/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210715.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 135
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Martin Says
3M COMPANY: Bongiovanni Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Brakefield Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Connolly Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Danielson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Hallgren Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Johnson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Langsather Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Lettera Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: O'Fallon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Poff Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Richard Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Robinson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Young Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
9 STONES: Faces Chang Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
AAA CAROLINAS: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Mismanagement
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Faces Suit Over Use of Pepper Spray at Protest
AMAZON.COM INC: Cooper Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
AMAZON.COM: Alexa Users Allege Illegal Wiretapping
AMAZON.COM: Alexa Users Hit Unregulated Biometric Data Retention
AMERICAN TANK: Fails to Pay Welders' OT, Bernier Suit Claims
AMERICAS GARDENING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: EDD Extends Service Contract Amid Class Action
BAYER CORP: Xarelto-Related Class Suit Junked with Prejudice
BOFI HOLDING: Class Cert. Reply Brief Filing Extended to July 23
BRITTGAB CORP: Peral Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
CALIFORNIA: Bid to Certify Class in Saddozai v. SVSP & DCR Denied
CANADA: Residential School Families File Class Suit v. Ottawa
CARNIVAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Lindsay Suit
CHAMPION PETFOODS: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Fraud Suit
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Weaver Fails to Offer Ample Evidence, Court Says
CLEARVIEW SM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Melgar Suit Alleges
CM THOMPSON: Betras Sues Over Club Dancers' Unpaid Wages and Tips
COLONIAL MANAGEMENT: Beeler Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COMPLETE INDUSTRIES: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMPUTER CREDIT: Debt Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Spira Says
CRSC LLC: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid
DAIMLER AG: German Consumer Group Opens Emissions Class Action
DESIGNED METAL: Faces Lara Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Dismisses ILXA from Zwicky Class Suit
DRUMMOND COMPANY: August 20 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
EARTHSCAPES LANDSCAPE: Iniestra Suit Removed to C.D. California
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Brown Files Suit in M.D. Florida
EVOQUA WATER: Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
FAVORITE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Traveling Nurses, Clifford Claims
FISHMAN GROUP: Kline, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Must Face Class Action Over Sugarcane Burning
FUSION LEARNING: Improperly Pays Teachers, Murphy Suit Claims
G.P. PROPERTY: Villa Seeks Landscapers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
GO CAP ADVANCE: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
HARRIS & HARRIS: Heller Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
HARTFORD FIRE: SA Hospitality Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
HP INC: Cepelak Class Certification Bid Due March 23, 2022
HYATT CORPORATION: Wins Bid to Stay Brumbach Proceedings
INFOMEDIA GROUP: Gabel Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Nixed
IOVATE HEALTH: Barnes Sues Over Coffee Product's Misleading Label
J.K. RESIDENTIAL: Lynch Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Misclassification
JIMMY JOHN'S: Joint Bid for Class Cert. Extension Deadline Filed
JOSHUA AGENCY: Allshouse Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: L.N.P. Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
LBK CONSULTING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 8
LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Distribution Plan in Desilvio Suit Approved
LOUIE'S PIZZERIA: Faces Blanco Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
MARRIOTT INT'L: Hall Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 1
MCKINSEY & CO: Livingston Suit Moved from M.D. La. to N.D. Calif.
MCKINSEY & CO: Pope County Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal.
MCMICHAEL TAYLOR: Peraga Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
MDL 2244: Nellenback Suit Consolidated in Hip Implant Product Lit.
MDL 2591: Crumley Roberts Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
MDL 2804: MSP Recovery Claims v. Par Pharma Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2873: Three Groundwater Contamination Suit Moved to D.S.C.
MDL 2921: Calais v. Allergan Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
MDL 2924: RICO Claim v. Brand Manufacturers in Zantac Suit Tossed
METHOD TEST: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Suit Alleges
MICROSOFT CORP: Russo Suit Alleging Privacy Laws Violation Tossed
MINNESOTA: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Gamble Suit Granted
NABORS COMPLETION: Ronquillo Petitions to Confirm Arbitration Award
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Liable to Student-Athletes' TBIs, Cupal Says
NATURE'S PATH: Faces Class Action Over Hemp Granola Mislabeling
NELNET SERVICING: Gesner Sues Over Illegal Excessive Call Practices
NEW JERSEY: Commuters Seek Class Certification in Bridgegate Suit
NEW REZ: Cox Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 9
NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Aponte Claims
NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff Says Insurers Must Cover BIPA Deal
ORTHONET LLC: $1M Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Solis FLSA-NYLL Suit
PAPA SOUTH: Settlement Deal in Garrett Suit Gets Final Approval
PEOPLEG2: Morgan FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
PEPPER GATE: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Davis Suit Alleges
PORTNOY SCHNECK: Tskhvedadze Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PREFERRED INSURANCE: Sharfman Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Settlement Deal in Dyer Suit Gets Final Nod
SANTA MONICA, CA: Protesters Slam Illegal Arrests
SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Buffalo Xerographix Appeals Case Dismissal
SOUTH CAROLINA: 2 Administrative Orders in Torrence v. DOC Affirmed
ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 2
TEXAS: Valadez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Compel Arbitration in Siperavage Class Suit
UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Misclassifies Technicians, Dragon Suit Claims
VALVE CORP: Dark Catt Slams PC Games Monopoly, Excessive Fees
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Hutsul Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
VIORI BEAUTY: Davis Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind
WAL-MART: Seeks to Strike Kress Stores' Expert Witness Report
WORLD WRESTLING: $7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Warren Police Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Final Order & Judgment Issued in Firefighters Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Plan of Allocation in Warren Police Suit Approved
YAYYO INC: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 19
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Martin Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02033-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease/cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Bongiovanni Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE BONGIOVANNI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01993-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Bongiovanni case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Brakefield Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BRAKEFIELD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01995-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Brakefield case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Connolly Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN TIMOTHY CONNOLLY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01996-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Connolly case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Danielson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RAY DANIELSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01997-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Danielson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hallgren Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HALLGREN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01998-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Hallgren case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Johnson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL EDDIE JOHNSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01999-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Langsather Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LANGSATHER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02000-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Langsather case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Lettera Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK THOMAS LETTERA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02001-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Lettera case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: O'Fallon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN EUGENE O'FALLON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02002-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The O'Fallon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Poff Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES POFF II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02032-RMG (D.S.C., July 8, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with thyroid disease/cancer, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Richard Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ALLEN RICHARD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02003-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Richard case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Robinson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ANDREW ROBINSON, SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02004-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Robinson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
3M COMPANY: Young Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS TRAVIS YOUNG v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02005-RMG (D.S.C., July 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Young case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
9 STONES: Faces Chang Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TODD CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 9 STONES, LLC, STONE'S FOOD, INC., CURTIS
STONE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV25117 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide employment records, failure to
pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal
periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate
payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to
pay reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure
to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned
upon discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid
sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a butcher from June
2020 until February 7, 2021.
9 Stones, LLC is a food service company doing business in
California.
Stone's Food, Inc. is a food service company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
AAA CAROLINAS: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that AAA Carolinas and Auto Club Group Inc.,
subsidiaries of the American Automobile Association, were slammed
on July 6 with a proposed class action accusing them of mismanaging
workers' 401(k) plan to the tune of millions of dollars by choosing
high-fee investment options that cut into employees' retirement
funds. [GN]
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Faces Suit Over Use of Pepper Spray at Protest
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Groves, writing for Times-News, reports that Alamance County
and the City of Graham have been in court over protests for more
than a year now, but a new lawsuit filed on July 6 in Orange County
is different.
"This isn't a civil rights case. This is not about people not being
able to vote," said Hillsborough lawyer Jamie Paulen. "A bunch of
people there were injured."
"There" is Court Square on Oct. 31 when law enforcement broke up
the "I Am Change" march with pepper spray. Paulen was there,
according to her lawsuit, and was sprayed three times.
While her complaint gets into the details of her own experience at
the march and in the months since, she hopes the courts will
certify other people sprayed and emotionally traumatized at the
march that day as a "class," making hers a class-action suit, so
she will not be the only plaintiff. She thinks there could be as
many as 100 people who could be eligible to be paid for their pain
and suffering.
Paulen represents many of the protesters charged on Oct. 31 and at
other demonstrations last summer and fall in Alamance County
District Court and waited to file this suit until those were
largely resolved. She filed the suit in Orange County because she
doesn't want to pick jurors who voted for Alamance County Sheriff
Terry Johnson.
"I brought it in Orange County because that's where I live and I
believe I can get a fair jury in Orange County," Paulen said, "and
I don't think I can get a fair jury in Alamance County."
Graham Police and Alamance County sheriff's deputies used a pepper
spray aerosol three times on the crowd participating in the Oct. 31
"I Am Change" march to the polls. Police first sprayed protesters
to clear the street almost immediately after an 8 minute, 46 second
moment of silence for George Floyd when most of them had been
kneeling.
The demonstration continued but the sheriff's office claimed a gas
can and gas-powered generator were fire hazards on the grounds of
the Alamance County Historic Courthouse and violations of the
protest permit. Deputies seized the generator while it was powering
a public-address system during a speech. A scuffle broke out
between deputies and demonstrators, during which, according to the
sheriff's office, a deputy was pushed to the ground, and deputies
pepper-sprayed protesters. Soon after the sheriff's office revoked
the protest permit and declared the rally an illegal assembly.
Deputies and police again cleared the street with pepper spray and
drove the crowd up North Main Street.
According to the suit, the sheriff's office order to clear the
street was not valid and the order did not justify driving the
crowd up North Main Street after clearing Court Square.
Graham Police and the Alamance County Sheriff's Office have said
the pepper spray foggers used that day were directed at the ground.
But Paulen in her complaint claims they were sprayed at eye level.
She saw a woman in an electric scooter apparently having a seizure,
used a bottle of water to help other people wash out their eyes and
helped a woman take out her contact lenses while she screamed in
pain. When she took people to an EMS vehicle, Paulen writes, the
EMTs took several minutes before they offered treatment.
Paulen was sprayed while she was trying to leave the square by
Graham Police, one of whom she recognized and named in the suit.
That time she was unable to breathe, and, according to the suit,
was sprayed again while someone was helping her get out of the
square and rinse her eyes.
Paulen claims she still has nightmares about that day and has had
to use pharmaceutical medications to treat severe depression.
Attorneys and administrators for Graham and the county did not
comment when the Times-News sent requests on July 6.
There were two federal lawsuits charging the sheriff's office and
police department with committing civil rights violations on Oct,
31, but the City of Graham and Alamance County paid a total of
$120,000 to settle one of those last month. The other is moving
forward seeking changes in how the city and county treat protests
and protesters as well as money. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Cooper Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00915 (W.D. Wash., July 8, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the rights of
the Plaintiff and Class members under BIPA by: (1) systematically
and intentionally collecting, obtaining, using and/or storing
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without first
obtaining written release from the Plaintiff and Class members; (2)
not properly informing them in writing that their biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information was being collected and/or
stored; (3) not informing them in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which their biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information was being collected, stored, and used; (4)
not developing and making available a written policy establishing a
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; (5) selling,
leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from their biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information; (6) disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise disseminating biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information to third parties; and (7) not storing,
transmitting, and/or protecting from disclosure their biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information using the reasonable
standard of care within the industry and in a manner that is the
same as or more protective than the manner in which Amazon stores,
transmits, and protects other confidential and sensitive
information.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on electronic commerce, cloud computing, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence, with its principal place of
business located in Washington.
Amazon.com Services, LLC is an electronic commerce company, with
its principal place of business located in Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Cecily C. Shiel, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-4416
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
cshiel@tousley.com
- and –
Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Kevin P. Green, Esq.
Zachary T. Shelton, Esq.
GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-5150
E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
kevin@ghalaw.com
zachary@ghalaw.com
- and –
James P. Frickleton, Esq.
Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
Edward D. Robertson III, Esq.
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON RADER, P.C.
4000 W. 114th St., Suite 310
Leawood, KS 66211
Telephone: (913) 266-2300
Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
E-mail: jimf@bflawfirm.com
chiprob@bflawfirm.com
krobertson@bflawfirm.com
AMAZON.COM: Alexa Users Allege Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------
Susan Lenehan and Jodi Brust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00868 (W.D. Wash., June 28, 2021), seeks
redress for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Florida
Security of Communications Act and the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
Amazon is an online marketplace for various products and services.
It offers "Alexa," a voice-based virtual assistant, which
constantly listens for voice commands, questions and setting
changes. Alexa is always on and always listening unless the user
specifically turns off the microphone.
Alexa devices are only supposed to record communications when a
trigger word is used. Nonetheless, the Alexa Devices recorded,
stored, and divulged the contents of Plaintiffs' communications to
Amazon, even when no trigger word was used to activate the device
and provide consent to be recorded., asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 837-4717
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-Mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
AMAZON.COM: Alexa Users Hit Unregulated Biometric Data Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Flores, Donna Rucker, Jason Stebbins, Sandy White, Julie
Bloom Stebbins, Cheri Anne Clarke and Becky White, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMAZON.COM, Inc. and AMAZON.COM Services, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-00873 (W.D. Wash., June 28, 2021), seeks redress for
violations of privacy rights guaranteed under the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Amazon is an online marketplace for various products and services.
It offers "Alexa," a voice-based virtual assistant, which
constantly listens for voice commands, questions and setting
changes. Alexa is always on and always listening unless the user
specifically turns off the microphone.
In an effort to improve the voice and speech recognition
technology, Amazon retains every voice recording created by the
user and any individual who happens to be speaking near the Alexa
device. Amazon keeps a recording of the user speaking those words,
unless the user actively goes into their Alexa and Amazon accounts
and deletes them.
Plaintiffs allege that Amazon retains biometric identifiers or
biometric information without a written policy that is available to
the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying the biometric identifiers and biometric
information when the initial purpose of collecting or obtaining
such identifiers has been satisfied, or within three years of the
individual's last interaction with the private entity, whichever
occurs first. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Richardson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. RICHARDSON, P.S.
2135 112th Ave., N.E., Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004
Tel: (425) 646-9801
Fax: (425) 451-2661
Email: david@dbrlaw.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR, KANE & CONWAY, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Tel: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@prwlegal.com
- and -
Aaron Siri, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: aaron@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
AMERICAN TANK: Fails to Pay Welders' OT, Bernier Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BERNIER and DALTON JORDAN, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE AMERICAN TANK & FABRICATING
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01302 (N.D. Ohio, July 6,
2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against
the Defendant seeking damages and relief for its alleged unlawful
payroll policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as welders,
asserts that they and other similarly situated welders regularly
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek during their employment
with the Defendant. However, they were not paid overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek,
says the Plaintiff.
The American Tank & Fabricating Company is a metal fabricator that
provides steel products and components to its clients. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Tel: (614) 610-4134
Fax: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
AMERICAS GARDENING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americas Gardening
Resource, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Americas
Gardening Resource, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05971 (S.D.N.Y., July
12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
America's Gardening Resource, Inc. doing business as Gardener's
Supply Company -- https://www.gardeners.com/ -- is America's number
one resource for gardening offering raised beds, pots and planters,
supports, soils and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BANK OF AMERICA: EDD Extends Service Contract Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Lyle, writing for ABC10, reports that despite calls for change
from cardholders, lawmakers, and even the bank itself, California's
Employment Development Department (EDD) is extending its
relationship with Bank of America.
"To help ensure continued service to claimants, EDD intends to
exercise its right under the existing contract with Bank of America
to continue providing debit card service," the EDD wrote in an
email to our Dollars and Sense team.
The agreement means that Bank of America will continue to provide
debit cards for unemployment benefits in the state for the next two
years. The decision was made by the EDD despite the bank making it
clear it wants out.
"Under the contract, the state had the sole option to extend and
chose to do so," Bank of America said in a written statement. "We
have advised the state that we would like to exit this business as
soon as possible."
Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the EDD debit cards
have been targets of fraud and frozen accounts. Cardholders filed a
class-action lawsuit earlier this year alleging Bank of America
"breached its exclusive contract with the California Employment
Development Department (EDD) and violated the rights of thousands
of California benefits recipients." A judge issued a preliminary
injunction in the case in June.
But the biggest reason for Bank of America to look and exit the
contract might be due to the costs associated with it. In January,
Faiz Ahmad, managing director of transaction services for Bank of
America, told lawmakers that the bank has "lost hundreds of
millions of dollars on the contract." The bank also said it has
hired thousands of people to help answer questions and manage the
unemployment debit cards.
And California isn't the only state where Bank of America wants to
end its unemployment contracts. Earlier this month, the bank's
contract with Nevada ended with plans to end all debit card
services by Oct. 1, 2021.
Here in California, the bank said, "we will continue to administer
unemployment payments and meet the requirements of the contract."
EDD card changes, direct deposit
Even as the EDD continues its contract with Bank of America, the
department said it is moving forward with some changes by working
with the bank to implement chip-enabled debit cards. The EDD said
the addition of the chip technology will "improve card security."
The EDD also confirmed plans for a direct deposit option for
unemployment benefits, saying it will "seek proposals from
vendors."
EDD got some help from lawmakers, who recently included $5.5
million in the state budget for EDD to develop a direct deposit
option. By utilizing direct deposit, people who get unemployment
benefits could have the money directly deposited into their
personal bank account instead of using a debit card. [GN]
BAYER CORP: Xarelto-Related Class Suit Junked with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN (E.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Eldon E. Fallon entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint of three health care
third-party payors is dismissed with prejudice.
This case arises out of the multi-district litigation ("MDL")
involving the prescription anticoagulant medication known as
Xarelto. To put this matter in perspective, a brief review of the
litigation is helpful. Beginning in 2014, lawsuits were filed in
federal courts throughout the nation against Defendants Bayer
Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer AG, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen
Ortho LLC, and Johnson & Johnson. In their suits, plaintiffs assert
that they or their family members suffered severe bleeding and
other injuries due to Xarelto's allegedly inadequate warning label,
as well as other theories.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") determined
that the plaintiffs' claims involved common questions of fact, and
that centralization under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 would serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Accordingly, on December 12,
2014, the JPML consolidated the plaintiffs' Xarelto claims into a
single multidistrict proceeding ("MDL 2592"). MDL 2592 was assigned
to Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana to coordinate discovery and other
pretrial matters in the pending cases. Subsequent Xarelto cases
filed in federal court have been transferred to this district court
to become part of MDL 2592 as "tag along" cases. In addition, a
number of cases were filed directly in this Court and became part
of this MDL proceeding. At its peak, the Court had over 30,000
individual cases in this MDL.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wJdqUq at no extra charge.[CC]
BOFI HOLDING: Class Cert. Reply Brief Filing Extended to July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order granting joint motion for
extension of time to file reply brief in support of class
certification.
On July 2, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that
the Court enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to
file its reply brief in support of class certification by seven
days, to July 23, 2021.
Bofi Holding is a bank holding company based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B3u1Wz at no extra charge.[CC]
BRITTGAB CORP: Peral Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL PERAL, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. BRITTGAB
CORP. d/b/a SABA's PIZZA, MOSHGAB CORP. d/b/a SABA's PIZZA, PIZZA
84 LLC d/b/a MARINARA, GABI OPERATING CORP. d/b/a MARINARA, PIZZA
26 LLC d/b/a MARINARA, PIZZA 54 INC. d/b/a MARINARA, and GABRIEL
WEISER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01892-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional
collective certification and for court facilitation of notice.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGAV0p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class are:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimiles: (212) 465-1181
CALIFORNIA: Bid to Certify Class in Saddozai v. SVSP & DCR Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIKEB SADDOZAI, Plaintiff v. A. CARWITHEN, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-01352 BLF (PR) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied the Plaintiff's request for class
certification and motion for appointment of counsel.
The Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against prison
officials at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), where he is
currently confined, and the Director of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). The Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a
separate order. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion for
appointment of counsel.
Discussion
A. Class Action
As a preliminary matter, Judge Freeman addresses the Plaintiff's
attempt to bring the "class action" on behalf of himself as well as
several other inmates who appear to be similarly situated. She
construes this attempt as a request for class certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and therefore cannot adequately
represent the intended class. Accordingly, his request for class
certification is denied. The other "plaintiffs" listed on the
complaint will be removed from the action. If they desire to
pursue any claims on their own, they must do so by each filing
separate actions.
