/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211102.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 2, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 213
Headlines
183 FOOD: Hurtado Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal
3 PROPERTY: Faces Impending Class Action Over Property Contracts
3M COMPANY: Anaya Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Atkins Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Brown Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Seabolt Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Mize Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Faces Rockhey Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
3M COMPANY: Masse Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Nakamura Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Skoruppa Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Swagart Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
455 HOSPITALITY: Ocampo Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
A & W CONCENTRATE: Dailey Seeks to Certify Class
A-LIST MARKETING: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in McGowan Suit
A3 SMART HOME: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
ADAMS & ASSOCIATES: Initial Approval of Foster Settlement Deal OK'd
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: To Produce Internal DNC List in Hossfeld Suit
AMARIN CORPORATION: Thornton Law Reminds of Dec. 5 Deadline
AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Jackson Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: E.D. California Dismisses Caudel Consumer Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Dismisses California Consumer Class Action
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Alexa Privacy Class Action
AMERICAN SOLAR: Bid to Substitute Class Rep in O'Shea Suit Granted
ANTHEM INC: Prosthetic Device Coverage Expanded, Class Action Ended
APEX BUSINESS: Romalachon Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
APPHARVEST INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Digital Content
APPLE INC: Updates App Store Guidelines in Response to Lawsuit
AT&T MOBILITY: Naming of Interim Counsel in Razo Suit Recommended
AUSTRALIA: PM, Premiers Faces Class Action Over Vaccinations
AUTO SYSTEMS: Stephens Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid OT
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Reset to Jan. 10, 2022
BAYER AG: Investors Can Sue Over Monsanto Acquisition, Judge Rules
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of December 22 Deadline
BOB DEAN: Verdin FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
BT GROUP: Can't Appeal Class Action Over Landline-Only Overcharges
CABLECOM: Kistler Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
CANADA: CAF-DND Suit Settlement Claims Period to End on Nov. 24
CARLSON JOINT: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due March 3, 2022
CARLSON JOINT: Stipulation on Modified Briefing Sched Filed
CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Loses Bid for Class Certification
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Ramey FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California
CITIZENS BANK: Bradley Arant Attorneys Discuss Ruling in FLSA Suit
CLARK EQUIPMENT: Rosa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Assemblers
CLASSPASS INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Business Practices
COMMUNITY CARE: Beh Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses
COMMUNITY CHILD: Settlement in Del Castillo Suit Gets Final Nod
CRO-MAGNON INC: Chacon Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses
CSI FINANCIAL: S.D. California Stays Roberts-Gooden Breach Suit
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 3
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Class Action
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Suit
DENKA PERFORMANCE: 5th Cir. Affirms in Part Judgment in Butler Suit
DHL EXPRESS: Faces Taylor TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
DIMPLE BOMBAY: Jimenez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
DINO PALMIERI: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in Torres Suit
DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL: Lawsuit Claims Odor Making Residents Ill
EARGO INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of December 6 Deadline
EAT DRINK: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Swan Suit Alleges
EMOTORS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of December 14 Deadline
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Fraud Class Action for $63.4 Million
ETHOSENERGY FIELD: Faces Moenaert Class Suit Over PAGA Violations
EVMO INC: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $1 Million
FCA US: Court Won't Revisit Attys.' Fees & Costs Award in Tomassini
FOUR SEASONS: Has Until Nov. 9 to File Class Cert. Response
GAOTU TECHEDU: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 20 Deadline
GBR PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Expenses, Williams Claims
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Bennett Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to M.D. Fla.
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Inoa Claims
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
GILEAD SCIENCES: End-Payor Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Motion to Dismiss Zantac MDL Suit Denied
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Settles Class Action Over Mislabeled Chocolate
GOLD LOUNGE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Boykin Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
GRAND CANYON: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Schedule Dates
GREEN MARKET: Abdulla Sues Over Breach of Contract
GRUMA CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in Orozco Labor Class Suit
GSF USA: Solis BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GUARDIANS LLC: Underpays Security Guards, Wright Suit Claims
HONEST COMPANY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of November 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
ILLINOIS: Fails to Provide Proper Medical Care to Prisoners
INTEGRATED PETROLEUM: Underpays Drilling Consultants, Sperry Says
JACKSON, MS: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Drinking Water
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Over Electricity Denial May Proceed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jimenez Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. Fla.
JUAN BARCENAS: Tremols Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
JUPITER, FL: Bernstein Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Waverly Schools Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Logan Municipal Schools to Join E-Cigarette Class Suit
KATE BROWN: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Maney Class Suit
KEMPER CASUALTY: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Due November 17
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cantrelle Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hancock Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Osman Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Powell Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Stewart Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Summer Suit Moved From S.D. Ala. to W.D. Pa.
KOSTECKI BROKERAGE: Karsan Value Sues Over Unfair Merger Deal
KPMG LLP: Ritorto Sues Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan
KUCOIN: Court Recommends Narrower Class in Williams Suit
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
LLOYD AUSTIN: Seeks to Stay Rosario Class Certification Proceedings
LOANDEPOT INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 8 Deadline
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Junks Astorga Second Amended Class Cert Bid
LOS ANGELES, CA: Renewed Bid to Certify OPG Related Classes Filed
MACOUPIN COUNTY, IL: Lawsuit Targets Gov. Over Mandatory Masking
MARYLAND: Union Files Motion to Compel Discovery in Labor Suit
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Angeion Group Announces Proposed Settlement
MCKESSON CORP: Fax Machine Class in True Health Suit Decertified
MCKINSEY & CO: Will Face Class Action in Canada Over Opioid Crisis
MDL 2151: Thibeaux v. Toyota Motor Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
MDL 2244: Shattuck v. Medical Device, et al. Moved N.D. Tex.
MDL 2542: Panel Denies Remand of JBR's Anti-trust Case
MDL 2738: Khan v. Johnson & Johnson Transferred to D. N.J.
MDL 2741: Gilmore v. Monsanto Case Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2804: Six Prescription Opioids Product Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2912: Pfizer v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals Transferred to Del.
MDL 2967: Rojas' Biometrics Dispute Consolidated to Privacy Suit
MESA PACKING: Settlement in Miguel-Sanchez Suit Gets Final Approval
METALS CO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 27 Deadline
METALS CO: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Class Claims
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MIDLAND CREDIT: Soto Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Files Appeal in Bryant Suit to 9th Cir.
MINDGEEK HOLDING: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Human Trafficking
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Cookies Misleadingly Labeled, Class Suit Says
NANO-X IMAGING: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of December 6 Deadline
NAPW INC: E.D. New York Certifies Class in Bayne Labor Suit
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Prisoners' Solitary Confinement Suit
NIBCO INC: Matson Settlement Deal Wins Final Nod
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Weiner to File Decertification Response Under Seal
OLD DOMINION: Stay of Ocampo Suit Extended for Additional 90 Days
OVINTIV USA: Rawlinson Sues Over Drilling Managers' Unpaid Overtime
PENNSYLVANIA: Grievance Arbitration Award in PSCOA Suit Affirmed
PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Loses Bid to Junk Sinkfield Class Suit
PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Tate Class Suit Over Defective CPAP Devices
PHOENIX GLASS: Brambila Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
PIZZA BRAKE: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Expenses, Stevens Claims
PIZZA HUT: Robert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
PJ LOUISIANA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Egan Suit Alleges
PREFERRED BUILDING: Summary Judgment in SEIU-USWW Suit Affirmed
PREMIER SENIOR: Faces Robbin Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
PRIME CHOICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Espinosa Suit Alleges
RAUSCH STURM: Can Compel Arbitration in Schmitt FDCPA Class Suit
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Securities Gets Initial Nod
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 3
SAN BERNARDINO CTY, CA: Allegations Made Against Defender's Office
SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
SPEEDWAY LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in De Block Suit
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Corwin Law Files Federal Class Action Lawsuit
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Maurice Blackburn Investigates Class Action
SUNSET FOOD: 7th Cir. Affirms Remand of Railey Suit to State Court
SUPER NORIEGA: Faces Tapia Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022
TRUCK INSURANCE: Final Order & Judgment Forms in Sonoma Suit Denied
UNITED PROPANE: Eyes FLSA Conditional Cert. Hearing Set for Nov. 22
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Must Face Breach-of-Contract Class Action
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Burke Labor Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
VAIL CORP: Court Dismisses McCauliffe Class Suit With Prejudice
VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FLSA Violations
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Orders More Briefing in Mandani Suit
WASHINGTON, DC: Black Policewoman Told to Get Abortion, Suit Says
WESTIN DIA: Settlement Deal in Barlow Suit Gets Initial Nod
WOLF'S STEAKHOUSE: Underpays Bartenders, Rubenstein Suit Claims
ZOOM VIDEOCOMMUNICATIONS: Deal in Privacy Suit Gets Initial OK
[*] Australian Government Proposes Major Class Action Law Reforms
[*] Bill Proposes Major Class Action Law Reforms in Australia
[*] Class Actions Proceeding Before English Courts on the Rise
[*] Online Estate Agencies to Face Class Action From Former Staff
*********
183 FOOD: Hurtado Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE HURTADO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. 183 FOOD MARKET
CORP. d/b/a FOOD UNIVERSE, and 2358 FOOD CORP., and ROBERTO
ESPINAL, individually, and 183 MEAT CORP., and 2358 MEAT CORP., and
SERGIO FERNANDEZ, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-07988-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;
2. approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, and
approving the claims procedure detailed in the Settlement
Agreement;
3. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the two
overlapping settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
4. appointing him as the Class Representative for both
Classes;
5. appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;
6. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
Administrator for this settlement; and
7. approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of
a motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a
Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed
settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.
183 Food is a supermarkets and other grocery (except convenience)
stores corporation.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vYKusG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
Justin R. Marino, Esq.
J.R. Stevenson, Esq.
75 Maiden Lane, Suite 1821
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com
3 PROPERTY: Faces Impending Class Action Over Property Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Halter at canberraweekly.com.au reports that a group of off
the plan buyers in the ACT have started a class action after their
contracts were rescinded by the 3 Property Group (3PG) due to a
sunset clause, causing them to lose their home deals.
The sunset clause allows either party to retreat from the contract,
making it perfectly legal for the developer to rescind their sales,
effectively ousting dozens of potential first-time buyers from the
housing market.
Buyers have reportedly been told by 3PG that the cancellation of
their contracts has been caused by "delays and matters outside of
their control".
3PG yesterday (21 October) released comments on their social media
page stating their company has been "blasted by unfortunate
events".
"Contracts provide, among other things, protection so that
development is not destroyed by items such as the increased costs
which are a commercial reality. It has been a hard few years, and
it is easy to see builders and developers as faceless corporate
entities to blame," the post said.
"There are always contractual and legal issues that are better
resolved through the courts, or through productive discussions with
purchasers rather than the latter and, of course, the media. 3PG
supports all laws and law reforms provided that all affected
parties are considered on an equitable basis rather than an
inequitable basis as appears to be purported in this article [The
Canberra Times] with respect to 3PG."
They added that they "definitely acknowledge that there are serious
issues for both sides here".
ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury told the ABC last week (11
October) that he viewed the actions of 3 Property Group as
"unconscionable" and the clause used by developers was "very
concerning".
"I have asked my Directorate to urgently look at this section of
the law, to look at the provisions that exist in NSW and Victoria
which do mitigate against circumstances where developers seek to
use this to their benefit rather than perhaps the way these clauses
have been traditionally used, which has been seen to be more
mutually beneficial," he told the ABC.
"There is always potential, as with all contracts, for people to
take advantage of another party, and I am focused on mitigating
that and ensuring there is no potential power imbalance between a
developer and a buyer."
Numerous complaints relating to 3 Property Group have been brought
to the attention of Mr Rattenbury's office.
"Until very recently there have been almost no examples of this in
the ACT," he told the ABC.
"In recent months we are aware of one company, for which I have
received a number of complaints, and it does just seem to be the
one company at this point in time."[GN]
3M COMPANY: Anaya Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD THOMAS ANAYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03483-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
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 firefighter trainees 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. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular 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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Atkins Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY JAMES ATKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03480-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
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 firefighter
trainees, 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 prostate 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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Brown Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DALE ORRIN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03471-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
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 firefighter
trainees, 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 prostate cancer and kidney cancer, the suit
alleges.
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Seabolt Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON EDWARD SEABOLT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03482-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. 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. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, says the Plaintiff.
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Faces Mize Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY LEE MIZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03472-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. 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. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer and skin
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Faces Rockhey Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY ALAN ROCKHEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03473-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure 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, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. He 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 testicular cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Masse Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD PAUL MASSE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03479-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure 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, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. He 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 prostate cancer due to his
exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the
course of his training and firefighting activities.
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Nakamura Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL NOBUHIRO NAKAMURA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03474-RMG
(D.S.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and lung cancer as a
result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, 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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
3M COMPANY: Skoruppa Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SKORUPPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03504-RMG
(D.S.C., October 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure 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, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. He 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 prostate cancer due to his
exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the
course of his training and firefighting activities.
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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
3M COMPANY: Swagart Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN SWAGART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03502-RMG
(D.S.C., October 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
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 firefighter
trainees, 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 prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
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.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
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.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
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.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
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
455 HOSPITALITY: Ocampo Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carlos Ocampo, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Carlos Ocampo, Igor Morozov,
Jorge Villanueva, Amaury Ortiz, Plinio Retana, Manuel Calderon, and
Sutee Monchaitanapat, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. 455 Hospitality LLC, DoubleTree Franchise
LLC, DoubleTree Hotel Systems, Inc., Richard Friedman, David
Ribbens, Norma Abdou and Nurul Haque, Case No. 7:14-cv-09614-KMK,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(White Plains).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who worked as banquet servers for the Defendants at
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel located in Tarrytown, New York, seek to
recover unpaid overtime, gratuities and tips pursuant to the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated Sept. 20, 2021, and Judgment dated Sept. 21, 2021, granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Carlos Ocampo, Igor Morozov, Jorge
Villanueva, Amaury Ortiz, Plinio Retana, Manuel Calderon, Sutee
Monchaitanapat, Sonia Gonzalez, Alberto Gonzales, Panfilo Escobar,
Felipe Barriga, Douglas Molina, Nelson Delarosa, Francisco Solis,
Clarisa Rojas-DeLaRosa, Candido Sanchez, Estela Penalo Diaz,
Alejandro Gonzalez, Maria Lamoth, Hilario Ku, Jennys Moya, Edward
Suriel, and Lucia Rojas-Escolastico, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
John J. Malley, Esq.
SMITH, BUSS & JACOBS, LLP
733 Yonkers Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10704
Telephone: (914) 476-0600
E-mail: jmalley@sbjlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees 455 Hospitality LLC; Doubletree Franchise LLC;
Doubletree Hotel Systems, Inc.; Richard Friedman; David Ribbens;
Norma Abdou; Nurul Haque; Doreen Clarke; Accord Human Resources 14,
Inc.; AKA Accord Human Resources of New York, Inc.; Trinet HR III,
Inc.; AKA Trinet HR Corporation; Teddy Lichtschein; Eliezer
Scheiner; Efraim Elchonen; Jordan LLC; Brown & Appel, LLC; and
Alexander Sirotkin are represented by:
Jonathan M. Kozak, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
44 South Broadway
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 872-6885
E-mail: kozakj@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Jonathan David Levitan, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN D. LEVITAN, LLC
430 Williams Road
Wynnewood, PA 19096
Telephone: (484) 413-2935
E-mail: jlevitan@rosemontlaw.com
- and -
David Edward Strand, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
430 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Telephone: (732) 560-7100
- and -
Tara Rosenbaum, Esq.
