
jamie.cheng@lockelord.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Removal Provision Violates DGCL, Lovoi Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD LOVOI v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, CHARLES R. SCHWAB, WALTER W. BETTRINGER II, JOHN K.
ADAMS, JR., MARIANNE C. BROWN, JOAN T. DEA, CHRISTOPHER V. DODDS,
STEPHEN A. ELLIS, MARK A. GOLDFARB, WILLIAM S. HARAF, FRANK C.
HERRINGER, BRIAN M. LEVITT, GERRI MARTIN-FLICKINGER, BHARAT B.
MASRANI, TODD M. RICKETTS, CHARLES A. RUFFEL, ARUN SARIN, PAULA A.
SNEE, Case No. 2020-0984 (D. Del., Nov. 13, 2020), is a verified
class action complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
other Schwab's stockholders against the Company and the members of
its board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Removal
Provision violates Section 141(k) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.
According to the complaint, a certain provision of both the
Company's effective certificate of incorporation and bylaws,
adopted and presently maintained by Defendants, provides that any
director may be removed from office only by the affirmative vote of
the holders of 80% of the combined voting power of the outstanding
shares of stock, contrary to Delaware law.
Plaintiff Gerald Lovoi is an owner of Schwab common stock. He
originally purchased Schwab common stock in February 2019.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a savings and loan holding
company and engages, through its subsidiaries, in wealth
management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management,
custody, and financial advisory services. The Company is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange and its single class of voting common
shares trades under the symbol "SCHW". The Individual Defendants
are officers and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Werner R. Kranenburg
KRANENBURG80-83 Long Lane
London EC1A 9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365
E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com
CHOKDEE NYC: Barro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL BARRO, BRAULIO HERNANDEZ, LUIS EDUARDO CHAR MATZ, and JUAN
CARLOS CHAR ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHOKDEE NYC INC. (D/B/A THAI TERMINAL),
NUTTAWUT VEERAPORNPHIMON, PANTIPA VEERAPORNPHIMON, HAM DOE, and OAT
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09615 (S.D.N.Y., November 16,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure
to pay spread of hours premium, failure to provide written wage
notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to
reimburse business expenses, unlawful wage deductions, and failure
to timely pay wages on weekly basis.
The Plaintiffs were employed as food preparers, kitchen helpers,
cleaners, dishwashers, and delivery workers at Thai Terminal from
approximately 2014 through 2020.
Chokdee NYC Inc., d/b/a Thai Terminal, is a Thai restaurant owner
and operator, with its principal place of business in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TIM BLACKWELL, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION
SPECIALISTS, INC.; CLIMATE PROS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00285675, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on November 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02281-JAM-KJN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure
to timely pay wages during and upon termination of employment,
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and
failure to reimburse necessary work-related expenses.
Commercial Refrigeration Specialists, Inc. is a family owned and
operated heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration
company, headquartered in Fairbanks, Alaska. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael C. Barnhill, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
2750 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 560
Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121
Telephone: (801) 833-0500
Facsimile: (801) 931-2500
E-mail: mcbarnhill@michaelbest.com
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Blackerby Settlement Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jaffe of the New York County Supreme Court granted
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a final order and judgment
approving the class action settlement in the case, AMBER BLACKERBY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, v. CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE INC., OR ANY OTHER RELATED
ENTITIES, Defendant, Docket No. 156571/2017, Motion Seq. No. 004
(N.Y. Sup.).
By order dated July 26, 2019, the proposed class action settlement
agreement was preliminarily approved as fair, adequate and
reasonable, provided that notice of the proposed class action
settlement be sent to the members of the proposed settlement class.
By stipulation and order dated May 26, 2020, publication was
authorized of a supplemental notice in Spanish and in English
(supplemental notice) to all the members of the class who did not
previously file a claim form electing to participate in the
proposed settlement.
A hearing was set for Aug. 5, 2020 for the final settlement
conference. The class counsel affirms that he appeared for the Aug.
5, 2020 hearing and that no class members attended. The class
counsel represents that no member of the class has provided any
written or other objection to the proposed class action
settlement.
Judge Jaffe finds that the proposed class action settlement, as set
forth in the settlement agreement is both procedurally and
substantively fair, and the notices given to the class members
accurately informed them of the proposed settlement, was the best
notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted valid,
due, and sufficient notice. The claims administration process was
also fair and reasonable, and provided each class member with a
fair and reasonable opportunity to submit a claim for payment made
available under the proposed settlement.
Accordingly, Judge Jaffe finally approved the settlement set forth
in the settlement agreement, as it is, in all respects. The
Defendant is directed to effectuate distribution of the net
settlement fund for distribution to the authorized claimants in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement and the final
order.
The Plaintiff and all the class members are (i) conclusively deemed
to have released and discharged the Defendant from any and all
claims, causes of actions, or demands of any kind released in the
settlement agreement, as set forth more fully in the settlement
agreement, and (ii) permanently enjoined and barred from asserting,
either directly or indirectly against the Defendant, any and all
claims, causes of actions, or demands of any kind related to the
claims released in the settlement agreement.
The Judge granted the class counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs, and the claims administrator's
fees, to be paid out of the gross settlement amount.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y58hplco from Leagle.com.
CPT USA LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
CPT USA LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. CPT USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09465 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
11, 2020).
Cpt USA, LLC was founded in 2014. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of fur goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
DNATA US: Moore Employment Class Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN L. MOORE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING LLC, 121
INFLIGHT CATERING LLC, KEVIN KLOIBER, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-586512, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08028 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations,
and unfair competition.
Dnata US Inflight Catering LLC is a company that provides catering
services based in North Salem, New York.
121 Inflight Catering LLC is an inflight catering services provider
based in New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
Kayla M. Rathjen, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
Mariko.Ashley@jacksonlewis.com
Kayla.Rathjen@jacksonlewis.com
DOUBLE DOWN: Second Bid for Protective Order in Benson Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY SIMONSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOUBLE DOWN
INTERACTIVE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, (i) granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiffs Benson and Simonson's Motion to
Compel Discovery; and (ii) granted Defendant Double Down's Motions
for Protective Order re. Plaintiffs' Subpoenas to Third-Party
Platforms, Apple, Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; and Google, LLC.
Both the first set of subpoenas (which Double Down wants to quash)
and the discovery request (which the Plaintiffs want to compel a
response to) seek information about virtual chip transactions for
customers of Double Down's casino-gaming apps, which are carried by
the Third Parties Platforms. The second set of subpoenas seek a
greater variety of information, such as research and communications
by the Third-Party Platforms.
The Plaintiffs' first set of subpoenas to the Third-Party Companies
are materially indistinguishable and seek the following:
(a) Request for Production No. 1: Documents sufficient to
identify all Virtual Chip Transactions between April 9, 2014
and the present in each of the following casino apps offered
in the nonparty app store: DoubleDown Casino, DoubleDown
Fort Knox Casino, DoubleDown Classic Slots, Ellen's Road to
Riches Slots.
(b) Request for Production No. 1: Documents sufficient to
identify the Purchase Information for all Virtual Chip
Transactions responsive to Request for Production No. 1.
Judge Leighton is unpersuaded that nationwide discovery will yield
relevant data in proportion to the added burden. Because
Washington users provide a sufficiently large sample to flesh out
the other issues for certification purposes, he will limit the
Plaintiffs' discovery to those users. He will also not allow
discovery into apps other than DoubleDown Casino that are not
mentioned in the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs make no
allegations about DoubleDown Fort Knox Casino, DoubleDown Classic
Slots, or Ellen's Road to Riches Slots. They therefore lack
standing to pursue discovery on those apps without further
amendments to their complaint.
The Plaintiffs' second set of subpoenas seek a different and
broader spectrum of information. The requests include:
(a) No. 1: All contracts between You and Double Down
Interactive.
(b) No. 2: All Communications between You and Double Down
Interactive Related To DoubleDown Casino, DoubleDown Classic
Slots, DoubleDown Fort Knox Casino, or Ellen's Road to
Riches Slots.
(c) No. 3: Documents sufficient to Identify Your revenue from
DoubleDown Casino, DoubleDown Classic Slots, DoubleDown
Fort Knox Casino, and Ellen's Road to Riches Slots during
the Relevant Time Period, broken down by calendar year.
(d) No. 4: Documents sufficient to Identify Your total
revenue from the Social Casino Genre during the
Relevant Time Period.
(e) No. 5: All Communications that contain both (i) an
Addiction Phrase and (ii) a Double Down Phrase that
were authored, sent, or received by any of the following
custodians: Dan Iverson, Matt Fischer, Steve Cho, Mike
Schmid, Carson Oliver, Spiro Kouretas, Michael
McMillion, Ryan Olson, Sean Cameron, and Seema Vora.