B. Plaintiff's Claims
The Plaintiff claims that on various dates from on Oct. 1, 2020 to
the filing of the complaint, he was repeatedly prevented from
sleeping and forced to be awaken every hour or so, between 11:00
p.m. through 4:30 a.m., by the Defendants shining a bright
flash-light beamed directly at his eyes, "intentionally to
interfere with sleep while banging onto his cell door and cell door
window, causing loud disruption on unit to cause his sleep
deprivation." The Plaintiff claims that he is repeatedly
threatened with disciplinary charges by the Defendants, out of
retaliation for and to prevent his initiating a complaint.
The Plaintiff claims that the lack of sleep has affected his
everyday life in various ways, e.g., inability to retrieve morning
meals, participate in day programs and recreational activities, and
make ducat appointments and job assignments, "resulting in further
deprivations or potential disciplinary actions that will effect his
personal liberty and privileges for inadvertently missing said
appointments and work assignments." The Plaintiff claims these
conditions are in violation of the state and federal constitutional
rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.
The Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: Correctional
Officer A. Carwithen, Warden M. B. Atchley, and the Director of the
CDCR. He claims Defendant Carwithen and his unknown "partner in
the control tower" "failed to intervene, was acting in such a
capacity as the agent, servant, and employee, under the color of
state law pursuant to their authority under the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation."
The Plaintiff claims Warden Atchley is liable for the "policy
decisions, writing regulations or giv[ing] orders" and has "failed
in his duty to act upon his notices, reports, grievances, appeals,
and knowledge, and promulgated a policy that does direct or condone
the wrongful conducts of defendant(s)" who "with deliberate
indifference repeatedly and continuously shined and beamed his
Flash-Light and or camera phone L.E.D. light directly into his eyes
to interfere with sleep."
The Plaintiff claims the Director of the CDCR is liable for Warden
Atchley's actions at SVSP, as "a prison policy maker who writes
regulations, or gives orders, at least for the purpose of prison
management and reaches the level of deliberate indifference,
failing to ensure his rights to due process, equal protection
clause, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment" after
receiving notice from him. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as damages.
1. Eighth Amendment
Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff's allegations that he has
been deprived of a basic need for sleep states a cognizable claim
under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Carwithen, whom he
alleges was aware of the disruptions but refused to intervene to
abate an excessive risk to Plaintiff's health or safety. On the
other hand, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Warden
Atchley. If there was no wrongful conduct by a subordinate, then
the Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Warden Atchley based on
supervisory liability absent his direct involvement. Lastly, the
Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth
Amendment claim against the Director of the CDCR. The Plaintiff's
claim against Warden Atchley is deficient.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff will be granted leave to file
an amended complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies
described above to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on the
deprivation of sleep against Defendants Atchley and the Director.
2. First Amendment - Retaliation
The Plaintiff asserts that his rights under the First Amendment was
violated. Within the prison context, a viable claim of First
Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion
that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)
because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such
action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment
rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate
correctional goal."
Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff's complaint contains
insufficient allegations to support a retaliation claim. The
Plaintiff claims generally that the Defendants" deprived him of
sleep out of retaliation for and to prevent his initiating a
complaint. However, he fails to connect this allegation with any
named defendant. Nor does the Plaintiff allege that any adverse
action chilled the exercise of his First Amendment rights.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff will be granted leave to attempt to
state sufficient facts in an amended complaint to support a
retaliation claim against specific Defendants.
3. Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments
The Plaintiff also asserts that his rights under the Fourth, Fifth,
and Fourteenth Amendments were also violated. However, the
complaint contains insufficient allegations to implicate all the
rights under these Amendments. Judge Freeman holds that the
Plaintiff's allegations implicate none of the rights under the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There are no allegations of
unreasonable searches or seizures to raise Fourth Amendment issues,
nor are any of the Fifth Amendment protections for criminal
proceedings or federal due process and takings clauses relevant.
Furthermore, there are also no allegations indicating that the
Plaintiff was denied due process or equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, any such claims under these
Amendments are dismissed with leave to amend for the Plaintiff to
attempt to state sufficient facts to support a claim.
4. State Law Claims
The Plaintiff claims that his rights under the equivalent state
constitutional amendments were violated. While the Court may
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims,
Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff fails to state sufficient
factual allegations showing that any named Defendant violated the
cited amendments. As discussed, the Plaintiff makes only general
allegations regarding the violation of his constitutional rights
without providing specific facts in support. Accordingly, these
state law claims are dismissed with leave to amend. He may attempt
to state sufficient factual allegations to state claims based on
violations of the state constitutional amendments in an amended
complaint against specific Defendants.
C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
The Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel based
on indigency, the complexity of the issues, lack of legal
knowledge, limited access to the library, and that he would be
better served by the assistance of counsel for various reasons.
However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil
case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if
he loses the litigation, Judge Freeman states. The Plaintiff's
evidence in support of his motion does not raise a substantial
question regarding his competence. He has shown an ability to
articulate his claims despite his alleged mental health issues.
Lastly, his mere assertion that he needs the assistance of counsel
to proceed with the case, without more, is not sufficient to raise
a substantial question.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that in the absence of verifiable
evidence of incompetence, there is no substantial question
regarding Plaintiff's competence and therefore no duty of inquiry.
The Plaintiff does not warrant appointment of a guardian ad litem
under Rule 17(c).
Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Freeman denied the Plaintiff's
request for class certification. The matter will proceed with Mr.
Saddozai as the sole plaintiff in the action. All other
individuals named as plaintiffs will be terminated from the action.
The Judge also denied the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel.
The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Within 28 days of
the date the Order is filed, the Plaintiff will file an amended
complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies. The amended
complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in
the order, Case No. C 21-01325 BLF (PR), and the words "AMENDED
COMPLAINT" on the first page. If using the court form complaint,
Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for
the action to proceed.
The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being
treated thereafter as non-existent. Consequently, claims not
included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and
defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer
defendants.
In the alternative, the Plaintiff may file notice in the same time
provided that he wishes to proceed solely on the cognizable Eighth
Amendment claim against Defendant Carwithen and strike all other
claims and the Defendants from the action.
Failure to respond in accordance with the Order in the time
provided will result in this matter proceeding solely on the Eighth
Amendment claim against Defendant Carwithen and dismissal with
prejudice of all other claims and defendants for failure to state a
claim, without further notice to the Plaintiff.
The Order terminates Docket No. 7.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/c7jewzvm from Leagle.com.
CANADA: Residential School Families File Class Suit v. Ottawa
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kaufmann, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that families
injured by Indigenous residential schools will seek restitution
from Ottawa through a class action lawsuit, says a Calgary legal
firm.
Following similar action taken by survivors, the latest legal
action is being filed by families that were traumatized by the
institutions that sought to forcibly assimilate Indigenous
children, most of whom were taken from their parents, said the
Guardian Law Group.
"The claim is made on behalf of all family members, parents, and
siblings of children that disappeared or passed away while
attending a Residential School," said a statement from the law
group. "For those children whose deaths were wrongful, the families
deserve compensation and justice."
Even in cases of natural death, the federal government failed to
inform the victims' families, memorialize their burial spots or
keep proper records, the law group said.
Spearheading the action will be Violet and Floyd Good Eagle, a
husband and wife of the Siksika Nation who attended separate
residential schools in Alberta and both lost siblings at those
institutions, said Guardian Law.
"In both cases . . . when the parents asked about the whereabouts
of their children, they were either informed that they had passed
away or that they should not inquire further," said the lawyers.
The suit is seeking damages in the range of $200 million.
That cruel lack of transparency was a pervasive problem and one
that can only be addressed through a class action, said Guardian
Law's Mathew Farrell, who's filed the claim in federal court.
About 150,000 students attended nearly 150 Indigenous residential
schools from the mid-19th century until the late 1990s. Estimates
of how many children died there reach 6,000.
The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission said the
schools, operated by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian
faiths at the behest of the federal government, subjected children
to sexual and physical abuse, malnutrition, exposure and disease
while attempting to destroy their cultural identity.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Last month, the Alberta government said it would earmark $8 million
to research and help uncover unmarked burial sites located at
former residential schools.
That decision came after ground-penetrating radar located 215
bodies at an unmarked grave at a former residential school in
Kamloops, B.C. Hundreds of other unmarked graves have since been
found in B.C. and Saskatchewan and many more are expected to be
located.
The federal government had already set aside more than $3 billion
in compensation for about 80,000 residential school survivors as
part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in
2006.
"Despite that, the effects of the Indian residential school system
continue now and into the future," says the statement of claim.
Class action settlements have also been reached with the federal
government to compensate Indigenous students who attended day
schools, the most recent one providing survivors with $10,000 each.
[GN]
CARNIVAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Lindsay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONARD C. LINDSAY and CARL E.W. ZEHNER, Plaintiffs v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, and HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V.
d/b/a HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V. LLC, Defendants, Case No. C20-982
TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel.
On Jan. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs used a travel agent to book the MS
ZAANDAM cruise departing from Buenos Aires, Argentina on March 7,
2020. Guests had until Dec. 8, 2019, 90 days before the cruise, to
cancel for a full refund.
Also on Jan. 9, 2019, the day the Plaintiffs booked their cruise, a
Booking Confirmation was emailed to their travel agent; the Booking
Confirmation, which was attached to the email as a PDF document,
contained an "IMPORTANT NOTICES" section, which provides, "All
Holland America Line guests travel under the terms and conditions
of the Cruise Contract that will be issued to you and which may be
provided upon request or viewed on our website:
www.hollandamerica.com. Please read the contract carefully as it
affects your legal rights." Travel agents routinely send the
Booking Confirmation to the passenger as a matter of custom and
practice in the industry.
Cruise passengers are required to complete an Online Check-In
process before boarding, through which they must check a box
indicating acceptance of the Cruise Contract and its terms. The
year before their cruise, the Plaintiffs received at least six
automated emails instructing them to complete the Online Check-In
process. They completed the Online Check-In process, and thereby
accepted the Cruise Contract, on Jan. 31, 2020, 37 days before the
MS ZAANDAM departed.
While on the MS ZAANDAM, Plaintiff Zehner contracted COVID-19.
Plaintiff Lindsay also believes he contracted COVID-19 on the MS
ZAANDAM but did not get tested for the virus. The Plaintiffs have
since brought the suit as a putative class action on behalf of the
1,000-plus passengers who were aboard the MS ZAANDAM during the
relevant time period, and they now move for class certification and
appointment of class representatives and counsel.
The Defendants oppose class certification based on the class action
waiver contained in the Cruise Contract. Although the Plaintiffs
acknowledge the waiver, they assert it is unenforceable because it
was not reasonably communicated to the Plaintiffs and, even if it
was, it is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
specifically Rule 23.
Analysis
1. Reasonable Communicative Test
Courts use the "reasonable communicative test," which has two
prongs, to determine "under federal common law and maritime law
when the passenger of a common carrier is contractually bound by
the fine print of a passenger ticket." Under the first prong,
courts focus on the ticket's physical characteristics and "assess
features such as size of type, conspicuousness and clarity of the
notice on the face of the ticket, and the ease with which a
passenger can read the provisions in question." When analyzing the
second prong, courts consider the circumstances surrounding the
passenger's ticket purchase "including 'the passenger's familiarity
with the ticket, the time and incentive under the circumstances to
study the provisions of the ticket, and any other notice that the
passenger received outside of the ticket.'"
The Plaintiffs assert that the class action waiver fails the first
prong of the reasonable communicativeness test because the face of
the ticket did not reference the Cruise Contract or the class
action waiver. But courts have held that a contract provision
satisfies the first prong even where the face of the ticket did not
notify passengers of the contract.
The Plaintiffs next argue that the Cruise Contract fails the second
prong of the test because, by the time they reviewed it, they could
not refuse its terms without incurring significant fees. But the
Court's analysis focuses on when the contract terms were reasonably
communicated, not when a passenger actually reviewed them.
Judge Zilly holds that the Plaintiffs do not contend that the
Cruise Contract is fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the facts of
the case are distinguishable from those in Corna because the
Plaintiffs had 11 months to review the Cruise Contract and cancel
for a full refund. The Judge determines the Cruise Contract,
including its class action waiver, was reasonably communicated to
the Plaintiffs.
2. Entitlement to Class Proceedings under Rule 23
The Plaintiffs next argue that Rule 23, which addresses class
actions, creates a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff to pursue
a class action as long as they meet Rule 23's requirements.
Judge Zilly concludes that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
is barred by the Cruise Contract's class action waiver.
Accordingly, he need not address whether the Plaintiffs satisfy the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23 or whether
joinder is appropriate under Rule 42(b).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of
the Order to all the counsel of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/d9r5xa9k from Leagle.com.
CHAMPION PETFOODS: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that as we have previously blogged about, Champion Petfoods
faced a consumer class action alleging fraud, negligence, and
violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act for
allegedly misleadingly representing its petfood products as
"biologically appropriate," "fresh" and "made with regional
ingredients," and "never outsourced."
On June 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the 7th Circuit
affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
Champion Petfoods on all three of the claims. The court affirmed
summary judgment in favor of Champion Petfoods because, apart from
his own testimony, Plaintiff offered no evidence that a reasonable
consumer would be deceived. Citing to prior 7th Circuit precedent,
the Court held that extrinsic evidence of consumer deception such
as consumer surveys or market research are necessary to survive
summary judgment where the advertising is not clearly misleading on
its face and materiality is in doubt.
The court held that the marketing representations were not clearly
misleading. Specifically, trace amounts of BPA found in the petfood
did not make the "biologically appropriate" representation
misleading because BPA was not intentionally added, it is present
at very low levels that would not harm the pets, and both animals
and humans face ubiquitous exposure to BPA. The Court also held
that the "fresh" and "made with regional ingredients"
representations were not claims that the products contained only
fresh and regional ingredients, and that "never outsourced" meant
only that Champion Petfoods manufactured the food itself, not that
it also produced every ingredient in the petfood.
The 7th Circuit's holding provides a strong message to Plaintiffs
asserting consumer deception causes of action that absent clearly
misleading marketing, extrinsic evidence of consumer deception
(i.e., something more than Plaintiff's testimony) will be required
to survive a motion for summary judgment. However, notably, the
Court was careful to limit this standard to the summary judgment
stage of litigation. A plaintiff still may survive a motion to
dismiss without meeting this evidentiary standard since motions to
dismiss are governed by a lower plausibility standard. [GN]
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Weaver Fails to Offer Ample Evidence, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHAMPION PETFOODS
USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
20-2235 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to
the Defendants-Appellees.
The Court of Appeals holds that Mr. Weaver has failed to offer
sufficient evidence to support his claims.
Defendants Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP
produce dog food that they market as biologically appropriate,
containing fresh regional ingredients, and never outsourced.
Plaintiff Weaver, a Wisconsin resident who purchased Champion's
food, alleged this marketing was deceptive and filed a putative
class action.
Champion produces two different brands of dog food: Acana and
Orijen. Before 2016, Champion manufactured its food at its
NorthStar kitchen in Morinville, Canada. Starting in 2016,
Champion moved most of its manufacturing to its newly opened
DogStar kitchen in Auburn, Kentucky.
Mr. Weaver lives in Wisconsin and purchased Champion dog food from
2008 until August 2017. He purchased two different varieties of
the Orijen brand -- Six Fish and Regional Red -- for his golden
retrievers Jack, Jill, and Prince Harry. Given the timeframe, he
purchased food manufactured at both the NorthStar and DogStar
kitchens.
Champion's packaging of its Orijen Six Fish and Regional Red food
contains various representations about its quality. Champion
packages the food produced at the DogStar kitchen differently than
the food produced at the NorthStar kitchen. Additionally, the Six
Fish variety has different packaging than the Regional Red variety.
Across all variations at issue, however, the packaging describes
the food as biologically appropriate, made with fresh regional
ingredients, and never outsourced.
Mr. Weaver contends that various aspects of the ingredients and
source of Champion's food render its packaging misleading. First,
Champion's food is not made solely from fresh ingredients. It
contains frozen ingredients and ingredients that were previously
frozen. Second, Champion does not source all its ingredients from
areas close to Morinville, Canada and Auburn, Kentucky. It sources
some ingredients internationally, including from Europe, New
Zealand, Norway, and Latin America. In addition, it sources some
ingredients from locations in North America that are distant from
its NorthStar and DogStar kitchens. Third, Weaver also contends
that Champion's packaging is misleading because there is a risk
that its food contains Bisphenol A ("BPA") and pentobarbital.
Mr. Weaver filed this putative class action in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin in December 2018. The district court had original
jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) and (C).
Mr. Weaver's Third Amended Complaint--the operative complaint in
the action--contains three claims: (1) violation of the Wisconsin
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "Act"), Wis. Stat. Section
100.18; (2) fraud by omission; and (3) negligence. Weaver
submitted reports by two experts, Jon Krosnick and Colin Weir,
solely on the issue of damages. Krosnick conducted two surveys,
which Weir utilized to calculate the damages allegedly attributable
to Champion's misleading representations. On the issue of
liability, Weaver did not submit any survey evidence to support his
claims. Instead, he only offered his own testimony.
Champion moved for summary judgment and Weaver moved for class
certification. While those motions were pending, the district
court granted Champion's motion to exclude the opinions of Weaver's
damages experts. Champion then renewed its motion for summary
judgment, which the district court granted on all counts because it
determined that Weaver had failed to produce sufficient evidence
from which a reasonable jury could determine that any of the
representations were false or misleading. Weaver now appeals the
district court's exclusion of his damages experts and grant of
summary judgment for Champion.
Discussion
A. Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Mr. Weaver contends that Champion's packaging violates the Act
because its representations that its food is biologically
appropriate, made with fresh regional ingredients, and never
outsourced are false or misleading. In Weaver's view, these
representations are false or misleading because Champion's food
contains or is at risk of containing non-fresh and nonregional
ingredients, as well as BPA and pentobarbital. The district court
concluded that Weaver had failed to provide sufficient evidence
from which a jury could find that Champion's packaging is
misleading to a reasonable consumer.
First, the Court of Appeals finds that even considering the facts
together and in the light most favorable to Weaver, he has offered
no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that he
purchased dog food containing pentobarbital. It thus affirms the
district court's grant of summary judgment to Champion as to
whether the risk of the presence of BPA or pentobarbital rendered
the phrase "biologically appropriate" misleading to a reasonable
consumer.
Second, the question is whether he has provided sufficient evidence
from which a jury could find that a reasonable consumer would be
materially misled by Champion's representations that its food is
made with fresh regional ingredients. The Court of Appeals
explains that "summary judgment is the proverbial put up or shut up
moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has
that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of
events." In the case, Weaver failed to offer such evidence. The
district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
Third, given that the representations at issue are not misleading
on their face when taken in context, to survive summary judgment
Weaver must have offered evidence that a reasonable consumer would
be materially misled. He has not done so. The Court of Appeals
thus affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment on this
claim.
B. Fraud and Negligence Claims
Mr. Weaver further argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment for Champion on his fraud and negligence claims.
In his view, the district court impermissibly imposed a literal
falsehood standard that Wisconsin law does not require, and
Champion had a duty to disclose the "true contents" of its food,
including the risk of BPA and pentobarbital.
The Court of Appeals finds Weaver's arguments unpersuasive. It
states that Weaver's fraud and negligence claims fail for the same
reason as his claims arising under the Act -- he has failed to
provide sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find
Champion's representations false or misleading. He did not provide
evidence that a reasonable consumer would be misled by Champion's
representations that its food is biologically appropriate, contains
fresh regional ingredients, and is never outsourced. Furthermore,
he has failed to show that Champion had a duty to disclose the risk
that its food may contain BPA or pentobarbital. As for the
disclosure of a risk of pentobarbital, Weaver has failed to produce
evidence that any of the food he purchased contained
pentobarbital.
Conclusion
Summary judgment is the proverbial "put up or shut up" moment in a
lawsuit, and Weaver has failed to offer sufficient evidence to
support his claims. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals need not
reach whether the district court erred in excluding Weaver's
damages experts. Affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dyaasnpc from Leagle.com.
CLEARVIEW SM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Melgar Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMIREZ MELGAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARVIEW SM, INC. and MOJSI
MARKE, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03779
(E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants form in or around
November 2010 until in or around February 2021 to perform his
primary duties as a machine operator, aluminum cutter, fabricator
and other miscellaneous duties.
The Plaintiff asserts that he worked approximately 66 hours or more
hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendants.
However, the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the
Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records and failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by both the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and
proper.