ROSENBAUM & ASSOCIATES P.C.
4 Canaan Circle
South Salem, NY 10590
Telephone: (917) 861-9475
- and -
Laura M. Catina, Esq.
CONDON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
55 Old Turnpike Road
Nanuet, NY 10954
Telephone: (845) 627-8500
- and -
Gregory A. Blue, Esq.
LACHTMAN COHEN P.C.
245 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (646) 838-4046
A & W CONCENTRATE: Dailey Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE DAILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. A & W CONCENTRATE
COMPANY and KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02732-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"All persons who purchased A&W Root Beer and/or A&W Cream
Soda in California, for their own use and not for resale,
at any time between April 20, 2016 to March 1, 2021;"
Excluded from the Class are: governmental entities;
Defendants; any entity in which 12 have a controlling
interest; Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates,
legal representatives, employees, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns; and any judge, justice,
judicial officer, or judicial staff presiding over this
matter and the members of their 15 families.
The Class will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq. (UCL);
the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code sections 17500 et seq. (FAL); and the California
Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 1750 et seq.
(CLRA).
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint (1) Plaintiff
Steve Dailey as the class representative on all claims and (2)
Reese LLP and Sheehan & Associates, P.C. as co-lead class counsel.
A&W Concentrate Company and Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. manufacture,
market, and sell "root beer" and "cream soda" carbonated soft
drinks under the A&W brand ("Products"). The Plaintiff brings this
action against Defendants for their violations of California
consumer protection laws.
Starting around 2009, the Defendants uniformly marketed and
prominently labeled the Products with the phrase "Made With Aged
Vanilla." Over 80% of purchasers of the Products interpret the
phrase "Made With Aged Vanilla" to mean that the Products' vanilla
flavor comes mainly from real vanilla, i.e., vanilla extract from
the vanilla plant.
The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants marketed the Products with the phrase "Made With Aged
Vanilla" displayed prominently on the front of every package, can,
and bottle. According to Plaintiff's expert witness, over 80% of
purchasers of the Products interpret the phrase "Made With Aged
Vanilla" to mean that the Products' vanilla flavor comes mainly
from real vanilla, i.e., vanilla extract from the vanilla plant.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nAZbOQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93 Street, 16 Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY ork
Telephone: (516) 2340-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
A-LIST MARKETING: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in McGowan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN MCGOWAN v. A-LIST
MARKETING SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-01134-CJC-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order
as follows:
1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed by October 7, 2022. Discovery motions must be
filed and heard prior to this date.
2. The parties shall have until December 6, 2022 to file and
have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
amend the pleadings.
3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, February 7,
2023 at 03:00 PM.
4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, February 15,
2023 at 08:30 AM.
5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 − Private
Mediation.
-- The parties shall have until October 21, 2022 to
conduct settlement proceedings.
-- The parties shall file with the Court a Joint Status
Report no later than five days after the ADR proceeding
is completed advising the Court of their settlement
efforts and status.
6. The Plaintiff shall have until May 10, 2022 to file and
have heard any class certification motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bmX4bS at no extra charge.[CC]
A3 SMART HOME: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A3 SMART HOME, LP, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01797-SPL (D. Ariz., October 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed prerecorded calls
and message alerts to the Plaintiff's voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) phone number without obtaining prior express written
consent. The Defendant continued to place misguided robocalls to
the Plaintiff's VoIP number despite her requests to stop it. Due to
the Defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Plaintiff's
requests to cease the misguided robocalls, she was forced to retain
counsel and file this action to compel the Defendant to cease its
invasive robocalls.
A3 Smart Home, LP is a company that specializes in home security
systems with its principal place of business in San Ramon,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
ADAMS & ASSOCIATES: Initial Approval of Foster Settlement Deal OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL FOSTER, et al., v.
ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02723-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an
order granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement as follows:
1. modifying the class definition as follows:
"All participants of the Adams and Associates ESOP from
October 25, 2012 to December 31, 2020 who vested under the
terms of the Plan and those participants' beneficiaries;"
Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate
family, any fiduciary of the Plan; the officers and
directors of Adams and Associates or of any entity in
which a Defendant has a controlling interest; and legal
representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
excluded persons;"
2. appointing RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as the
Settlement Administrator for providing Class Notice and
otherwise assisting in administration of the Settlement;
3. directing the Settlement Administrator, within 21-days of
the date of this Order, to provide notice to the class in
accordance with the Notice Plan;
4. directing the Settlement Administrator, within 30-days of
the mailing of Notice, to file a declaration attaching a
copy of the Notice ultimately sent to the class and
describing the notice process;
5. directing Class Counsel to file a motion for attorneys'
fees and costs by December 2, 2021;
-- The deadline for class members to object to the
Settlement Agreement and/or Class Counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees and costs shall be 60-days after the
initial mailing of the Notice;
6. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with an
affidavit regarding indemnification and a draft revised
SPD by January 6, 2022; and
7. directing the Plaintiff shall file their Motion for Final
Approval by January 13, 2022.
Adams and Associates provides academic and vocational training
services to approximately 11,000 participants a year.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vW1nEA at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: To Produce Internal DNC List in Hossfeld Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on behalf of a class
of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-7091 (N.D.
Ill.), Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted
Plaintiff Hossfeld's motion to compel Allstate to produce its do
not call list.
Introduction
The putative class action alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (specifically, 47 U.S.C. Section
227(c)(5)) based on Defendant Allstateor entities on its behalf
placing unsolicited telephone calls to individuals on its do not
call list ("DNC list").
Mr. Hossfeld alleges that between Nov. 11, 2020 and Nov. 24, 2020,
he received at least 11 telephone calls to his cellular phone from
Allstate or on behalf of Allstate to advertise and sell Allstate
goods and services. Hossfeld claims that he also received a call on
Allstate's behalf on Feb. 8, 2021, after this lawsuit was filed. He
alleges that he did not provide prior express invitation,
permission, or consent for these calls.
Hossfeld's SAC alleges two types of violations of the TCPA internal
do-not-call rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d), against Allstate:
(1) failure to properly identify the caller (Count I) and (2)
failure to maintain or institute sufficient policies to prevent
calls to consumers after demands to stop (Count II).
Counts I and II are brought as class actions. The proposed classes
include:
a. Failure to Identify Class: All persons in the United States
(i) to whom more than one call was made within a twelve-month
period for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Allstate
goods or services (including to find a marketing lead for Allstate
goods or services), (ii) to a residential telephone number, (iii)
where the caller did not inform the recipient that the call was
made in order to try to sell Allstate goods or services, and (iv)
such call was made at any time on or after a date four years prior
to filing of this action. The Plaintiff alleges a subclass of calls
that satisfy the above criteria, and where the call was
disconnected by the caller before a live person came onto the
caller's end of the line. (e.g., a dead air call).
b. Internal DNC Class: All persons in the United States (i) to
whom more than one call was made for the purpose of encouraging the
purchase of Allstate goods or services (including to find a
marketing lead for Allstate goods or services) in any twelve-month
period since the date four years prior to the filing of this
action, (ii) to a residential telephone number, (iii) where the
phone number was on Allstate's do-not-call list at the time of at
least one such call.
Allstate asserts a number of affirmative defenses, including that
it did not make the calls to Hossfeld and did not have sufficient
control over the third-parties who made the calls to establish
vicarious liability, its policies and practices with respect to
telemarketing have been in compliance with the TCPA, and Hossfeld
and/or members of the putative class consented to receive the
telephone calls alleged in the SAC. The parties are currently
engaged in fact discovery, and Hossfeld has not yet move for class
certification.
Discussion
Mr. Hossfeld's discovery requests to Allstate included Document
Request No. 9, which seeks production of Allstate's "internal Do
Not Call list, and all data associated therewith (e.g., dates
numbers were added, by whom, etc.)." Hossfeld's motion to compel is
limited to only Allstate's internal DNC list. Allstate objects that
its internal DNC list is not relevant to Hossfeld's claims and
Hossfeld's request is premature and therefore not proportional to
the needs of the case at this time. Allstate also suggests that
production of the internal DNC list should be denied because of
privacy concerns.
Allstate asserts that its internal do not call list is not relevant
to Hossfeld's "individual" claims for three reasons: (1) Allstate
does not contest that Hossfeld was on its internal DNC list; (2)
during at least one of the calls at issue, Hossfeld consented to
being transferred to an Allstate agent despite his number being
registered on Allstate's internal DNC call list; and (3) the owner
of the telemarketing vendor that made the calls at issue testified
that he did not coordinate internal DNC lists with Allstate.
Mr. Hossfeld responds that Allstate's internal DNC list is relevant
to numerosity, standing and class membership, and to determine
whether Allstate coordinates internal DNC lists with vendors that
telemarket on its behalf.
Judge Harjani finds Allstate's objections unavailing and thus
overruled. As an initial matter, he finds that Allstate's argument
that Hossfeld should not be permitted to obtain information
relevant to his class claims at this time is without merit. Merit
and class fact discovery are not bifurcated in the case and thus,
there is only one fact stage of discovery, which closes on Dec. 30,
2021. Given that the Court has not bifurcated merits and class
discovery, the fact that the internal DNC list is relevant to the
class certification inquiry or even to a later standing
determination of which the class members have suffered a
redressable injury does not make it disproportional to the needs of
the case or otherwise improper at this time. As a result, Judge
Harjani overrules Allstate's argument that discovery of the
internal DNC list is premature and that production of the requested
list must wait until after a class certification motion is
pending.
Judge Harjani next finds that Allstate's internal DNC list is
relevant in three ways to Hossfeld's claims in the case. First, the
internal DNC list is clearly relevant to the numerosity element of
the class certification analysis because it will allow Hossfeld to
determine how many calls were made to unique phone numbers that
were on Allstate's internal DNC list during the class period and
thus, determine the number of potential class members. Second, the
internal DNC list is relevant as it may be necessary to establish
Article III standing and class membership. Third, the internal DNC
list is relevant to Hossfeld's claim that Allstate's procedures for
coordinating internal DNC lists among Allstate and its vendors and
subvendors are inadequate.
Allstate's second objection to producing its internal DNC list is
based on privacy concerns because the list contains identifying
information regarding persons who are potential class members.
However, Allstate has failed to articulate how these privacy
interests outweigh Hossfeld's need for disclosure of relevant
information. Because the identity of potential class members is
"relevant to Rule 23 issues and is needed for the class
certification proceedings" as well as standing considerations and
compliance with 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d), Judge Harjani rejects
Allstate's suggestion that its internal DNC list should not be
produced because it would violate the privacy interests of
potential class members.
Finally, Judge Harjani notes that Hossfeld did not respond directly
to Allstate's privacy argument. While there is no indication in the
record that Hossfeld's counsel intends to use the internal DNC list
in this manner, he believes the most prudent course at this stage
in the case is to grant Hossfeld's motion to compel Allstate's
internal DNC list with the following limitations to protect the
privacy interests of the potential class members and to address any
concerns related to contacting putative class members: (1)
Allstate's internal DNC list will be treated as confidential under
the parties' Agreed Confidentiality Order and (2) Hossfeld and his
counsel are prohibited from: (a) contacting any person appearing on
Allstate's internal DNC list unless and until a class is certified
and (b) from using Allstate's internal DNC list for any purpose in
the event that a class is not certified.
To the extent Hossfeld or his counsel have any relevant reason for
communicating with putative class members prior to certification,
he may file an appropriate motion. At that time, the Court will
balance the "important competing concerns" and make a "clear record
and specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a
limitation and the potential interference with the right of the
parties."
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Harjani granted the Plaintiff's
motion to compel Allstate's internal DNC list with the limitations
set forth. Allstate is ordered to produce its internal DNC list.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/32jcdn47 from
Leagle.com.
AMARIN CORPORATION: Thornton Law Reminds of Dec. 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Amarin Corporation plc
(NASDAQ: AMRN). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased AMRN securities between December 5, 2018
and June 21, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Amarin for more
information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
The case alleges that Amarin and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
there was an increasingly high risk that certain of Amarin's
patents would be invalidated; (ii) once the District Court
invalidated certain of Amarin's patents, there was little to no
chance of reversing that ruling; (iii) Amarin's litigation was
preventing it from effectuating a successful takeover; and (iv)
Amarin was downplaying the true threat the ongoing ANDA litigation
posed to the Company's business and future prospects.
A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members
in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a lead
plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose to
take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class
has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors
are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not
currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Amarin
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Jackson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AMAZON.COM, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-2365-WQH-BGS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San
Diego.
On Feb. 19, 2021, Plaintiff Jackson filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FAC") against Defendant Amazon. In the FAC, the
Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of the Amazon Flex program --
"a program by which Amazon pays regular people to deliver
packages." He alleges that he and many of the other approximately
800 Flex drivers joined "closed" or private Facebook groups to
discuss "a myriad of issues surrounding their employment,"
including strikes, protests, pay, benefits, deliveries, working
conditions, and unionizing efforts. He alleges that he has been a
member of closed Facebook groups for Flex drivers since 2016. The
Plaintiff alleges that he has communicated with other Flex drivers
in the closed Facebook groups and "believed he was only
communicating with other Flex Drivers." He alleges that Defendant
Amazon "has been secretly monitoring and wiretapping these closed
Facebook groups." The Plaintiff alleges that Amazon has created an
"Advocacy Operations Social Listening Team" to "monitor and/or
intercept" posts to closed Facebook groups "in real time using
automated monitoring tools." He alleges that his posts were tracked
and intercepted by Amazon without his consent.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all Flex Drivers in
the United States who were members of the closed Facebook groups,
and whose electronic communications were intercepted by the
Defendant." He further seeks to represent a subclass of "all Class
members in the State of California who were members of the closed
Facebook groups, and whose electronic communications were
intercepted by Defendant" ("California Subclass").
The Plaintiff brings the following claims on behalf of himself, the
Class, and the California Subclass: 1) interception and disclosure
of wire, oral, or electronic communications in violation of the
federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510, et seq.; 2)
manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire,
oral, or electronic communication interception devices in violation
of the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2512; and 3)
violation of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2701, et seq.
The Plaintiff brings the following claims on behalf of himself and
California Subclass: 1) violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code Section 631; 2) violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code Section 635; 3)
intrusion upon seclusion; and 4) invasion of privacy under the
California Constitution.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, damages, including punitive
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
On March 16, 2021, Defendant Amazon filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, to Stay. Amazon moved
to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims on an individual
basis pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C.
Section 1, et seq., or Delaware law. It further moved to stay or
dismiss any remaining claims.
On April 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion
to Compel Arbitration. On April 26, 2021, Amazon filed a Reply. On
Aug. 3, 2021, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Compel
Arbitration.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 30, 2021, Judge
William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, to Stay.
The Defendant seeks a review of the order in an appellate case
captioned Drickey Jackson v. AMAZON.COM, Inc., Case No. 21-56107,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed
on Oct. 13, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by November 12, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on December 13, 2021;
-- Appellant Amazon.com, Inc. opening brief is due on Jan. 20,
2022;
-- Appellee Drickey Jackson answering brief is due on Feb. 22,
2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant AMAZON.COM, INC. is represented by:
Taylor C. Day, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
- and -
Joseph Duffy, Esq.