(f) No. 6: All Communications that contain both (i) a
Life Event Phrase, and (ii) a Double Down Phrase that were
authored, sent, or received by any of the following
custodians: Dan Iverson, Matt Fischer, Steve Cho, Mike
Schmid, Carson Oliver, Spiro Kouretas, Michael McMillion,
Ryan Olson, Sean Cameron, and Seema Vora.
(g) No. 7: All Documents and Communications sent, authored,
or received by Matt Fischer that contain any of the
following terms or phrases: DoubleDown, Double Down,
Sigrist, whale, Kater, gambling.
(h) No. 8: All Communications between You and any of the
following individuals: Joe Sigrist, John Clelland,
Jim Veevaert, and Haenam Kim.
(i) No. 9: All Contracts with lobbying firms in the United
States of America Related To the Social Casino Genre.
(j) No. 10: All Documents and Communications that
reference the RMLGA or the Kater Litigation.
(i) No. 11: Documents sufficient to Identify all persons
who service or have serviced Your business partnership
with Double Down Interactive.
(l) No. 12: All Communications sent to or received from
one or more representatives of Facebook, Inc. or
Google LLC Related To (i) the Kater Litigation,
(2) Double Down Interactive, or (3) the Social
Casino Genre.
(m) No. 13: All Documents attached to or otherwise
Related To any communications responsive to RFP
No. 12.
Double Down argues that these requests are duplicative with
discovery sent to Double Down, irrelevant to class certification,
and nothing more than a fishing expedition for new claims against
new parties. The Plaintiffs respond that, in fact, it is partly
correct. According to them, when Double Down's general manager
testified that the Third-Party Platforms are "business partners" in
the operation of Double Down's app-based games, he essentially
admitted that they are joint tortfeasors as well.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs propose that the second set of
subpoenas will expose how Double Down targeted and retained
customers through common methods. But they do not need to prove
some elaborate ploy to exploit addicts through data analytics to
succeed in their claims. As the recent motion for class
certification in Wilson v. PTT, LLC demonstrates, success under RCW
4.24.070 and the CPA turns mostly on common questions about the
"operation of the Defendant's virtual casinos." None of the
requests in this second set of subpoenas pertain to this subject,
and most hardly even relate to Double Down.
The Judge holds that the requested communications and contracts
with Double Down are more likely relevant to certification, but
when an opposing party and non-party both possess documents, the
documents should be sought from the party to the case. Under these
circumstances, he agrees with Double Down that this principle
should limit the Plaintiffs' subpoenas to the Third-Party
Platforms.
Based on the foregoing, the Judge granted in part and denied in
part (i) Double Down's first Motion for Protective Order and (ii)
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. The Plaintiffs can subpoena
and/or request transaction data on Washington-based users of the
DoubleDown Casino app only. The parties should work out an
agreement that avoids duplicative production by both Double Down
and the Third-Party Platforms. Double Down's second Motion for
Protective Order is granted and the Plaintiffs' second set of
subpoenas to the Third-Party Platforms is quashed.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3a4dk9l from Leagle.com.
DRNS CORP: Thorne Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
DRNS Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio
Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRNS Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09475 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2020).
DRNS Corp. is a factory is a mix of many types of printing machines
for all different types of clothing and textiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street
Suite Phr
10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
FCI LENDER: Diaz Settlement Has $82,587 Class Fund
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALTAGRACIA DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-08686-AJN (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Parties' request for final approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.
The following Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3):
(a) all individuals (b) with a loan that was more than 90 days
behind at the time FCI began servicing it, according to the
records of FCI, (c) with a corresponding address as the
property
address, (d) that had been accelerated, (e) where FCI sent the
individual a document that referred to late charges (f) accrued
since acceleration (g) where the document was sent at any time
during a period beginning Nov. 9, 2016 and ending Nov. 29,
2017.
The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class. It is informed Notice of the settlement was successfully
sent to 109 class members of the total 119. Only one person in the
Settlement Class requested exclusion, and no objections were filed
or received. Each Class Member whose notice was successfully
mailed will receive a check for $764.70 from the $82,587.60 Class
Settlement Fund.
On Nov. 7, 2019, Judge Nathan held a fairness hearing. No Class
members appeared in Court. The Judge finds that the Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and finally approved the Agreement
submitted by the Parties. The Judge ordered the Defendant to pay
the total amount of $82,587.60 to the Class Administrator within 21
days after the Effective Date for distribution to the class members
in accordance with the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement.
The total of $82,587.60 will be distributed equally amount the 108
Class members whose Notices were successfully mailed, and who did
not request exclusion from the Class.
Having carefully reviewed the Class Counsel's petition for
Attorneys' fees, Judge Nathan finds that the award of attorneys'
fees sought by the Class Counsel is fair and reasonable to the
Settlement Class and approved an award of Attorneys' Fees to the
Class Counsel in the amount of $35,000. The Judge also approved a
payment of $5,000 to Altagracia Diaz for her actual and statutory
damages and for her service as the Class Representative. These
amount will be paid by the Defendant within 21 days after the
Effective Date in accordance with the terms of the parties'
Settlement Agreement.
Judge Nathan approved the Legal Aid Society as the cy pres
recipient, subject to the terms of the Agreement.
The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement
and the Order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5k5vzkd from Leagle.com.
FIJI WATER CO: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FIJI Water Company LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIJI Water Company LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09463 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2020).
Fiji Water is a brand of bottled water derived, bottled, and
shipped from Fiji. According to marketing materials, the water
comes from an artesian aquifer in Viti Levu. Fiji Water is
headquartered in Los Angeles, California. It is available in 330
ml, 500 ml, 700 ml, 1 litre, and 1.5 litre bottles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
FILMATIQUE LLC: Mejico Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY MEJICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FILMATIQUE LLC and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02378 (C.D. Cal., November 15, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California's Automatic Renewal Law and the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants offered free trial
online streaming service/subscription and related products that
violated California law. Specifically, the Defendants: (a) fail to
present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service
offer terms, including its full cancellation policy, in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement was fulfilled; (b) charge consumer credit or debit cards
without first obtaining affirmative consent to automatically
renewing charges; and (c) fail to provide an acknowledgment that
includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms,
cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a
manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a
result, the product or service provided by Defendants to the
Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded.
Filmatique LLC is an online streaming services provider, with its
principal place of business located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
FNP INC: Boose Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TRAVIS BOOSE, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated JOHN DOES 1-500 v. FNP, INC., d/b/a FIRST
NATIONAL PAWN; F N P of MONTANA, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN;
FNP of MISSOULA, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN; FNPS, LLC; FIRST
NATIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC; and DOES 1-5, Case No. DV-15-2020-949-WC,
was removed from the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court,
Flathead County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana on November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Montana assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-00164-DLC-KLD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Montana Minimum Wage and Wage
Protection Act.
FNP, Inc., d/b/a First National Pawn, is an operator of pawnshops
located in Billings, Montana.
F N P of Montana, Inc., d/b/a First National Pawn, is an operator
of pawnshops located in Billings, Montana.
FNP of Missoula, Inc., d/b/a First National Pawn, is an operator of
pawnshops located in Missoula, Montana.
FNPS, LLC is a pawnshop located in Billings, Montana.
First National Properties, LLC is a property management company.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey Heitz, Esq.
PARKER, HEITZ & COSGROVE, PLLC
401 N. 31st Street, Suite 805
P.O. Box 7212
Billings, MT 59103-7212
Telephone: (406) 245-9991
Facsimile: (406) 245-0971
E-mail: caseyheitz@parker-law.com
- and –
Jason S. Ritchie, Esq.
RITCHIE MANNING KAUTZ LLP
175 North 27th Street, Suite 1202
Billings, MT 59101
Telephone: (406) 601-1400
E-mail: jritchie@rmkfirm.com
FNP INC: Lepiane Wage Violation Class Suit Removed to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DANIEL LEPIANE, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated JOHN DOES 1-100 v. FNP, INC., d/b/a FIRST
NATIONAL PAWN; F N P of MONTANA, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN;
FNP of MISSOULA, INC., d/b/a FIRST NATIONAL PAWN; FNPS, LLC; FIRST
NATIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC; and DOES 1-5, Case No.
DV-32-2020-1166-NE, was removed from the Montana Fourth Judicial
District Court, Missoula County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Montana assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-00163-DLC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Montana Minimum Wage and Wage
Protection Act.
FNP, Inc., d/b/a First National Pawn, is an operator of pawnshops
located in Billings, Montana.
F N P of Montana, Inc., d/b/a First National Pawn, is an operator
of pawnshops located in Billings, Montana.
FNP of Missoula, Inc., d/b/a First National Pawn, is an operator of
pawnshops located in Missoula, Montana.
FNPS, LLC is a pawnshop located in Billings, Montana.
First National Properties, LLC is a property management company.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey Heitz, Esq.