Clearview SM, Inc. is a company that provides roofing and sheet
metal manufacturing and installation services. It is owned and
operated by Mojsi Marke. [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
CM THOMPSON: Betras Sues Over Club Dancers' Unpaid Wages and Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA BETRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CM THOMPSON ENTERPRISE, LLC D/B/A/ THE
HIDEOUT, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00873-CCW (W.D. Pa., July 8,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law by misclassifying the Plaintiff and Class members as
independent contractors, failing to compensate them appropriate
minimum wages, failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and improperly collecting a
portion of their tips.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a dancer from
approximately fall of 2019 to April 2021.
CM Thompson Enterprise, LLC is an owner and operator of an adult
entertainment club under the name The Hideout located at 1828
PA-982, Mt. Pleasant, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock Avery, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
eavery@carlsonlynch.com
COLONIAL MANAGEMENT: Beeler Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
GINGER BEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLONIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.P. and METRO
TREATMENT OF TEXAS, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00634 (W.D.
Tex., July 6, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from June 2019 until
February 2020 as an hourly-paid Licensed Chemical Dependency
Counselor. The Plaintiff's primary duty was to provide addiction
recovery services to the Defendants' clients.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants required her to complete
patient paperwork off the clock for estimated 5 to 10 hours each
week, but went unrecorded and uncompensated. Despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay her
overtime compensation at the federally mandated overtime rate.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid regular wages and overtime premiums for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants own and operate addiction recovery centers
throughout the U.S. and have unified operational control and
management, as well as control over employees. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (800) 615-4946
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
COMPLETE INDUSTRIES: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Complete Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Complete Industries,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05972 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Complete Industries Inc. -- https://completeindustries.com/ -- is
the very best in exterior construction including roofing, siding,
gutters and commercial snow removal.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
COMPUTER CREDIT: Debt Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Spira Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SPIRA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. COMPUTER CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-03788-RPK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff seeking redress and any other
relief for the illegal practices of the Defendant in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a collection
letter from the Defendant on or about August 17, 2020 seeking to
collect a balance allegedly incurred for personal purposes.
However, instead of sending directly to the Plaintiff from its own
offices, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff's and his alleged
debt to a commercial mail-house, who printed and mailed the letter
to the Plaintiff's residence on behalf of the Defendant. The
Defendant has unlawfully communicated with the unauthorized
third-party mail house solely for the purpose of streamlining its
generation of profits without regard to the propriety and privacy
of the information by disclosing it to the third-party, thereby
violating FDCPA 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(b), says the suit.
Allegedly, the Defendant has violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f
by using unfair means in connection with the collection of debt by
knowingly disclosing sensitive and personal information about the
Plaintiff to third parties.
Computer Credit, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Tel: (516) 668-6945
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
CRSC LLC: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE HERNANDEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CRSC, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00632-JTM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Motion for Class Certification
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23.1(b)
The deadline to file the Rule 23 class certification is continued
for 90 days, says Judge Milazzo.
In the Motion, the Plaintiffs state that they had not yet heard
back from Defendant as to whether the Motion is opposed. On July 7,
2021, this Court was notified by defense counsel that Defendant
does not oppose the Motion.
CRSC specializes in Individual and Family Social Services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yTG6vs at no extra charge.[CC]
DAIMLER AG: German Consumer Group Opens Emissions Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
DW reports that a German consumer group announced that it had
opened a class action lawsuit over the Dieselgate emissions scandal
in Stuttgart, where Mercedes manufacturer Daimler is
headquartered.
The case stems from a recall launched by Germany's Federal Motor
Transport Authority (KBA) on hundreds of thousands of diesel
vehicles made by Daimler. The vehicles required retrofitting of
their exhaust technology. Many believe that the car maker used
illegal cheat devices to pass emissions tests, similar to its rival
Volkswagen.
"Despite official recalls, Daimler continues to this day to dispute
that it deliberately manipulated exhaust emission figures," said
Klaus Müller, the head of the Federation of German Consumer
Organizations. The activists believe a win against Daimler would
help Mercedes owners claim damages.
The lawsuit pertains to 50,000 SUV models of the GLC and GLK series
in particular, though 250,000 vehicles in total were involved in
the recall.
'Unfounded' claims
Daimler said that it considered the claims "unfounded" and would
continue to fight them. It said that the lawsuit could, however,
serve to "clear up important legal issues more efficiently,
something we welcome in principle."
Class-action lawsuits were introduced in Germany as a legal
instrument only relatively recently, at the end of 2018, partly in
the wake of the Dieselgate scandal. They aim to give consumers more
power when lodging a complaint against large corporations, as that
complaint is made by an association rather than an individual.
Class-action proceedings on the German and EU model do not in
themselves result in compensation for consumers, but the latter can
refer to a resulting verdict in making their own individual
claims.
To avoid such a class-action lawsuit, Volkswagen Group agreed in
April 2020 to pay damages to 235,000 car owners in Germany. [GN]
DESIGNED METAL: Faces Lara Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LARA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DESIGNED METAL CONNECTIONS, INC. DBA PERMASWAGE USA,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV25089
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including unpaid
wages and overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages due upon termination of
employment, and failure to indemnify for expenditures or losses in
discharge of duties.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee at the
Defendant's Gardena, California location from November 1988 through
May 13, 2020.
Designed Metal Connections, Inc., doing business as Permaswage USA,
is a manufacturer of aerospace products and parts located in
Gardena, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
Justin Lo, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (424) 355-8535
Facsimile: (213) 784-0032
E-mail: beyonca@caworklawyer.com
justin@caworklawyer.com
DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Dismisses ILXA from Zwicky Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Norman Zwicky, Plaintiff v. Diamond Resorts
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-02322-PHX-DJH (D.
Ariz.), Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona issued an order:
a. granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss
filed by Defendants Diamond Resorts Management Inc. and ILX
Acquisition Inc., Kathy Wheeler, Troy Magdos, and Diamond
Resorts International;
b. granting motions to dismiss filed by Defendants David
Palmer and Stephen Cloobeck; and
c. denying as moot the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant
Linda Riddle.
Pending before the Court are seven motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") filed by every
remaining Defendant.
The core claim of Plaintiff Zwicky's SAC is that the Defendants
intentionally misrepresented how much he, and other similarly
situated, would have to pay for a timeshare. The history of the
class action claim begins before August of 2010, when Mr. Zwicky
had a "traditional timeshare interest" in a ranch in Payson,
Arizona. The Ranch itself was also an asset held by the now
dissolved and defunct corporation, ILX Resorts Inc. When ILX
Resorts filed for bankruptcy, a subsidiary of Defendant Diamond
Resorts Inc. ("DRI") bought its interest in the Ranch.
DRI continued to support the timeshare program, except not in the
"traditional" way. Those who bought a timeshare in one of DRI's
properties did not hold a "deed, leasehold assignment, or any other
legal or equitable interest in real property." Instead, DRI sold
Mr. Zwicky and others a "Points Certificate," which served as the
basis for calculating the strength of their "Reservation
Privileges." Mr. Zwicky bought about 13,000 Points for "$26,395
including the stipulated trade-in value" of his old timeshare
interest in the Ranch.
In addition to paying for the Points, Mr. Zwicky agreed to enter
into a "lifetime obligation to pay for annual Member Obligations
fees." hese fees are alleged to be about $2,500 per year. For Mr.
Zwicky, these fees eventually far exceeded their benefits. When
totaled up over seven years, a reservation at the Ranch cost Mr.
Zwicky about $600 per day. Mr. Zwicky alleges it would have been
far cheaper to simply book a reservation at another DRI property as
a member of the public.
The point of Mr. Zwicky's legal claims is that DRI, its various
subsidiaries, and its employees, intentionally underestimated what
Mr. Zwicky would have to pay in fees. Mr. Zwicky alleges that the
fees for each year were forecasted in an annual budget that
"purported to be a reasonable and good faith estimate." But year
after year, the actual costs were materially greater than had been
predicted. Mr. Zwicky alleges the Defendants intentionally hid
these costs despite knowing they would result in increased fees at
the end of the year.
The details of how this timeshare worked, which organizations were
involved, and how the budgets came to be are somewhat convoluted.
The Court will start with the Premiere Vacation Collection Owners
Association ("PVCOA"), which is an Arizona non-profit corporation.
Mr. Zwicky became a member of PVCOA when he traded in his old
timeshare interest in the Ranch and acquired his Points. PVCOA's
Board "manages and maintains" the timeshare property, and it levies
and collects annual fees form its members, like Mr. Zwicky.
Several of the Board's officers were also DRI employees.
One of PVCOA's other members is a wholly-owned DRI subsidiary,
Defendant ILX Acquisition, Inc. ("ILXA"), which was formed at the
time of ILX Resorts, Inc.'s bankruptcy to acquire and hold
properties, such as the Ranch, as a "developer." Because ILXA
holds the unsold timeshare inventory, it has a "bulk membership"
that grants "massive voting power" in PVCOA matters.
Through the voting process, PVCOA delegates many of its duties to a
management agent, to whom PVCOA pays a yearly management fee. This
management agent is Defendant Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.
("DRMI"), another wholly-owned DRI subsidiary.
The budgeting process at the heart of the case is alleged to work
as follows. At the beginning of each year, PVCOA's Board, "in
collaboration with DRMI," delivered a budget to its members that
"purported to be a reasonable and good faith estimate" of what the
PVCOA members' fees would be. When the end of the year came, Mr.
Zwicky alleges that the actual fees were "materially" higher than
was estimated. This material difference consistently appeared,
starting in 2011 up to at least 2015.
Mr. Zwicky alleges that the reason for this difference is because
DRI slipped a "substantial portion" of its own corporate overhead
charges into DRMI's management fee, which was then charged to PVCOA
and subsequently passed on to PVCOA members. Mr. Zwicky alleges
that none of PVCOA's budgets ever "meaningfully disclosed" this
practice. He alleges the PVCOA's Board knew that its estimated
budgets were "materially less than the amount DRI and its
subsidiaries intended to charge." Furthermore, he alleges DRI
deliberately hid its practice of putting overhead charges into
DRMI's management from PVCOA's members, but not to DRI
shareholders.
Mr. Zwicky tried to get PVCOA's Board to voluntarily disclose its
financial records in April 2015, but he eventually resorted to
filing suit in Maricopa County Superior Court "to enforce his
statutory and common law inspection rights." On May 6, 2016, the
Superior Court ordered PVCOA to disclose certain records to Mr.
Zwicky. He received the documents on June 6, 2016, which he
alleges contain evidence of the Defendants' wrongdoing. On Aug.
19, 2016, the Superior Court then granted his motion to permit him
to refer to the documents in filing a complaint, but PVCOA quickly
appealed the Superior Court's order.
On March 22, 2017, the Arizona Court of Appeals enjoined Mr. Zwicky
from disclosing any documents that PVCOA had deemed confidential.
On Jan. 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Zwicky's right
to inspection, but it reversed the Superior Court's August 19 order
which had allowed the disclosure of information for the purpose of
bringing a lawsuit. Finally, on Aug. 23, 2018, the Superior Court
entered a stipulated order whereby Mr. Zwicky could use certain
information to formulate a complaint, but he was prohibited from
quoting or attaching confidential documents to a complaint.
Mr. Zwicky originally filed the action in Arizona Superior Court on
Aug. 21, 2020. It was subsequently removed to the Court on Dec. 1,
2020. The SAC brings three Claims against Defendants, who are DRI,
DRMI, ILXA ("Corporate Defendants"), and six DRI employees. Of the
six individual DRI employees, three were officers on PVCOA's Board,
Defendants Troy Magdos, Kathy Wheeler, and Linda Riddle. The Court
notes that PVCOA itself is not a named defendant in the action.
The SAC's First Claim is for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 ("Federal RICO"). The Second
Claim is a civil racketeering claim brought under A.R.S. Section
13-3212(B) ("Arizona RICO"). The Third Claim is for breach of
fiduciary duty under the Arizona Timeshare Owners Association and
Management Act.
The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss seek to dismiss the SAC and some
Defendants from the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim and 12(b)(2) for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
Discussion
Judge Humetewa begins with an evaluation of whether the SAC
adequately states a claim.
I. Failure to State a Claim
First, Judge Humetewa finds that the alleged injury resulted from
fraudulently increased member fees that individual PVCOA members
were required to pay, not PVCOA. Therefore, this injury's gravamen
cannot be fairly said to be felt by PVCOA. Mr. Zwicky has
adequately alleged a direct injury, which suffices for standing
purposes.
Second, the Judge finds that it would not have been reasonable for
Mr. Zwicky to file a complaint between September and October of
2016, knowing that the opposing party would appeal the order
permitting him to file a complaint. The appeal itself made it
impossible to file a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty
within two years of when Mr. Zwicky learned of the alleged
wrongdoing. Therefore, the Judge will equitably toll the statute
of limitations until Aug. 23, 2018. Mr. Zwicky timely brought all
his claims.
Third, the Judge will not hold those Defendants who do not owe a
statutory or common law duty of care liable for Mr. Zwicky's breach
of fiduciary duty claim. The only parties who she finds owe a duty
of care are Mr. Magdos and Ms. Wheeler. She says every other
Defendant will not be liable for this claim.
Fourth, the Judge that (i) because the RICO Claims could be
construed as based upon an affirmative misrepresentation, whether
Defendants owe Mr. Zwicky a fiduciary duty is irrelevant; (ii) the
basis of Mr. Zwicky's claims is not that DRMI was paid too much, it
is that DRMI hid what its true management fee would be; and (iii)
the allegations are insufficient to identify what role the Mr.
Palmer and Mr. Cloobeck played in the alleged wrongdoing.
Lastly, the PVCOA's director exculpation clause does not bar the
claims against them.
II. Personal Jurisdiction
The final matter to address is DRI's argument that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over it. Mr. Zwicky alleges that DRI
intentionally and fraudulently made PVCOA members pay for its
overhead. He alleges DRI did this, in part, by stacking the PVCOA
Board, an Arizona non-profit corporation, with DRI employees. By
shifting its overhead costs to members of an Arizona corporation,
DRI would have known that any harm would likely be felt in Arizona.
DRI argues that its employees on PVCOA's Board were not acting in
their capacity as DRI employees.
Judge Humetewa need not decide whether she believes DRI's assertion
because, for purposes of this jurisdictional analysis, the Court
must accept Mr. Zwicky's allegations. The Judge finds that Mr.
Zwicky has shown that DRI purposely availed itself of Arizona's
laws and that his claims arise from DRI's activities in Arizona.
She also finds DRI presents no compelling reasons why exercising
jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Ultimately, the Judge is
satisfied that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
DRI.
Conclusion
Judge Humetewa begins with an evaluation of whether the SAC
adequately states a claim. She finds that Mr. Zwicky has standing
to bring his claims, which were timely filed. She will dismiss
Defendants ILXA, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Cloobeck, as the SAC fails to
allege their involvement with particularity. She will dismiss the
John and Jane Doe Defendants, whom Mr. Zwicky noted he intended to
dismiss. The remaining Defendants are DRI, DRMI, Mr. Magdos, and
Ms. Wheeler. The SAC's Third Claim for breach of fiduciary duty
may only be brought against Mr. Magdos and Ms. Wheeler. However,
the SAC's Arizona and Federal RICO Claims may be brought against
all remaining Defendants.
Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss brought by DRMI, ILXA, Wheeler,
Magdos, and DRI are denied in part and granted in part as set forth
in the Order. The Clerk of Court will dismiss ILXA from the
action.
The Motions to Dismiss brought by Defendants Palmer and Cloobeck
are granted. The Clerk of Court will dismiss Mr. Palmer and Mr.
Cloobeck from the action.
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Riddle is denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court will dismiss the John and Jane Doe Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ypxdb8hp from Leagle.com.
DRUMMOND COMPANY: August 20 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN J. JERUE (Dismissed)
and MICHAEL J. FEIST, v. DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., Case No.
8:17-cv-00587-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the parties ask the Court to
enter an order modifying the current class certification briefing
deadlines to reflect the following new deadlines:
Current New Proposed Event
Deadlines Deadlines
July 30, 2021 Aug. 20, 2021 Deadline for Plaintiff to
file Motion for Class
Certification (including
any affidavits of fact
witnesses)
Sept. 10, 2021 Oct. 8, 2021 Defendant's Response in
Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification due
(including any affidavits
of fact witnesses)
Oct. 8, 2021 Oct. 29, 2021 Plaintiff's Reply in
Support of Motion for Class
Certification due
Drummond is a privately owned company based in Birmingham, Alabama,
United States, involved in the mining and processing of coal and
coal products as well as oil and real estate.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r6J50Z at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Richard Meadow, Esq.
Christopher L. Gadoury, Esq.
THE LANIER FIRM
10940 W. Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
Richard.Meadow@lanierlawfirm.com
Chris.Gadoury@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.
NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C.
2201 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 708-5153
E-mail: chris@nidellaw.com
jon@nidellaw.com
- and -
Steven J. German, Esq.
Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP
19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 704-2020
E-mail: sgerman@germanrubenstein.com
jrubenstein@germanrubenstein.com
- and -
Neal O'Toole, Esq.
O'TOOLE LAW GROUP
310 E. Main Street
Bartow, FL 33830
Telephone: (863) 533-5525
E-mail: notoole@otoolepa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frederick J. Grady, Esq.
Joseph H. Varner, III, Esq.
Charles Wachter, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 227-8500
Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
E-mail: joe.varner@hklaw.com
fred.grady@hklaw.com
Charles.Wachter@hklaw.com
- and -
Bryan O. Balogh, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 458-5469
E-mail: Bryan.balogh@burr.com
EARTHSCAPES LANDSCAPE: Iniestra Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REYNALDO INIESTRA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EARTHSCAPES LANDSCAPE, INC. and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01204241-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July
8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-01180 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay timely wages upon termination, failure to
provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements and maintain
records, and unlawful business practices.
Earthscapes Landscape, Inc. is a landscape design and maintenance
company based in Anaheim, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Erick J. Becker, Esq.
Edward J. Farrell, Esq.
CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP
2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660-0764
Telephone: (949) 852-1800
Facsimile: (949) 852-8510
E-mail: ebecker@cwlawyers.com
efarrell@cwlawyers.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Brown Files Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Brown, Carmen Montijo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 3:21-mc-00039-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla., July 12, 2021).
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- https://www.ercbpo.com/ --
provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 224-6000
Fax: (614) 224-6066
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
EVOQUA WATER: Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-10320-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge John P. Cronan entered an order denying as moot without
prejudice to refiling these motions in the event that the Court
does not approve the proposed settlement:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment
of class representatives and class counsel; and
-- Defendants' letter motion for leave to file a sur-reply
memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion.
Evoqua Water Technologies is a leading provider of mission-critical
water and wastewater treatment solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kgkMML at no extra charge.[CC]
FAVORITE HEALTHCARE: Underpays Traveling Nurses, Clifford Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANET CLIFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAVORITE HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01237-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 8, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and
overtime for all hours worked, failure to provide off-duty meal and
rest periods, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to timely pay wages
upon termination or resignation, and unfair business practices.
Ms. Clifford worked as a traveling nurse for the Defendant from
approximately February 2021 to March 2021.
Favorite Healthcare Staffing, Inc. is a healthcare staffing
services provider, headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
Yuri Chornobil, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
ychornobil@schneiderwallace.com
FISHMAN GROUP: Kline, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD KLINE Sr., LINDA
KLINE, and IRREONA BYRD, On behalf of themselves and All others
similarly situated, v. FISHMAN GROUP PC, RYAN FISHMAN, MARC
FISHMAN, ALEXANDRA ICHIM, FENTON OAKS, LLC dba FENTON OAKS MHC, And
PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. OF MICHIGAN d/b/a PROFESSIONAL
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11272-NGE-KGA (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel.
This case arises, in relevant part, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Michigan Occupation Code ("MCO"), the
Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act ("MRCPA"), and
Unjust Enrichment, Negligence, and Conversion pursuant to the
common law.
The Fishman and Ichim Defendants are debt collectors having
allegedly perpetrated fraud and engaged in abusive collection
practices towards plaintiffs and putative plaintiffs in violation
of the FDCPA; MCO; and MCPA. The remaining Defendants are Fishman
Law Group clients (Defendant Creditors) who hired the Debt
Collector Defendants to collect their alleged debts owed by the
Plaintiffs and putative class
As a result, Defendant Collectors and Defendant Creditors should be
held liable and this Court should certify the proposed class and
appoint the undersigned as class counsel, the Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class are allegedly obligated to
pay debts now owed or due to Defendant Creditors. The Plaintiffs'
alleged obligations owed or due arise from transactions in which
the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of
the transactions were incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 8,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wEClIX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alyson Oliver, Esq.