Brianna Ricque Howard, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2508
E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
- and -
Michael E. Kenneally, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Plaintiff-Appellee DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7165
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
AMAZON.COM INC: E.D. California Dismisses Caudel Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Amanda Caudel, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00848-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly
J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted Amazon's motion to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit and her
contract-based claims are non-cognizable.
Background
In April 2020, Caudel filed the putative class action against
Defendant Amazon for violation of California consumer laws by
allowing customers to purchase electronic media content at a higher
fee than rented content, when the purchased content might become
unavailable to the consumer at a later date.
Amazon is a large online retailer that provides many services,
including the ability to rent and purchase video content through
"Prime Video," a component of its company website. Caudel is a
consumer who has purchased video content via Prime Video. She
resides in Fairfield, California. Amazon is a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.
Ms. Caudel alleges Amazon charges around $10 less for renting
electronic video content rather than purchasing it. According to
the complaint, if a consumer purchases video content by clicking
the "buy" button, the content is instantly available in the
consumer's library without the purchaser's needing to accept any
terms or conditions. A consumer can access her purchased video
content by navigating to the "Video Purchases & Rentals" page,
which includes a collection of all the consumer's purchased and
rented content.
Ms. Caudel also alleges Amazon fraudulently represents to its
customers that purchased video content will be available
indefinitely. She maintains that the terms "buy" and "purchase"
suggest the consumer has "full access to the Video Content, and
like any bought product, that access cannot be revoked." According
to the complaint, this representation is misleading because access
to certain purchases of video content can be revoked by either
Amazon or a third party. Amazon allegedly misleads consumers who
would not agree to the higher fee if they understood that purchased
video content might disappear from their digital libraries at some
point in the future. Caudel contends she was not informed about
this potential revocation of her access to video content when she
clicked the "purchase" button.
According to an affidavit submitted by an Amazon litigation
paralegal attached to Amazon's motion to dismiss, Caudel signed up
for an Amazon account in 2016, has purchased 36 videos, and each
remains available to her. Amazon contends Caudel also purchased "13
non-rental purchases of digital content" after the lawsuit was
filed. Caudel's access to her purchased videos has not been
revoked. Caudel does not contest this representation.
Ms. Caudel brings three claims on behalf of the putative class: (1)
a violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (2) a
violation of the state's False Advertising Law and (3) a violation
of the state's Unfair Competition Law. Compl., paragraphs 39-87;
Civ. Code Section 1750; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500,
17200.
Amazon moves to dismiss on the basis plaintiff does not allege
standing or a cognizable legal theory. Both parties also submitted
notices of supplemental authority. Because the question of standing
is dispositive, Judge Mueller addresses only that issue.
Analysis
Ms. Caudel includes language in her complaint that she has
"received a product worth less than its actual value." But taking
account of her factual allegations and bearing in the mind the
plausibility standard, Judge Mueller holds that the Plaintiff
pleads at most "a potential risk" of losing video content, which is
"not concrete and particularized" as to herself. Her videos remain
in her library, and her access has never been revoked.
The allegations in the complaint also do not sufficiently allege an
"actual or imminent" risk, Judge Mueller finds. Risk of future harm
that is too speculative does not support Article III standing. On
these allegations, Judge Mueller cannot find Caudel successfully
pleads an injury-in-fact as she has not demonstrated she has
overpaid for the videos she purchased nor is she in imminent danger
of losing a video from her library.
The Plaintiffs are however granted leave to amend. If Caudel is
able to plead she has lost access to her video content or is facing
an imminent risk of losing access to her purchased video content,
she may amend the complaint to allege as much within 30 days.
Alternatively, another lead plaintiff may be identified who has
been injured personally and can plead "not that injury has been
suffered only by other, unidentified members of the class to which
they belong and which they purport to represent."
Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Mueller granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30
days, if they are able to do so while complying with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11. The Order resolves ECF No. 14.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/46jnjm3p from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Judge Dismisses California Consumer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Toth, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
California judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against
Amazon, saying the plaintiff lacks standing to sue, according to
the dismissal.
In April 2020, Amanda Caudel filed a putative class action against
Amazon.com, Inc. for violation of California consumer laws by
allowing customers to purchase electronic media content at a higher
fee than rented content when the purchased content might become
unavailable to the consumer at a later date.
However, Caudel signed up for an Amazon account in 2016, has
purchased 36 videos and each remains available to her. Her access
has never been revoked, according to the court document.
"Here there is only one jurisdictional fact the court need
consider, and that is the undisputed fact that Caudel has never
lost access to any of the videos she purchased," the dismissal
states.
Class Action Alleged Amazon Could Revoke Access to Purchased
Videos
In the lawsuit, Caudel said she purchased a video through Amazon
because, due to the wording and advertisements used by Amazon, she
believed she would have unlimited access to it. However, Caudel
argued that Amazon could take away her access to purchased videos
at any time.
The lawsuit noted that the online retailer offers customers the
opportunity to either rent or buy a video through its streaming
service. Allegedly, Amazon advertises that customers who rent a
video will have access to the video for a limited amount of time
and charges a lower price for this service. It then offers the
additional option to buy a video for a higher price with the
assumption that the customer will have unlimited access to the
video.
According to Caudel, Amazon advertises this distinction and uses
the promise of unlimited access to entice customers into
purchasing, as opposed to just renting, a video for a higher price
when, in reality, it reserves the right to terminate the customer's
access to and use of the video, the lawsuit states.
The plaintiff claimed that Amazon misleads customers about the
reality of what it means to "purchase" a video through the site.
Allegedly, the company is aware that customers will believe that
purchasing a video gives them unlimited access to it because that
is the usual understanding of the word "buy."
Caudel and other customers were financially injured by Amazon's
practice of using misleading wording around video access, the
lawsuit stated. She and other customers might not have purchased
access to videos, or would not have paid as much for them, if they
had known that their access to the videos could be revoked at any
time.
She also said that Amazon was unjustly enriched by its sale of the
videos and pricing around them because if Amazon had not engaged in
the deceptive sales practices, the company would not have made as
much money as it did from these sales.
Caudel is represented by Michael R. Reese, Carlos F. Ramirez and
George V. Granade of Reese LLP and by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates PC.
The Amazon Video Purchase Class Action Lawsuit is Amanda Caudel v.
Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:20-at-00409, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.[GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Alexa Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action accusing Amazon.com Inc.'s Alexa of snooping on users
should be dismissed because consumers consented to recordings
during the registration process, the e-commerce giant is arguing in
Washington federal court.
Customers consented to recording to provide, personalize, and
improve the Alexa service, and the terms disclose that Amazon
retains recordings, the company argued in a motion to dismiss filed
on Oct. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
Attorneys representing plaintiff Kaeli Garner and the proposed
class didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN]
AMERICAN SOLAR: Bid to Substitute Class Rep in O'Shea Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE ESTATE OF KERRY O'SHEA, through SHARLENE O'SHEA,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AMERICAN SOLAR SOLUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No.:
14cv894-L-RBB (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Substitute the Estate of Kerry O'Shea
for the named and Deceased Class Representative Kerry O'Shea.
Background
The case is a class action alleging the Defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227
et seq., by using an automatic telephone dialer system ("ATDS") to
place telemarketing calls to cell phones. The Defendant is in the
business of selling solar energy equipment to residential and
commercial customers.
To market its products and services, the Defendant used a ViciDial
predictive dialer to contact phone numbers uploaded into the
dialer. The Defendant purchased these telephone numbers from
several different companies that sell lists of phone numbers that
connect to members of a population meeting certain demographic
criteria. Per the Plaintiff's expert's report, the Defendant made
897,534 calls to 220,007 different cell phone numbers. The
Defendant has no evidence indicating any of the alleged call
recipients provided prior express consent to receive these calls.
The Defendant placed 15 calls to named Plaintiff Kerry O'Shea's
("Plaintiff") cell phone. The Plaintiff was appointed class
representative of the litigation on March 2, 2017. On the same day,
class certification was granted by the Court for the following
class: "All individuals in the United States who were called by or
on behalf of Defendant; using the ViciDial predictive dialer; on a
cellular telephone number, between Nov. 22, 2012 and Aug. 22,
2015."
Kerry O'Shea passed away intestate on Aug. 11, 2019, in Sausalito,
California. Sharlene O'Shea is the sole beneficiary of her late
husband's estate and brings the instant motion seeking substitution
of the Estate of Kerry O'Shea, through Sharlene O'Shea, as the
Class Representative.
Discussion
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), the court may
order substitution of the proper party "if a party dies and the
claim is not extinguished." If the court determines that a party
has met the requirements of Rule 25, "the substituted party steps
into the same position as [the] original party." "In deciding a
motion to substitute under Rule 25(a)(1), a court must consider
whether: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the claims pled are
extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper
party." When a party is substituted in a class action, a court must
also determine whether the new party meets the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) and (4).
Judge Lorenz finds that the requirements of Rule 25(a) have been
met. First, the motion was timely filed. Next, substitution may be
made by a successor only if the claim is not extinguished by the
death of the named party and the issue of survivability is a matter
of federal law. Courts which have examined the survivability of
TCPA claims have determined that because the TCPA is a remedial
statute, claims under this statute are not extinguished by a
plaintiff's death. Finally, the Estate of Kerry O'Shea, through
Sharlene O'Shea, is the proper party for substitution.
Judge Lorenz further finds that Sharlene O'Shea, as the
representative of the Estate of Kerry O'Shea, meets the typicality
and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). There is also no
indication that substitution of the Estate of Kerry O'Shea through
Sharlene O'Shea in place of Kerry O'Shea will change the vigor with
which the parties will continue to litigate the case.
Conclusion
Judge Lorenz finds that Sharlene O'Shea acting through the Estate
of Kerry O'Shea satisfies the requirements of both Rule 25(a) and
the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). He grants
the Motion to Substitute the Estate of Kerry O'Shea for the Named
and Deceased Class Representative Kerry O'Shea.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/b4wm4n4 from Leagle.com.
ANTHEM INC: Prosthetic Device Coverage Expanded, Class Action Ended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Anthem Inc. has expanded its coverage
of computerized knee and foot-ankle prosthetic devices, ending a
class action challenging its treatment of these devices as
investigational and unnecessary, settlement papers filed in
California federal court show.
The deal, announced Wednesday, provides "substantially all of the
relief requested" in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
lawsuit, plaintiffs Lacy Atzin and Mark Andersen said in their
motion for preliminary settlement approval. Anthem has agreed to
cover microprocessor-controlled knee and foot-ankle prosthetics if
certain criteria are met, and it's agreed "not to change its
position unless such change is warranted by a change in the medical
literature," according to paperwork filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
The deal, which is expected to benefit more than 100 people, also
allows class members who paid out-of-pocket for their prosthetic
devices to resubmit their claims to Anthem if they haven't already
been reimbursed by other insurance or Medicare.
The lawsuit accuses Anthem of refusing to cover computerized
prosthetic devices for knees, feet, and ankles on the grounds that
they're not medically necessary. The patients say Anthem
incorrectly treated these devices as "investigational," despite
them being accepted by the medical community and routinely
prescribed for patients with limb loss.
The lawsuit is pending before Judge Otis D. Wright II, who
certified the case as a class action in 2020.
The patients are represented by Gianelli & Morris ALC and Doyle
Law, which stand to receive $850,000 in attorneys' fees if the deal
is approved.
Reed Smith LLP represents Anthem.
The case is Atzin v. Anthem, Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 2:17-cv-06816,
motion for preliminary settlement approval 10/20/21.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jacklyn Wille in Washington
at jwille@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Patrick L. Gregory at
pgregory@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
APEX BUSINESS: Romalachon Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANA ROMALACHON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-018649 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct.,
October 8, 2021) is a class action brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, Verizon, and the Plaintiff involving the provision of
personal services. The Defendant was tasked to collect the
Plaintiff's alleged debt. Subsequently, the Defendant sent a
collection letter to the Plaintiff dated August 26, 2021. However,
the Defendant does not possess a valid Consumer Collection Agency
license with the Florida Department of State to lawfully collect
debts from Florida consumers. Thus, the Defendant's collection
activities against the Plaintiff constitute a criminal misdemeanor
under the Florida law, says the suit.
Apex Business Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
APPHARVEST INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of AppHarvest, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of APPH during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/appharvest-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=20527&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: May 17, 2021 to August 10, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AppHarvest lacked sufficient
training for its recently expanded labor force; (2) as a result,
the Company could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently;
(3) as a result, the Company's financial results would be adversely
impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
DEADLINE: November 23, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/appharvest-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=20527&from=5
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of APPH during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is November 23, 2021. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Digital Content
---------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that a new Class Action has been filed in
the District Court for the Western District of New York, Buffalo
Division, against Apple by Trenise McTyere and Lucille Clark for
misleading consumers into believing it is selling them Digital
Content on iTunes, even though it is only providing them with a
license. The complaint further notes that "when a licensing
agreement terminates for whatever reason, Apple is required to pull
the Digital Content from the consumers' Purchased Folder and it
does so without prior warning to the consumer.
Causes for Action
Count 1: VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL Section 349
Count 2: VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL Section 350
Count 3: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Introduction
According to the formal complaint filed with the court, "Apple Inc.
("Defendant" or "Apple") is one of the world's largest computer and
phone manufacturers and retailers, and includes among its myriad
services the option for consumers to Rent or Buy movies, television
shows, music and other media (the "Digital Content") for a fee.
Defendant sells movies ("Movie Content"), shows ("Show Content")
and music ("Music Content," and together with Movie Content and
Show Content, "Digital Content.") via the iTunes store and related
applications or "apps." Some of the Digital Content is also
available for "Rent."
Consumers can purchase Digital Content by clicking on a "Buy"
button. Once bought, the Digital Content is housed in a "Purchased
Folder."
Except for content Defendant owns outright, the Digital Content
purported to be sold on iTunes is licensed to Apple by the Digital
Content's owner. These licensing arrangements mean that, unlike in
a true sale, Defendant can never pass title to the purchasing
consumer. Accordingly, when a licensing agreement terminates for
whatever reason, Defendant is required to pull the Digital Content
from the consumers' Purchased Folder and it does so without prior
warning to the consumer.
In other words, unlike a Best Buy or Target store that obtains
title from a Digital Content's owner, which it then passes on to a
purchaser for value, Defendant's licensing arrangements prevent it
from ever doing so. Moreover, Defendant's sale of Digital Content
that it does not own is made more egregious because, as
demonstrated below, Apple charges just as much for it as (or even
more than) the store that actually passes title of Digital Content
to consumers, which access can never be revoked.
Thus, Defendant is misleading consumers into believing it is
selling them Digital Content, even though it is only providing them
with a license. Defendant likely misrepresents its "sale"
transactions for one reason: if it called the transaction what it
really is, some type of sublicensing arrangement, it could not
charge nearly as much as it charges for the Digital Content by
misrepresenting to consumers that is a sale.