PARKER, HEITZ & COSGROVE, PLLC
401 N. 31st Street, Suite 805
P.O. Box 7212
Billings, MT 59103-7212
Telephone: (406) 245-9991
Facsimile: (406) 245-0971
E-mail: caseyheitz@parker-law.com
- and –
Jason S. Ritchie, Esq.
RITCHIE MANNING KAUTZ LLP
175 North 27th Street, Suite 1202
Billings, MT 59101
Telephone: (406) 601-1400
E-mail: jritchie@rmkfirm.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Gavilanes Balks at Deceptive Infant Formula Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rossy Gavilanes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gerber Products Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-05558
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) alleges that the labeling of the Gerber
Good Start Transition Formula and Gerber Infant Formula gives
caregivers of young children the false impression that the former
is nutritionally appropriate for children of the targeted age group
- between twelve and twenty-four months – and implies that
infants and young toddlers have identical nutrient requirements.
The Defendant's Good Start is named "Toddler Drink, Milk Based
Powder." The name "Toddler Drink, Milk Based Powder" is deceptive
and misleading because it is confusingly similar to the name of
"Infant Formula with Iron, Milk Based Powder."
According to the complaint, the absence of the term "Iron" from the
Product's statement of identity is insufficient to distinguish the
Product because the front panel prominently discloses "DHA & Iron."
The Transition Formula Product has similar statements and labeling
design to the Defendant's Infant Formula Product. The similar
labeling of the Gerber Good Start Grow Stage 3 and the Gerber
Infant Formula Product causes caregivers to make inaccurate and
ill-advised nutritional purchasing decisions.
Contrary to the recommended nutritional needs of children in this
age range, the Product contains 15 grams of added sugar. Public
health research has shown that use of transition formulas such as
Gerber Good Start Grow Stage 3 results in prolonged use of
expensive, re-branded, infant formula instead of actually
transitioning infants to cow's milk, water and other healthy foods,
the Plaintiff contends.
These products are practically identical to infant formula in that
they are based on milk powder with added nutrients. Transition
formulas use a statement of identity that uses the words infant and
toddler interchangeably, even though the two groups have different
dietary needs. Feeding infants and toddlers, including the
transition from only breastfeeding or infant formula with iron to
the regular family diet is "critical for establishing healthy
dietary preferences and preventing obesity in children."
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends "exclusive
breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life with the addition of
complementary foods and the continuation of breastfeeding until at
least 12 months of age."
Plaintiff Rossy Gavilanes is a citizen of New York, Flushing,
Queens County. The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more
occasions in August 2020, through Amazon.com and/or other
locations.
Gerber manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells Gerber
Good Start Grow Stage 3, a milk-based powder purporting to meet,
and be necessary for, the nutritional needs of children between 12
and 24 months ("Toddler Drink, Milk Based Powder," or
"Product").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
GOODWILL OF SILICON: Pacheco Sues Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTALINNA PACHECO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, a California corporation;
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a business entity of
unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV373306
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 17, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants routinely acquire criminal, consumer, and investigative
consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background
checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former
employees and use information from background reports in connection
with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and
obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated current, former and prospective employees, seeks
compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and
willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff contends that she worked for the Defendants during
the relevant time period. When she applied for employment, the
Defendants performed a background investigation on her.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
david@setarehlaw.com
GRAMMERCY FARMER: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzales Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARCOS MIGUEL GONZALES, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. GRAMMERCY FARMER
& THE FISH, LLC, HUDSON FISH, LLC d/b/a HUDSON FARMER & THE FISH,
PURDY'S FARMER & THE FISH, LLC, MICHAEL KAPHAN, EDWARD TAYLOR,
SUZIE KAPHAN, and DONNA TAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09434
(S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
illegal pay practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around May
2019 until in or about August 2019 as a "Porter" responsible for
cleaning and maintenance at the Grammercy restaurant and as an
"Oyster Guy" responsible for cracking open and serving oysters from
in or around August 2019 until in or about December 2019.
The Plaintiff contends that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants always shaved 30 minutes per shift from
his and other similarly situated employees' hours worked that was
never received and automatically deducted $30.00/week from his and
other similarly situated employees' wages as a meal credit that was
never consumed because they were not allowed to take meal breaks.
As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were not paid compensation for all regular or overtime hours worked
due to the Defendants' time shaving and invalid meal credit.
In addition, the Defendants allegedly withheld the final paycheck
of departing employees who refuse to sign legal releases.
The Corporate Defendants operate a chain of restaurants in New York
State as a single integrated enterprise. Michael Kaphan and Edward
Taylor are co-owners and co-founders of the restaurants. Suzie
Kaphan and Donna Taylor are co-owners of the Farmer & the Fish. The
Individual Defendants exercised functional control over the
business and financial operations of the restaurants and over the
terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's employment and those of
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
GREEN RUSH: Faces Beal Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN BEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN RUSH GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02195-MMA-BGS (S.D.
Cal., November 10, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently contacted
the Plaintiff by sending him an unsolicited text message on his
cellular telephone number ending in -0980 in or around April 2020.
The Defendant transmitted the text message to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone for the purpose of sending spam advertisement
and/or promotional offers via its SMS Blasting Platform, which is
an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The Plaintiff
asserts that he never provided the Defendant his cellular telephone
number nor his "prior express consent" to receive unsolicited text
messages.
The Plaintiff was harmed by the Defendant's unlawful conduct of
transmitting unsolicited text messages to his cellular telephone
number causing him to incur certain cellular telephone charges and
his privacy has been invaded. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief for recovery of economic and personal injury.
Green Rush Group, Inc. retails pharmaceutical products through
online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
HAIR CLUB: Gastelum FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ADELA GASTELUM, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC; HAIR CLUB FOR
MEN LTD. INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG20075520, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 18, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08126 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, the
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and the California's Unfair
Competition Law by failing to provide a requisite disclosure form
to the Plaintiff and Class members that they are acquiring and
using consumer, investigative, and/or credit reports in their
hiring and employment process.
Hair Club for Men, LLC is a provider of hair loss treatment
solutions, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.
Hair Club for Men Ltd. Inc. is a company that provides hair
restoration services, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and –
John W. Drury, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: jdrury@seyfarth.com
- and –
Eric Suits, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 498-7032
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
E-mail: esuits@seyfarth.com
HARD ROCK CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Picknell Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PICKNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03409-SKC (D. Colo., Nov. 17, 2020) alleges that Hard Rock
violated the rights of the Plaintiff, and the rights of other,
similarly-situated employees by failing to pay them wages,
compensation, minimum wages, and overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act and the Colorado Wage and Hour Law.
Specifically, Picknell alleges that Hard Rock violated the FLSA and
Colorado Wage and Hour Law by manipulating time records to shift
overtime hours worked by Class members from the date on which they
were actually worked to another date within the same pay period
when the hours would not be counted as overtime, thus failing to
pay overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times Class
members' regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 per
week, 12 per day, or 12 per shift, says the complaint.
Picknell is a resident of Colorado who was employed by Hard Rock in
Denver, Colorado from February 2014 to March 2020, when he was laid
off due to the global pandemic.
Hard Rock is a New York corporation that is primarily involved in
the business of serving food and beverages to members of the
public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (720) 527-4369
E-mail: aharrison@sawayalaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Pizarro ERISA Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAIME H. PIZARRO, CRAIG SMITH, JERRY MURPHY,
RANDALL IDEISHI, GLENDA STONE, RACHELLE NORTH, and MARIE SILVER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE HOME
DEPOT, INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE HOME DEPOT
FUTUREBUILDER 401(K) PLAN; THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE HOME
DEPOT FUTUREBUILDER 401(K) PLAN; and DOES 1–30, Case No.
5:20-mc-80188, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on November 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No 1:20-cv-04660-WMR-CCB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties to the Home Depot FutureBuilder 401(k) Plan and its
participants, including the Plaintiffs.
The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the United
States, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward Dewey Chapin, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 577-4242
Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
E-mail: echapin2@sanfordheisler.com
- and –
David Tracey, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 402-5650
Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
E-mail: dtracey@sanfordheisler.com
- and –
Leigh-Anne St. Charles, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 434-7001
Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
E-mail: lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com
HOST HEALTHCARE: Blount Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BLOUNT, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOST HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00041775-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Nov. 16,
2020) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all
regular and minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, and
failure to provide meal and rest periods in violations of the
California Labor Code.
This complaint challenges systemic unlawful employment policies and
practices that resulted in violations of the California Labor Code
against individuals who worked for Defendants. The Plaintiff
alleges overtime underpayments based on Host Healthcare's payroll
practice of not including all forms of remuneration (e.g., bonuses
and commissions) in the regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating and paying overtime earnings.
The Plaintiff worked for Host Healthcare in San Diego County until
September 2020 as an hourly, non-exempt employee.