Christopher Brown, Esq.
OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C.
1647 W. Big Beaver Rd.
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 327-6556
E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com
- and -
Rex Anderson, Esq.
REX ANDERSON PC
9459 Lapeer Road No. 1011
Davison, MI 48423
Telephone: (810) 653-3300
E-mail: rex@rexandersonpc.net
FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Must Face Class Action Over Sugarcane Burning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Earls, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Florida Crystals
Corp., Osceola Farms Co., and other large sugar producers must face
a class action seeking damages, medical monitoring, and injunctive
relief for alleged harms caused by their pre-harvest burning of
sugarcane leaves, a Florida federal court ruled.
The plaintiffs submitted air modeling that shows burns have
affected Belle Glade, South Bay, and other towns in and around an
area deemed the "hazard zone," according to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. [GN]
FUSION LEARNING: Improperly Pays Teachers, Murphy Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUSION LEARNING, INC., PETER RUPPERT, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV25131
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double
time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide
itemized wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages,
failure to pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned
on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and
failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
Mr. Murphy was employed by the Defendants as a teacher from
December 9, 2019 until March 9, 2021.
Fusion Learning, Inc. is a provider of learning services doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
G.P. PROPERTY: Villa Seeks Landscapers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO VILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G.P. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., and
GREGORIO PICCA, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03778 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around May
2003 until in or around May 2020 to perform primary duties as a
landscaper and other miscellaneous duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 72
hours or more hour per week during his employment with the
Defendants. However, despite working more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendants deprived him of his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rates of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
In addition, the Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records
and failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants
also failed to provide the Plaintiff with wage statements upon each
payment of wages, the suit says.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated landscapers, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime wages
from the Defendants, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the court deems necessary and
proper.
G.P. Property Development offers landscaping services. [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
GO CAP ADVANCE: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Go Cap Advance, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Go Cap Advance, Inc.,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-05628 (C.D. Cal., July 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Go Cap Advance -- https://gocapadvance.com/ -- provide fast and
flexible financial solutions designed to help small to medium-sized
businesses bridge the gap between financial challenges and provide
opportunities to grow.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
HARRIS & HARRIS: Heller Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAY HELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03583 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt incurred to
NorthShore University HealthSytem, the Defendant sent him a
collection letter on or about August 11, 2020. The Defendant's
letter contained at least four instances of amounts that it was
seeking to collect from the Plaintiff, but the dates of service,
and account numbers entries were obviously duplicative. The
Plaintiff called the Defendant after receiving the letter to
discuss the alleged debt. Despite the Plaintiff's explanation
regarding the duplicative entries, the Defendant's representative
insisted that the Plaintiff owed the amount and demanded payment.
However, on the Plaintiff's second call to the Defendant in August
2020, the representative finally admitted that the total amount in
the letter it sought to collect was incorrect. The Defendants
allegedly used false representations or deceptive means to collect
or attempt to collect a debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer, thereby violating the FDCPA 15, U.S.C. Section
1692e(10).
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated persons within the U.S., who received the Defendants' debt
collection letters which contained incorrect and/or duplicative
balance entries or amounts, have suffered damages. Thus, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and for other similarly
situated persons seeking judgment against the Defendants for all
actual damages suffered as a result of any FDCPA violations by the
Defendants, and an order for injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant to do such unlawful conduct in the future, as well as
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deemed
just and proper.
Harris & Harris, Ltd. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (224) 218-0882
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com
HARTFORD FIRE: SA Hospitality Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs SA Hospitality Group, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled SA HOSPITALITY GROUP,
LLC; 1000 MADISON AVENUE LLC; ASTORIA CAKES LLC; CAFÉ FOCACCIA,
INC.; REALTEK LLC; SA MIDTOWN LLC; BAILEY'S RESTAURANT LLC; SA
SPECIAL EVENTS, INC.; SASE LLC; EIGHTY THIRD AND FIRST LLC; 265
LAFAYETTE RISTORANTE LLC; FELICE GOLD STREET LLC; SA 61ST
MANAGEMENT LLC; SA YORK AVE LLC; SA THIRD AVE CAFE LLC; SABF LLC;
FELICE CHAMBERS LLC; and FELICE WATER STREET LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1033, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 4, 2020, this is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract under the
Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense Coverage of
Hartford policies.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated Hartford policyholders, allege that the Defendant denied
its obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders, including the Plaintiffs, for
the physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures
put in place by civil authorities. The Plaintiffs and Class members
incurred substantial business losses following the closure of their
restaurants as a result of the stay-at-home orders imposed by
government entities in the United States to prevent the spread of
COVID-19. They purchased all-risk commercial property insurance
from the Defendant to protect themselves against losses from
catastrophic events. Hartford policies promise to indemnify
policyholders for actual business losses incurred when business
operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, curtailed,
when access to the premises is prohibited because of direct
physical loss or damage to the property, or by a civil authority
order that restricts or prohibits access to the property. This
coverage is commonly known as business interruption coverage and is
standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance policies.
However, Hartford does not intend to cover losses caused by the
closure orders as part of the business interruption coverage and
argued that the Plaintiffs' properties had not suffered any direct
physical loss and their losses were excluded by the bacteria and
virus exclusion endorsement of the policy.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated June 3,
2021 and Judgment dated June 4, 2021, granting Defendant Hartford
Fire Ins. Co.'s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as SA Hospitality Group, LLC v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 21-1523, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 21,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SA Hospitality Group, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; 1000 Madison Avenue
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Astoria Cakes LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; Cake Focaccia, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Realtek LLC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; SA Midtown LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Bailey's Restaurant
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SA
Special Events, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; SASE LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Eighty Third and First LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Felice Gold Street
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; SA
61st Management LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; SA York Ave LLC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; SA Third Ave Cafe LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; SABF LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated; Felice Chambers
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Felice Water Street LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and 265 Lafayette Ristorante LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
Defendant-Appellee Hartford Fire Insurance Company is represented
by:
Jonathan Freiman, Esq.
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
1 Century Tower, 265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 498-4584
E-mail: jfreiman@wiggin.com
- and -
Charles A. Michael, Esq.,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 378-7604
E-mail: cmichael@steptoe.com
- and -
Shai Silverman, Esq.
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
437 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 551-2608
E-mail: ssilverman@wiggin.com
HP INC: Cepelak Class Certification Bid Due March 23, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA ROSE, v. HP
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02450-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria entered an order granting motion to substitute party and
granting with modifications stipulation to permit amending of
first-class action complaint. Rose is replaced by John Cepelak as
plaintiff in this case.
The Court adopts the schedule stipulated by the parties with
modifications:
-- HP's response to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
is due July 19, 2021;
-- Cepelak's Opposition Brief to HP's response is due August
18, 2021;
-- HP's Reply Brief in support of its response is due
September 8, 2021;
-- The hearing on HP's response to the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint will be on October 7, 2021 at 2:00 PM;
-- Non-expert fact discovery will close on February 28,
2022;
-- The deadline for Cepelak to disclose the identity of the
Class Certification Expert is January 10, 2022;
-- The deadline for HP to disclose the identity of the Class
Certification Expert is February 8, 2022;
-- Cepelak's Motion for Class Certification and Class
Certification Expert Reports are due March 23, 2022;
-- HP's Opposition to Class Certification and Class
Certification Expert Reports are due May 13, 2022;
-- Cepelak's Reply for Class Certification and Rebuttal Class
Certification Expert Reports are due June 10, 2022;
-- The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification is June
23, 2022 at 2:00 PM;
-- The Joint Case Management Statement is due on July 6,
2022; and
-- The Case Management Conference is July 13, 2022 at 2:00
PM.
The Hewlett-Packard Company, commonly shortened to Hewlett-Packard
or HP, was an American multinational information technology company
headquartered in Palo Alto, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xGSy1k at no extra charge.[CC]
HYATT CORPORATION: Wins Bid to Stay Brumbach Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. BRUMBACH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation doing business as Manchester
Grand Hyatt San Diego; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-02231-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Q Hayes
entered an order that:
1. The Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by the Defendant
Hyatt Corporation is granted. This case is stayed pending
a ruling on the motion for class certification in the
Crump Action.
2. The parties shall file a status report on the status of
the Crump Action on September 10, 2021, and every sixty
days thereafter.
3. The parties shall further file a status report within five
days of the court's ruling on the motion for class
certification in the Crump Action. The stay will remain
until further order of the Court. Any party may move to
lift the stay at any time for good cause.
The Court concludes that none of the exceptions to the
first-to-file rule apply in this case. A motion for class
certification is pending in the Crump Action, and the court has set
a hearing date of September 9, 2021. If the motion for class
certification is granted, the putative classes in the Brumbach
Action will be subsumed by the classes in the Crump Action, and
Plaintiff Brumbach will be unable to assert the class claims
alleged in the Brumbach Action. Under these circumstances, any
inconvenience caused by a stay is outweighed by the importance of
conservation of judicial resources and the comprehensive
disposition of litigation. The Court declines to exercise its
discretion to depart from the first-to-file rule. See Church of
Scientology, 611 F.2d at 750 (the first-to-file rule "should not be
disregarded lightly"). The Court concludes that a stay of the
Brumbach Action pending a ruling on the motion for class
certification in the Crump Action is warranted.
Brumbach seeks to represent the following classes:
"All California citizens employed by Defendants as hourly-
paid, non-exempt employees during the appropriate time period
at Defendants' Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego only, to whom
Defendants applied a time rounding policy and practice as
specifically described herein ("Rounding Class");
"All California citizens employed by Defendants as hourly-
paid, non-exempt employees who worked as bartenders,
barbacks, waiters, cocktail servers, server assistants, food
runners, bouncers, and any of Defendants' job positions with
substantially similar titles and/or duties as these during
the appropriate time period at Defendants' Manchester Grand
Hyatt San Diego restaurants/cocktail lounges (including but
not limited to Top of the Hyatt, GrandEats, Sally's Fish
House & Bar, Brew30 California Taps, The Landing, Seaview,
and Pool Bar & Grill) only, who were subjected to Defendants'
policies and practices regarding meal periods as specifically
described herein ("Meal Period Class")";
"All California citizens employed by Defendants as hourly-
paid, non-exempt employees who worked as bartenders,
barbacks, waiters, cocktail servers, server assistants, food
runners, bouncers, and any of Defendants' job positions with
substantially similar titles and/or duties as these during
the appropriate time period at Defendants' Manchester Grand
Hyatt San Diego restaurants/cocktail lounges (including but
not limited to Top of the Hyatt, GrandEats, Sally's Fish
House & Bar, Brew30 California Taps, The Landing, Seaview,
and Pool Bar & Grill) only, who were subjected to Defendants'
policies and practices regarding paid rest periods as
specifically described herein ("Rest Period Class");
"All California citizens employed by Defendants as hourly-
paid, non-exempt employees during the appropriate time period
at Defendants' Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego only, who
were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices
regarding itemized wage statements as specifically described
herein (the "Wage Statement Class")";
"All formerly-employed California citizens employed by
Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees during the
appropriate time period at Defendants' Manchester Grand Hyatt
San Diego only, who were subjected to Defendants' policies
and practices regarding Labor Code section 203 and the
payment of final wages as specifically described herein (the
"LC 203 Class")"; and
"All California citizens employed by Defendants as hourly-
paid, non-exempt employees during the appropriate time period
at Defendants' Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego only,
regarding whom Defendants have engaged in unlawful, unfair
and/or fraudulent business acts or practices prohibited by
B&PC section 17200, et seq. as specifically described herein
(the "17200 Class")."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wytokg at no extra charge.[CC]
INFOMEDIA GROUP: Gabel Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE GABEL, and All
Others Similarly Situated Under 29 USC 216(B), v. CARENET-INFOMEDIA
GROUP, GROUP INC. d/b/a CARENET HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Case No.
5:20-cv-01420-JKP-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry J. Bemporad
entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification and court advisory of notice in
light of the Notice of Conditional Statement filed on July 7, 2021,
wherein the Defendant notifies the court that this case settled
during mediation.
The Initial Pretrial Conference on August 4, 2021, is canceled, and
the above-entitled and numbered cause is returned to the District
Court for all purposes, says Judge Bemporad.
Infomedia Group, Inc., doing business as Carenet, provides human
resource management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hzuCHI at no extra charge.[CC]
IOVATE HEALTH: Barnes Sues Over Coffee Product's Misleading Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Barnes and Katty Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04978 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021), seeks
punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs of this suit and such other and further relief for
violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
Barnes purchased Defendant Iovate's HydroxyCut Hardcore and
Hardcore Elite for its weight loss properties. The labeling
explicitly describe the role of its main ingredient, green coffee
extract and caffeine anhydrous ingredients. However, it does not
contain the requisite disclaimer as mandated by the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act which sets forth the legal
requirements for labelling and selling dietary supplements.
Misbranded dietary supplements and/or unapproved drugs are unlawful
and cannot be sold legally under federal and identical California
law, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmtih@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
J.K. RESIDENTIAL: Lynch Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAVEN LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ANIL MEHTA,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV25115
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including willful
misclassification of employees as independent contractors and
exempt employees, failure to provide employment records, failure to
pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal
periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate
payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to
pay reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure
to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned
upon discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid
sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a property manager
from August 2020 until December 15, 2020.
J.K. Residential Services, Inc. is a property management company
doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
JIMMY JOHN'S: Joint Bid for Class Cert. Extension Deadline Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON K. MARTIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated in
Missouri, v. JIMMY JOHN'S, LLC and JIMMY JOHN'S FRANCHISE, LLC,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00415-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification to February 25, 2022, Defendants' opposition
until April 8, 2022, and Plaintiff's reply until May 6, 2022.
Per the Court's Scheduling and Trial Order, issued August 4, 2020,
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was originally due March
5, 2021. Doc. As the parties attempted to resolve disputes
regarding discovery, on February 25, 2021, the Court granted the
Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time. The Court extended the
deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until July
9, 2021; the deadline for Defendants' Response until August 20,
2021; and the deadline for Plaintiff's Reply until September 17,
2021,the Parties say.
A copy of the Parties motion dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hF1GOI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
David C. Nelson, Esq.
NELSON & NELSON, A TTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
420 North High Street, P.O. Box Y
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: 618-277-4000
E-mail: dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com
- and -
R. John Azimi, Esq.
AZIMI LAW FIRM, LLC
136 E. Walnut, Ste. 300
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: 816-716-1120
E-mail: jazimi@kansascitylawyer.co
- and -
Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
St. Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: 314-258-0212
E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com
- and -
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
Blake Mattingly, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: 972-387-4040
E-mail: stuart@swclaw.com
blake@swclaw.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants are:
Michael S. Hargens, Esq.
Sara A. Fevurly, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: 816-983-8000
E-mail: michael.hargens@huschblackwell.com
sara.fevurly@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Robert S. Niemann, Esq.
Nury H. Yoo, Esq.
KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1420
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-948-2800
E-mail: niemann@khlaw.com
yoo@khlaw.com
JOSHUA AGENCY: Allshouse Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA ALLSHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE JOSHUA AGENCY, LLC and CORY JOHNSON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01032-SOH (W.D. Ark., July 8, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a driver from
August or September of 2018 until the present.
The Joshua Agency, LLC is a company that provides non-emergency
transportation services, with its principal place of business
located at 2133 East Aberdeen Drive, Montgomery, Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: L.N.P. Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kilolo Kijakazi, et
al. The case is styled as L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf
of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kilolo Kijakazi, in her official
capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration; The Social Security Administration; Case No.
1:21-cv-00820 (E.D. Va., July 12, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Social Security: RSI Tax Suits for
Denial Social Security Benefits.
Kilolo Kijakazi -- https://www.ssa.gov/ -- is the acting
commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration
.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cameron Reynolds Argetsinger, II, Esq.
KELLY BRYE & WARREN LLP (DC)
3050 K Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (703) 342-8649
Email: cargetsinger@kelleydrye.com
LBK CONSULTING: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 8
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRETT DESALVO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LBK
CONSULTING, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01722-MCS-JC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order:
Class Certification Court Order
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off March 21, 2022
-- Set no later than 13 months from
the date of the filing of the
Complaint
Expert Disclosure (Initial) April 4, 2022
Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) April 11, 2022
Expert Discovery Cut-Off April 18, 2022
-- Set no later than 14 months from
the date of the filing of the
Complaint
Deadline to File a Motion for Class Nov. 8, 2021
Certification
-- Set no later than four months from
the Scheduling Conference
Deadline to File an Opposition to the Nov. 29, 2021
Motion for Class Certification
-- Set no later than 3 weeks from the
filing of the Motion for Class
Certification
Deadline to File a Reply Dec. 20, 2021
-- Set no later than 3 Weeks from the
filing of the Opposition
Hearing Date on Motion for Class Jan. 10, 2022
Certification
-- Set no later than 3 weeks from the
filing of the Reply
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eiheWf at no extra charge.[CC]
LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Distribution Plan in Desilvio Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONARD DESILVIO, et al., Plaintiffs v. LION
BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02086-SI
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Lead Plaintiff's Motion
for Approval of Distribution Plan.
By its Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement dated April 17,
2019, and its Order Approving Plan of Allocation dated April 17,
2019, the Court approved the terms of the settlement set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and the proposed plan for
allocating the net settlement proceeds to eligible Settlement Class
Members. It had directed the parties to consummate the terms of
the Settlement and Plan of Allocation.
The Settlement provided for consideration of $3.25 million in cash
and, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, the Settlement
Amount was deposited into an escrow account established by the Lead
Counsel for the benefit of the Settlement Class.
As set forth in the Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (III) Settlement
Fairness Hearing, the deadline for Settlement Class Members to
submit Claims to the Court-approved claims administrator for the
Settlement, JND Legal Administration ("JND"), in order to be
potentially eligible to participate in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund has passed. The process of reviewing Claims has
been completed.
The Lead Plaintiff, through the Lead Counsel, now seeks
authorization to distribute the proceeds of the Settlement Fund to
Authorized Claimants, after deduction of any taxes, fees, and
expenses previously approved by the Court or approved by the
Order.
The Court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction of this
Action in connection with, among other things: (i) the disposition
of the Settlement Fund; and (ii) any motion to approve the Class
Distribution Order.
Judge Illston finds it appropriate to eliminate from the Initial
Distribution any Authorized Claimant whose pro rata share
calculates to less than $5 and distribute funds to authorized
Claimants whose pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund would be
$5. or more.
Upon careful consideration of: (i) the Declaration of Luiggy Segura
in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Distribution
Plan submitted on behalf of JND; (ii) the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of
Distribution Plan; and (iii) the other submissions and papers on
file with the Court; and upon all prior proceedings heretofore and
herein, and after due deliberation, Judge Illston approved the Plan
of Allocation set forth in the Notice and accepted said Claims.
JND will be paid the sum of $89,854.54 from the Net Settlement Fund
as payment for its outstanding fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the administration of the Settlement and the fees
and expenses expected to be incurred by JND in connection with the
Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
JND will conduct the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund as set forth in paragraph 47 of the Segura Declaration except
for sections (a)(ii)-(iii) of paragraph 47. It will eliminate from
the Initial Distribution any Authorized Claimant whose pro rata
share calculates to less than $5. These Claimants will not receive
any payment from the Net Settlement Fund, and JND will send
notifications to these Claimants advising them of that fact.
After eliminating Claimants who would receive less than $5, JND
will recalculate the pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund for
Authorized Claimants who would receive $5.00 or more pursuant to
the calculation. This pro rata share is the Authorized Claimant's
"Distribution Amount."
All checks to Authorized Claimants issued in the Initial
Distribution will bear the notation "CASH PROMPTLY. VOID AND
SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED BY 90 DAYS AFTER ISSUE
DATE." The Lead Counsel and JND are authorized to take appropriate
actions to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has
not cashed his, her, or its check within said time.
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their checks within the time
allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Net
Settlement Fund.
After making reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized
Claimants negotiate their Initial Distribution checks, JND will, if
cost-effective to do so, redistribute any funds remaining in the
Net Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise nine
months after the Initial Distribution to Authorized Claimants who
have cashed their Initial Distribution checks and who would receive
at least $5 from such redistribution, after payment of any unpaid
fees and expenses incurred in administering the Settlement,
including for such redistribution.