Defendant's material misrepresentations relating to its "sale" of
Digital Content has caused Plaintiffs and the Class (as defined
below) members to sustain damages by overpayment of content they
can never own." [GN]
APPLE INC: Updates App Store Guidelines in Response to Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chance Miller at 9to5mac.com reports that Apple is announcing a
trio of updates to the App Store Guidelines today that focuses on
giving developers more flexibility for communicating with their
customers. One of the changes specifically comes to address Apple's
settlement in a class-action lawsuit from small developers in the
US, first announced back in August.
As background, Apple promised a handful of small App Store changes
back in August as part of its settlement with small developers in
the United States. One of the most notable changes announced at the
time was that developers would be able to communicate outside of
their applications about alternatives to Apple's in-app purchase
system.
In line with this settlement, Apple says that it is updating
guideline 3.1.3 to remove its previous restriction on using
customer communication information obtained with an application to
communicate outside the application about payment methods other
than in-app purchase. Apple says this update satisfies the terms of
the settlement.
Here is the wording of guideline 3.1.3 prior to today's update
(emphasis ours):
The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app
purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage
users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.
Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target
individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other
than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email
about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for
an account within the app). Developers can send communications
outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods
other than in-app purchase.
And here is the wording of guideline 3.1.3 following today's
revision:
The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app
purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage
users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.
Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user
base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
To go along with this update, Apple is also adding a new guideline
saying that apps may request basic contact information from users,
with some restrictions:
Apps may request basic contact information (such as name and email
address) so long as the request is optional for the user, features
and services are not conditional on providing the information, and
it complies with other provisions of these guidelines, including
limitations on collecting information from kids.
In practice, this means that developers will be able to collect
contact information from users (as long as it's not required), then
use that contact information to communicate outside of their
application (such as with email), about more purchase and payment
options that are perhaps cheaper than in-app options.
It's important to keep in mind that changes are solely in response
to the class-action lawsuit from US developers that Apple settled
in August. These changes do not put Apple in compliance with the
Epic Games ruling or the ruling from the Japan Fair Trade
Commission. While the Epic Games case is being appealed, Apple says
that it will update its App Store guidelines to accommodate the
JFTC ruling in early 2022.
Apple is also making tweaks to the App Store guidelines to
accommodate In-App Events, as we reported earlier this week. You
can read the full App Store Review Guidelines on Apple's Developer
website here. [GN]
AT&T MOBILITY: Naming of Interim Counsel in Razo Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the
Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel be granted.
Introduction
The Plaintiff seeks the appointment of his counsel,
Bradley/Grombacher, LLP, as the interim class counsel in the action
in order to protect the rights of the putative class members. The
Plaintiff charges a competing action, Wallack, et al. v. AT&T
Mobility, Case No. CIVSB2117915, San Bernardino Superior Court, is
a reverse auction aimed at "gutting this case" thus necessitating
the appointment of the interim Class counsel to protect the rights
of the putative class. Attached to the Motion is the supporting
declaration of Attorney Kiley L. Grombacher. The Plaintiff also
submits a request for judicial notice. Defendant AT&T filed an
Opposition to the Motion. The Plaintiff filed a Reply. The matter
is fully briefed.
As noted, the Plaintiff's primary concern for seeking appointment
of interim class counsel is to protect the rights of the putative
class in light of the proposed settlement pending the Wallack
action, which the Plaintiff submits is "a clandestine and collusive
proposed reverse auction settlement.
The Defendant prefaces its opposition by lodging an attack on the
counsel's motive in moving for appointment as interim class
counsel. It argues Plaintiff produces no "evidence that Wallack
threatens the putative class's interests" and contends Plaintiff's
counsel let the instant case go stagnant. It further states it had
no obligation to disclose the Wallack matter to the Plaintiff and
indeed elected not to disclose the case to him to "avoid the
appearance of a reverse auction." Finally, the Defendant argues
appointment of interim counsel violates principles of comity and
federalism when appointing class counsel "for several related but
unconsolidated class actions."
Background
The putative class action was initiated on Aug. 27, 2019 in the
Superior Court of California in and for Madera County by counsel
from the firm Bradley/Grombacher, LLP on behalf of Plaintiff Luis
M. Salas Razo. The named Plaintiff, Luis M. Salas Razo, is a former
hourly, non-exempt employee of the Defendant who worked at an AT&T
mobility store in Madera, California, as a sales representative for
eleven years until his employment was terminated in June 2018.
On Jan. 31, 2020, Defendant AT&T removed the case to the Court.
Until Oct. 14, 2021, the Plaintiff was is proceeding on his Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC"), filed on July 30, 2020, which sets forth
the following six causes of action: (1) failure to pay wages for
all hours worked; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to
pay all wages due at termination of employment; (4) failure to
provide timely, accurate wage statements; (5) violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq.,
and (6) civil penalties for violation of California Labor Code
Sections 2698, et. seq.
The Plaintiff asserts the primary claim in this putative class
action challenges AT&T's failure to pay meal and rest period
premiums at the employee's regular rate which was recently decided
by the California Supreme Court on July 15, 2021 in Ferra v. Lowes
Hollywood, LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 858 (2021).
On Aug. 13, 2020, Defendant AT&T moved to dismiss the SAC or
alternatively stay the action. The Plaintiff timely opposed the
motion to dismiss on Aug. 25, 2020. Defendant AT&T filed its reply
on Sept. 8, 2020. On Oct. 14, 2021, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay in its entirety and permitted
the Plaintiff 30 days to file a Third Amended Complaint to address
the issue of a prayer for damages in connection with his wage
statement claim. The Plaintiff promptly filed his Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC") maintaining the same six-claims alleged in the
SAC but amending the prayer for relief.
Judicial Notice
Initially, Judge Barch-Kuchta addresses the Plaintiff's request for
judicial notice. The Court may "judicially notice" facts and
documents that "can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." This
encompasses other court proceedings "if those proceedings have a
direct relation to matters at issue."
The Plaintiff requests the Court takes judicial notice of the
proceedings in Wallack. He submits the following state court
filings for the Court's judicial notice:
c. Exhibit A: the complaint in Wallack, et al. v. AT&T
Mobility (San Bernardino Superior Court (Case No. CIVSB2117915).
b. Exhibit B: the notice of motion for preliminary approval
and memorandum of points of authorities filed in the Wallack
action.
c. Exhibit C: the declaration of Edward J. Wynne (counsel for
the plaintiffs in the Wallack action) in support of the Wallack
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval. The Wallack Settlement
Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Wynne declaration. The
proposed class notice is attached as Exhibit A to the settlement
agreement.
d. Exhibit D: the declaration of Gregg Shavitz (counsel for
the plaintiffs in the Wallack action) in support of the Wallack
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval.
e. Exhibit E: the declaration of Plaintiff Samuel Wallack in
support of the Wallack plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.
f. Exhibit F: the declaration of Plaintiff Miguel Garcia in
support of the Wallack plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.
g. Exhibit G: the declaration of Plaintiff Marbella Baltazar
in support of the Wallack plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.
h. Exhibit H: the declaration of Plaintiff Gonzalo Nurena in
support of the Wallack plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.
i. Exhibit I: the declaration of Plaintiff Jonny Dagher in
support of the Wallack plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.
j. Exhibit J: the declaration of Plaintiff Sean Voight in
support of the Wallack plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval.
k. Exhibit K: the proposed order filed by the Wallack
plaintiffs in support of their motion for preliminary approval.
These documents' accuracy is self-evident, Judge Barch-Kuchta
finds. Accordingly, she takes judicial notice of these documents
filed in Wallack.
Discussion
Judge Barch-Kuchta holds that appointment of the interim class
counsel would not have the practical effect of enjoining the state
judicial proceeding. Instead, appointment of the interim class
counsel will help protect the interests of the putative class
identified in the case, not included in the Wallack complaint, but
apparently grouped in the settlement of the state court action.
Moreover, the instant case was pending in the Court before the
Wallack action was filed in state court.
Additionally, the Plaintiff provides specific estimates to support
its contention that the proposed $4 million Wallack settlement is
"grossly inadequate." Based upon credible facts alleged and the
exclusion of Razo from the Wallack settlement, Judge Barch-Kuchta
concludes the interests of the putative class may suffer if interim
class counsel is not appointed and this matter necessitates
appointment of interim class counsel.
Finding that appointment of interim class counsel is necessary
under the circumstances of the case, Judge Barch-Kuchta now turns
to whether Bradley/Grombacher, LLP is appropriate as class counsel.
Although Rule 23(g)(3) does not provide a standard for appointment
of interim counsel, courts consider the same factors in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1) applicable to choosing class
counsel as appropriate in appointing interim counsel.
It is undisputed that Bradley/Grombacher, LLP has experience
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
claims asserts in the litigation as evidenced by the declaration
filed in support of the instant motion. The uncontested declaration
supports the conclusion that the counsel is knowledge of the
applicable law. Bradley/Grombacher LLP is a firm compromised of
attorneys knowledgeable about wage and hour laws.
Attorney Grombacher has practiced law for approximately 15 years
and intensively in class action litigation for more than 11 years.
Ms. Grombacher's partner, Mr. Bradley, has litigated for 27 years
in all areas of class action and complex litigation. With their law
firm they have pursued and successfully reached resolution in
nearly 20 class action cases involving employment law claims.
Finally, the Plaintiff's counsel has already invested resources and
significant time in gathering evidence for the class members and
submit that they are consulting with an expert. Counsel voices an
eagerness to safeguard the rights of approximately 12,600 absent
class members potentially impacted by the Wallack settlement.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Barch-Kuchta recommends the
Plaintiff's Motion be granted and Bradley/Grombacher LLP be
appointed the interim class counsel for the putative class.
Recommendation
Accordingly, Judge Barch-Kuchta respectfully recommended that the
district court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Interim
Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within seven days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." Parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/2j4dmams from
Leagle.com.
AUSTRALIA: PM, Premiers Faces Class Action Over Vaccinations
------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Ransley, writing for News.com.au, reports that two law firms
have teamed up to demand the Prime Minister and state and territory
leaders stand outside the Polish Embassy and apologise for
"deceiving" Australians over vaccinations.
In a class action filed in the Federal Court, prominent anti-vaxxer
Monica Smit and five other applicants, represented by G & B Lawyers
and AFL Solicitors, are taking on the members of national cabinet.
All applicants are residents of Victoria or NSW and have been
subject to various lockdown measures or restrictions.
In addition to Ms Smit -- who spent 22 days in custody on remand
for allegedly organising anti-lockdown protests in Victoria and is
due to reappear in court next month– another applicant, John
Harding, works in construction and says he cannot return to his job
because he is unvaccinated.
Applicant Antoine Sandroussi says he "submitted himself to
vaccination" by way of coercion.
The applicants are demanding declarations from the leaders that the
national plan and state orders were "beyond power", the declaration
of a biosecurity emergency made in March 2021 was "void and was of
no effect", and Australians who received vaccinations "by
consequence of the national plan received them in circumstances
that amounted to an assault and battery".
Representatives are demanding Scott Morrison and individual state
and territory leaders "for the purposes of compensating the
plaintiff and the group members for the humiliation, aggravation
and degradation to which they were subjected by consequence of the
implementation of the national plan" convene outside the Polish
Embassy to apologise for their "behaviour".
The apology would recognise, among other things, their involvement
in the "rise of assaults and batteries across the nation", the
group says.
Two law firms have teamed up to demand the Prime Minister and state
and territory leaders stand outside the Polish Embassy and
apologise for "deceiving" Australians over vaccinations.
In a class action filed in the Federal Court, prominent anti-vaxxer
Monica Smit and five other applicants, represented by G & B Lawyers
and AFL Solicitors, are taking on the members of national cabinet.
All applicants are residents of Victoria or NSW and have been
subject to various lockdown measures or restrictions.
In addition to Ms Smit - who spent 22 days in custody on remand for
allegedly organising anti-lockdown protests in Victoria and is due
to reappear in court next month - another applicant, John Harding,
works in construction and says he cannot return to his job because
he is unvaccinated.
Applicant Antoine Sandroussi says he "submitted himself to
vaccination" by way of coercion.
The applicants are demanding declarations from the leaders that the
national plan and state orders were "beyond power", the declaration
of a biosecurity emergency made in March 2021 was "void and was of
no effect", and Australians who received vaccinations "by
consequence of the national plan received them in circumstances
that amounted to an assault and battery".
Representatives are demanding Scott Morrison and individual state
and territory leaders "for the purposes of compensating the
plaintiff and the group members for the humiliation, aggravation
and degradation to which they were subjected by consequence of the
implementation of the national plan" convene outside the Polish
Embassy to apologise for their "behaviour".
The apology would recognise, among other things, their involvement
in the "rise of assaults and batteries across the nation", the
group says.
The Polish Embassy was chosen because of protests by "Polish
government officials" outside the Australian embassy in Warsaw last
month against the "conduct of a totalitarian state".
But Australian and Polish fact checkers have confirmed the men at
the centre of the protest were not members of the government but
members of the far-right political party Konfederacja, which has a
history of sharing Covid-19 conspiracy theories and
misinformation.
In the statement of claim, Ms Smit and her fellow respondents claim
the federal and state governments implemented a "new world order"
and Australia's chief scientists were aware of, or should have
known, that Covid-19 vaccines were a "bioweapon" intended to
"occasion damage and injury upon the population of the world".
The legal team is crowdsourcing funding for the class action
through, asking for contributions for their "quest" to "reclaim
your freedom, your liberty, and your right to choose".
In a statement, AFL Solicitors say the contributions will go
towards "supporting Australians' capacity to have a choice without
political threats of medical apartheid if they choose to reject the
Covid-19 jab".
"The fundamental right to choose whether or not to have a jab or
any medical procedure should not be predicated on being compelled
or coerced under any circumstances," they wrote.
"The various governments of Australia appear to have dismantled all
common democratic processes and, in effect, used a health matter to
suspend the rule of law and implement far reaching policies without
parliamentary oversight.
"AFL Solicitors is seeking your help in joining legal action to end
lockdowns and restore the freedoms and rights of each Australia,
explicitly those matters relating to mandatory vaccinations and
restricted travels through LGAs."
The national class action comes off the back of Judge Robert
Beech-Jones dismissing two lawsuits in the NSW Supreme Court
challenging public health orders made by NSW Health Minister Brad
Hazzard, notably mandatory vaccines for some essential workers.
Nathan Buckley, of G & B Lawyers, who represented a number of
plaintiffs, has indicated his clients he will appeal and called for
donations to fund his case, which as of October 7 had accumulated
$420,000.
Constitutional law expert George Williams AO from UNSW said the
national class action -- like the NSW case -- was unlikely to
succeed.
"The powers being exercised by our governments are soundly based in
legislation enacted by the parliament. That legislation provides
the broadest possible powers and discretions for ministers to
impose health orders," he said. [GN]
AUTO SYSTEMS: Stephens Sues Over Assistant Managers' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEE STEPHENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO SYSTEMS CENTERS, INC. d/b/a MIDAS,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05131-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, October 27,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated assistant managers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek and failure to comply with recordkeeping provisions in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio's
Recordkeeping laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly assistant
manager at its facility in Chillicothe, Ohio from approximately
September 2020 until October 2021.
Auto Systems Centers, Inc., doing business as Midas, is an operator
of automotive service centers located in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Reset to Jan. 10, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order granting in part
and denying in part joint motion to set briefing schedule and
continue motion for class certification as follows:
1. Bank of America shall have up to and including November
15, 2021 to file its opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification;
2. Plaintiffs shall have up and including November 29, 2021
to file their reply; and
3. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
is reset from November 15, 2021 to January 10, 2022 at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5D.