Host Healthcare is a staffing company which maintains its principal
place of business at 4225 Executive Square, Suite 1500 in La Jolla,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
FERRARO EMPLOYMENT LAW, INC.
2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92106
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: nick@ferraroemploymentlaw.com
lauren@ferraroemploymentlaw.com
HR OUTSOURCING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo-Rodriguez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CASTILLO-RODRIGUEZ, an individual on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. HR OUTSOURCING ASSOCIATES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; CALIFORNIA DISTRIBUTION CENTER,
a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV4413 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov.
17, 2020) asserts claim against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, meal period
liability, and rest-break liability under the California Labor
Code.
According to the complaint, aggrieved employees consistently worked
at the Defendants behest without being paid all wages due. The
aggrieved employees were either not paid by the Defendants for all
hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular
and overtime rates.
The Plaintiff has resided in California, and during the time period
relevant to this complaint, was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California.
HR Outsourcing Associates, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company and has been the employer listed on the wage statements and
employment records issued to the Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremi anlaw.com
natalie@yeremianlaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
HYATT CORPORATION: Brumbach Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL D. BRUMBACH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a Manchester
Grand Hyatt San Diego and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00036271-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on November 16, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02231-WQH-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding,
failure to provide all meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit all paid rest periods, failure to timely furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair
business practices.
Hyatt Corporation, d/b/a Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego, is a
hospitality company located in San Diego, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
- and –
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com
IIK. TRANSPORT: Improperly Pays Truck Drivers, Prokhorov Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREY PROKHOROV and IGOR GOUTSALENKO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IIK. TRANSPORT,
INC., 11K TRANSPORT INC., IVAN KAZNIYENKO and SERGII STETSIUK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06807 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) by misclassifying
the Plaintiffs and Class members as independent contractors,
failing to pay their wages and final compensation in a timely
manner, making unauthorized deductions from their paychecks,
failing to reimburse business expenses, and failing to provide
written wage notices.
The Plaintiffs also allege Defendants Kazniyenko and Stetsiuk of
civil conspiracy to commit these IWPCA violations.
Mr. Prokhorov worked as a truck driver for the Defendants in
Illinois from August 31, 2018 to June 2020.
Mr. Goutsalenko worked as a truck driver for the Defendants in
Illinois from October 15, 2013 to March 10, 2014.
IIK Transport, Inc. is a transportation and delivery services
provider, with a principal place of business in Bridgeway,
Illinois.
11K Transport, Inc. is a transportation and delivery services
provider, with a principal place of business in Westchester,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julia Bikbova, Esq.
BIKBOVA LAW OFFICES, P.C.
666 Dundee Road, Suite 1604
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (847) 730-1800
E-mail: julia@bikbovalaw.com
INFINITY ENERGY: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Voicemails
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INFINITY ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02194-CAB-MSB (S.D. Cal., November 10, 2020) brings this
class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited marketing to promote its services despite harming
thousands of consumers in the process. The Plaintiff affirms that
the Defendant placed numerous calls with prerecorded messages or
voicemails to his cellular telephone number ending in 7008, that
was registered with the National Do-Not-Call registry since July
15, 2016. Although the Plaintiff did not answer the calls, but the
voicemails he listened to constitute telemarketing attempting to
promote the Defendant's solar energy equipment to the Plaintiff.
The voicemails allegedly originated from telephone numbers
916-619-0609 and 916-877-9565 which are owned and operated by or on
behalf of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided the Defendant his
prior express written consent to be contacted with a prerecorded
call, which has inconvenienced him, and caused disruption to his
daily life and actual harm, such as invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion. To halt the aforementioned illegal conducts of the
Defendant, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as well as
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class.
Infinity Energy, Inc. is a full-service residential and commercial
solar energy equipment supplier. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Fax: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
INTERNATIONAL STEEL: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Steel Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
TREVEN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL STEEL AND COUNTERWEIGHTS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02584 (N.D. Ohio, November 17, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated workers for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a blast line worker from
approximately May 2019 to May 2020 in Youngstown, Ohio.
International Steel and Counterweights LLC is a producer of steel
fabrications, headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Steiner, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: david@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: NexPoint Merger Lacks Info, Erickson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN R. ERICKSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., JOHN A. GOOD, MARK O.
DECKER, JAMES DONDERO, HOWARD A. SILVER, HARRY J. THIE, and REBECCA
OWEN, Case No. 1:20-cv-09575 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought
as a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the other
public holders of the common stock of Jernigan Capital, Inc.
against the Company and the members of the Company's board of
directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This action arises from the acquisition of Jernigan by affiliates
of NexPoint Advisors, L.P.. On August 3, 2020, the Company
announced it had entered a merger agreement with NexPoint, pursuant
to which the Company's common stockholders would receive $17.30 in
cash per share.
On August 20, 2020, the Company filed a preliminary proxy statement
concerning the merger on Form PREM14A with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 23, 2020, the
Company filed its definitive proxy statement concerning the merger
on Form DEFM14A with the SEC. On October 16, 2020, the Company
supplemented the definitive proxy in a Form 8-K filing with the
SEC.
According to the complaint, the Proxy was materially false and
misleading in violation of Section 14(a) because the proxy failed
to disclose a highly material $300 million preferred equity
transaction carried out in connection with the merger.
On October 26, 2020, pursuant to the materially false and
misleading proxy, the Company held a special meeting of
stockholders to vote on the merger. At this meeting, pursuant to
the materially false and misleading proxy, a majority of
stockholders voted to approve the merger. The preparation and
dissemination of the materially false and misleading proxy induced
stockholders' vote in favor of the merger and caused substantial
harm to Plaintiff and Jernigan's other stockholders. After the
stockholder vote, the merger closed on November 6, 2020.
This action seeks damages on behalf of Jernigan's former
stockholders as a result of Defendants' materially misleading proxy
disseminated in contravention of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff was a stockholder of Jernigan.
Jernigan is a real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on
self-storage real estate properties. The Company is incorporated in
Maryland and headquartered in Tennessee. The Individual Defendants
are officers and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad Johnson, Esq.
Noam Mandel, Esq.
Desiree Cummings, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 693-1058
E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com
noam@rgrdlaw.com
dcummings@rgrdlaw.com
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Bid to Stay Convery Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrea Masley of the New York County Supreme Court denied the
Defendants' motion to stay the case, MARK CONVERY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JUMIA
TECHNOLOGIES AG, JEREMY HODARA, SACHA POIGNONNEC, ANTOINE
MAILLET-MEZERAY, DONALD J. PUGLISI, GILLES BOGAERT, ANDRE T.
IGUODALA, BLAISE JUDJA-SATO, JONATHAN D. KLEIN, ANGELA KAYA MWANZA,
ALIOUNE NDIAYE, MATTHEW ODGERS, JOHN H. RITTENHOUSE, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BERENBERG CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, L.L.C., and ERNST & YOUNG, SOCIETE ANONYME, Defendants,
Docket No. 656021/2019, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), pending
adjudication of the federal action titled In re Jumia Technologies
AG Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-4397 (SD NY) (Castel, J.),
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The case is a putative securities class action under the Securities
Act of 1933 brought on behalf of the purchasers of American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Jumia pursuant or traceable the
Registration Statement issued in connection with Jumia's April 2019
initial public offering of 15.525 million ADSs (including exercise
of over-allotment option) at $14.50 per share. All the Defendants
filed, pursuant to CPLR 2201, the instant motion to stay.
Jumia is an e-commerce company that provides goods and services to
consumers in Africa. In the state and federal actions, the
Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of securities purchasers
allegedly defrauded by statements and omissions made in connection
with Jumia's April 2019 IPO regarding the company's orders, order
cancellations, undelivered orders, returned orders, active
consumers, active merchants and related party transactions. The
state court action was filed on Oct. 15, 2019 and amended on Jan.
27, 2020. The federal court action was filed on May 14, 2010 and
amended twice, On Dec. 30, 2019 and March 13, 2020.
In the original federal complaint, proposed class representative
Steven Strugala asserted claims under sections 10(b), 10b-5 & 20(a)
of Exchange Act of 1934. Strugala alleged that Jumia's stock price
fell 28% on May 10, 2019, from $33.11 per ADS to $24.50 per ADS,
the day after Citron Research issued a report ("Citron Report")
asserting that "Jumia is a Fraud" that deserves immediate SEC
attention. In addition to Jumia, Struglia named as Defendants
Jeremy Hodara and Sacha Poignonnec, Jumia's Co-CEO, and Antoine
Maillet-Mezeray, Jumia's CFO ("Management Board Defendants").