JND may make additional redistributions of balances remaining in
the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants who have cashed
their prior checks and who would receive at least $5 on such
additional redistributions if Lead Counsel, in consultation with
JND, determines that additional redistributions, after payment of
any unpaid fees and expenses incurred in administering the
Settlement, including for such redistributions, would be
cost-effective.
At such time as Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines
that further redistribution of the funds remaining in the Net
Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, any otherwise valid Claims
received after Jan. 25, 2021 or Claims adjusted after Jan. 25, 2021
may be paid in accordance with paragraph 47(f) of the Segura
Declaration.
Any balance that remains in the Net Settlement Fund after further
distributions or payment of any otherwise valid Claims received
after January 25, 2021, or Claims adjusted after Jan. 25, 2021, in
accordance with paragraph 47(f) of the Segura Declaration, which is
not cost-effective to reallocate, will be contributed, after
payment of any unpaid fees and expenses incurred in administering
the Settlement, to the National Consumer Law Center, a
non-sectarian, not-for-profit charitable organization.
JND is authorized to destroy paper copies of Claims and all
supporting documentation one year after the Second Distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, if that occurs, or, if there is no Second
Distribution, two years after the Initial Distribution and all
electronic copies of the same one year after all funds have been
distributed.
The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with the Action.
No Claim received or adjusted after Jan. 25, 2021 be included in
the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. In accordance
with the District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements, the Lead Counsel will file a Post-Distribution
Accounting within 21 days following the date of the Initial
Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and post the
Post-Distribution Accounting on the website for the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yp8by7ea from Leagle.com.
LOUIE'S PIZZERIA: Faces Blanco Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUAN GALICIA BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUIE'S PIZZERIA RESTAURANT
LLC, and LUZIM SULJOVIC, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03781 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
September 2019 until in or around November 2019 to perform stocking
supplies ad cleaning as its primary duties and to perform other
miscellaneous duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 72
hours or ore hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to pay him the legally
prescribed minimum wage for all his hours worked, as well as
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for hours he worked in excess of 40 per week,
and spread of hours pay at the legally prescribed minimum wage for
each worked over 10 hours. In addition, the Defendants failed to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by both the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants also failed to keep
accurate payroll records as required by the FLSA and NYLL, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as collective action on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated employees seeking
compensatory damages from the Defendants for all unpaid overtime
wages, minimum wages and spread of hours compensation. The
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees
and other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
Louie's Pizzeria Restaurant LLC is a pizzeria restaurant owned and
operated by Luzim Suljovic. [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
MARRIOTT INT'L: Hall Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 1
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an amended scheduling
order:
1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class
discovery must be completed by September 30, 2021.
2. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by
November 1, 2021.
3. Within three days of a ruling on the motion for class
certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court
via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange
a further case management conference.
Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r6NNvA at no extra charge.[CC]
MCKINSEY & CO: Livingston Suit Moved from M.D. La. to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Parish of Livingston v.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00179 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on June 28, 2021.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-04962-CRB to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer. The
nature of suit states Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury
Product Liability demanding $5 Million in damages.
McKinsey & Company is an American worldwide management consulting
firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor James O.
McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to corporations,
governments, and other organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
Hannah Elayne Honeycutt, Esq.
FAYARD & HONEYCUTT
519 Florida Avenue, SW
Denham Springs, LA 70726
Telephone: (225) 664-0304
Facsimile: (225) 664-2010
E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com
hannah@fayardlaw.com
- and -
Frank C. Dudenhefer , Jr., Esq.
CUMMINGS CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER
416 Gravier St.
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 586-0000
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Daniel Meyer, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
190 E. Capitol Street, Suite M-100
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 355-3434
Facsimile: (601) 355-5150
E-mail: cmeyer@burr.com
MCKINSEY & CO: Pope County Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Pope County, Illinois et al.,
v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00420 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinos to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on June 28, 2021.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-04964-CRB to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer. The
nature of suit states Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury
Product Liability demanding $5 Million in damages.
McKinsey & Company is an American worldwide management consulting
firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor James O.
McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to corporations,
governments, and other organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Bryant, Esq.
DAVID BRYANT LAW, PLLC
600 West Main St., Suite 250
Louisville, KY 40202-2949
Telephone: (502) 540-1221
Facsimile: (502) 540-1200
E-mail: david@davidbryantlaw.com
- and -
Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
Mark P Bryant, Esq.
Teris N. Swanson, Esq.
BRYANT LAW CENTER
601 Washington Street
Paducah, KY 42003
Telephone: (270) 442-1422
Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
E-mail: emily.roark@bryantpsc.com
mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com
teris@bryant.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Kurt E. Reitz, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
525 West Main Street, Suite 300
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: (618) 277-4700
E-mail: kreitz@thompsoncoburn.com
- and -
Stephen Julian Newman, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
2029 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-5800
Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
E-mail: snewman@stroock.com
MCMICHAEL TAYLOR: Peraga Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO C. PERAGA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCMICHAEL TAYLOR GRAY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-22415-JLK (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2021) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
debt collection practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a collection
letter on or about March 10, 2021 in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt which he has incurred primarily for a personal home
mortgage. However, instead of prepare and/or printing the letter on
its own, the Defendant allegedly provided the Plaintiff's and his
alleged debt information to a third-party vendor, who printed and
mailed the letter to the Plaintiff.
The complaint further asserts that the Defendant has violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1692c(b) by disclosing the existence of the
Plaintiff's alleged debt, the amount owed, the Plaintiff's home
address, and the alleged creditor, with a third-party mail vendor.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff was
harmed in the form of invasion of privacy.
McMichael Taylor Gray, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
James L. Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
- and –
Matthew Bavaro, Esq.
Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS
3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
Tel: (954) 523-4357
E-mail: Matthew@Fight13.com
Matis@Fight13.com
MDL 2244: Nellenback Suit Consolidated in Hip Implant Product Lit.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation, "In Re: Depuy Orthopaedics,
Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2244, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers NELLENBACK v. DEPUY,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21−00533, from the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable James E. Kinkeade for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The action shares factual questions arising from alleged injuries
from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants. Plaintiff
moves to vacate the conditional transfer order principally by
arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over her case arguing
that her injuries arise from a broken femoral stem and that this
distinguishes her claims from those involved in the MDL
proceedings. The panel said that it has transferred other cases
involving femoral stem fractures over similar objections of
plaintiffs and thus concludes that discovery in her case likely
will overlap with the general MDL discovery regarding such matters
as the design, development, testing, approval, manufacture, and
sale of the Pinnacle hip system, and transfer offers significant
litigation efficiencies. Such jurisdictional objections generally
do not present an impediment to transfer, the panel stated in its
order.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3yL87Fh
MDL 2591: Crumley Roberts Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "In Re: Syngenta AG MIR162, Corn Litigation," MDL No.
2591, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP,
ET AL. v. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC, Case No. 3:21−00315, from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John W. Lungstrum
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Two law firm plaintiffs in a Southern District of Illinois action
(Crumley Roberts) against a law firm that allegedly owes plaintiffs
fees in connection with work in cases against Syngenta moved under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the order conditionally transferring the
action to MDL No. 2591. Defendant Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
(HGD) opposed the motion.
The two law firms contend that they are each entitled to
approximately $10 million of the $30 million in attorney fees
awarded to defendant HGD, pursuant to an alleged oral agreement
reached among the parties at some point before late-2014.
Plaintiffs opposed transfer and argued that their case involves an
agreement among the firms that is separate and distinct from any
issues in the MDL.
The panel held, among other things, that the District of Kansas is
an appropriate forum for actions sharing allegations regarding
Syngenta's decision to commercialize the MIR162 genetically
modified corn trait in the absence of Chinese approval to import
corn with that trait. This action falls within the MDL's ambit
since it concerns work performed by attorneys in the multidistrict
litigation against Syngenta, and will require interpretation of
various orders of the MDL Court and the MDL settlement agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3hqDv6h
MDL 2804: MSP Recovery Claims v. Par Pharma Moved to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids, "In
Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation," MDL No. 2804, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers SERIES 17−03−615, A
DESIGNATED SERIES OF MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, A DELAWARE
SERIES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, ET AL.,
Case No. 1:21−20797 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio and assigning it to Judge Dan A. Polster for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The panel concluded that transfer is warranted considering that the
Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate forum for actions
sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly improper
marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate
medications into states, cities and towns across the country. Said
action shares a factual core with the MDL actions: the defendants'
alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of
prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly
improper marketing of the drugs.
Plaintiff had initially moved to vacate the conditional transfer
order, principally by arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking
over its case but the panel has held that such jurisdictional
objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3yHI02i
MDL 2873: Three Groundwater Contamination Suit Moved to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873,
Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring one case
each from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
Western District of Michigan and the Southern District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and
assigned to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff in the District of Arizona action moved to vacate
transfer order that conditionally transferred their case to the
District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873.
Defendants oppose the motion. Intercontinental Terminals Company
and plaintiffs in the Southern District of Texas action separately
moved to vacate said order that conditionally transferred the
action to MDL No. 2873. Defendants Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard,
and Williams Fire & Hazard Control opposed these motions. Various
defendants in the Western District of Michigan action moved to
transfer the case to MDL No. 2873. Plaintiffs' Attorney General
Dana Nessel and the State of Michigan opposed this motion.
In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was
determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products
used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations
caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and
contaminated drinking water. The panel found that the said actions
share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs,
the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human
health and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to
migrate in groundwater supplies.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/36ns4pM
MDL 2921: Calais v. Allergan Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation, "In Re: Allergan Biocell
Textured Breast Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2921, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers CALAIS v. ALLERGAN
USA, INC., Case No. 6:20−01304 from U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The centralized actions present common factual questions pertaining
to the allegation that Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants
and tissue expanders significantly increase the risk of developing
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and that
Allergan failed to warn the FDA, patients, and healthcare providers
of this risk.
Allergan USA moved for said transfer for inclusion in MDL No. 2921.
Calais did not respond to the motion and, therefore, was deemed to
acquiesce in the relief sought. The panel deemed that
centralization was warranted for actions arising out of Allergan's
July 24, 2019 announcement of a voluntary worldwide recall of its
BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders related to an
investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into reports
that the products posed a risk of a cancer of the immune system.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3yzataq
MDL 2924: RICO Claim v. Brand Manufacturers in Zantac Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
The matter is before the Court on the Brand Manufacturer
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss RICO Claim in Consolidated Amended
Consumer Economic Loss Class Action Complaint. The Court held a
hearing on the Motion on June 3, 2021.
I. Background
The case concerns the pharmaceutical product Zantac and its generic
forms, which are widely sold as heartburn and gastric treatments.
The molecule in question -- ranitidine -- is the active ingredient
in both Zantac and its generic forms.
Zantac has been sold since the early 1980s, first by prescription
and later as an over-the-counter ("OTC") medication. In 1983, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the sale of
prescription Zantac. GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") first developed and
patented Zantac. Zantac was a blockbuster -- the first
prescription drug in history to reach $1 billion in sales.
GSK entered into a joint venture with Warner-Lambert in 1993 to
develop an OTC form of Zantac. Beginning in 1995, the FDA approved
the sale of various forms of OTC Zantac. The joint venture between
GSK and Warner-Lambert ended in 1998, with Warner-Lambert retaining
control over the sale of OTC Zantac in the United States and GSK
retaining control over the sale of prescription Zantac in the
United States.
Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and took control of the sale
of OTC Zantac in the United States. The right to sell OTC Zantac
in the United States later passed to Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals and then to Sanofi. When the patents on
prescription and OTC Zantac expired, numerous generic drug
manufacturers began to produce generic ranitidine products in
prescription and OTC forms.
Scientific studies have demonstrated that ranitidine can transform
into a cancer-causing molecule called N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), which is part of a carcinogenic group of compounds called
N-nitrosamines. Studies have shown that these compounds increase
the risk of cancer in humans and animals. The FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer consider NDMA to be a probable human carcinogen.
The FDA has set the acceptable daily intake level for NDMA at 96
nanograms.
Valisure LLC and ValisureRX LLC, a pharmacy and testing laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, calling for the recall
of all ranitidine products due to high levels of NDMA in the
products. The FDA issued a statement on September 13 warning that
some ranitidine products may contain NDMA. On Nov. 1, the FDA
announced that testing had revealed the presence of NDMA in
ranitidine products. It recommended that drug manufacturers recall
ranitidine products with NDMA levels above the acceptable daily
intake level. Five months later, on April 1, 2020, the FDA
requested the voluntary withdrawal of all ranitidine products from
the market.
After the discovery that ranitidine products may contain NDMA,
plaintiffs across the country began initiating lawsuits related to
their purchase and/or use of the products. On Feb. 6, 2020, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the multi-district litigation ("MDL") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 for all pretrial purposes and ordered federal lawsuits for
personal injury and economic damages from the purchase and/or use
of ranitidine products to be transferred to the undersigned. Since
that time, approximately 1,400 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in,
or had their lawsuits transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
The Plaintiffs filed their first Master Complaints on June 22,
2020. In those Master Complaints, the Plaintiffs contended that
the ranitidine molecule is unstable, breaks down into NDMA, and has
caused thousands of consumers of ranitidine products to develop
various forms of cancer. They alleged that "a single pill of
ranitidine can contain quantities of NDMA that are hundreds of
times higher" than the FDA's allowable limit. They pursued federal
claims and state claims under the laws of all 50 U.S. states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The Court has entered numerous Pretrial Orders to assist in the
management of the MDL. In Pretrial Order # 36, the Court set a
schedule for the filing and briefing of the first round of motions
to dismiss under Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The
various Defendants filed motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 31, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and dismissed the Master Complaints without prejudice and
with leave to amend. It also struck all allegations of physical
injury and medical monitoring from the Consolidated Consumer Class
Action Complaint, while permitting the Plaintiffs to seek leave of
Court for an alternative pleading to allege their class physical
injury and/or medical monitoring claims.
Following an amendment to Pretrial Order # 36, the Plaintiffs filed
the AMPIC on Feb. 8, 2021. After the Court granted a two-week
extension of time, the Plaintiffs filed the MMC and the ELC on Feb.
22, 2021. In Pretrial Order # 61, the Court set a schedule for the
filing and briefing of the second round of motions to dismiss under
Rule 12 directed to the Master Complaints. The Defendants filed
the Motion to Dismiss currently addressed pursuant to that
schedule.
II. The Economic Loss Class Action Complaint (ELC)
One hundred and eighty named Plaintiffs bring the ELC on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated. Each Plaintiff
asserts that he or she purchased and/or used a ranitidine product
during an approximate timeframe. The Plaintiffs bring the
complaint in their individual capacities and on behalf of numerous
classes pursuant to Rule 23. Among the various classes is one
nationwide class: the "RICO Class," comprised of one hundred and
six named Plaintiffs who purchased Defendants' OTC Zantac.
The Plaintiffs assert Count I of the ELC against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), (d). At the
Hearing, the Plaintiffs clarified that they are pursuing two claims
within Count I. One claim is for violating 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c), which makes it unlawful "for any person employed by or
associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of
which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or
collection of unlawful debt." The second claim is for violating 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(d), which makes it unlawful to conspire to
violate Section 1962(c).
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were aware of the risks
associated with ranitidine consumption. Rather than remove OTC
Zantac from store shelves or warn the public about its safety
risks, the Defendants formed an enterprise to deliberately and
unlawfully misrepresent and conceal the safety risks. Their
motivation was to increase their "revenues and profits from the OTC
Zantac and minimize their losses from the manufacture and the sale
of all their Ranitidine-Containing Products."
The Defendants carried out their scheme through "thousands" of
fraudulent interstate mail and wire communications during a
decades-long marketing and promotional campaign to mislead the
public through misleading communications with federal regulators,
and through efforts to manipulate key opinion leaders and industry
groups regarding the science and safety of ranitidine products.
The Plaintiffs purchased OTC Zantac because of these
misrepresentations and omissions regarding its safety. Had they
known that OTC Zantac was unreasonably dangerous, they would not
have purchased the drugs, much less at the price they paid.
III. Summary of the Parties' Arguments and the Court's Rulings
The Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss seeking the
dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' RICO claim in Count I
of the ELC. They make three primary arguments in support of
dismissal. First, the Plaintiffs lack statutory standing to assert
a RICO claim for three reasons: The Plaintiffs did not purchase OTC
Zantac directly from any Defendant and therefore cannot sue them
under the indirect purchaser rule; the Plaintiffs have not alleged
a cognizable injury; and the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged
proximate causation. Second, the Plaintiffs failed to allege an
"association-in-fact enterprise," a basic element of a civil RICO
claim, because they did not plausibly allege a common, criminal
purpose or relationships amongst Defendants. And third, the
Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants committed a pattern of
racketeering activity.
The Plaintiffs respond that they have standing to sue Defendants
under RICO because the indirect purchaser rule does not apply to
RICO claims; they have alleged a cognizable injury in that they
spent money on a worthless product; and, they have plausibly
alleged proximate causation. Next, they have pled an
"association-in-fact enterprise" because they allege that the
Defendants' common purpose was fraudulent in nature and that the
dependent relationships between the Defendants ensured a common
purpose. Finally, the Plaintiffs have pled a pattern of
racketeering by means of wire and mail fraud that spanned more than
two decades.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Rosenberg concludes that the indirect purchaser rule applies
to RICO claims and the facts of the case. He says the indirect
purchaser rule is a limitation on statutory standing that
authorizes suits by direct purchasers, but bars suits by indirect
purchasers. The indirect purchaser rule bars Plaintiffs' RICO
claim because they did not purchase OTC Zantac directly from the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs, therefore, do not have statutory
standing to sue Defendants under RICO. The Judge does not reach
the merits of the Defendants' other arguments in the Motion to
Dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg granted the Brand-Name
Manufacturer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. He dismissed with
prejudice Count I of the Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic
Loss Class Action Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/nyhyptnp from Leagle.com.
METHOD TEST: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. METHOD TEST PREP, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-05777
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.methodtestprep.com, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant offers the commercial website,
www.methodtestprep.com, to the public. The website offers features
which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services
whereby Defendant allows for the delivery of those ordered goods to
consumers throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
MICROSOFT CORP: Russo Suit Alleging Privacy Laws Violation Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK D. RUSSO, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04818-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants Microsoft's motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiffs Frank D. Russo; Koonan Litigation Consulting, LLC; and
Sumner M. Davenport & Associates, LLC, bring the class action
against Defendant Microsoft for violation of privacy laws. The
Plaintiffs allege violations of (1) the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2511, et seq., (2) the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"),
18 U.S. C. Section 2701 et seq., (3) the Washington Consumer
Protection Act ("WCPA"), Wash. Rev. Code 9,73.010 et seq., (4)
Washington Privacy Act ("WPA"), Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.010 et seq.,
and (5) intrusion upon seclusion under Washington law.
The Plaintiffs use Microsoft's software to conduct business. Mr.
Russo uses Microsoft 365 Business Standard for his sole
proprietorship, Russo Meditation & Law, to provide mediation,
arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution services to
clients. Koonan Litigation Consulting, LLC employs Microsoft 356
Business Basic to provide advice on "all aspects of litigation."
Sumner M. Davenport & Associates, LLC similarly uses Microsoft 365
Business Basic to provide marketing services. Each product
provides cloud-based access to Microsoft's Office software suite
for a monthly subscription fee.
The Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft (1) shared its business
customers' data with Facebook, (2) shared its business customers
data with third-party developers, (3) shared its business
customers' data with subcontractors to support Microsoft's
products, and (4) used business customers' data to develop and sell
new products and services through their software without consent.
Although the precise nature of the Plaintiffs' claims lacks
clarity, the complaint appears to quote from various documents
related to different features. First, with respect to Facebook
data sharing, the Plaintiffs states that "the damage has already
been done" at that point because "once contacts are transferred to
Facebook, they cannot be deleted from Facebook's system except by
Facebook."
Second, with respect to third-party developers, the Plaintiffs
apparently refer to "Microsoft Graph," and allege that "Microsoft
nonetheless transmits a non-consenting business customer's data to
third-party developers if another Office 365 user consented to the
application."
Third, with respect to subcontractors, the Plaintiffs allege
generally that Microsoft uses subcontractors "not only to provide
customers with the services they purchased, but also to serve
Microsoft's separate commercial ventures. Finally, with respect to
using data to develop new products, the Plaintiffs refer to the
following products: Security Graph API, Microsoft Audience Network,
Windows Defender Application Control, Azure Advanced Threat
Protection, Advanced Threat Protection, and Cortana. They allege
facts for only the first two products and Cortana.
The Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft's practices are contrary to its
marketing representations and contracts, which tout its privacy
protections. They claim that they would not have purchased
Microsoft's products if they knew the truth about their use.
Analysis
A. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Standing.
Judge Rogers explains that the Plaintiffs do not allege enough
facts to draw a reasonable inference that they have been injured by
Microsoft's conduct. With respect to Facebook Connect, tey do not
allege that they have used Outlook, much less that they added
anyone to their Outlook Contacts folder who could have been
disclosed to Facebook. With respect to third-party developers, they
do not allege any user with whom they communicated that granted
consent for Microso ft Graph to scan their emails. With respect to
both subcontractors and Microsoft's other products, the Plaintiffs
do not allege any facts that could support a reasonable inference
that Microsoft's cloud software customers were affected at all.
Instead, the Plaintiffs cite two paragraphs that generically state
that Microsoft used and shared "Plaintiffs' and Class Members'"
data, including their emails, as described. The Judge holds that
such allegations are far too sparse and conclusory to make the
claim of personal injury plausible. She thus dismisses the
complaint for failure to allege facts demonstrating standing.
B. Plaintiffs Have Not Stated a Claim.
For similar and additional reasons, Judge Rogers finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits. As an
initial matter, she says the Plaintiffs' allegations concerning
subcontractors and use of customer data to develop new products
(the third and fourth set of alleged conduct) are too conclusory to
render their claims plausible. Based on their complaint, Microsoft
could be using customer data and subcontractors to develop new
products. That said, the Plaintiffs allege no facts to suggest that
this actually happens. Similarly, the Plaintiffs do not allege
that Microsoft Audience Network actually involves Office 365
products. The complaint thus fails to allege enough facts to nudge
claims from "mere possibility" to plausibility. Thus, the Judge
evaluates only the alleged features for which Plaintiffs provide
sufficient factual allegations, namely: (1) Facebook Connect, (2)
Microsoft Graph API, (3) Security Graph API, and (4) Cortana.
First, the Judge finds that to the extent that the Plaintiffs can
allege that their specific emails were scanned, the complaint may
state a claim under the Wiretap Act (Count One) based on the Graph
and Security Graph API features. The claims based on other
features are dismissed with prejudice.
Second, she holds that to the extent that the Plaintiffs can allege
that their specific emails were scanned, the complaint may state a
claim based on Graph and Security Graph APIs. The SCA (Count Two)
based on other features are dismissed with prejudice.
Third, the Judge dismisses the Washington CPA claim without
prejudice. She says, although the allegations are barely
sufficient to meet the requirements for a "short and plain
statement" under Rule 8 (mostly because they quote from Microsoft's
own documents), they leave the public entirely in the dark about
the nature of the purported data misuse. Microsoft apparently had
to sort through obscure technical documentation just to identify
features that the Plaintiffs are accusing. The Judge still has no
idea how those features function, which parties use them, the form
in which the data is provided, or anything else about them. In
short, the Plaintiffs do not plead nearly enough facts to justify
the gravity of their claims.
Fourth, to the extent that the Plaintiffs can allege that their
private communications were intercepted, they may state a claim
under the WPA based on Graph and Security Graph APIs, the Judge
holds. She finds that the precise points of interception is an
issue best tested through discovery and does not dismiss on this
ground, notwithstanding allegations that the Plaintiffs'
communications originated in California and Wyoming.
Fifth, the Judge dismisses Mr. Russo's intrusion upon seclusion
claim without prejudice and the other Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. She holds that at most, the complaint suggests that Mr.
Russo may have used the products for his clients' private affairs.
The Plaintiffs cite no case to suggest that Mr. Russo has standing
to bring other people's common law tort claims, and the claim is
improper.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers grants Microsoft's motion
to dismiss. The dismissal is without prejudice unless stated
otherwise. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 21
days.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2vf6rjcv from Leagle.com.
MINNESOTA: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Gamble Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID LE ROY GAMBLE, JR., CYRUS PATRICK GLADDEN, II,
DAVID JAMES JANNETTA, JERRAD WILLIAM WAILAND, and CLARENCE ANTONIA
WASHINGTON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MINNESOTA STATE-OPERATED SERVICES, MINNESOTA STATE INDUSTRIES,
MINNESOTA SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA, EMILY JOHNSON PIPER, and JODI HARPSTEAD, in her
official capacity, Defendants, Civil No. 16-2720 (JRT/KMM) (D.
Minn.), Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The Plaintiffs, civil detainees in the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program ("MSOP") and participants in MSOP's Vocational Work Program
("VWP"), initiated the case against MSOP, claiming that the Program
constitutes employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and MSOP improperly withholds a portion of their wages.
On Aug. 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that they
are entitled to the federal minimum wage under the FLSA and that
MSOP improperly deducts a portion of their wages. The Plaintiffs
also asserted claims for violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause,
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, and Thirteenth Amendment
prohibition on involuntary servitude. They seek actual and
liquidated damages, as well as declaratory relief enjoining the
Defendants from violating the FLSA and ordering MSOP to pay VWP
participants the federal minimum wage and withhold no portion of
their wages.
On Dec. 22, 2016, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. On
Sept. 28, 2017, the Court granted, in part, the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denied the motion only with
regard to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim.
On Jan. 26, 2018, the class action opt-in Plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Consent under 29 U.S.C. Section 216. On Jan. 24, 2019, the
Court granted their motion to conditionally certify a collective
action.
On Oct. 5, 2020, the parties filed motions for summary judgment,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). The Plaintiffs
have moved for summary judgment only as to liability, while the
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims or,
alternatively, to decertify the class. The Defendants have also
moved to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert, Karen
Fisher. The parties primarily dispute whether the VWP is
"employment" under the FLSA.
Analysis
A. Fair Labor Standards Act
The issue before the Court is whether the FLSA applies to MSOP
detainees' participation in the VWP. The FLSA provides that
employees receive a minimum wage. One of the FLSA's purposes is to
provide employees "the minimum standard of living necessary for
health, efficiency, and general well-being."
Judge Tunheim opines that the Plaintiffs have not presented any
authority finding that civil detainees participating in a voluntary
work program are considered employees under the FLSA, and despite
extensive searching, the Judge could not find any such case. While
the Plaintiffs cite Gonzales v. Mayberg in support of their Motion,
Gonzales is factually distinguishable and not as favorable as the
Plaintiffs assert. In Gonzales, the court rejected the idea that
the plaintiffs could not be considered employees under the FLSA
merely because they were civilly committed sex offenders, but
dismissed their claim due to sovereign immunity. Therefore,
Gonzales is unpersuasive, and the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish any legal precedent for their claim.
1. Economic-Reality Test
Finding no supporting precedent, Judge Tunheim considers the merits
of the Plaintiffs' theory. He finds no evidence that MSOP pursues
current or former detainees to recover cost-of-care payments.
First, although MSOP has received over $12,000 in cost of care
payments since August 2013, no portion of that was from the
Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs have not shown through admissible
evidence that any of them pay their cost of care. Without more,
the fact that Minnesota law allows MSOP and other correctional
facilities to seek cost-of-care payments is insufficient to show
that MSOP does not provide for detainees' basic needs. Thus, there
is no material fact in dispute as to whether MSOP meets its
detainees' basic needs, which weighs against finding an
employer-employee relationship under the FLSA.
2. Benefit to MSOP
Considering the totality of the circumstances under the
economic-reality test, Judge Tunheim holds that the Plaintiffs fail
to show that there is any material fact in dispute, and he
therefore finds that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that they are
employees within the meaning of the FLSA. First, he says the
Plaintiffs merely speculate that their work through the VWP confers
a benefit on MSOP by maintaining its facilities. And second, the
Plaintiffs' assertion that their work benefits MSOP is insufficient
to create a dispute of material fact.
3. Sex-Offender Treatment
Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that the VWP does not
constitute sex-offender treatment, yet concede that whether the
Program is treatment is irrelevant to the question of whether
participation in the program is employment under the FLSA. The
Defendants have presented expert testimony that the VWP is a
component of treatment, and Minnesota law dictates that the VWP's
purpose is sex-offender treatment. Further, all VWP staff members
are trained on how to interact with people with sexual psychopathic
personalities and sex offenders. The Plaintiffs dispute that
participation in VWP is part of their treatment, but their own
opinion testimony is insufficient evidence to establish that the
Program is not treatment. Thus, even if determining whether the
VWP is part of sex-offender treatment were relevant to the
overarching question of whether participation in the VWP is
employment under the FLSA, the Plaintiffs' argument is unavailing.
B. Portal-to-Portal Act
Finally, Judge Tunheim holds that even if the Plaintiffs could
demonstrate that a material fact in dispute precludes summary
judgment, their Motion cannot succeed because the Portal-to-Portal
Act shields the Defendants from liability. The Portal-to-Portal
Act protects defendants who plead and prove that an "act or
omission was in good faith conformity with and in reliance on any
written administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or
interpretation." Additionally, Minnesota law explains that the VWP
is part of sex-offender treatment. Thus, the Defendants are immune
from liability for the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim because the wage
withholding policy conformed, in good faith, with binding authority
regarding application of the FLSA to the VWP.
Conclusion
Judge Tunheim concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate
that there is any material fact in dispute to preclude summary
judgment in regard to the FLSA claim, and the Defendants' Motion is
granted. In any event, the Plaintiffs' Motion fails because
Defendants are entitled to immunity under the Portal-to-Portal
Act.
Order
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings
therein, Judge Tunheim denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Because he did not consider Ms. Fisher's testimony and
the he granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Judge denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony. The action is dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5665y94t from
Leagle.com.
Charlie R. Alden -- Charlie@GilbertAlden.com -- GILBERT ALDEN
BARBOSA PLLC, 2801 Cliff Road East, Suite 200, in Burnsville,
Minnesota 55337, for the Plaintiffs.
Kathryn Iverson Landrum, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, in St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, for the
Defendants.
NABORS COMPLETION: Ronquillo Petitions to Confirm Arbitration Award
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this lawsuit captioned as FRANK RONQUILLO v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:21-cv-05535, Petitioner Frank Ronquillo filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 8,
2021 a petition to confirm the arbitration award against Respondent
Nabors Completion and Production Services Company.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay prevailing wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition.
Nabors Completion & Production Services Co., now known as C&J Well
Services, Inc., is a company that provides well construction,
completions, and services, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
R. Chase Donahoo, Esq.
DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
440 West First Street, Suite 101
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 953-1010
E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
skokonas@donahoo.com
cdonahoo@donahoo.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Liable to Student-Athletes' TBIs, Cupal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER CUPAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01997-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 8, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
express contract, and fraudulent concealment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Adrian College
football players from the long-term dangers associated with
traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). For decades, the Defendant knew
the debilitating long-term dangers of TBIs that resulted from
playing college football but it disregarded this information to
protect the business of amateur college football. As a direct
result of the Defendant's alleged acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
and countless former Adrian College football players suffered brain
and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and –
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and –
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NATURE'S PATH: Faces Class Action Over Hemp Granola Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a trio of California residents filed a proposed
class action against organic food company Nature's Path Foods Inc.
in federal court, claiming the company deceived customers by
overstating the amount of protein in its hemp granola and other
products. [GN]
NELNET SERVICING: Gesner Sues Over Illegal Excessive Call Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Gesner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC d/b/a Firstmark Services, Case
No. 21-1477H (Mass. Super., June 28, 2021),is a class action
complaint in connection to Firstmark alleged illegal excessive call
practices.
Defendant Nelnet is a student loan servicer that regularly places
more than two collection calls a week to Massachusetts consumers to
collect student loan debts.
Allegedly, Firstmark's calling practices are illegal in
Massachusetts as the Massachusetts Attorney General has regulated
it an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" for a creditor to
"initiate a communication with any debtor via telephone, either in
person or via text messaging or recorded audio message, in excess
of two such communications in each seven-day period to either the
debtor's residence, cellular telephone, or other telephone number
provided by the debtor as his or her personal telephone number, for
each debt." Armata v. Target Corp., 480 Mass. 14, 15-16, 23
(2018).
Firstmark placed more than two collection calls to Plaintiff Aaron
Gesner's cellular telephone within a seven-day period in an attempt
to collect a debt from Plaintiff, violating the express provisions
of section 7.04(1)(f). Moreover, given that Firstmark's illegal
excessive call practices impacted thousands of other Massachusetts
residents like Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks to represent all
consumers similarly situated. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to
end Firstmark' s illegal practice, declaratory relief to make
Firstmark's violations known to the class, actual and statutory
damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit.
Plaintiff Gesner is an adult individual residing in
Templeton,Massachusetts, and is a "debtor" as defined by 940 C.M.R.
section 7.03.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
NEW JERSEY: Commuters Seek Class Certification in Bridgegate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that New Jersey commuters asked a federal judge on
July 6 to certify their long-running civil rights class action over
traffic delays they faced on the George Washington Bridge as a
result of the "Bridgegate" scandal in September 2013. [GN]
NEW REZ: Cox Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 9
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH COX and DENA COX,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEW
REZ, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No.
3:20-cv-00859 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers
entered an amended scheduling order:
1. Discovery: The parties shall complete all discovery
requests by March 8, 2022, and all fact depositions by
April 22, 2022.
2. Expert Witnesses: The party bearing the burden of proof on
an issue shall make the disclosures of information
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) for that
issue to all other parties or their counsel no later than
May 17, 2022.
3. Class Certification: Plaintiffs shall file their motion
for class certification by November 9, 2021, with
responses and replies filed according to the Local Rules.
4. Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions, except those
filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with
depositions, admissions, documents, affidavits or other
exhibits, and a memorandum in support of such motions
shall be filed by August 23, 2022.
5. Disclosures: No later than October 7, 2022, counsel and
any unrepresented parties shall meet to conduct settlement
negotiations.
6. Proposed Integrated Pretrial Order: Counsel for the
plaintiffs shall prepare their portion of the pretrial
order and submit it to counsel for the defendant no later
than October 14, 2022. Counsel for the defendant shall
prepare and file a proposed integrated pretrial order no
later than October 21, 2022.
7. Pretrial Conference: A final pretrial conference shall be
held on October 31, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Huntington.
8. Proposed Charge to Jury: No later than November 8, 2022,
counsel and any unrepresented parties shall submit to the
presiding judge proposed jury instructions in charge form
on substantive theories of recovery or defense, on
damages, and on evidentiary matters peculiar to the case,
and special interrogatories, if any be appropriate.
9. Final Settlement Conference: A final settlement
conference, attended by lead trial counsel and any
unrepresented parties, shall be held on November 14, 2022,
at 9:30 a.m. in Huntington.
10. Trial: Trial of this action shall commence on November 15,
2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Huntington.
11. Failure to Appear or Negotiate: At least one attorney for
each party and all unrepresented parties participating in
any conference before trial shall have authority to make
decisions as to settlement, stipulations, and admissions
on all matters that participants reasonably anticipate may
be discussed.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wCIOnG at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Aponte Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE APONTE II and LISA ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY,
P.C. and ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05883 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, and violation of New York's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to adequately
safeguard highly sensitive Electronic Protected Health Information
(e-PHI) collected from the Plaintiffs and other Class members. The
Defendants issued a press release and sent breach notification
letters to potentially impacted individuals on March 11, 2021
regarding the access of their Picture Archiving and Communication
Systems (PACS) by unauthorized third parties. The Defendants failed
to adopt reasonable data security measures which allowed
unauthorized third parties to access patient data stored on their
PACS servers. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class face an
ongoing imminent risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit
alleges.
Northeast Radiology, P.C. is a radiology services provider, with
its principal place of business in Brewster, New York.
Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc., is a national radiology service
provider, with its principal place of business in Irvine,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and –
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff Says Insurers Must Cover BIPA Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a lead plaintiff asked an Illinois state court
on July 2 to declare that insurers of NOVAtime Technology Inc.,
maker of biometric time clocks, and its parent company owe a duty
to defend them in an underlying biometric privacy class action that
has resulted in a $14 million deal. [GN]
ORTHONET LLC: $1M Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Solis FLSA-NYLL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNA SOLIS and MAURA LYONS, Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. ORTHONET LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-4678 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S.
Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys'
fees and costs.
Named Plaintiffs Solis and Lyons bring the instant action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq., and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law Section 650 et
seq., against the Defendant.
OrthoNet, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare Group Incorporated,
provides a limited set of services to health plan customers. The
Named Plaintiffs are former employees of OrthoNet. Solis was
employed as an Initial Review Employee from January 2015 to March
2016, and Lyons worked as Initial Review Employee from January 2010
to February 2018. The Named Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
incorrectly classified them as exempt employees under FLSA and NYLL
for the purposes of overtime wages, denying the Plaintiffs overtime
wages.
Plaintiff Solis filed her complaint alleging FLSA and NYLL
violations against the Defendant on May 21, 2019. On July 19,
2019, Plaintiffs Solis and Lyons filed an amended complaint.
The Defendants filed an answer to the Amended Complaint on Aug. 2,
2019. On Aug. 8, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they
agreed to conduct private mediation. The parties attended
mediation session on Jan. 13, 2020 and reached a settlement.
The Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for (1) preliminary
approval of the Class Action Final Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Releases; (2) conditional certification of the proposed classes;
(3) appointment of Douglas M. Werman and Maureen A. Salas of Werman
Salas P.C., Jack Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, and Travis
Hedgpeth of the Hedgpeth Law Firm, PC as the class counsel; (4)
approval of the proposed Notice of Class and Collective Action
Settlement; and (5) appointment of A.B Data, Ltd. as the settlement
claims administrator on May 11, 2020, and a joint letter requesting
a conference on March 9, 2021.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion on May 11, 2021. The
Plaintiffs filed the instant unopposed motion for attorneys' fees
on Dec. 16, 2020.
Discussion
A. Reasonableness of One-Third of the Settlement Fund
The Plaintiffs' counsel relies on the percentage method and
requests $1 million or one-third of the gross settlement amount of
$3 million.
Judge Broderick holds that the percentage requested, 33%, is in
line with what other judges have awarded in the district, and his
previous awards. Courts in the Circuit typically approve
attorneys' fees that range between 30% and 33%.
B. Reasonableness Under Goldberg Factors
After due consideration of the Goldberger factors, Judge Broderick
finds that the Plaintiffs' requested attorneys' fees are
reasonable.
1. Counsel's Time and Labor
First, the Judge considers the time and labor spend litigating the
matter. The Plaintiffs' counsel notes that it conducted an
extensive investigation unto the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Counsel indicates that it has devoted 830 hours of
professional time for a lodestar amount of $420,000. As the Judge
concludes after applying the lodestar cross check, the time and
labor expended by the counsel is reasonable.
2. The Litigation's Magnitude and Complexity
The Plaintiffs also satisfy the second Goldberger factor. The legal
issues involved in the action are complex and difficult to prove.
FLSA claims typically involve complex mixed questions of fact and
law. These statutory questions must be resolved in light of
volumes of legislative history and over four decades of legal
interpretation and administrative rulings." Moreover, cases like
this one, which involve both an "opt out" class action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and a FLSA "opt in" collective action, are
particularly complex.
3. The Risk of Litigation
Third, continued litigation posed substantial risks to the counsel.
The Judge holds that the counsel undertook the litigation on a
contingent-fee basis and faced the possibility of recovering no
fees. Due to the contingent nature of the customary fee
arrangement, lawyers make a considerable investment of time and
resources with the prospect of an unsuccessful outcome and no fee
of any kind. Uncertainty that an ultimate recovery will be
obtained is highly relevant in determining the reasonableness of an
award. Further, the Plaintiffs "faced the risk that the Court
would conclude that one of Defendant's affirmative defenses was
meritorious."
4. The Quality of Representation
The Plaintiffs received a considerable settlement sum in light of
the risks posed by their claims. Further, their counsel's firm is
experienced in complex employment litigation, including large-scale
wage and hour class and collective actions, demonstrates the
quality of counsel's representation.
5. Relationship of Fees to Settlement
Courts consider the size of a settlement to ensure that the
percentage awarded does not constitute a windfall. The percentage
used in calculating any given fee award must follow a sliding-scale
and must bear an inverse relationship to the amount of the
settlement. Where the size of the fund is relatively small, courts
typically find that requests for a greater percentage of the fund
are reasonable. Courts in the district have routinely approved
requests for one-third of the settlement fund in cases with
settlement funds that are the same or larger than this fund.