No further extensions will be granted, the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jM4KsE at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYER AG: Investors Can Sue Over Monsanto Acquisition, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Bayer investors can sue the German pharma giant for misleading them
about the quality of its due diligence leading up to a
multibillion-dollar deal to acquire the beleaguered agrochemical
company Monsanto, a federal judge ruled late on Oct. 19.
The $63 billion deal was struck in 2016 and closed in June 2018,
even as Monsanto was mired in lawsuits over the carcinogenicity of
its signature weed killer Roundup.
A class action led by a cohort of pension funds claims Bayer forged
ahead with the Monsanto acquisition despite serious risks.
Just after the deal was finalized, a San Francisco Francisco jury
found Monsanto liable for $250 million in punitive damages in the
case brought by a school groundskeeper with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Two more adverse jury verdicts soon followed, each with whopping
punitive damages awards, and Bayer's American depositary receipts
plummeted.
Bayer announced a $10 billion global settlement in June 2020, but
U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria refused to approve it as to
future claims.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said he would allow the pension
funds to proceed with claims regarding Bayer's due diligence,
rejecting Bayer's assertion that the acquisition was a poor deal
only in retrospect.
"Plaintiffs have raised an inference that defendants knew their
statements were misleading, or were deliberately reckless to the
possibility," Seeborg wrote, adding, "The complaint alleges more
than that the Monsanto deal was bad in hindsight; instead, it
alleges that the defendants advanced in pursuit of the merger
despite being aware that acquiring Monsanto brought significant
risks, all the while assuring investors they had fully assessed
those risks themselves."
Seeborg also found that negative trial verdicts, the settlement
announcement and Chhabria's subsequent rejection all qualify as
developments that revealed the risks associated with the merger.
But Seeborg declined to advance the action entirely, nixing the
investors' claim that Bayer failed to account for litigation risks,
as company could not have reliably calculated the extent of its
potential losses with reasonable certainty.
He also found shareholders did not adequately plead that Bayer made
false statements regarding the safety of glyphosate, the active
ingredient in Roundup, which they claim Bayer represented as
non-carcinogenic.
In an emailed statement, Bayer said it disagreed with Seeborg's
decision and defended the acquisition.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision, which is a
preliminary ruling in the case, to allow certain allegations to
move forward. We believe the complaint failed to allege conduct and
related losses necessary to support this action under the law," the
company said. "Bayer and its leaders maintain that appropriate due
diligence was conducted regarding the Monsanto acquisition process
that ended with Bayer becoming sole owner of Monsanto on June 7,
2018. Reports by independent experts have confirmed that Bayer's
management conducted the acquisition in an appropriate manner and
in line with their duties.
"The court did narrow the claims in the case, including dismissing
without prejudice the allegations concerning the company's
statements on the safety of glyphosate," it continued. "The company
will continue to defend its conduct related to the transaction as
the case moves ahead." [GN]
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of December 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. ("BioMarin" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BMRN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-08254, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin securities between January
13, 2020 and September 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
BioMarin securities during the Class Period, you have until
December 22, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
BioMarin develops and commercializes therapies for people with
serious and life-threatening rare diseases and medical conditions.
The Company is developing, among other product candidates, BMN 307,
an AAV5 mediated gene therapy, which is in a phase 1/2 clinical
trial to normalize blood phenylalanine concentration levels in
patients with phenylketonuria ("PKU"). The Company's Phearless
Phase 1/2 study is evaluating BMN 307 in adults with PKU.
On November 7, 2018, BioMarin shared pre-clinical data of BMN 307,
which demonstrated lifetime Phe corrections in mouse models, and
announced that the Company was planning to file an investigational
new drug application ("IND") for BMN 307 with the United States
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in the second half of 2019. On
January 13, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA granted IND
status for BMN 307 for the treatment of PKU. On September 24, 2020,
the Company announced that it had dosed the first human participant
in the global Phearless Phase 1/2 study of BMN 307.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) BMN 307 was less safe than
BioMarin had led investors to believe; (ii) BMN 307's safety
profile made it likely that the FDA would place a clinical hold on
the Phearless Phase 1/2 study; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
overstated BMN 307's clinical and commercial prospects; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On September 5, 2021, BioMarin issued a press release announcing,
"that the [FDA] placed a clinical hold on the BMN 307 Phearless
Phase 1/2 study", which "is evaluating BMN 307, an investigational
AAV5-phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) gene therapy, in adults with
[PKU]." BioMarin advised investors that "[t]he FDA's clinical hold
was based on interim safety findings from a pre-clinical, non-GLP
pharmacology study."
On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $7.14 per share, or 8.4%,
to close at $77.81 per share on September 7, 2021, the next trading
day.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
BOB DEAN: Verdin FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANICE VERDIN, CATHERINE NAQUIN, MARY HELMER,
OLIVIA HELMERO, LAUREN HELMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BOB DEAN, JR.; MAISON DE'VILLE NURSING
HOME OF HARVEY, L.L.C., ST. ELIZABETH'S CARING, L.L.C., RACELAND
MANOR NURSING HOME, INC., MAISON DE'VILLE NURSING HOME, INC., RIVER
PALMS NURSING & REHAB, L.L.C., UPTOWN HEALTHCARE CENTER, L.L.C.,
BOB DEAN ENTERPRISES, INC., and LOUISIANA HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS,
L.L.C., Case No. 821-390, was removed from the Twenty-Fourth
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of
Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on October 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01976 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Maison De'Ville Nursing Home of Harvey, L.L.C. is a nursing home in
Harvey, Louisiana.
St. Elizabeth's Caring, L.L.C. is a health care provider located in
Harvey, Louisiana.
Raceland Manor Nursing Home, Inc. is an assisted living facility in
Raceland, Louisiana.
Maison De'Ville Nursing Home, Inc. is a nursing home in Harvey,
Louisiana.
River Palms Nursing & Rehab, L.L.C. is a nursing facility located
in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Uptown Healthcare Center, L.L.C. is a health care services provider
in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bob Dean Enterprises, Inc. is a nursing facility located in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
Louisiana Healthcare Consultants, L.L.C. is a health consultant in
Louisiana. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John T. Andrishok, Esq.
Vicki M. Crochet, Esq.
Lauren Rivera Hadden, Esq.
TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS L.L.P
450 Laurel Street, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 2471
Baton Rouge, LA
Telephone: (225) 387-3221
Facsimile: (225) 346-8049
E-mail: John.Andrishok@taylorporter.com
vicki.crochet@taylorporter.com
Lauren.Hadden@taylorporter.com
BT GROUP: Can't Appeal Class Action Over Landline-Only Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that UK BT has confirmed they will appeal the
preliminary ruling by the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), which
last month rejected the operator's attempts to stop a £600 million
(US$828.66 million) class action claim against the broadband and
phone operator - this related to the alleged overcharging of over 2
million landline-only customers.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal stated BT has "no real prospect" of
success and did not see why an appeal was necessary over its ruling
that the claim should proceed as an opt-out collective action.
However, the judge said the tribunal unanimously agreed that BT
must apply to the Court of Appeal to seek permission to challenge
the decision.
The lawsuit is a collective proceedings order authorising a claim
brought on behalf of 2.3 million Britons who used to have a BT
voice-only phone line. Yet included within the class of people
legally permitted to join the case are the deceased - or, rather,
their living "personal representatives."
Earlier this year the CAT ruled that former Ofcom man Justin Le
Patourel, the lead claimant, could proceed with his case against
the UK telecom after alleging it had abused its market dominance to
unfairly overcharge customers who bought standalone domestic phone
lines.[GN]
CABLECOM: Kistler Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN KISTLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CABLECOM, CABLECOM LLC, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG21108560, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
October 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-08258 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
CableCom is a network cabling and fiber optic construction company
based in Wisconsin.
CableCom LLC is a network cabling and fiber optic construction
company based in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
April A. Perkins, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com
april.perkins@ogletree.com
CANADA: CAF-DND Suit Settlement Claims Period to End on Nov. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Canada on Oct. 18 disclosed that the success of
the Defence Team and the missions of the CAF depend on the trust
and teamwork of military and civilian alike and that is directly
linked to the Defence workplace and culture. Sexual misconduct is
inconsistent with CAF-DND values and ethics and is a problem that
is being taken very seriously. This settlement is an important part
of this commitment.
The individual claims process component of the CAF-DND sexual
misconduct class action settlement is closing soon: the final day
to submit a claim is November 24, 2021. Current and former CAF
members, and current and former employees of DND and the SNPF, CF,
who experienced sexual misconduct in the military workplace may
submit a confidential claim for financial compensation and apply to
participate in a Restorative Engagement program.
The Final Settlement Agreement was approved by the Federal Court of
Canada in November 2019 and the claims process began on May 25,
2020. The Final Settlement Agreement applies to people who
experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, or discrimination
based on gender, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation while
serving in the CAF, working for DND, or for the Staff of the
Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces.
The protection of privacy is important, and the claims process is
confidential. The fact that someone has made a claim, and all of
the information and documents provided by claimants will not be
disclosed to claimants' co-workers, supervisors, or DND/CAF/SNPF
leadership, except with the consent of the class member or as
required by law.
This settlement provides financial compensation for those who have
been harmed by sexual misconduct and makes changes to CAF and
Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) policies. Compensation is available
for incidents of discrimination and harassment, as well as more
serious incidents of sexual assault. The range of individual
compensation for most eligible class members is $5,000 to $55,000.
Compensation will depend on the type of sexual misconduct, an
assessment of the harm suffered, and the number of class members
that submit claims. Class members with PTSD or other diagnosed
mental or physical injuries directly arising from sexual assault or
sexual harassment may be eligible for additional amounts. In the
case of a CAF class member, these additional amounts are only
available if they are ineligible for VAC benefits and their
application for reconsideration is also denied. DND/SNPF class
members do not need to apply for VAC benefits, unless they also
have CAF service.
All class members interested in participating in Restorative
Engagement must submit an Individual Application/Claim Form to the
Administrator by November 24, 2021. Class members can request to
participate in Restorative Engagement whether or not they request
or receive financial compensation and regardless of the findings
regarding their claim. Those class members who have already
submitted a claim may also modify their claim to express interest
in Restorative Engagement by contacting the Administrator.
The Restorative Engagement program provides flexible options for
class members to share their experiences, knowledge and
understanding of sexual misconduct in the DND and CAF. Class
members can share either directly with representatives from the
institution or in other indirect ways. Practitioners who have
experience and training in restorative approaches facilitate
participation in the program. The restorative practitioner will
accommodate class members' needs and choices as much as possible.
Participation in, and information shared within the Restorative
Engagement program will have no impact on claims for financial
compensation.
The Restorative Engagement team consults with external experts on
the design of the program, people affected by sexual misconduct,
Defence Advisory Groups, and other stakeholders both inside and
outside the Defence Team. The program is expected to launch in the
fall of 2021.
If you have questions about whether the conduct that you
experienced during your service or employment is covered by the
settlement, or to learn more about the settlement and submit a
claim, visit the class action website or call 1-888-626-2611. If
you are not sure you experienced sexual misconduct, you can call a
support counsellor at the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre.
If you need legal advice concerning a possible claim in the
settlement, you are entitled to receive it free of charge from
class counsel as part of the settlement. Contact information for
class counsel across Canada is on the class action website. If you
are aware of others who may be eligible, please share this
information with them. [GN]
CARLSON JOINT: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due March 3, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER; RALPH
CARLSON, in his capacity as Trustee of the Beverly E. Carlson and
Helen V. Carlson Joint Trust; LORESIA VALLETTE, in her capacity as
representative of the Lawrence Quinlan Trust; MICHELE LYTLE, in her
capacity as Trustee of the Boris Family Revocable Trust; RALPH
SCHMIDT, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, HEATHER; PATRICIA
LINDSTROM, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of ARTHUR
LINDSTROM; BERNIE JESTRABEK-HART; and JEANETTE ALGARME; on their
own behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
granting Parties stipulation on schedule re motion for class
certification:
1. Defendants shall file their response in opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by March 3,
2022.
2. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
certification shall be filed by May 19, 2022.
3. All other terms of the Court prior order remain unchanged.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BFIuHn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
Travis C. Close, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608-1863
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
tclose@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Kathryn Stebner, Esq.
Brian Umpierre, Esq.
STEBNER GERTLER
GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO
A Professional Law Corporation
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102-2918
Telephone: (415) 362-9800
Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
E-mail: kathryn@sggklaw.com
brian@sggklaw.com
- and -
Gay Crosthwait Grinfield, Esq.
Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq.
Amy Xu, Esq.
BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
jyelin@rbgg.com
axu@rbgg.com
- and -
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Michael D. Jacobsen, Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
jriley@seyfarth.com
CARLSON JOINT: Stipulation on Modified Briefing Sched Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER; RALPH
CARLSON, in his capacity as Trustee of the Beverly E. Carlson and
Helen v. Carlson Joint Trust; LORESIA VALLETTE, in her capacity as
representative of the Lawrence Quinlan Trust; MICHELE LYTLE, in her
capacity as Trustee of the Boris Family 20 Revocable Trust; RALPH
SCHMIDT, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, HEATHER FISHER;
PATRICIA LINDSTROM, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of
ARTHUR LINDSTROM; BERNIE JESTRABEK-HART; and JEANETTE ALGARME; on
their own behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate to the
following modification of the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
1. The Defendants shall file their response in opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by March 3,
2022.
2. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
certification shall be filed by 7 19, 2022.
3. All other terms of the Court's prior Order remain
unchanged, including that the deadlines for expert
witnesses as set forth in the Court's prior Order shall
continue to apply relative to the class certification
briefing dates. December 14, 2021 is the date by which all
of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses must be deposed.
4. In light of the Court's direction at the status
conference, the hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification will need to be continued for two
weeks' time, subject to the availability of the Court.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mmQ1pQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
Travis C. Close, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608-1863
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
tclose@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
STEBNER GERTLER
GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO
A Professional Law Corporation
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102-2918
Telephone: (415) 362-9800
Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
E-mail: kathryn@sggklaw.com
brian@sggklaw.com
- and -
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq.
Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
Amy Xu, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN
GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
jyelin@rbgg.com
axu@rbgg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Michael D. Jacobsen, Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
gmaatman@seyfarth.com
jriley@seyfarth.com
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CHRISTENSEN, an
individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC.; and Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00776-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order denying certification of
the Rest Period Class and Security Check Class.
This is a wage-and-hour putative class action. The Defendant is a
business that designs, markets, and sells children's apparel. The
Plaintiff began working for Defendant in November 2015 where he now
serves as a manager -- a position he has held under different
titles since September 2017.
On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendant in California state court, asserting
nine causes of action under California wage-and-hour laws.
On April 20, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following two classes:
-- Security Check Class:
"All non-exempt individuals who were employed by Defendant in
retail locations in California from March 16, 2016 to
September 24, 2018."
-- Rest Period Class:
"All non-exempt individuals who were employed by Defendant in
retail locations in California from March 16, 2016 to the
present."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XZkIbj at no extra charge.[CC]
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Ramey FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEREMY MICHAEL RAMEY-VICARIO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 198003, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Shasta to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-01011 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay proper
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Central Transport, LLC is a transportation company located in
Warren, Michigan. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christian Keeney, Esq.