In the original state court complaint, the Plaintiff asserted
claims under sections 11 & 15 of the 1933 Act. Like the original
federal complaint, the complaint was brought against Jumia and the
Management Board Defendants and relies on the Citron Report for the
allegations of fraud. However, besides naming a different class
representative, the Plaintiff adds the seven underwriters
participating in the IPO: Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Berenberg Capital Markets, LLC, RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & C., Inc., Raymond James &
Associates, Inc. and William Blair Co., LLC ("Underwriter
Defendants"). By stipulations dated Oct. 31, 2010 and Dec. 12,
2019, the parties to the action vacated the deadline for the
Defendants to respond to the complaint and agreed that the
Plaintiff would file an amended complaint on Jan. 27, 2020.
The federal complaint was amended following consolidation and
contested motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Counsel. The amended complaint, brought by putative class
representatives Hexuan Cai, Kalyan Venkataraman, Kalyanasundaram
Venkataraman, Matthew Sacks and Yifeng Zhu, sets forth the same
1934 Act claims contained in the initial federal complaint with the
class period enlarged to between April 12, 2019 and Sept. 20, 2019.
However, like the original state court complaint, new claims under
sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act were asserted, and the same
Underwriter Defendants were added as parties. Furthermore, the
eight members of Jumia's supervisory board were named as Defendants
-- Gilles Bogaert, Andre T. Iguodala, Blaise Judja-Sato, Jonathan
D. Klein, Angela Kaya Mwanza, Alioune Ndiaye. Matthew Odgers and
John H. Rittenhouse ("Supervisory Board Defendants").
Despite the parties' earlier stipulations establishing the Jan. 27,
2020 filing date for the Plaintiff's amended complaint in the
action, the Defendants filed the motion for a stay on Jan. 22,
2020. The Plaintiff nevertheless filed the amended complaint as
scheduled. The Plaintiff adds a claim under section 12(a)(2) of
the 1933 Act, adds the eight Supervisory Board Defendants as well
as Donald J. Puglisi, Jumia's U.S. representative who signed the
company's allegedly false and misleading Registration Statement.
Additionally, the Plaintiff names the accounting firm of Ernst &
Young as a Defendant and alleges that firm's audit report regarding
Jumia was materially misleading in violation of international
accounting standards, without relying on the Citron Report.
The second amended federal complaint, filed after the motion was
briefed and argued, sets forth the same allegations and claims as
the first amended federal complaint, but adds Puglisi as a
Defendant.
On April 3, 2020, the Defendants in the federal action filed a
pre-motion letter explaining the grounds for their proposed motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint. Pursuant to an April 10,
2020 scheduling order, the district court judge permitted the
Defendants to file the motion on June 1, 2020, with the briefing to
be completed on Aug. 21, 2020 and discovery stayed pending further
order of the Court.
The factors relevant to the determination to stay include (1) which
forum will offer a more complete disposition of the issues; (2)
which forum has greater expertise in the type of matter; (3) which
action was commenced first and the stage of the litigations; (4)
whether there is substantial overlap between the issues raised in
each court; (5) whether a stay will avert duplication of effort and
waste of judicial resources; and (6) whether the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that they would be prejudiced by a stay or that there
is a risk of inconsistent rulings.
Judge Masley finds that the first and fourth factors weigh in favor
of the Plaintiffs. Although there is substantial overlap between
the claims and the Defendants, neither action will completely
dispose of all of the issues relating to the IPO. While both
courts have jurisdiction over the 1933 Act claims, the federal
court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claim brought under the
1934 Act, so it can only be disposed of there. However, only the
state action includes claims against the accounting firm, and a
claim under section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act for which rescission
is available. Additionally, as the Plaintiff argues, the fraud
claims in the federal action may be subject to heightened scrutiny.
Under the circumstances, the difference in the relief sought
militates against a stay.
The second factor also weighs against a stay. The federal court
does not have superior expertise in adjudicating the claims
asserted because the Court, sitting in the Commercial Division of
New York County, certainly has experience applying various bodies
of law including federal law as it pertains to securities cases.
The third factor does not favor a stay. Although the federal
action was commenced first, it was not "first in time" with respect
to claims under the 1933 Act, which were first interposed in the
action. And even if the federal action was technically filed
first, that factor is not dispositive. Moreover, nothing of
significance happened in the five months between the original
filing of the federal action and this one, because the parties in
the federal action were litigating over the appointment of Lead
Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. And although the federal action has
progressed slightly further with the partial briefing of the motion
to dismiss, the action would likely have been at a more advanced
stage had defendants not disrupted the previously stipulated
litigation schedule by filing the stay motion.
The fifth factor weighs against a stay. Where the actions involve
differing claims, the possibility or actuality of two trials is of
no importance. Furthermore, duplication of efforts or waste is
also not a concern because the parties and courts can cooperate as
they do in so many other sophisticated securities cases. Finally,
the Judge concurs with the Plaintiff that due to the differences
between the parties named, remedies sought and standards of review,
the Plaintiff and the class might be prejudiced by a stay in
pursuing the action.
Accordingly, Judge Masley denied the Motion to Stay the action.
The Defendants are directed to answer or move with respect to the
Amended Complaint without delay.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6k5k68f from
Leagle.com.
KING WINDSOR GROUP: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
King Windsor Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. King Windsor Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09464 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2020).
King Windsor Group, LLC designs and manufactures premium men's
leather shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
LONGFIN CORP: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS Action
Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:18-cv-2933-DLC (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York entered final judgment against Defaulting Defendants
Longfin, Suresh Tammineedi, Venkata Meenavalli, and Vivek
Ratakonda.
Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments submitted by Lead
Plaintiff Mohammad A. Malik in his Motion for Default Judgment, the
Court's Order Granting Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment
in which the Court approved the Lead Plaintiff's proposed liability
and damages, and the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Final Judgment and
all arguments and authorities cited therein, the Judge entered
final judgment against the Defaulting Defendants for their
violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act, liability
established under 12(a)(1) and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
Section 15(a) of the Securities Act against Defendants Meenavalli
and Ratakonda, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5, promulgated thereunder against the Defaulting Defendants,
Section 20(a) against the individual Defaulting Defendants, and
Section 20A against Defendant Tammineedi.
Each of the Defaulting Defendants are jointly and severally liable
to the Lead Plaintiff and the Class for damages in the amount of
$223,037,680.
The Lead Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to prejudgment
interest on the Damages Figure beginning on April 6, 2018 and
post-judgment interest on the Damages Figure until the judgment is
satisfied, both at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C.
Section 196.
Including pre- and post-judgment interest per 28 U.S. 1961, the
total figure to which the Defaulting Defendants are liable is
$223,662,622.66, plus post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.14%
per annum, computed daily to the date of payment and compounded
annually, along with costs.
The Lead Plaintiff's counsel are to file their motion for
attorney's fees and expenses contemporaneously with any future
request to distribute recovered funds from the Total Damages Figure
to the Class.
The Judgment will be deemed entered for purposes of any notice of
appeal from when the Final Judgment is entered.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Final
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y36wozfe from
Leagle.com.
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Oct. 14 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Tremblay v.
Loop Industries, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-08538) on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Loop
Industries, Inc. ("Loop" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOOP)
securities between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
"Executives from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop
entered into a 'global alliance agreement' with in December 2018,
told us their partnership is on 'indefinite' hold and that Loop
'underestimated' both costs and complexities of its process."
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Loop investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/loop-industries-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
Loop is a technology company that purports to own proprietary
technology that depolymerizes no- and low-waste PET plastic and
polyester fiber. The resulting material is used to create PET resin
for food-grade packaging.
On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Loop's scientists, under
pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie
about the results of the company's process internally." The report
also stated that "Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to
its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and
industrially impossible,'" according to a former employee.
Moreover, the report alleged that "Executives from a division of
key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance
agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on
'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and
complexities of its process."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to
close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent
the results of Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (2) that
Loop did not have the technology to break PET down to its base
chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's
announced partnerships with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; and (4)
that, 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Loop securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
October 14, 2020, the date of this notice to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles H. Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
MIDLAND FOOD: Faces Ward Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WARD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FOOD SERVICES, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02536 (N.D. Ohio, November 10, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged flawed automobile reimbursement policy that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Wage Payment
and Collection Law, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from February 2019 to
August 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendant's Pizza stores
located in Tiffin, Ohio.
The Plaintiff claims that because the Defendant required him and
other delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally
operable, and insured automobile when delivering pizza and other
food items, as a result, they have incurred automobile expenses and
other expenses while performing their duties for the primary
benefit of the Defendant.
The Defendant, however, has a policy of reimbursing its delivery
drivers on a per-delivery basis which equates to below the IRS
business mileage reimbursement rate or a much less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses.
Following the Defendant's reimbursement policy and methodology, the
Defendant allegedly failed to reasonably approximate the amount of
their drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that its
drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements, thereby refusing and failing to compensate them at
the federal minimum wage. Moreover, the Defendant's systemic
failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a
"kickback" to the Defendant such that the hourly wages it pays to
the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers are not paid free and
clear of all outstanding obligations to the Defendant.