6. Public Policy Considerations
Lastly, public policy considerations weigh in favor of granting the
Plaintiff's counsel's requested fee award. The willingness of
experienced counsel to take on private lawsuits helps further the
goal of the FLSA and NYLL to protect the wages of workers.
Adequate compensation for attorneys who protect those rights by
taking on such litigation furthers the remedial purpose of these
statutes.
C. Lodestar Crosscheck
Judge Broderick opines that in the case, a fee award equal to 33.3%
of the settlement fund results in a multiplier of 2.37. Typically,
courts use multipliers of 2 to 6 times the lodestar. As such, the
Judge finds a multiplier of 2.37 appropriate in the case;
therefore, the fee request is reasonable.
D. Costs and Expenses
The counsel also requests reimbursement of $9,997.67 in costs and
expenses incurred litigating the case. This figure includes filing
fees, mediation fees, travel fees related to the litigation, and
research fees. Courts routinely award reasonable out-of-pockets
expenses. Expenses such as filing fees, mediation related costs and
on-line research constitute "expenses that were incurred to benefit
the Class Members, and the Class Counsel may be reimbursed for
them.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Broderick granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6e58fd29 from Leagle.com.
Douglas Michael Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- Maureen Ann Salas
-- msalas@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas PC, in Chicago, Illinois,
Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Jack Siegel -- jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel Law Group PLLC, in
Dallas, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Travis Hedgpeth -- travis@hedgpethlaw.com -- The Hedgpeth Law Firm,
PC, in Houston, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Ravi Sattiraju -- rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com -- Sattiraju &
Tharney, L.L.P., East Windsor, New Jersey, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Robert S. Whitman -- rwhitman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP
(NYC), in New York City, Counsel for Defendants.
PAPA SOUTH: Settlement Deal in Garrett Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN GARRETT,
Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Persons, v. PAPA
SOUTH, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, and F.H. WIYGUL, III, Case No.
1:19-cv-00174-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Court entered an order:
1. certifying, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, for settlement purposes the following class:
"All persons who worked as a delivery driver for Papa
South, LLC between July 23, 2017, through October 23,
2020."
2. certifying the Settlement Class as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act;
3. certifying the Settlement Class as a class action, under
Mississippi state law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23;
4. granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement,
adjudging its terms to be fair, reasonable and adequate
and directing consummation of its terms and provisions;
5. finding that the Notice Plan was executed in a manner that
ensured that Class Members' due process rights were amply
protected, and that the requirements of Rule 23(e)(1)(B)
have been satisfied;
6. finding that Defendants complied with the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1715(a), by sending notices
to
the appropriate federal and state government officials;
7. approving distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, as
defined in the Agreement, to the Participating Class
Members;
8. approving a service payment in the amount of $5,000.00 to
the Class Representative, Nathan Garrett;
9. approving payment of the actual costs of the Settlement
Claims Administrator in an amount not to exceed
$10,364.75;
10. approving an award of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, and Bruce Turner,
PLLC, in the amount of $64,350.00;
11. approving an award reimbursing litigation costs and
expenses to Class Counsel Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings,
PLLC, in the amount of $3,502.36;
12. approving an award reimbursing litigation costs and
expenses to Class Counsel Bruce Turner, PLLC, in the
amount of $402.00;
13. permanently enjoining all Settlement Class Members from
prosecuting against Defendants and the Released Parties
any and all of the Settlement Class Members’ Released
Claims;
14. permanently enjoining the Class Representative from
prosecuting against Defendants and the Released Parties
any and all of the Class Representative's Released Claims;
and
15. dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UJfIFZ at no extra charge.
PEOPLEG2: Morgan FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DRAKE MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEOPLEG2, Case No.
11-CV-2021-900210.00, was removed from the Circuit Court of Calhoun
County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on July 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00929-CLM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by providing consumer reports used for
employment purposes without certification from Day Star Staffing,
Inc.'s clients that they would comply with FCRA's disclosure,
authorization, and notice requirements.
PeopleG2 is a consumer reporting agency located in California.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph D. Steadman, Jr., Esq.
JONES WALKER LLP
11 North Water Street, Suite 1200
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 432-1414
Facsimile: (251) 433-4106
E-mail: jsteadman@joneswalker.com
PEPPER GATE: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Davis Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. PEPPER GATE FOOTWEAR INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-05791
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.alegriashoes.com, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a footwear company that owns and operates the
website, www.alegriashoes.com, offering features which should allow
allconsumers to access the goods and services which Defendant
ensures the delivery of throughout the United States, including New
York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
PORTNOY SCHNECK: Tskhvedadze Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Portnoy Schneck, L.L.C., et
al. The case is styled as Tristan Tskhvedadze, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portnoy Schneck, L.L.C.,
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03924 (E.D.N.Y., July 12,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portnoy Schneck, L.L.C. -- https://www.splawoffice.com/ -- is a
full service creditors' rights and business litigation firm with
offices in Hamilton, New Jersey and Valhalla, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
PREFERRED INSURANCE: Sharfman Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN M.D.,
P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. PREFERRED PHYSICIANS
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00580-KKM-JSS (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline for Plaintiff to file its motion for class certification
to December 17, 2021, and for any other relief this Court deems
just.
PPIA is a full-service brokerage firm offering solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 8, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xEpJTt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: 847-368-1500
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Settlement Deal in Dyer Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY DYER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00299-ELH (D. Md.), the Court
entered an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class of
"All Maryland consumers who were sent a collection letter
and/or notice from Defendant, during the period of
February 04, 2020 to present, attempting to collect a
consumer debt owed to or allegedly owed to Patient First,
which included a $40.00 collection fee, when no such fee
was expressly authorized by the agreement creating the
debt;"
2. appointing Ari Marcus, and Yitzchak Zelman as Class
Counsel;
3. approving a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class; and
4. approving the Agreement submitted by the Parties,
including the Release and payments by RMS. Upon the
Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement,
RMS shall make the following payments:
(a) RMS shall create a class settlement fund of $20,395.00
(Class Recovery), which the Class Administrator shall
distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class
Members who did not exclude themselves ("Claimants").
(b) RMS shall further create a fund of $2,322.77 to
reimburse those Claimants who paid RMS the collection
fee at issue in this case. Claimants shall be entitled
to an amount equal to the difference between what they
paid and what they were allowed to be charged (actual
cost of collection) in the agreement creating the
debt.
(c) RMS shall pay Plaintiff $3,500.00.
(d) RMS shall pay Class Counsel $37,000.00 for their
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the action under
the terms listed in the Settlement Agreement. Class
Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs
from RMS or the Settlement Class members.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfwo2o at no extra charge.[CC]
SANTA MONICA, CA: Protesters Slam Illegal Arrests
-------------------------------------------------
Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, an organization, David Brown, David
Clennon, and Kerry Hogan, all individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. City of Santa Monica,
a municipal entity, Chief Cynthia Renaud, and Does 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05253, (S.D. N.Y., June 28, 2021), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from
engaging in unlawful and unconstitutional actions; declaratory
judgment that Defendants' conduct violated Plaintiffs' rights under
the United States and California Constitution and laws; an order
directing that all arrest records be removed from all criminal
databases, whether operated by the City of Santa Monica, the State
of California, or any other governmental entity and that all
arrests be reduced to a "detention" unless the individual arrested
is convicted of the charge; an order directing Defendants to
identify to the Plaintiff class all entities and agencies to which
such information has been disseminated, general and compensatory
damages for Plaintiffs and the class they represent for the
violations of their federal constitutional and statutory rights,
pain and suffering, all to be determined according to proof,
statutory damages for Plaintiffs and for the violations of their
constitutional and statutory rights pursuant to California Civil
Code Sec. 52; an award of attorneys' fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper resulting from
false arrest/false imprisonment, assault and for violation of the
Bane Act, First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Black Lives Matter Los Angeles is an organization that opposes
unlawful police actions in response to protests of institutional
racism and police brutality. David Brown, David Clennon and Kerry
Hogan were arrested by the Sta. Monica Police for participating in
peaceful protest in conjunction with the Black Lives Matter
movement. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Erin Darling, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ERIN DARLING
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste.2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (323) 736-2230
Email: erin@erindarlinglaw.com
- and -
Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
Katherine L. Robinson, Esq.
Weston Rowland, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
1158 26th Street, #552
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tel: (310) 393-3055
Email: carolsobel@aol.com
klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com
rowland.weston@gmail.com
- and -
Paul Hoffman, Esq.
Michael Seplow, Esq.
Aidan Mcglaze, Esq.
John Washington, Esq.
SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS, HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
9415 Culver Blvd, #115
Culver City, CA 90230
Tel: (310) 396-0731
Fax: (310) 399-7040
Email: hoffpaul@aol.com
jwashington@sshhlaw.com
SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE LACAPRUCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v.
SAUNDRA THURMAN-CUSTIS, et al., Case No. 4:20-CV-00849-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order:
1. certifying a settlement class, which is defined as
follows:
"All persons employed by Crystal Enterprises, Inc., at
Whiteman Air Force Base, performing work under the CBA in
effect between Crystal Enterprises and UNITE-HERE, from
October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010, who did not
have TRICARE health benefits and therefore were subject to
payment of health and welfare contributions into a 401(k)
Plan;".
2. approving the proposed settlement, as well as all related
notices and the plan of allocation, as fair, reasonable,
and adequate;
3. directing that notice be sent to class members as set
forth in the notice.
4. setting a Final Fairness Hearing on August 25, 2021, at
9:00 a.m. to be held via teleconference; and
5. directing the parties and their counsel may take such
other measures as are necessary to effectuate the
settlement and so long as the parties agree and/or they
are approved by the Court, may modify any procedures set
forth in the proposed Settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wO876p at no extra charge.[CC]
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Buffalo Xerographix Appeals Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Buffalo Xerographix Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Buffalo Xerographix
Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited et al., Case No.
20-cv-520, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York (Buffalo).
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendant
insurance companies for breach of contract and violations of New
York General Business Law Section 349 relating to contracts for
commercial property insurance between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
The contracts include "(a) policies identified by Defendants as
'Spectrum Business Owner's Policy'; and/or (b) Special Property
Coverage Form." The Policy is "all risk" and provides coverage for
physical loss or damage to property unless the loss is "excluded"
or "limited." The Defendants have stated that the policy does not
provide benefits for losses due or relating to the novel
coronavirus, the disease it causes (COVID-19), or the actions taken
by civil authorities in response to the virus and COVID-19. The
Defendants denied coverage to Plaintiffs for damages arising from
the virus, COVID-19, and orders issued by civil authorities, says
the suit.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated June 16, 2021, denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate cases and granting Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings; and Court's Order dated May 19, 2021, granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Buffalo Xerographix Inc. v.
Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, et al., Case No. 21-1502, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
June 17, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Buffalo Xerographix Inc., for itself and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated policyholders; Shatkin
F.I.R.S.T. LLC; and Todd E. Shatkin DDS PLLC, are represented by:
Christopher M. Berloth, Esq.
DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP
701 Seneca Street
Buffalo, NY 14210
Telephone: (716) 855-1111
E-mail: cberloth@dhpglaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, Hartford
Casualty Insurance Company, and Hartford Insurance Company of the
Midwest are represented by:
Jonathan Freiman, Esq.
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
1 Century Tower
265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 498-4584
E-mail: jfreiman@wiggin.com
- and -
Charles A. Michael, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 378-7604
E-mail: cmichael@steptoe.com
- and -
Shai Silverman, Esq.
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
437 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 551-2608
E-mail: ssilverman@wiggin.com
SOUTH CAROLINA: 2 Administrative Orders in Torrence v. DOC Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Thomas J. Torrence, Respondent v. South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Appellant, Opinion No. 5829 (S.C. App.),
the Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirms the two orders of
the administrative law court.
The two administrative law court (ALC) Orders reversed the
Department's final decision in the matter of inmate Torrence's
grievance and remanded the case back to the Department to calculate
and pay wages to Torrence in accordance with the Prevailing Wage
Statute.
Mr. Torrence is currently serving a life sentence without the
possibility of parole. Between June 1997 and November 2004,
Torrence participated in the prison industries service project
(PIP) operated at Evans Correctional Institution. During this
time, Torrence performed work for Insilco Global Industries/ESCOD
(ESCOD). For the first 320 hours of Torrence's labor, the
Department paid him a "training wage" of $0.25 per hour for the
first 160 hours and $0.75 per hour for the remaining 160 training
hours. After the completion of his training period, the Department
paid Torrence a wage of $5.25 per hour and $7.86 per hour for
overtime.
In 2001, Torrence and other inmates filed a class action suit
against the Department in the circuit court, seeking a declaratory
judgment finding the Department violated South Carolina law by (1)
improperly diverting portions of inmate wages, (2) paying inmates
less than the prevailing wage, and (3) preventing immediate
distribution of inmate wages placed in escrow. Pursuant to Wicker4
and Adkins, the circuit court granted the Department's motion to
dismiss, and Torrence appealed. The South Carolina Supreme Court
subsequently affirmed the circuit court's dismissal, holding
inmates do not have a private right of action against the
Department but do have a right to pursue their claims through the
Department's internal grievance procedure.
On May 21, 2007, Torrence submitted a step one grievance raising
eight grounds "objecting to the Department's payment, disbursement,
and retention of wages" for his work under PIP. Specifically,
Torrence argued the Department violated state law by paying him an
hourly wage below the prevailing wage in the industry. Torrence
argued he was entitled to the difference between his wage and the
prevailing wage for his work performed for ESCOD both during and
after his training period as well as for any overtime hours.
Torrence additionally argued the Department deprived him of his
property rights by denying him the option of designating persons or
entities to receive immediate distribution of his wages placed in
escrow pursuant to section 24-3-40 of the South Carolina Code.
Torrence argued that because he was serving a life sentence, he
should be allowed to designate persons or entities to receive the
escrowed wages for "his personal benefit."
On Dec. 1, 2011, the Department denied Torrence's claims, finding
Torrence failed to timely file his grievance "within either seven
days or even 15 days of the incident upon which he anchored the
claims presented in his step one" as required by Paragraph 13.1 of
the Department's Policy GA01.12. On Dec. 5, 2011, Torrence
appealed the Department's decision in a step two grievance, which
raised the same grounds as his step one. Additionally, in his step
two, Torrence argued the Department erred in finding he failed to
timely file his step one because (1) the class action lawsuit,
which was filed four years before Wicker, tolled the statute of
limitations and (2) he filed his step one "immediately" after
receiving notice of the supreme court's decision. On Feb. 9, 2012,
the Department reiterated its response to Torrence's step one and
denied his step two.
On May 7, 2012, Torrence appealed to the ALC. The ALC subsequently
bifurcated the issues on appeal to determine the timeliness of
Torrence's grievance before reaching the merits of his case. On
Jan. 30, 2014, the ALC issued an order finding Torrence timely
filed his step one. In its order, the ALC found Torrence timely
filed his step one because Torrence's claims fell within Paragraph
13.9 of the Department's Policy GA-01.12, which provides
"exceptions to the 15-day time limit requirement will be made for
grievances concerning policies/procedures."
The ALC additionally found Torrence timely filed his step one
because his grievance "presented the type of extraordinary
circumstances in which fairness demands that the doctrine of
equitable tolling be applied." It further stated it would address
the merits of Torrence's claims upon receiving the parties'
briefs.
On Jan. 21, 2016, the ALC issued its order addressing the merits of
Torrence's claims. In its order, the ALC found the Department
erred by failing to pay Torrence the prevailing wage for his labor
pre- and post-training, stating "there is no construction of law
under which the Department could pay Torrence less than the
prevailing wage."
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the ALC found, the record
simply did not support a finding that the mean average wage for an
assembler was as low as the $5.25 paid to Torrence; rather, the
record showed the mean average wage for an electronic assembler was
$8.82 in 1997 and $9.92 for 1998 and 1999. The ALC additionally
found "the evidence in the record was insufficient to calculate the
wage for all of the relevant years," specifically the years 2000
through 2004. It therefore ordered Torrence's claim be remanded to
the Department to determine the prevailing wage for the remaining
years of Torrence's labor.
The ALC, therefore, concluded Torrence must be allowed the
opportunity to designate persons or entities to receive an
immediate distribution of funds held in escrow pursuant to section
24-3-40(A)(5)."
Based on the foregoing, the ALC reversed and remanded the
Department's final decision. The appeal followed.
On appeal, the Department argues the ALC erred by: (1) finding
Torrence timely filed the grievance at issue, (2) finding the
doctrine of equitable tolling applied to Torrence's grievance, (3)
calculating the prevailing wage in its order, and (4) finding the
Department erred by failing to allow Torrence to designate persons
or authorities under section 24-3-40 of the South Carolina Code
Analysis
I. Timeliness of Grievance
The Department argues the ALC erred in finding Torrence timely
filed his step one grievance because he failed to file it within
fifteen days of "the date upon which the Department began paying
Torrence for his labor," as required by Paragraph 13.1 of Policy
GA-01.12. The Department contends the ALC erred in finding
Torrence's grievance fell within the filing exception under
Paragraph 13.9 because Torrence did not specifically allege his
grievance challenged a policy or procedure of the Department.
Additionally, the Department asserts the ALC erred in finding the
doctrine of equitable tolling applied to Torrence's claims because
the Department "did nothing whatsoever to hinder Torrence's
discovery of his wage claims or his ability to pursue his claims."
The Court of Appeals disagrees. It holds that because Torrence's
claims involve continuous conditions potentially affecting numerous
inmates, it finds Torrence's grievance involves Department policies
and procedures, rather than an isolated incident. Therefore,
itfinds Torrence's grievance falls within the exception enumerated
in Paragraph 13.9 of the Department's Policy GA-01.12, and thus,
Paragraph 13.1's 15-day filing rule does not apply. Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals affirms the ALC's finding that Torrence timely
filed his step one grievance.
Because its finding on this issue is dispositive as to the
timeliness of Torrence's grievance, the Court of Appeals need not
address whether the ALC erred in applying the doctrine of equitable
tolling.
II. Calculation of the Prevailing Wage
The Department argues the ALC erred by calculating the prevailing
wage for Torrence's labor performed through PIP because it
"misapprehended the applicable state law, federal law, and federal
regulations." Specifically, the Department asserts section
24-3-410(B)(7)8 is the controlling authority over inmate wages
received through PIP, rather than section 24-3-430(D). It asserts
the wage Torrence received complied with South Carolina law because
it was ten cents over the federal minimum wage for similar labor.
The Department further argues the ALC erred in its calculation of
the prevailing wage because the record did not contain sufficient
evidence to support the calculation.
The Court of appeals disagrees. Preliminarily, it finds the
Department's assertion that section 24-3-410(B)(7) preemptively
governs inmate wages earned through PIP is a misinterpretation of
the law. Based on a plain reading of section 24-3-430(D) and its
legislative intent, the Court of Appeals agrees with the ALC's
interpretation that to determine the prevailing wage for an
industry, the Department must determine the mean average wage for
the occupation at issue using records and data from DEW.
Accordingly, it affirms the ALC's calculation of the prevailing
wage for the years 1997 to 1999 and its decision to remand
Torrence's grievance to the Department for the calculation of the
prevailing wage for the years 2000 to 2004.
III. Distribution of Escrowed Wages
The Department argues the ALC erred by finding section 24-3-40 of
the South Carolina Code allowed Torrence to designate persons or
entities to receive immediate distributions of his escrowed wages.
According to the Department, section 24-3-40 is an unambiguous
statute and therefore requires a plain reading of its text. The
Department asserts a plain reading of the statute reveals an inmate
sentenced to life imprisonment "may only distribute the monies held
in escrow for his benefit by operation of Section 24-3-40(A)(5)
upon his natural death."
Mr. Torrence argues that section 24-3-40(B)(2) allows him the
option of electing either immediate distribution of his escrowed
wages to persons and entities of his choosing or the inclusion of
the escrowed wages in the distribution of his estate. He therefore
asserts the ALC properly harmonized sections 24-3-40(A)(5) and
(B)(2) in its construction of the statute.
The Court of Appeals construes subsections (A)(5) and (B)(2) to
allow for either immediate distribution of an inmate's escrowed
wages to persons or entities of his choosing or inclusion of these
assets in the distribution of his estate. It states that
subsection (B)(2) states an inmate serving a life sentence will be
given the option to include his withheld wages in his estate or to
distribute them to persons or entities of his choosing. Further,
subsection (A)(5) provides these wages will be held in an escrow
account for the benefit of the prisoner. Because an inmate serving
a life sentence will never receive the benefit of his wages outside
of prison unlike those who will be released during their lifetime,
the Court of Appeals finds the Department's interpretation of
section 24-3-40 arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, it affirms
the ALC's construction of section 24-3-40 and finds the Department
erred by refusing Torrence the option of designating persons or
entities for immediate distribution of his escrowed wages.