Alis M. Moon, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com
alis.moon@ogletree.com
CITIZENS BANK: Bradley Arant Attorneys Discuss Ruling in FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Anderson, Esq., and T. Matthew Miller, Esq., of Bradley Arant
Boult Cummings LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that when a
company faces a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
there are two main components to address: (1) whether it will be a
collective action or class action versus an individual action and
(2) a trial of the merits on whether the FLSA was actually
violated. One federal district court decided No. 2 before No. 1 -
and it did not go well when it had its papers graded by the
appellate court. The Third Circuit recently confirmed that the
class certification decision needed to be made before any trial on
the merits of an FLSA case. Companies should take some comfort in
the decision that potential class claimants will not be permitted
to see the outcome of a case before they decide whether to join
in.
Background
The case has an extensive history that relates to Mortgage Loan
Officers (MLOs) at Citizens Bank who alleged that Citizens had an
unofficial policy requiring the MLOs to work off the clock in
excess of 40 hours per week without paying overtime, in violation
of both the FLSA and Pennsylvania wage-and-hour law. The plaintiffs
moved for and were granted a conditional certification of an FLSA
"opt in" collective action in May 2016, which is the initial,
less-detailed court determination of whether a collective action
can proceed. Shortly after that ruling, however, the district court
scheduled a trial in September 2017.
FLSA Collective and Class Certification
The plaintiffs' counsel provided notice to over 1,000 current and
former MLOs, and 351 responded with the requisite consent forms to
"opt in" and join the collective action case. In an FLSA collective
action, only those individuals who affirmatively opt in are
considered part of the collective action and are bound by the
ultimate decision in the case. Those who do not opt in can file
their own claims if they wish but are not bound by what happens in
the collective action. The plaintiffs later added nine additional
named plaintiffs to the lawsuit and then filed a motion to also
certify the class action under Federal Rule 23 seeking
certification for 10 classes, to account for the 10 states
involved. The Rule 23 class action certification follows a
different procedure than the FLSA statutory collective action
certification because it makes all individuals covered by the class
notice members of the class action unless they take specific action
to "opt out" of the class. All class members are bound by the
ultimate determination in the class action. Citizens opposed the
Rule 23 "opt-out" class certification and also sought
decertification of the FLSA "opt-in" collective action.
The parties then agreed to the appointment of a Special Master, who
ultimately recommended to certify a class for the plaintiffs' state
law claims, deny Citizens' motion for decertification, and grant
plaintiffs final FLSA certification. As part of its objections to
the Special Master's recommendation, Citizens said that the
scheduled FLSA trial date needed to be postponed because the
putative class had not yet been notified of the class certification
decision and had not been given the chance to opt out.
Trial Court's Approach
The district court adopted the Special Master's Report in full,
certified the Rule 23 state law classes and granted final
collective action certification. The court also rejected the
Citizens' objection as to the scheduled FLSA trial that would
address whether Citizens had a policy that caused the MLOs to not
report all of the hours worked.
First Appeal - Third Circuit Reversal
Citizens appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit, which found
numerous flaws in the district court's decision to certify the Rule
23 class and remanded the ruling back to the district court to
reconsider its class certification and be much more thorough in its
assessment of class questions. The appellate court stopped short of
reversing the FLSA collective action decision based on some
procedural considerations.
Back at the District Court
When the case went back to the district court, the court chose not
to address the class certification question and instead planned to
press forward with the trial on the FLSA collective action without
first deciding whether to certify the Rule 23 class. Citizens
objected and moved to stay the trial until the court issued a
decision on the class certification. The district court declined
the request and characterized the objection as a delay tactic.
Second Appeal - Third Circuit Reversal
Out of options at the district court, Citizens again appealed to
the Third Circuit on the grounds that it needed extraordinary
"mandamus" relief, less than three weeks before the trial date, to
direct that the FLSA collective action trial not occur until the
court issued a Rule 23 class certification decision and, if
certified, until class members were notified of the opportunity to
opt out. Citizens also sought to have the case reassigned to a
different district judge and have the trial level case stayed until
the appellate court ruled. On the day that the stay relief was
granted, the assigned district judge agreed that the case should be
reassigned.
Mandamus relief from an appellate court is unusual. But here the
Third Circuit granted that relief to Citizens, finding that in the
wage-and-hour suit the "District Court refused to meaningfully
engage with Citizens' objections to the Court's proceeding with
trial in the FLSA opt-in collective action without first
considering whether to certify the related state-law Rule 23
opt-out class action -- even though the planned trial would resolve
a fact issue that is central to all the claims."
The court went on to scrutinize the district court's approach,
stating that even if it was just a Rule 23 opt-out class action
without any FLSA collective action "we would view a
trial-before-certification approach with the utmost skepticism."
The court found that Rule 23's history reflects that a "post-trial
certification decision is strongly disfavored" because it would
allow potential class members to wait for the trial result and then
decide if they will join the case (after the winner has already
been decided). Rule 23 was specifically amended in 2003 such that
members of the class would be identified before any trial and would
be bound by the outcome -- win or lose.
The court noted that seven other Courts of Appeals have expressly
held that Rule 23 requires a class certification decision before a
trial on the merits. Although the Third Circuit declined to go that
far in its ruling, it said the only situation where a trial would
occur before the class certification decision would be where the
defendant consented to the approach. In the normal circumstance,
failure to rule on class certification would create an "atmosphere
of confusion" that would be particularly compounded in a hybrid
wage-and-hour case such as this one. If having an FLSA trial before
deciding on class certification were to become the practice in
wage-and-hour suits, most employees would never opt into the FLSA
action and would instead remain on the sidelines to get the FLSA
trial result. As the court summed it up:
What we do conclude here is that, by compelling the FLSA opt-in
collective action trial before deciding Rule 23 class certification
-- in contravention of our clear instruction to conduct a rigorous
examination of the class certification issue and without assessing
any of the procedural complexities we have discussed -- the
District Court elected to forge ahead, thereby creating a
predicament for others to unravel.
The Third Circuit sent the case back to the chief judge of the
district for reassignment.
Takeaways
The district court put Citizens Bank in a tough spot for this
hybrid FLSA collective and class case, but the appellate court's
ruling was refreshing for defendants. FLSA hybrid cases are
difficult and expensive for employers to litigate, but at least
class members must join the case before they find out whether they
will win or lose. [GN]
CLARK EQUIPMENT: Rosa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Assemblers
--------------------------------------------------------------
XSAVIER ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01239-NJ (E.D. Wis., October 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an assembler from May
2021 until September 2021.
Clark Equipment Company is a designer, manufacturer, and seller of
industrial and construction machinery and equipment, with its
principal place of business located at 2905 Shawnee Industrial Way,
Suite 100, Suwanee, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
CLASSPASS INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal
court in Manhattan against ClassPass Inc. on behalf of potentially
thousands of businesses alleging that the health, spa, and fitness
"aggregator" improperly used business' identities for its own use.
According to the Complaint, ClassPass's website and mobile
application list thousands of businesses with which ClassPass has
no relationship or affiliation.
The suit alleges that ClassPass included these false listings to
attract new users to ClassPass -- tricking customers into thinking
ClassPass had far more participating businesses than in reality --
and then luring the improperly-listed business to actually list on
the platform. In so doing, the suit claims, ClassPass engaged in
unfair competition and false affiliation, false advertising, and
unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of federal, New
York, and New Jersey law.
"Customers deserve an honest count of the spas, gyms, and salons
actually available to them. And businesses deserve to control their
own brand and business strategy," said Raphael Janove, the attorney
at New York-based Pollock Cohen LLP leading the fight.
The plaintiff representing the proposed class of thousands of
aggrieved businesses is Tipsy Nail Club LLC, which operates as
Leeah Nails in Montclair, New Jersey. On September 1, 2021, a
customer came to the store and received manicure and pedicure
services. When it was time to pay, the customer showed proof that
she had already paid through ClassPass. But Leeah Nails had no
relationship with ClassPass and had received no prepayment from
ClassPass for the reservation.
Prompted by this incident, Leeah Nails began investigating, and
found that it wasn't alone. It discover that dozens of other spas,
nail salons, and gyms had similar fake listings - and entirely
fabricated appointment schedules. And when Leeah Nails' owner tried
to clear up the situation with ClassPass, the company's customer
service department refused to deal with him because he had no
ClassPass account.
"Leeah Nails has the right to control its own brand, and to pursue
its own strategy," said Janove. "Reputation is incredibly important
in a service business, and ClassPass has no right to hijack or
appropriate any entrepreneur's dream," said Janove.
The federal class action complaint is available here. [GN]
COMMUNITY CARE: Beh Suit Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORETHA BEH, RUBY CASON,
BRIANA KINCANNON and KIMBERLY BALKUM, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC.,
ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN, INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER,
INC., and JAMES WATSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
A. certifying each of the following classes/subclasses
pursuant to Rule 23:
SUBCLASS I:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Western District of New York ("Relevant Area") on or after
October 14, 2017 but before January 4, 2020 ("Relevant
Period") (exclusive of any persons who have filed an
Acceptance of an Offer of Judgment in this action) who
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks but who
were not compensated for the hours worked in each such
week in excess of 40 hours at 1.5 times their respective
regular rates of pay, arising from CCC's failure to pay
such persons for travel between residences of CCC clients
at their respective regular rates of pay;"
SUBCLASS II:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Relevant Area in the Relevant Period (exclusive of any
persons who have filed an Acceptance of an Offer of
Judgment in this action) who worked more than 40 hours in
one or more workweeks but who were not compensated for the
hours worked in each such week in excess of 40 hours at
1.5 times their respective regular rates of pay, arising
from CCC's failure to reimburse such persons for out-of-
pocket expenses incurred as a result of travel between
residences of CCC clients;"
SUBCLASS III:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Relevant Area in the Relevant Period (exclusive of any
persons who have filed an Acceptance of an Offer of
Judgment in this action) who traveled in the course of
one or more workdays between the respective residences of
two or more CCC clients being cared for by them but who
were not compensated for such travel at their respective
agreed-upon rates of pay;"
SUBCLASS IV:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Relevant Area in the Relevant Period (exclusive of any
persons who have filed an Acceptance ofan Offer of
Judgment in this action) who traveled in the course of
one or more workdays between the respective residences of
two or more CCC clients being cared for by them but who
were not reimbursed nor otherwise compensated for the
expenses they incurred on account of such travel;
SUBCLASS V:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Relevant Area in the Relevant Period (exclusive of any
persons who have filed an Acceptance of an Offer of
Judgment in this action) who were not provided, within 10
business days of their first day of employment by CCC,
with a written notice containing the following
information: the rate at which (s)he was to be paid by
CCC and the basis thereof; each allowance, if any,
claimed by CCC as part of the minimum wage; the regular
pay day designated by CCC; the frequency of CCC's
payments of wages; identification of CCC as the person's
employer and the "doing business as" name, if any, used
by CCC; the physical address of CCC's main office or
principal place of business and its mailing address, if
different; CCC's telephone number; her/his regular hourly
rate of pay by CCC and her/his overtime rate of pay by
CCC;" and
SUBCLASS VI:
"All persons employed by CCC as home care workers in the
Relevant Area in the Relevant Period (exclusive of any
persons who have filed an Acceptance of an Offer of
Judgment in this action) who were not paid wages by CCC
within seven calendar days of the end of each workweek in
which the wages were earned;"
B. appointing Class Counsel; and
C. affording Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may
be just and proper.
Founded in 1986, Community Care Companions, Inc. is a home care and
nurse staffing agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pNlyDA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Reif, Esq.
GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP
39 Broadway, Suite 2430
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: 212-228-7727
E-mail: jreif@grmny.com
- and -
Jan Hayes, Esq.
Candace Morrison, Esq.
CREIGHTON, JOHNSEN & GIROUX
1103 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14209
Telephone: (716) 854-0007
E-mail: ihayes@cpjglaborlaw.com
cmorrison@cpjglaborlaw.com
COMMUNITY CHILD: Settlement in Del Castillo Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO DEL CASTILLO, et
al., v. COMMUNITY CHILD CARE COUNCIL OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, INC.,
et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-07243-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth
Labson Freeman entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement is granted;
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Enhancement Payments is granted.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction over the implementation and
enforcement of the Settlement Agreement until each and
every act agreed to be performed by the parties has been
performed.
4. Within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement
funds, and payment of the enhancement payments, attorneys'
fees and costs, the parties SHALL file a post-distribution
accounting in compliance with the Northern District
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3msxLLT at no extra charge.[CC]
CRO-MAGNON INC: Chacon Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXEY CHACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRO-MAGNON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00871 (W.D. Mich., October 8, 2021) brings this class and
collective action complaint against the Defendant seeking for
monetary damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between approximately
August 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020 as a technician, travelling
to properties at which he provided mosquito abatement services.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to reimburse her
and other similarly situated employees for actual expenses, thereby
failing to pay them the required minimum wage and overtime rate.
The Defendant also failed to track the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated technicians' actual number of hours worked each
week or the mileage driven. As a result, despite regularly working
more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to properly pay
the overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly made deductions from
the Plaintiff's compensation without the Plaintiff's express
written consent.
Cro-Magnon, Inc. provides mosquito abatement services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Banchard, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC
221 North Main St., Ste. 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Tel: (734) 929-4313
E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
- and –
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Tel: (847) 986-5889
Fax: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
CSI FINANCIAL: S.D. California Stays Roberts-Gooden Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BROOKE ROBERTS-GOODEN, Plaintiff v. CSI FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01352-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California:
(i) grants the parties' joint application to stay the
proceeding; and
(ii) terminates the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Before the Court is the parties' joint application to stay the
proceeding. Plaintiff Roberts-Gooden filed the putative class
action on July 27, 2021, alleging that Defendant CSI caused the
Plaintiff and more than 200,000 similarly situated persons harmed
when, in March 2021, cyber criminals infiltrated the Defendant's
email accounts and gained access to the Plaintiff and the putative
class members' confidential personal information and health
information. The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach was
preventable and the result of the Defendant's inadequate measures
to protect the impacted accounts.
Pursuant to the Court's Order dated Aug. 25, 2021, the Defendant
filed its motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thereafter, it advised the Plaintiff
that it is also the defendant in two actions in San Diego Superior
Court ("State Actions"), which also arise out of the data breach at
issue in the case and involve substantially identical claims.
Accordingly, "in an effort to streamline the actions and coordinate
resources," the parties now jointly move to stay the present action
until after final orders are issued in the anticipated motions to
dismiss the complaints in the State Actions. The parties say that
doing so "would promote the interest of judicial economy."
Judge Bashant finds that the parties do not identify, nor is it
apparent to the Court what damage, hardship, or inequity would
result from granting a stay. Rather, a stay conserves judicial
resources and streamlines and narrows issues in the case. The case
arises out of an alleged data breach which is the subject of other
actions by other plaintiffs in state court. Judge Bashant agrees
with the parties that refusal to grant the requested stay would
result in added complexity, increased costs of litigation, and
potentially inconsistent judgments.