Midland Food Services, LLC d/b/a Pizza Hut operates numerous Pizza
Hut's franchise stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson Beridon, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC
2315 Walnut St., Suite 2315
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Tel: (513) 381-2224
Fax: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: alysonb@bsjfirm.com
- and –
Joe P Leniski, Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
NEW YORK: Face Malcolm FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MALCOLM, ANTHONY APONTE, SHIRLENE BLAIR, LANAE CURRY, JOSE
DEJESUS, SHAKIYNA ESPINO, ROBERTO FERNANDEZ, VLAJEMY FRANCOIS,
MONIQUE JOHNSON, CAROLYN MARAJ, MYRLINE ULYSSES, and BRICE
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09641 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 17, 2020) is a class action complaint against the Defendant
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including
failure to pay overtime and failure to pay overtime
promptly/timely.
The Plaintiffs and the putative members of the collective action
are employees of the New York City Department of Correction
NYCDOC.
NYCDOC is the branch of the municipal government of New York City
responsible for the custody, control, and care of New York City's
imprisoned population, housing the majority of them on Rikers
Island. It employs 11,163 uniformed officers and 1,400 civilian
staff, has 543 vehicles, and processes over 100,000 new inmates
every year, retaining a population of inmates of between 13,000 and
18,000.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven J. Moser, Esq.
Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 East Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
E-mail: smoser@moserlawfirm.com
paul.pagano@moserlawfirm.com
NEWELL BRANDS: Schmitt Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Car Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCHMITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEWELL BRANDS and GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-16240-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Nov. 16, 2020) is a class action
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act against the Defendants for
the sale of child safety seats that are represented to be new, but
are instead sold to consumers with a significant portion of their
limited useful life having been expired.
The Plaintiff was unaware that the car seat he had purchased was so
far into its useful life period until after he had actually
received it. It is, in fact, impossible for online consumers to
know that they are buying partially expired car seats from the
Defendants, nor do the Defendants warn their customers that they
are likely purchasing partially expired car seats. Indeed, the
Defendants admit that there is no way for consumers shopping online
to protect themselves against receiving these devalued car seats
says the complaint.
As a result of Defendants’ unlawful and unfair misrepresentations
and omissions, the Plaintiff and thousands of other consumers in
New Jersey and throughout the United States purchased Defendants'
car seats that were held out as new, but were in fact expired in
substantial part, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants are leading manufacturers of car seats for children
of all ages, including, but not limited to, infant car seats,
convertible car seats, child safety seats, and booster seats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Dressel, Esq.
DRESSEL/MALIKSCHMITT LLP
11 East Cliff Street
Somerville, NJ 08876
Telephone: (848) 202-9323
Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
E-mail: andrew@d-mlaw.com
OHIO STATE: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Daniels Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALICE DANIELS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05859-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, November 11, 2020)
brings this class and collective action complaint against the
Defendant to collect unpaid overtime compensation and damages
caused by the Defendant's alleged willful violations the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) beginning in or around
October 2019 to present.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated healthcare employees regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week as required by the Defendant. However, they were not
compensated for all overtime pay at one and one-half times of their
regular rate of pay due to the Defendant's unlawful companywide pay
policies and/or practices.
The Plaintiff contends that she and other similarly situated
healthcare employees were not permitted by the Defendant to clock
in to work more than four minutes prior to the start of their
scheduled shift although they begin working upon their arrival well
before the scheduled start of their shifts, resulting to unpaid
off-the-clock pre-shift job duties.
Moreover, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare
employees were required by the Defendant to clock out of work for a
daily 60 minute meal break despite not being able to take a full
and uninterrupted 60-minute meal break because they were required
to have "lunch meetings" with their manager, stay at the facility
to receive a provider's call, and assist other employees and
patients.
Ohio State University Physicians, Inc. operates approximately 30
offices ad clinics throughout Central Ohio that provide outpatient
medical care to its patient. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Tel: (614) 949-1181
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
PITA PARK INC: Vilorio Files FLSA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pita Park Inc. The
case is styled as Carlos Roberto Vilorio and Danis A. Gonsalez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Pita Park Inc. and Mina Avlonitis, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05467 (E.D., N.Y., November 11, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Pita Park Inc. is a Greek restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Troy Law, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-2332
EmaiL: johntroy@troypllc.com
PONY BAMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Exotic Dancers, Lowry Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON LOWRY, and the collective action class of similarly
situated employees v. THE PONY BAMA, LLC; and CHARLES G. WESTLUND,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01828-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Nov. 17, 2020) is a claim
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay a
minimum wage and for illegally confiscating monies earned from the
performance of exotic dancers as they are characterized.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, back pay, restitution, liquidated
damages, civil penalties, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and any and all other relief that the
court deems just, reasonable and equitable in the circumstances.
Madison Lowry was an exotic dancer/entertainer at an establishment
known as The Pony in Madison County, Alabama.
The Pony Bama LLC is in the Night Clubs business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian M. Clark, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Clark Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SEAN CLARK, an individual, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CIV-DS-2018707, was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02366 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to reimburse for required
expenses, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is an American clinical laboratory
company based in Secaucus, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Max Fischer, Esq.
Sonia Vucetic, Esq.
Anahi Cruz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
sonia.vucetic@morganlewis.com
anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com
RIVER STREET SWEETS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
River Street Sweets, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. River Street Sweets, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09471 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2020).
River Street Sweets offers handmade Southern candies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of December 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on Oct. 14 disclosed that
on October 7, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit
against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the
"Company") (NYSE:RCL) and certain executive officers (collectively,
"Defendants"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Royal
Caribbean securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Class"), we encourage you to contact the Firm.
The lawsuit, captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 20-cv-24111
(S.D. Fla.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client, City of
Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System ("Riviera Beach")
against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RCL) and certain executive officers
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Royal Caribbean securities from February 4, 2020 through
March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged
thereby (the "Class").
Royal Caribbean is the world's second-largest cruise company,
operating 61 cruise ships which visit over 1,000 destinations
across all seven continents. Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in
China, cruise companies, including Royal Caribbean, began to cancel
voyages in that region, and customer bookings were declining
globally as vacationers worried about the global spread of the
virus.
The Action alleges that, from February 4, 2020 through March 17,
2020, Defendants failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's decrease in bookings outside China, instead maintaining
that it was only experiencing a slowdown in bookings from China.
The Action further alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's inadequate policies and
procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships.
The truth about the scope of the impact that COVID-19 had on the
Company's overall bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to
prevent the virus' spread on its ships was revealed through a
series of disclosures. First, on February 13, 2020, Royal Caribbean
issued a press release stating that it had canceled 18 voyages in
Southeast Asia due to recent travel restrictions and further
warning that recent bookings had been softer for its broader
business. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 3
percent.
Second, on February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean filed its 2019 Form
10-K, indicating that COVID-19 concerns were negatively impacting
its overall business. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell
over 14 percent.
Third, on March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020
financial guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550
million, and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due
to the proliferation of COVID-19, further revealing that COVID-19
was severely impacting Royal Caribbean's 2020 customer booking and
that its safety measures were inadequate to prevent the spread of
the virus on its ships. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell
over 14 percent.
Fourth, on March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean's largest competitor,
Carnival, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations,
prompting concern that Royal Caribbean would follow suit. At the
same time, Royal Caribbean also cancelled two cruises, beginning a
series of cancellations and suspensions to follow. On this news,
Royal Caribbean shares fell almost 32 percent.
Fifth, on March 14, 2020, Royal Caribbean announced a suspension of
all global cruises for 30 days. On this news, Royal Caribbean stock
fell over 7 percent.
Sixth, on March 16, 2020, the Company revealed that global
operations could be suspended longer than anticipated, announcing
the cancellations of two additional cruises throughout April and
into May. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 7
percent.
Finally, on March 18, 2020, analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean's
stock and slashed their price targets. On this news, Royal
Caribbean shares fell more than 19 percent.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean securities
during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member
of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida no later than
December 7, 2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery
for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class
member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.
Riviera Beach is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents
many of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.
CONTACT:
David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
dschwartz@labaton.com [GN]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 13 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
RCL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10082&wire=1
MESO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=10082&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE:RCL)
RCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 4, 2020
- March 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10082&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Royal Caribbean
misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was
relatively insignificant; (2) the Company falsely assured investors
that bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a
slowdown; (3) the Company was experiencing material declines in
bookings globally due to customer concerns over COVID-19; and (5)
the Company's ships were following grossly inadequate protocols
that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial
risk to passengers and crews.
Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:MESO)
MESO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 16, 2019 -
October 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=10082&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Mesoblast Limited made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) comparative analyses
between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did
not support the effectiveness of the Company's lead product
candidate, remestemcel-L, for steroid refractory acute graft versus
host disease due to design differences between the four studies;
(2) as a result, the US Food and Drug Administration was reasonably
likely to require further clinical studies; (3) as a result, the
commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be
delayed; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
SABER HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Kuchar Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, COLLEEN KUCHAR, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC,
SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, MULTI-CARE MANAGEMENT, INC., and
AURORA MANOR LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02542 (N.D. Ohio,
November 11, 2020) challenges the Defendants' unlawful practice
that willfully violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (OPPA), and the Ohio
Fair Minimum Wage Act (OFMWA).
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a Licensed
Practical Nurses (LPN) at Aurora Manor Special Care Center from
2012 until April 29, 2020, files this complaint as class and
collective action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
full-time, hourly Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurses who were employed
by one or more of the Defendants during the period three years
preceding the commencement of this action to the present.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants required him and all
hourly MDS nurses to perform off-the-clock before and after their
scheduled shifts and during break periods, but failed to compensate
them for those hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants automatically
deducted 30-minute meal break from their hours worked although they
were not able to stop working during meal breaks.
As a result, despite frequently working 40 or more hours per
workweek, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated MDS nurses
were not paid minimum wages for all hours they worked and overtime
compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the FLSA.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and
complete records of its MDS nurses' working time.
Saber Healthcare Holdings, LLC owns and operates skilled nursing,
long-term care, and rehabilitation facilities throughout Ohio.
Saber Healthcare Group, LLC is an affiliate or subsidiary of Saber
Health Holdings that provides consulting services.
Multi-Care Management, Inc. is also an affiliate or subsidiary of
Saber Healthcare Holdings, LLC and Saber Healthcare Group , LLC
providing operational and management services at several Saber
Healthcare Holdings, LLC facilities, including Aurora Manor Special
Care Centre. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
4106 Bridge Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 308-1522
Fax: (888) 604-9299
E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
- and –
Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
THE FUCHS FIRM LLC
14717 South Woodland Road
Shaker Heights, OH 44120
Tel: (216) 505-7500
E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com
SAN YSIDRO RANCH: Davis Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
San Ysidro Ranch BB Property, L.L.C. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Freeman Ray Davis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. San Ysidro Ranch BB
Property, L.L.C., doing business as: San Ysidro Ranch and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09463 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
11, 2020).
The San Ysidro Ranch is a luxury resort located in the Montecito
foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Wilshire Law Firm
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
SOUP N BURGER: Petronilo Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENE PETRONILO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SOUP N BURGER CORP. d/b/a SOUP N BURGER, and MUSTAFA TURAN, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05563 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2020) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL).
In October 2017, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a
non-exempt delivery waiter/server at a restaurant. Neither at the
time of hire nor anytime thereafter did the Defendants provide the
Plaintiff with a written wage notice setting forth is regular
hourly rate of pay, any tip credits taken, and his corresponding
overtime rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked in that capacity for Defendants until November
1, 2020. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. From the
beginning of Plaintiffs employment in October 2017 and continuing
until March 15, 2020, Plaintiff worked five or six days per week
and his work schedule consisted of eight hours per day from 9:00
a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants unlawfully demanded and
retained the entire 18% "surcharge" it collected, and failed to
distribute the service charge to its wait staff, including him. He
adds that Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business
with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate or the New York State
overtime rate, in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor
Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of
Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York.
The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant doing business as
"Soup N Burger" located at 1825 Emmons Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
(the "Restaurant"). The Defendant Mustafa Turan is the President
and Chief Executive Officer of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
SPEED NORTH: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Brown Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPED NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-02535-JRA (N.D. Ohio., November 10, 2020) brings this
class and collective action complaint against the Defendant to
challenge its unlawful policies and practices that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant since approximately
August 2019 to the present as an hourly non-exempt employee.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant underpaid his and other
similarly situated employees' overtime compensation due to the
Defendant's miscalculation of their regular rates of pay by failing
to properly include all remuneration paid to them which include
non-discretionary bonuses such as shift differential, attendance,
and "lead pay". As a result, although the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in
a workweek, the Defendant failed to pay their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate at one and
one-half times of their correct regular rate of pay.
Speed North America, Inc. specializes in extrusion molding of
Innovative Polyamide Monofilaments for the manufacturing of trimmer
line and utilizes in-house injection molding to produce its
packaging serving a worldwide market. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Tel: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
STATER BROS: Armenta Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANNY ARMENTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STATER BROS. MARKETS and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. RIC2003532, was removed from the Superior Court
for the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on November
13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02364 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to properly calculate and pay overtime
wages, failure to authorize and permit lawful rest periods, failure
to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment, failure
to reimburse necessary expenses, failure to accurately record and
pay sick leave and/or paid time off, knowing and intentional
failure to comply with accurate itemized wage statement provisions,
and for unfair competition.
Stater Bros. Markets is a privately held supermarket chain, based
in San Bernardino, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan W. Brandt, Esq.
Jeff T. Olsen, Esq.
Ankit H. Bhakta, Esq.
VARNER & BRANDT LLP
3750 University Avenue, Suite 610
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: (951) 274-7777
Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
E-mail: Brendan.Brandt@varnerbrandt.com
Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com
Ankit.Bhakta@varnerbrandt.com
SUNSET FOOD: Railey BIPA Suit Removed from Cir. Court to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RANITA RAILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSET FOOD MART,
INC., Case No. 2019-CH-02122 (Filed Feb., 19, 2019), was removed
from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 13,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06758 to the
proceeding.
The complaint seeks relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), including damages of $1,000 to $5,000 for each
violation of Sunset's negligent and/or reckless violations of BIPA.
The Plaintiff worked for Sunset as a General Clerk at its Lake
Forest, Illinois location from January 2016 through January 2018.
The Plaintiff alleges that she and the putative BIPA Class members
had their biometric information collected when they were "required
to place their entire hands on a panel to be scanned in order to
'clock in' and 'clock out' of work."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
- and -
Margherita Albarello, Esq.
DI MONITE & LIZAK, LLC
216 Higgins Road
Park Ridge, IL 60068
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew R. Cockroft, Esq.
Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
tahlering@seyfarth.com
acockroft@seyfarth.com
TARGET CORP: Gordon Sues Over Deceptive Infant Formula Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lovelyn Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 7:20-cv-09589 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 13, 2020) alleges that the Defendant's infant formula product
which is identified as "Infant Formula with Iron, Milk-Based
Powder," has a deceptively similar name "Toddler Next Stage -- Milk
Drink Powder."
The name "Toddler Next Stage -- Milk Drink Powder" is deceptive and
misleading because it is confusingly similar to the name of the
Infant Formula Product. "Toddler Next Stage -- Milk Drink Powder"
does not state, in clear terms, what it is in a way that
distinguishes it from different foods such as the Infant Formula
Product.
Through the confusingly similar product names, claims, statements
and design of the two products, caregivers of young children are
led to believe that the Toddler Next Stage Product is nutritionally
appropriate for children of the targeted age group – above 12
months – and implies that infants and young toddlers have
identical nutrient requirements, which is false, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Using the Infant Formula nutrition panel on a product not intended
for infants is misleading because it gives caregivers the
impression that the product is subject to the same scrutiny and
oversight of Infant Formula products. Caregivers receive the
incorrect impression that the Toddler Next Stage Product was
reviewed by the FDA for use and consumption for their children
greater than one year old, when this is not the case, says the
complaint.
Plaintiff Lovelyn Gordon is a citizen of New York, Yonkers,
Westchester County. She purchased the Product within her district
and/or State for personal and household consumption and/or use in
reliance on the representations of the Product.
Target Corporation manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells milk-based powders purporting to meet, and be necessary, for
the nutritional needs of young children, over 12 months old, under
their "Up&Up" brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
TIFFCO CARE2: Dickens Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA DICKENS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIFFCO CARE2 LLC d/b/a VISITING ANGELS, and
PATRICK EDWARD KELLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02954-JRS-MJD
(S.D. Ind., November 11, 2020) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged illegal policy and/or
practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants as a certified nurse
assistant (CNA) assisting elderly clients at their homes in
Plainfield, Indianapolis and Mooresville, Indiana, claims that she
did not receive all the compensation she was due although she
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, the
Defendant paid her straight-time only for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, regardless of the number of hours
suffered or permitted to work. As a result, the Plaintiff was
deprived by the Defendant of a significant amount of regular and
overtime compensation to which she is rightfully entitled.
TIFFCO Care2 LLC d/b/a Visiting Angels provides home healthcare
services. Patrick Edward Kelly is the owner and a principal of the
TIFFCO. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah Broderick, Esq.
GEORGE & FARINAS, LLP
151 N. Delaware St., Suite 1700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: 317-637-6071
Fax: 317-685-6505
E-mail: sb@georgeandfarinas.com
sb@lgkflaw.com
TREEHOUSE CALIFORNIA: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Treehouse California Almonds, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Treehouse California Almonds, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09466 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2020).