Disposition
Accordingly, the decision of the ALC is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3y7mc752 from Leagle.com.
Lake E. Summers, of Malone, Thompson, Summers & Ott, LLC, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Plaintiff Thomas J. Torrence, appears pro se.
ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline to File Motion for Class
Certification.
The Case Management Order is amended as follows:
1. Any motion for class certification with respect to
Plaintiffs'claims for damages must be filed no later than
August 2, 2021. Any response thereto must be filed no
later than 21 days after the motion is filed (and no later
than August 23, 2021), and any reply may be filed no later
than 10 days thereafter (and no later than September 2,
2021).
2. Any motion for class certification with respect to
Plaintiffs'claims for injunctive or declaratory relief, if
appropriate, shall be filed no later than 14 days after
the Court rules on Defendant's pending motion for summary
judgment or the issues set forth in the Court's Order to
Show Cause, whichever is later. Such motion for class
certification may incorporate by reference any arguments
made previously. Any response thereto shall be filed no
later than 21 days after the motion is filed, and any
reply may be filed no later than 10 days thereafter.
The Case Management Order shall remain in effect. No further
extensions of the deadlines to file case dispositive motions or the
trial date will be granted absent a showing of extreme good cause.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3khwRBi at no extra charge.[CC]
TEXAS: Valadez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX VALADEZ, et al., v.
KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the
State of Texas, and ED SERNA, in his official capacity as Executive
Director of the Texas Workforce Commission, Case No.
1:21-cv-00519-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting provisional class certification pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and in conjunction
therewith, preliminarily enjoining the Defendant Class from
enforcing this unconstitutional enactment.
The Plaintiffs contend that this case may be certified under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
To account for these strands, the individual Plaintiffs propose two
subclasses:
-- Due Process Plaintiff Class
"All persons in the State of Texas between the ages of 18
and 20 years old who have been, or would be, employed or
contracted to provide, any lawful work or service at or
with an SOB as defined in Tex. Loc. Gov't Code section
243.002, or in any "sexually oriented commercial activity"
as defined in Tex. Penal Code section 43.251(a)(5), but
for S.B. 315's amendments to Texas laws."
-- First Amendment Plaintiff Subclass
"All persons in the State of Texas between the ages of 18
and 20 years old who have been, or would be, employed or
contracted to provide, any lawful work or service
involving protected expression or association for
expressive purposes at or with an SOB as defined in Tex.
Loc. Gov't Code section 243.002, or in any "sexually
oriented commercial activity" as defined in Tex. Penal
Code section 43.251(a)(5), but for S.B. 315's amendments
to Texas laws."
To afford comprehensive preliminary relief, all individual
Plaintiffs, along with the TEA, seek certification of a "Defendant
Class" consisting of local officials with the authority to enforce
the statutes that S.B. 315 has amended, defined as follows:
"All district, county, and city attorneys in the State of
Texas with authority to prosecute, sue, or enforce Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 125.0015(a)(19), as
amended by section 5 of S.B. 315, Texas Labor Code section
51.016(b), (h), (i), and section 51.031(b), as amended by
sections 6 and 7 of S.B. 315, and/or Texas Penal Code
section 43.251, as amended by section 8 of S.B. 315."
The Plaintiffs propose the Attorney General as the class
representative for the Defendant Class.
The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Senate Bill 315's
("S.B. 315") age-related amendments to provisions of the Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Labor Code, and Penal Code. The
Plaintiffs allege that S.B. 315's amendments to Texas laws have
violated the rights secured to them under the First Amendment, the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses,
and the Texas Constitution's due course of law provision. They have
also asserted vagueness and over breadth challenges to the amended
laws.
The Plaintiffs seek "provisional" class certification to assure
that any preliminary relief that may be afforded to them will
extend to protect the rights and livelihoods of other
18-20-year-old men and women who also work, or sought to work, at
businesses classified as "sexually oriented businesses" ("SOBs")
and would do so but for S.B. 315's enactment.
The individual Plaintiffs are Felix Valadez, Abby Reyes, Amada Man,
Luis Carrizoza, all of whom are older than 18 but younger than 21.
As explained in Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, the
enactment of S.B. 315 eliminated Ms. Man's ability to perform as an
exotic dancer at any SOB in Texas, deprived Mr. Carrizoza of his
ability to work as a bouncer at a strip club, and threatens the
livelihoods of Mr. Carrizoza and Ms. Reyes, who work at an adult
bookstore and intend on continuing to do so.
The TEA is an association of SOBs. The TEA's membership employs and
contracts with men and women of all ages -- including those between
the ages of 18 to 20 -- in a variety of positions, e.g., as exotic
dancers, bartenders, waitresses, cashiers, security personnel,
janitors, administrators, bookkeepers, DJs, promoters and marketing
personnel. The TEA's membership also includes adult bookstores that
employ adults older than 18.
The Plaintiffs filed suit on June 14, 2021 and their original
motion for preliminary injunction four days later. The Court held a
brief scheduling conference on June 24, 2021 and set Plaintiffs'
motion for hearing on July 16, 2021.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 8,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VEVE86
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William X. King
Casey T. Wallace
Benjamin W. Allen
WALLACE & ALLEN , LLP
440 Louisiana, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 227-1744
Facsimile: (713) 227-0104
E-mail: cwallace@wallaceallen.com
ballen@wallacellen.com
wking@wallaceallen.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Hilton, Esq.
Ryan Kercher, Esq.
GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Telephone: (512) 463-2120
Facsimile: (512) 320-0667
E-mail: Ryan.Kercher@oag.texas.gov
Christopher.Hilton@oag.texas.gov
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Compel Arbitration in Siperavage Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD SIPERAVAGE, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-12265 (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L.
Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
grants Uber's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action.
In 2015, the Plaintiff started driving for Uber and was driving a
Cadillac CTS to complete UberBlack trips. In spring of 2017,
Plaintiff started researching options to purchase a vehicle
eligible to drive for Uber BlackSUV, which would increase his
income. In March 2017, the Plaintiff asked Uber for the list of
eligible vehicles for Uber BlackSUV, to which an Uber
representative responded with a list of eligible vehicles, which
included the Chevrolet Tahoe.
On Dec. 31, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe in
the amount of $71,373.96 so he could drive for Uber BlackSUV.
Around Aug. 5, 2019, Uber notified him that as of Sept. 2, 2019,
the Chevrolet Tahoe would no longer be eligible for the Uber
BlackSUV service level.
As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, brought a lawsuit against Uber
asserting the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract;
(2) promissory estoppel; and (3) breach of covenant of good faith
fair dealing.
On Sept. 23, 2020, Uber moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the
2015 Technology Services Agreement ("2015 TSA") and 2020 Platform
Access Agreement ("2020 PAA"), both of which the Plaintiff
executed. The 2020 PAA contains a section entitled "Arbitration
Provision."
The matter comes before the Court upon Uber's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Action. It moves to compel arbitration,
primarily relying on the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and
alternatively, on New Jersey arbitration law.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court cannot compel arbitration
pursuant to the FAA because the relevant class of workers are
exempt from application of the FAA, and New Jersey arbitration law
should not apply because the FAA exemption applies here and "state
law may be considered only if the FAA does not apply." He further
argues the Court cannot compel arbitration under New Jersey law
because the arbitration provision is unconscionable for the
following two reasons: (1) the arbitration provision requires the
Plaintiff to pay significant arbitration fees; and (2) the
arbitration agreement contains a class action waiver.
Judge Hillman opines that in making these arguments, the Plaintiff
fails to even reference the delegation provision provided in the
2020 PAA. Accordingly, it is evident the Plaintiff is not
attacking the delegation clause itself. The Judge finds that the
language of the 2020 PAA, which is not a consumer contract of
adhesion, is a clear and unambiguous waiver of the Plaintiff's
rights to proceed as a class against Uber.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hillman compels arbitration
pursuant to New Jersey law. He grants Uber's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Action. An appropriate Order will be
entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/sau5s6kw from Leagle.com.
JAMES A. FRANCIS -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- JOHN SOUMILAS
-- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- JOSEPH GENTILCORE --
jgentilcore@consumerlawfirm.com -- EDWARD SKIPTON --
eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com -- LAUREN KW BRENNAN --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Counsel for Plaintiff
STEPHEN ALLEN LONEY, JR. -- stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Counsel for
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Misclassifies Technicians, Dragon Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DREW DRAGON, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL WINDOWS DIRECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-03892-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 6, 2021) brings this
collective and class action complaint against the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant between June 22, 2020
and March 3, 2021 in the position of Measure Technician at the
Defendant's Columbus, Ohio location.
The Plaintiff claims that he was misclassified by the Defendant as
a salary exempt employee and received an annual salary of $52,000.
Despite working an average of 50-55 hours per week, the Defendant
deprived him of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, added the Plaintiff.
Universal Windows Direct, LLC provides home improvement products
and services, including replacement windows, doors, roofing, and
house siding. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Tel: (614) 610-4134
Fax: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com
VALVE CORP: Dark Catt Slams PC Games Monopoly, Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc. and Dark Catt Studios Interactive
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Valve Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00872
(W.D. Wash., June 28, 2021), is an antitrust action under Section 2
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.
Valve Corporation is a game developer, hardware manufacturer and
digital content distributor. It is the world's largest PC game
distributor through "Steam," holding approximately 75% of the
global market.
Dark Catt is a game developer. To reach customers, Dark Catt
launched its game on Valve's "Steam" gaming website. Dark Catt
alleges that game developers have no viable choice but to publish
and sell through Steam because of Valve's monopoly over PC game
distribution and therefore to PC gaming customers. Dark Catt was
required to pay Valve 30% of the sales price on Steam plus other
fees.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Telephone: (206) 883-2500
Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
Email: sjensen@wsgr.com
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Hutsul Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Velocity Investments
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Arsen Hutsul, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Velocity Investments
LLC, Premiere Credit of North America, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-13584
(D.N.J., July 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Velocity Investments, LLC -- https://velocityrecoveries.com/ -- is
a national buyer of delinquent consumer receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
VIORI BEAUTY: Davis Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VIORI BEAUTY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05790 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2021) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a legally blind and visually-impaired handicapped
person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals
under the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA.
The Plaintiff asserts that during his visit to the Defendant's
website on or around May 2021 with the intent of browsing and
potentially making a purchase, he was denied access similar to that
of a sighted individual due to the multiple access barriers he has
encountered. The Defendant's website purportedly lacks of a variety
of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodation. Specifically, many features on the
Defendant's website failed to accurately describe the contents of
graphical images, failed to properly label title, failed to
distinguish one page from another, contain multiple broken links,
contain headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and the
keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the
keyboard focus indicator is visible, the Plaintiff added.
The Plaintiff alleges that because of the Defendant's failure to
comply with the WCAG 2.1 guidelines by failing to remove access
barriers to its website, the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination.
Viori Beauty LLC is a haircare products company that owns and
operates the website www.viori.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
WAL-MART: Seeks to Strike Kress Stores' Expert Witness Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRESS STORES OF PUERTO
RICO, INC., ET AL, v. WAL-MART PUERTO RICO, INC. ET AL, Case No.
3:20-cv-01464-WG (D.P.R.), Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation;
Puerto Rico CVS Pharmacy, LLC; Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc.; and
Walgreen of Puerto Rico, Inc. ask the Court to enter an order
striking the Plaintiffs' Expert Witness' Report on Plaintiffs'
"Motion for Class Certification".
On June 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Class
Certification", which included report titled "Assessment of Illegal
Sales Alleged in Case", authored by their expert witness, Juan
Lara. Dr. Lara's Report is improper and fails to satisfy the
requirements for expert testimony set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702
and Daubert.
Specifically, Dr. Lara's Report should be excluded because: (a) it
is untimely; (b) it does not rest on a reliable foundation; (c) it
is not relevant for class certification purposes, and, (d) it is
inadmissible.
Despite Plaintiffs' representation that their expert witness did
not require any other discovery, 4 no report was disclosed on or
before the deadline. Instead, it was not until five days later, on
February 26, 2021, that Plaintiffs served their expert report. A
week or so later, Plaintiffs sought to excuse their delay. "Lastly,
Plaintiffs' expert report is dated January 25, 2021, and was not
notified previously due to a mere excusable oversight. Nonetheless,
the report was notified only 4 working days after the deadline, the
Defendants contend.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 8, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36AS2WY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Costco Wholesale Corporation, are:
Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Esq.
Carlos A. Valldejuly-Sastre, Esq.
Paula A. Gonzalez Montalvo, Esq.
O'NEILL & BORGES LLC
Ave. Munoz Rivera No. 250, Suite 800
San Juan, PR 00918-1813
Telephone: (787) 764-8181
E-mail: salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com
carlos.valldejuly@oneillborges.com
paula.gonzalez@oneillborges.com
The Attorneys for Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., are:
Alberto G. Estrella, Esq.
Kenneth C. Suria, Esq.
ESTRELLA, LLC
P.O. Box 9023596
San Juan, PR 00902-3596
Telephone: (787) 977-5050
Facsimile: (787) 977-5090
E-mail: agestrella@estrellallc.com
kcsuria@estrellallc.com
The Attorneys for Walgreen of Puerto Rico, Inc., are:
Yolanda Benítez de Alegría, Esq.
Luis Cotto Roman, Esq.
YOLANDA BENITEZ, COTTO & ASSOCIATES, P.S.C.
www.ybclaw.com
252 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 802
Citi Towers
San Juan, PR 00918
Telephone: (787) 620-6020
Facsimile: (787) 620-6025
E-mail: ybenitez@ybclaw.com
lcotto@ybclaw.com
The Attorneys for Puerto Rico CVS Pharmacy, LLC, are:
Michael H. Shanlever, Esq.
David Carpenter, Esq.
Andrew Brown, Esq.
MJ Kim, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia
Telephone: (404) 881-000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
E-mail: mike.shanlever@alston.com
david.carpenter@alston.com
andrew.brown@alston.com
mj.kim@alston.com
- and -
Fernando J. Valderrabano Marina, Esq.
CANCIO, NADAL & RIVERA, L.L.C.
P.O. Box 364966
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-4966
Telephone: (787) 767-9625
Facsimile: (787) 622-2229
E-mail: fvalderrabano@cnr.law
WORLD WRESTLING: $7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Warren Police Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., VINCENT K.
McMAHON, GEORGE A. BARRIOS, and MICHELLE D. WILSON, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02031-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses.
The matter came on for hearing on June 30, 2021, on the Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
expenses.
Judge Rakoff, having considered and determined the fairness and
reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses
request, finds that the Notice of the Lead Counsel's motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses was given to all
Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable
effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of
the motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
litigation expenses satisfied the notice requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States
Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and Section
21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995; constituted the best notice practicable under
the circumstances; and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient
notice to all Persons entitled thereto.
There have been no objections to Lead Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
The Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $7.020
million, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement
Fund (i.e., 18% of the Settlement Fund), of which 50% is payable to
Lead Counsel upon entry of the Order and 50% is payable to the Lead
Counsel when the Net Settlement Fund is distributed to Authorized
Claimants. The Lead Counsel is also awarded $468,375.08 in
litigation expenses, plus accrued interest, which is payable to
Lead Counsel upon entry of the Order. Judge Rakoff finds these
sums to be fair and reasonable.
The Lead Plaintiff Firefighters' Pension System of the City of
Kansas City, Missouri Trust is awarded $6,286.40 from the
Settlement Fund as reimbursement for its reasonable costs and
expenses directly related to its representation of the Settlement
Class, pursuant to the PSLRA.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding any attorneys' fees and expense application will in no
way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.
Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to the Action,
including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or
enforcement of the Stipulation and the Order.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p7ctpp5 from Leagle.com.
WORLD WRESTLING: Final Order & Judgment Issued in Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters a Final Order and Judgment in the case,
CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., VINCENT K. McMAHON, GEORGE A.
BARRIOS, and MICHELLE D. WILSON, Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-02031-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).
As of Dec. 22, 2020, Lead Plaintiff Firefighters' Pension System of
the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust, on behalf of itself and
all other members of the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and the
Defendants, on the other, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement in the litigation.
Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date
for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement, entered March 8, 2021,
the Court scheduled a hearing for June 30, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. to,
among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement
of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be
approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether a judgment as
provided for in the Stipulation should be entered; and (iii) rule
on Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.
The Court ordered that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
and a Proof of Claim and Release form be mailed 10 business days
after the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order to all
potential Settlement Class Members who could be identified through
reasonable effort, and that the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses be published in The Wall Street Journal and transmitted
over PR Newswire within 14 calendar days of the Notice Date.
The Notice and the Summary Notice advised potential Settlement
Class Members 1 of the date, time, place, and purpose of the
Settlement Hearing. The Notice further advised that any objections
to the Settlement were required to be filed with the Court and
served on counsel for the Parties such that they were received by
May 25, 2021.
The provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order as to notice were
complied with. On May 11, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff moved for final
approval of the Settlement, as set forth in the Preliminary
Approval Order. The Settlement Hearing was duly held before the
Court on June 30, 2021, at which time all interested Persons were
afforded the opportunity to be heard.
Judge Rakoff has duly considered the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
final approval of the Settlement, the affidavits, declarations,
memoranda of law submitted in support thereof, the Stipulation, and
all of the submissions and arguments presented with respect to the
proposed Settlement.
After due deliberation, the Judge affirms the Court's
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally
certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Settlement Class of: "all persons and entities who or which
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of
WWE during the period from Feb. 7, 2019 through Feb. 5, 2020,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for
purposes of the Settlement only, Judge Rakoff re-affirms the
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally
certifies Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City,
Missouri Trust as the Class Representative for the Settlement
Class; and finally appoints the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as
the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
There have been no objections to the Settlement. Pursuant to Rule
23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge
approves the Settlement.
The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on June 8,
2020, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without
costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the
Stipulation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in the Judgment will bar any
action by any of the Parties to enforce or effectuate the terms of
the Stipulation or the Judgment.
The Parties are directed to consummate the Stipulation and to
perform its terms.
A separate order will be entered regarding Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses as allowed
by the Court. A separate order will be entered regarding the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund. Such
orders will in no way disturb or affect the Judgment and will be
considered separate from it. Such orders will in no way affect or
delay the finality of the Judgment and will not affect or delay the
Effective Date of the Settlement.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) implementation of
the Settlement; (ii) the allowance, disallowance, or adjustment of
any Settlement Class Member's claim on equitable grounds and any
award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) disposition of
the Settlement Fund; (iv) any applications for attorneys' fees,
costs, interest, and payment of expenses in the Action; (v) all
Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering
the Settlement and this Judgment; and (vi) other matters related or
ancillary to the foregoing.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Judgment and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is respectfully
directed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/632hpkv7 from
Leagle.com.
WORLD WRESTLING: Plan of Allocation in Warren Police Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order approving the plan of
allocation in the case, CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., VINCENT
K. McMAHON, GEORGE A. BARRIOS, and MICHELLE D. WILSON, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02031-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court for a hearing on June 30, 2021, on
the motion of Lead Plaintiff Firefighters' Pension System of the
City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust, for final approval of the
proposed class action Settlement and approval of the Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement.
Judge Rakoff, having considered all papers filed and proceedings
had therein and otherwise being fully informed, finds and concludes
that due and adequate notice was directed to Persons who are
Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable
effort, advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right
to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to
Persons who are Settlement Class Members to be heard with respect
to the Plan of Allocation. There were no objections to the Plan of
Allocation.
The Judge finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for the
calculation of the claims of claimants that is set forth in the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses disseminated to Settlement Class
Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to
allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members.
Judge Rakoff finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as
set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate and the Court hereby approves the Plan of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/b873ufka from Leagle.com.
YAYYO INC: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 19
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE YAYYO INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:20-cv-08235-SVW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen
V. Wilson entered an order that:
-- The Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be extended
from July 12, 2021 to July 19, 2021;
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Reply to
Defendants' Opposition be extended from July 19, 2021 to
August 5, 2021;
-- The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
be continued from August 2, 2021 to August 16, 2021 at
1:30 p.m., or a time thereafter convenient to the Court.
YayYo develops and delivers a rideshare booking and cost comparison
application.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AYuYiJ at no extra charge.[CC]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. 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 ***