For these reasons, Judge Bashant stays the action as to all parties
and all claims. She terminates the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
She will reinstate that motion once the stay is lifted. Judge
Bashant orders the parties to jointly file a notice in the matter
every 30 days informing the Court of the status of the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/v4c49uf7 from Leagle.com.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beck, et al., v. County of
Cuyahoga, Case No. 1:19-cv-00818 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Christopher A. Boyko entered an order granting the Defendant's
unopposed motion for extension of time to file opposition to motion
for class certification.
The Opposition is due on or before Nov. 3, 2021, says Judge Boyko.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Cuyahoga County is located in the northeastern part of the U.S.
state of Ohio on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the
U.S.-Canada maritime border.[CC]
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against D-MARKET Electronic Services
& Trading ("D-MARKET" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:HEPS) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired D-MARKET ADRs pursuant or traceable to the
Company's July 1, 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/heps.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the IPO (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of
the IPO: (1) That D-Market had suffered a sharp deceleration in
operational and sales growth as consumers retreated from e-commerce
offerings in 2Q21; (2) That D-Market's revenue growth had decreased
to just 5% year-over-year growth in 2Q21, over 90% below the most
recent growth rate highlighted in the Registration Statement; (3)
That D-Market's GMV growth had decreased to just 38% year-over-year
growth in 2Q21, less than half the most recent growth rate
highlighted in the Registration Statement; and (4) that as a result
of the foregoing, at the time of the IPO, the Company's business
and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the
IPO Registration Statement.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/heps or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss
inD-MARKET, you can request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com [GN]
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Golden Horn Asset and
Management Ltd, v. D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim
Şirketi a/k/a D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading d/b/a/
Hepsiburada, et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-08634) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired D-MARKET
Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi a/k/a D-MARKET
Electronic Services & Trading d/b/a/ Hepsiburada ("Hepsiburada" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: HEPS) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs"
or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's July 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Hepsiburada investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/d-market-electronic-services-trading-dba-hepsiburada/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On or about July 1, 2021, Hepsiburada completed its IPO, selling
approximately 62 million shares for $12.00 per share.
On August 26, 2021, Hepsiburada announced its second quarter 2021
financial results -- the quarter which had ended before the IPO
closed -- and reported that revenue grew 5.2%, reflecting "the
shift in GMV mix in favor of Marketplace." The Company also
reported that EBITDA was "negative TRY 188.6 million in Q2 2021
compared to positive TRY 71.1 million in Q2 2020 . . . due to lower
gross contribution driven primarily by investments to fortify our
position in electronics, investments to penetrate in high frequency
categories as well as higher customer demand for low margin
products."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.05, or 25%, to
close at $8.97 per share on August 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's shares were
trading as low as $5.30, a nearly 56% decline from the $12.00 per
share IPO price.
The complaint in the action alleges that the Registration Statement
was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that
Hepsiburada suffered a sharp deceleration in operational and sales
growth during second quarter 2021; (2) that, as a result, the
Company initiated certain actions to fortify its competitive
position, including investing in electronics and high frequency
categories and discounting certain categories; (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Hepsiburada's revenue and GMV had declined
during second quarter 2021; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the defendants' acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the class has suffered significant losses and damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hepsiburada shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
60 days from this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles H. Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN]
DENKA PERFORMANCE: 5th Cir. Affirms in Part Judgment in Butler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUANEA L. BUTLER, individually and as representative
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DENKA
PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER, L.L.C.; E. I. DuPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY;
STATE of LOUISIANA, through the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, incorrectly
named as LOUISIANA STATE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HOSPITALS; STATE OF LOUISIANA, through the DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; DuPONT PERFORMANCE ELASTOMERS, L.L.C.,
formerly known as DuPONT DOW ELASTOMERS, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-30365 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in
part the judgment of the district court:
a. dismissing Butler's claims against DuPont and DOH as
prescribed by Louisiana's one-year limitations period;
b. reversing in part the magistrate judge's order granting
leave to add strict liability claims against DuPont and
dismissing those claims as futile;
c. dismissing the remaining continuing tort claims against
Denka for failure to state a plausible claim; and
d. entering judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Background
In the environmental tort case, Plaintiff Butler alleges that
neoprene production from the Pontchartrain Works Facility exposed
residents of St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, to unsafe
levels of chloroprene, which she contends may result in a myriad of
adverse health conditions including an elevated risk of cancer.
Butler sued Denka Performance Elastomer and DuPont -- the current
and former owners of the facility -- as well as the Louisiana
Departments of Health ("DOH") and Environmental Quality ("DEQ") in
state court seeking class certification, damages, and injunctive
relief for various state tort claims.
DuPont owned and operated the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF")
from 1969 until 2015, when DuPont sold the plant to Denka. For
decades, it is alleged, the plant has emitted unsafe levels of
chloroprene into the air, exposing nearby residents in the vicinity
to adverse health effects. Though DuPont sold the neoprene
manufacturing facilities of the PWF to Denka, it retained ownership
of the underlying land and buildings.
On June 5, 2018, Butler filed her initial class action petition in
Louisiana state court. She complains only of the chloroprene
released as a result of the facility's neoprene production, and
both the PWF's owners and the state's alleged failure to regulate
those emissions.
Ms. Butler herself is a resident of LaPlace, Louisiana, in St. John
the Baptist Parish. Since 1998, she has resided and worked within
5.5 miles of the PWF. Butler alleges that DuPont and Denka have
emitted, and continue to emit, chloroprene at levels resulting in
concentrations exceeding the upper limit of acceptable risk.
Ms. Butler asserts various state tort claims against each of the
Defendants, and seeks class certification, damages, declaratory
relief, and injunctive relief including an abatement of chloroprene
releases from the PWF.
The district court ultimately dismissed Butler's claims against
DuPont and DOH as prescribed by Louisiana's one-year limitations
period, reversed in part the magistrate judge's order granting
leave to add strict liability claims against DuPont and dismissed
those claims as futile, and dismissed the remaining continuing tort
claims against Denka for failure to state a plausible claim.
Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants on June 4, 2020,
and the appeal timely followed.
Discussion
I.
Ms. Butler first challenges the district court's denial of her
motion to remand the case to state court. Denka and DuPont timely
removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and the district court concluded
that minimal diversity existed between Butler, a Louisiana citizen,
and DuPont, a Delaware citizen based on its state of incorporation
and the location of its corporate headquarters. On appeal, Butler
argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
and that the state agency defendants are immune from suit in
federal court. She primarily asserts that at the time of removal,
DOH and DEQ had not waived immunity, and alternatively that their
post-removal waiver was not authorized by the state legislature.
The Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court that removal was
proper pursuant to CAFA, and the state agencies have consented to
federal jurisdiction thereby waiving any sovereign immunity in the
case. Among other things, it finds that (i) CAFA significantly
expanded federal diversity jurisdiction over interstate class
action claims; (ii) CAFA permits removal by "any defendant without
the consent of all defendants"; and (iii) it has previously
interpreted section 13:5106(A) narrowly as recognizing Louisiana's
waiver of "its immunity in state, but not federal, court."
II.
Turning to the merits, the Fifth Circuit reviews the district
court's dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo, "applying
the same standard applied by the district court."
A.
Ms. Butler first challenges the dismissal of her claims against
DuPont and DOH as time-barred. Butler alleges that DuPont, as the
former neoprene manufacturer until 2015 and current owner of the
PWF's land and buildings, is liable for various tort claims arising
from the chloroprene emissions. She also claims that DOH failed to
adequately warn Butler and the community about the dangers of
chloroprene exposure and failed to fully investigate the health
effects of chloroprene.
The Fifth Circuit finds that Butler filed her initial complaint in
state court on June 5, 2018. Therefore, for Butler's claims to be
timely, the prescription period must have begun or been tolled
until June 5, 2017. Butler alleged that she began seeking treatment
for symptoms of chloroprene exposure in April 2012, which is the
date her injury first accrued. Thus, unless tolled, the one-year
prescription expired well before Butler filed suit six years
later.
Moreover, absent a diagnosis or any facts that Butler received
sufficient notice linking her symptoms to chloroprene, and drawing
all reasonable inferences in Butler's favor at the pleadings stage,
the Fifth Circuit cannot conclude that Butler had constructive
notice more than one year prior to filing suit. Consistent with
Louisiana's contra non valentem analysis as to what Butler
reasonably knew or should have known at the time, the Fifth Circuit
disagrees that, on the record before it, Butler had constructive
knowledge sufficient to trigger the running of prescription over a
year before she filed suit in June 2018. Accordingly, it reverses
the district court's holding that Butler's claims were prescribed.
B.
Second, Butler appeals the denial of her motion to amend her
complaint to assert a claim against DuPont for the ongoing
chloroprene emissions. Specifically, Butler claimed that DuPont and
Denka were strictly liable for the PWF's ongoing chloroprene
emissions from PWF's "defective" neoprene production units pursuant
to Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2317 and 2317.1. Butler alleged
that DuPont "owned and operated the entire PWF from 1969 to 2015,"
when it sold the PWF to Denka. After the sale, "except for the
neoprene manufacturing units of the PW. DuPont retained ownership
of the entirety of the PWF land and buildings, including the
building where it currently manufactures Kevlar." Thus, Butler
asserts, DuPont and Denka are both liable because "during separate
periods of time, [they] have had ownership, care, custody, and
control of the neoprene units of the PWF; and DuPont has maintained
care, custody, and control of the PWF since 1969."
The Fifth Circuit holds that it need not resolve whether Butler
alleges enough to support her contention that DuPont has garde over
PWF's neoprene production units. It finds that Butler's custodial
liability claims against DuPont fail for the same reason as her
claims against Denka: A failure to state a plausible duty and
corresponding breach.
C.
Next, Butler appeals the dismissal of her negligence and strict
custodial liability claims against Denka arising from its past and
current neoprene manufacturing at the PWF. Butler says that Denka
"has failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the emission of
unreasonably dangerous chloroprene concentrations into the air,"
and that "Denka's neoprene manufacturing equipment is unreasonably
dangerous, because of its excessive chloroprene emissions." Though
not prescribed because of the continuing tort doctrine, the
district court granted Denka's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a plausible claim.
The Fifth Circuit agrees. It finds that Butler fails to adequately
allege a duty owed by Denka, and consequently whether Denka
breached such a duty. Thus, both the negligence and strict
liability claims fail to state a plausible claim. Consequently, the
Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court that Butler fails to
allege a duty, or a breach of such duty, based on Denka's alleged
"excessive" chloroprene emissions. Absent a showing of duty or
breach, it need not address the district court's alternative
holding as to causation or injury. Butler's custodial liability
claims fail for the same reason.
D.
Finally, Butler appeals the dismissal of her declaratory relief
claims against DEQ. She alleged that DEQ failed to warn the
community of the risks of chloroprene exposure, provide notice
concerning the high levels of chloroprene emissions, and abide by
its statutory duties to conduct routine sampling and testing of
hazardous waste from the PWF. On appeal, she asserts that "DEQ is
violating the Plaintiff's Louisiana constitutional rights by
subjecting her to harmful concentrations of chloroprene," and seeks
a judgment declaring the same.
The Fifth Circuit finds that Butler barely acknowledges the
district court's detailed explication of the applicable law,
regulations, and administrative procedures -- instead referring to
them as "irrelevant." Rather, Butler cursorily insists that she is
entitled to declaratory relief under the Louisiana Constitution and
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1871. She does not brief
how these provisions interact with, let alone supersede, the
state's significant regulatory framework, and the Fifth Circuit
need not address such inadequately briefed arguments in the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Stephen A. Higginson, writing for
the Fifth Circuit, reversed in part and affirmed in part the
judgment of the district court, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/597h9xvt from Leagle.com.
DHL EXPRESS: Faces Taylor TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-019444 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
October 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number to promote
and solicit its delivery and package tracking services without
prior express written consent. The Defendant continued to send
unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiff's telephone number
despite his requests to stop it. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff suffered actual harm, including
invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
DHL Express (USA), Inc. is a logistics company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 181 Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
DIMPLE BOMBAY: Jimenez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HERIBERTO JIMENEZ, Plaintiff v. DIMPLE BOMBAY, INC. d/b/a
DIMPLE'S BOMBAY TALK, DIMPLE'S BOMBAY TALK LLC d/b/a DIMPLE'S
BOMBAY TALK CATERING SERVICES, JAHNAVI MEHTA, and THE EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF DILIP MEHTA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-18260
(D.N.J., October 8, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees arising from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2009 through
April 2021 to work in the kitchen at the Dimple's and Dimple's
Catering doing cooking pre work, making meals for customers and
catered events, and cleaning the kitchen area.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants has engaged in a pattern,
practice and/or policy of failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants owned by Jahnavi
Mehta. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Laura Rodrigues, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
DINO PALMIERI: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in Torres Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAHIANNA TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs v. DINO PALMIERI
SALONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-1501 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies:
(i) the Defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary
materials from the record on class certification; and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of five
classes under Rule 23.
Factual & Procedural Background
Plaintiffs Dahianna Torres, Dena Marinelli, Katie Kauble, and
Alison Haseley, trainees at Dino Palmieri Salons, filed suit
alleging that their employer and its principal violated federal and
State law through various pay practices. In the first amended
complaint, the Plaintiffs challenge various pay practices and
policies of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them for
mandatory training classes. Although keyed to certain employment
milestones, they allege that the Defendants intended the bonuses to
cover minimum wage and overtime owed to the employees.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants deducted $1
per week from the pay of trainees -- a practice which dropped their
pay below the minimum wage. They claim, this deduction also reduced
their pay below the minimum wage.
The Plaintiffs also allege that those stylists who were paid on
commission were underpaid through the method by which the
Defendants calculated the commissions. They allege that the
Defendants made no effort to determine the actual cost of the
materials and supplies used, such that the net amount on which
Defendants paid commissions was wholly arbitrary and "always more
than the actual cost of supplies" to lower the commission paid.
In a section of the first amended complaint titled "Class Action
Facts," the Plaintiffs identify five putative classes. They plead
that the Defendants have 10 stores, each with a double-digit number
of employees, such that the number of putative class members
exceeds 300.
Based on these alleged facts, the Plaintiffs assert six causes of
action against Dino Palmieri Salons and Dino Palmieri himself. In
Count I, they allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In
Counts II, III, and VI, Plaintiffs allege violations of various
Ohio statutes relating to employee pay. Count IV alleges fraud,
and Count V alleges breach of contract.
The Plaintiffs move for certification of the following five
classes:
a. The Minimum Wage Prompt Pay Class: All current and former
Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc. employees, who as a result of failing to
pay minimum wage for all hours worked and/or other consideration
and were not promptly paid in violation of Ohio law, as set forth
in Count II of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (hereinafter, The
Minimum Wage Prompt Pay Class).
b. The Prompt Pay Class: All former and current employees at
Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc., who in violation of Ohio law, had
deductions taken from their pay, in violation of Ohio law, as set
forth in Count III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (hereinafter,
The Prompt Pay Class).
c. The Fraud Claim Class: All current and former employees of
Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc. who were defrauded by being promised
cash bonuses for employment milestones and/or were defrauded by
false representations as to how their commissions would be based
and/or were defrauded by false representatives that employees were
being paid for hours actually worked during a pay period, as set
forth in Count IV of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (hereinafter,
The Fraud Claim Class).
d. The Breach of Contract Class: All former and current
employees of Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc. who, in breach of their
agreement with Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc., were not actually paid
bonuses for milestones and/or were not paid commission on net sales
as promised by Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc., as set forth in Count V
of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (hereinafter, The Breach of
Contract Class).
e. The Company Shop Class: All former and current employees at
Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc., who were forced to purchase goods and
supplies from their employer, at higher prices than the reasonable
and current market value of such goods and supplies through the
commission structure, as set forth in Count VI of Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint (hereinafter, The Company Shop Class).