Treehouse California Almonds, LLC produces almonds. The Comapny
offers almonds for the candy and ice cream industries. Treehouse
California Almonds serves clients in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
UNILEVER UNITED: Libbey Says Shampoo Causes Hair Loss, Irritation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA LIBBEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a
UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No. 3:20-cv-08075 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 16, 2020) is a nationwide class action brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers who
purchased TRESemme Keratin Hair Smoothing Shampoo and/or TRESemme
Keratin Smooth Color Shampoo for personal or household use and not
for resale.
The Plaintiff purchased the products because of Unilever's uniform
false representation that the products would smooth her hair and
coat it with Keratin, a protein found naturally in hair.
Undisclosed by the Defendants to Plaintiff and Class members and
therefore unknown to Plaintiff and Class members, the Products
contain an ingredient or combination of ingredients that causes
significant hair loss and/or scalp irritation upon proper
application, says the complaint.
At least one ingredient in the products, DMDM hydantoin, is a
formaldehyde donor known to slowly leach formaldehyde when coming
into contact with water. Formaldehyde is a well-known human
carcinogen that can cause cancer and other harmful reactions when
absorbed into skin.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to properly warn
consumers of the risks and dangers attendant to the use of such a
strong ingredient on their hair and scalp -- even well after
Defendants knew should have known of the Products' hazards.
Plaintiff Kendra Libbey is a resident of the state of California
residing in Oakley, California, which is in Contra Costa County.
Defendant Unilever is a subsidiary of the dual-listed company
consisting of Unilever N.V. in Rotterdam, Netherlands and Unilever
PLC in London, United Kingdom. Unilever, which includes the Suave
brand, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 700 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. Unilever manufactured, marketed, designed, promoted and/or
distributed the Products.
Defendant Conopco is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business located at 700 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey. Conopco is responsible for the distribution of the
manufactured Products to retailers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com
dan@whitfieldbryson.com
harper@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC
Land Title Building 1910
100 S. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (267) 328-5245
Facsimile: (215) 972-1545
E-mail: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com
UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Jairam Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRAVESH JAIRAM, ROCKY RAMDIAL, ANDERSON BIRJU, NIGEL ALLEYNE,
REJESH RAMPAUL, and BRYAN JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRIC, INC.
And JONATHAN SMOKLER, CHRISTIAN CABEZAS, and DANIEL GREENBERG, as
individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-05543 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) seeks
to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal
wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment at
Uptown Communications & Electric, Inc.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
them overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
at a wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage, to which
they were entitled.
As a result of the violations of the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs seeks compensatory damages
and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The
Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this court deems appropriate.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the company as technicians and
installers.
Uptown Communications specializes in cable installations since
1994.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
VILLA OF GREENFIELD: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Parker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUINNCY PARKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VILLA OF GREENFIELD, LLC and BAY HARBOR
ASSISTED LIVING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01696 (E.D. Wis.,
November 11, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful
compensation system in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in approximately February
2018 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working primarily at
the Defendants' Greenfield, Wisconsin location in the State of
Wisconsin.
The Plaintiff contends that he and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Although the Defendant tracked and/or recorded their
hours worked each workweek, the Defendant failed to properly
compensate them at the applicable overtime rate because it failed
to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as
monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and
payments in the calculation of their regular rates of pay.
Villa of Greenfield, LLC and Bay Harbor Assisted Living LLC
collectively and jointly owned, operated and managed assisted
living facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
VOODOO DOUGHNUT: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Voodoo Doughnut, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Voodoo Doughnut, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09462 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2020).
Voodoo Doughnut is an American doughnut company based in Portland,
Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
WEATHERFORD US: Granillo Labor Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWARD GRANILLO, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WEATHERFORD U.S.,
L.P.; WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, Case
No. BCV-20102386, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on November 13, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01614-DAD-JLT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide compliant rest periods and/or
pay premiums, failure to provide compliant meal periods and/or pay
premiums, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay
accrued vacation wages, failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to timely pay
wages, and unfair business practices.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. is a company that provides oil field
machinery and equipment based in Houston, Texas.
Weatherford International, LLC is a company that provides oil and
natural gas services, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
A Professional Law Corporation
4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4245
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
WESTERN UNION: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Douglas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that the Court has entered the final
order and judgment in the purported class action initiated by Jason
Douglas.
On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent.
During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement.
The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement.
On January 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion requesting decisions
on its pending motion to approve the settlement and motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award. On August 31, 2018,
the Court issued an order approving the settlement, in which the
Court modified the class definition slightly and ordered the
parties to provide additional notice to the class.
An appeal relating to the Court's order was taken by an objector,
and this appeal was dismissed on April 13, 2020. The Company and
its insurance carrier have funded the settlement and, on October 5,
2020, the Court entered the final order and judgment in the case.
The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
XEROX CORP: Vollmer Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL VOLLMER and MARILYN VOLLMER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. XEROX CORPORATION, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR
COMMITTEE, XEROX MEDICAL CARE PLAN FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES, XEROX
DENTAL CARE PLAN, and XEROX CORPORATION 1986 ENHANCED EARLY
RETIREMENT PROGRAM, Case No. 6:20-cv-06979 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 16,
2020) is a class action complaint brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all former Xerox employees who retired under the
Xerox Corporation 1986 Enhanced Early Retirement Program (ERP).
The Plaintiffs and all former Xerox employees, along with their
eligible dependents, are entitled to lifetime, vested benefits
under the Xerox Medical Care Plan for Retired Employees and the
Xerox Dental Care Plan on a noncontributory basis as set forth in a
letter dated October 17, 1986, from D.M. Reid, Senior Vice
President, Personnel and Senior Staff Officer of Xerox.
According to the complaint, Xerox and the other plan fiduciaries
breached their fiduciary duties in misrepresenting the terms of the
Old Plan with respect to the reservation of the right to require
contributions by participants who elected retirement under the ERP.
Further, the Plan Administrators for the ERP and the Old Plan have
disclosure obligations pursuant to the provisions of ERISA,
requiring that it provide plan participants and beneficiaries such
as Plaintiffs and members of the class, with an SPD that is
sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to reasonably apprise them
of their rights and obligations under the plan and that among other
things, the circumstances which may result in the loss of
benefits.
These fiduciaries violated their disclosure obligations by failing
timely to furnish employees eligible to retire pursuant to the ERP
and their spouses with a Summary Plan Description (SPD) that
apprised them that Xerox reserved the right to require
contributions by participants who elected retirement under the
ERP.
The Plaintiffs and members of the class suffered actual harm as a
result of these violations of ERISA in that they forewent ongoing
employment, future advancement and earnings, future contributions
to their 401(k) accounts, future increases to the base of their
Retirement Income Guarantee Plan (RIGP) and Social Security
benefits and other financial consideration and benefits, in
exchange for the benefits under the ERP, including lifetime,
non-contributory retiree health benefits, which benefits they have
now lost.
Plaintiff Paul Vollmer and his wife, Plaintiff Marilyn Vollmer,
reside in Buckeye. Mr. Vollmer was employed by Xerox Corporation
from 1964 to January 1987, when he elected to take retirement under
the Xerox Corporation 1986 Enhanced Early Retirement Program (ERP).
As a participant in the ERP, Mr. Vollmer was guaranteed vested
benefits under the Old Plan (defined below) for both himself and
his wife Plaintiff Marilyn Vollmer, who is a beneficiary of the ERP
and the Old Plan.
Xerox Corporation is a New York Corporation with its principal
place of business in Norwalk, Connecticut. On July 31, 2019, Xerox,
which had been a publicly held company, became a direct,
wholly-owned subsidiary of Xerox Holdings Corporation. Xerox is the
sponsor of the Xerox Medical Care Plan for Retired Employees and
the Xerox Dental Care Plan and the ERP and acted as a de facto
fiduciary of those plans with a duty to communicate honestly with
participants and to provide complete and accurate information about
its benefit plans.
Defendant Plan Administrator Committee is the Plan Administrator
for the Old Plan and is a named fiduciary under ERISA.
Defendant Xerox Corporation 1986 Enhanced Early Retirement Program
is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA.
Defendant's Xerox Medical Care Plan for Retired Employees and Xerox
Dental Care Plan are employee benefit plans within the meaning of
ERISA.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne K. Bowling Esq.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF
CUNNINGHAM LLC
1600 Liberty Building
424 Main St.
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 854-3400
E-mail: bowling@ruppbaase.com
- and -
Tybe A. Brett, Esq.
Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE
& KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Avenue
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
E-mail: tbrett(@fdpklaw.com
jurt@fdpklaw.com
ZEVIA LLC: Cruz Alleges Violation under American Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zevia LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Zevia LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09461 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
11, 2020).
Zevia LLC was founded in 2007. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of soft drinks and carbonated
waters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
*********
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 ***