The Plaintiffs' motion does not contain a statement of facts or
reference a record in seeking class certification. Instead, they
argue for certification largely by reference to the facts pleaded
in the first amended complaint, with one exception. In opposing
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Defendants
supplied several items for the record, including a declaration from
Fry-Izworsky clarifying certain points contained in her affidavit
on which the Plaintiffs rely. The Defendants also attach to the
opposition (part of) a declaration from Melodie Laird, but do not
discuss that declaration in their memorandum.
In connection with their reply, the Plaintiffs submit excerpts from
the transcript of the deposition Fry-Izworsky taken on July 24,
2020, after the Plaintiffs moved for class certification and after
the Defendants opposed. Fry-Izworsky testified that the Defendants'
counsel drafted the declaration that they submitted in opposing the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, though personnel at
Dino Palmieri Salons refreshed her recollection on a few points.
One page of the excerpts includes testimony from Fry-Izworsky that
she does not want to ruin Dino Palmieri through the lawsuit, which
the Plaintiffs offer as a reason she might provide contradictory
declarations.
The Defendants move to strike "all allegations of minimum wage
violations" in Fry-Izworsky's first two declarations, but not her
affidavit. As grounds for the motion, they argue that
Fry-Izworsky's first two declarations are inadmissible because its
allegations are "ultimate facts and conclusions of law." Also,
because she is not a lawyer, Fry-Izworsky lacks personal knowledge
whether employees fell below the minimum wage. Although the
Defendants direct their motion to the affidavit of Fry-Izworsky,
they do not seek to strike the excerpts from her deposition the
Plaintiffs submitted with their reply. To the contrary, the
Defendants rely on it.
Analysis
As a threshold matter, the parties sharply dispute the legal
standard governing class certification under Rule 23. Based on its
independent review, and with the benefit of the parties' respective
briefs and arguments, Judge Calabrese sets out the standard that he
determines governs.
He states that the Supreme Court now recognizes that the merits may
be considered under Rule 23 to the extent relevant to determining
whether the prerequisites for class certification are satisfied. A
district court may not conduct "free-ranging merits inquiries at
the certification stage." But Rule 23 is not a pleading standard,
and determining whether the plaintiffs have carried their burden at
class certification "generally involves considerations that are
enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising their cause of
action." Because this standard requires evidentiary proof for class
certification, Judge Calabrese first determines the record and the
Defendants' motion to strike.
I. Motion to Strike
The parties submitted multiple competing and overlapping
evidentiary materials from Fry-Izworsky. Although she provided an
affidavit in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Defendants do not move to strike that affidavit,
instead directing their motion to two previous ones. The Defendants
make two arguments in support of their motion to strike.
Neither has merit, Judge Calabrese opines. First, the Defendants
attack the "ultimate facts and conclusions of law" they contend
Fry-Izworsky makes in these two affidavits. Without question, such
testimony is improper. But the two categories of specific
statements the Defendants challenge do not implicate this
evidentiary rule.
Second, the Defendants argue that, because Fry-Izworsky is not a
lawyer, statements in her affidavit that certain pay practices
caused employees to earn less than the minimum wage are not
admissible. Fair enough, Judge Calabrese says. But Fry-Izworsky's
statements involve basic math based on some specialized knowledge
and familiarity with the particular pay practices at issue. Whether
those practices result in a legal violation presents a separate
question to which her affidavit does not speak.
Additionally, Judge Calabrese denies the motion to strike for
another reason. Over the life of the matter, the record shows that
the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have each submitted competing
evidentiary materials from Fry-Izworsky. Given the parties'
competing evidentiary submissions regarding Fry-Izworsky, broader
questions arise about the proper record for class certification
under the governing standard. In light of the parties' supplements
to the record, Judge Calabrese evaluates the entirety of the record
in conducting the rigorous analysis Rule 23 demands.
As a formal matter, the Defendants submitted additional materials
already in the record for consideration, and Judge Calabrese sees
no reason not to consider them or any other reliable matters in the
record. Because of the malleability of Fry-Izworsky's testimony in
its various forms, he exercises his discretion not to hold an
evidentiary hearing, finding that it would not materially alter the
evidentiary record on class certification.
Further, in Judge Calabrese view, additional testimony from
Fry-Izworsky would only compound the evidentiary complications
attending her credibility and offer little more of value in
evaluating the pending motion for class certification. Finally, he
finds that the parties' briefs and the supplemental briefing they
submitted provide an ample record regarding their respective
positions on class certification, making oral argument an
additional burden or expense that will not materially aid
resolution of the motion.
II. Rule 23
To obtain class certification, the Plaintiffs must prove that they
satisfy the four procedural requirements in Rule 23(a) and at least
one requirement in Rule 23(b). In the case, as in many cases
seeking class certification, the inquiries under Rule 23(b)
regarding predominance and superiority are determinative.
Therefore, Judge Calabrese directs his attention there.
First, he opines that the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden
of showing that common questions predominate. They argue, for
example, that whether the Defendants violated Sections 4111.03 and
4111.14 of the Ohio Revised Code predominates over all other
questions. This conclusory argument proceeds at too high a level of
generality without sufficient -- or any -- specificity that
supports such a claim on the record before the Court.
Second, although class actions generally, and superiority in
particular, focus on the problem of small recoveries, Judge
Calabrese holds that the record provides little evidence from which
the Court can determine whether the case presents that issue. Put
another way, class actions seek to allow individuals whose
particular claims might be so small financially that they are not
worth pursuing to vindicate their rights. From the record, however,
Judge Calabrese cannot tell whether the claims of class members
might be worth a few hundred dollars each, assuming the Plaintiffs
can prove their claims, or tens of thousands of dollars apiece. In
the latter scenario, class litigation might well not be superior.
But the Plaintiffs have the burden of proving superiority, and they
did not do so.
To the extent it is desirable to concentrate litigation of the
claims and practices involved in the case in a particular forum,
other procedural litigation rules will achieve that result.In
particular, and as relevant to the superiority inquiry, the
Plaintiffs pursue their claims as a collective action. Allowing
individual employees to opt-in to participate in the litigation
addresses any problem of small recovery without the burdens to the
parties or the Court of managing class litigation. For all these
reasons, Judge Calabrese finds that the Plaintiffs have not carried
their burden of showing that a class action presents the superior
method for adjudication of their claims.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Calabrese denies the Defendants'
motion to strike and, based on the rigorous analysis that Rule 23
requires, denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fv5fj44n from Leagle.com.
DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL: Lawsuit Claims Odor Making Residents Ill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leo Stallworth at abc7.com reports that Carson resident Monique
Alvarez has had it with the putrid odor coming from the Dominguez
Channel that's been lingering in the air for more than two weeks
now.
"I can't help but feel we are battling chemical warfare in our own
homes," she said. "The negative impact to our bodies, minds, and
spirits is so great."
Ana Meni, another Carson resident, said her children are affected
by the odor and claims it's giving her heartaches, nausea and is
causing her throat to hurt and her eyes to burn.
Residents say the odor - which has been attributed to hydrogen
sulfide by city officials - is no longer just a nuisance. They
believe it's now a health emergency.
Meni said many residents have reported getting bloody noses, rashes
and even hair loss.
Now, a class action lawsuit has been filed against companies
involved in a fire which left debris flowing into the channel.
The lawyers claim the companies failed to clean up the debris,
leaving it to float in the channel to create the odor from the
hydrogen sulfide.
Attorney Carlos Urzua said an investigation showed that owners of a
warehouse stared a fire Sept. 30 and allowed debris and other
chemicals into the Dominguez Channel, causing a combustion leading
to the hydrogen sulfide.
The complaint also names the owners of the warehouse, Prologis,
Inc. and Liberty Property, LP. The attorneys claim that the odor is
dangerous for residents to inhale and is making many of their
clients sick.
READ ALSO | Still smelling that foul odor in the Carson area?
Here's what public officials want you to know
Meanwhile, the L.A. County Department of Public Health along with
other agencies held a Zoom news conference saying this in regards
to residents getting ill from the odor.
Dr. Muntu Davis said since the beginning of the incident, they have
had five air quality readings, all of which detected low levels.
He adds symptoms are expected to be short term and said it's
important to note that the symptoms are due to the smell of the
odor and not are not expected to be due to hydrogen sulfide.
Symptoms tend to go away when you leave the area, or when the odors
decrease and are no longer present.
Eyewitness News reached out to the companies named in the complaint
but did not receive a response. [GN]
EARGO INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of December 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Oct. 19 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ:HYRE)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20531&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
Class Period: May 14, 2021 - August 10, 2021
Allegations against HYRE include that: (a) HyreCar had materially
understated its insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had systematically
failed to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class
Period; (c) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning
to its new third-party insurance claims administrator and
processing claims incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had
failed to appropriately price risk in its insurance products and
was experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) HyreCar
had been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting,
policies and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims
severity and customer complaints; and (f) as a result, HyreCar's
operations and prospects were misrepresented because the Company
was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to
investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a
reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross
margin, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization), and net loss trajectories.
Eargo, Inc. (NASDAQ:EAR)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/eargo-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20531&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021
Class Period: October 16, 2020 - September 22, 2021
Allegations against EAR include that: (1) Eargo had improperly
sought reimbursements from certain third-party payors; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; (3)
as a result and because the reimbursements at issue involved the
Company's largest third-party payor, Eargo's financial results
would be adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form-2?prid=20531&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 6, 2021
Class Period: June 17, 2021 - August 18, 2021
Allegations against NNOX include that: (i) Nano-X's 510(k)
application for the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the Food and Drug Administration would approve
the 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC in its current form; (iii)
as a result, NanoX had overstated the Nanox.ARC's regulatory and
commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
EAT DRINK: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Swan Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
UNIYA SWAN-SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAT DRINK HERE L.L.C. and CHARLES
A. HODGE D/B/A SOVEREIGN REMEDIES, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00314 (W.D.N.C., October 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated restaurant workers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by Sovereign Remedies as a server from
July 2019 to December 2020.
Eat Drink Here LLC is a restaurant owner and operator with its
principal office located at 29 N. Market Street, Unit 105,
Asheville, North Carolina.
Sovereign Remedies is an American restaurant located at 29 N.
Market Street, Unit 105, Asheville, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
100 Europa Dr., Suite 250
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Telephone: (919) 942-5200
Facsimile: (866) 397-8671
E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com
- and –
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
EMOTORS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of December 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Lightning eMotors, Inc.
("Lightning eMotors" or the "Company") f/k/a GigCapital3, Inc.
("GigCapital3") (NYSE: ZEV; ZEV.WS) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
Lightning eMotors securities between May 7, 2021 and August 16,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/zev.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the Company would record a substantially
greater net loss per share in the second quarter of 2021 compared
to the second quarter of 2020 and would pull its full year guidance
for the remainder of 2021; (2) accordingly, the Company materially
overstated its financial position and/or prospects; and (3) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/zev or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Lightning
eMotors you have until December 14, 2021, to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settles Fraud Class Action for $63.4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Ciavaglia, writing for The Intelligencer, reports that a
Bucks-led class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company for
defrauding its county employees retirement system and other
investors has reached a $63.4 million settlement.
Attorneys in the case against Endo International filed notice of
the settlement agreement on Oct. 15 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
If approved, the settlement will allow the county retirement system
to recoup money lost as a result of the Malvern-based company's
misleading business practices, officials said.
The final amount that the county will recover as lead plaintiff of
the class has not yet been calculated, according to the county.
Bucks County lost $811,0000, more than any class member in the
suit.
"This administration is committed to combating fraud, protecting
consumer rights, and pursuing recovery of funds for our employees'
retirement system," Bucks County Commissioner Chair Diane
Ellis-Marseglia said.
The suit alleged the company committed securities fraud by engaging
in inherently risky and unstable generic drug pricing practices,
and failed to disclose those practices and other key information to
investors including the county.
Bucks County had previously purchased 25,417 shares of Endo stock,
court documents state.
When those practices caused the market value of Endo's securities
to plummet, class members suffered hundreds of millions of dollars
in losses and damages.
The securities class action followed a 2018 lawsuit filed on behalf
of the Bucks County against related Endo entities and other
pharmaceutical companies for their alleged misconduct in creating a
nationwide opioid epidemic. That litigation is pending in
Pennsylvania state court.
Bucks County was appointed in February to serve as lead plaintiff
in the class action. The county was also appointed on Oct. 14 to
serve as co-lead plaintiff, with the Delaware County Employees
Retirement System, in a securities fraud class action against
AdaptHealth Corporation.
Investors in that case, including Bucks and Delaware counties,
allege they suffered investment losses as a result of false and
misleading statements from AdaptHealth about its financial
performance. [GN]
ETHOSENERGY FIELD: Faces Moenaert Class Suit Over PAGA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MOENAERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ETHOSENERGY FIELD SERVICES, LLC; ETHOSENERGY
GTS HOLDINGS (US), LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21NWCV00704 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
October 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including
failure to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failure
to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all
wages due and owing during employment and upon termination of
employment, failure to provide paid sick leave, failure to keep
payroll records, and failure to reimburse all necessary business
expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in California.
EthosEnergy Field Services, LLC is a provider of full maintenance,
repair, and overhaul services on rotating and reciprocating
machinery, headquartered in California.
EthosEnergy GTS Holdings (US), LLC is a mechanical contractor based
in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Daniel J. O'Neil-Ortiz, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
EVMO INC: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVmo, which rents passenger vehicles to the rideshare and delivery
gig economy employees, shares rise after the company announces the
settlement of the Hamlin v. YayYo class action lawsuit. Defendants
argued that they were sold shares at an artificially inflated price
of $4 during the company's IPO.
The company agrees to pay out $1M in equal installments every 3
months over the coming year. "This lawsuit has been an obstacle
that has impacted our ability to uplist to a national listed
exchange and prevented the Company from changing its name and
ticker symbol," said Executive Chairman Terren Peizer.
Revenue at EVmo grew 67.8% Y/Y in the company's most recent quarter
and was up 15.6% sequentially. The company expects a $10M equity
capital raise, which should enable the Company to purchase
approximately 4,000 vehicles translating into $80M in annual
revenue. [GN]
FCA US: Court Won't Revisit Attys.' Fees & Costs Award in Tomassini
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:14-CV-1226 (MAD/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied
the Defendant's motion for reconsider the Court's order awarding
the Plaintiff $125,882.78 in attorneys' fees and $4,699.30 in
taxable costs.
Introduction
On Sept. 8, 2014, Plaintiff Tomassini commenced the putative class
action in state court, and Defendant FCA removed to the Northern
District of New York on Oct. 8, 2014.
On Jan. 25, 2018, Plaintiff Tomassini moved for class certification
on his claim for deceptive business practices under New York
General Business Law Section 349. The Court denied the Plaintiff's
motion.
Plaintiff Tomassini subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration
or, in the alternative, to permit Thomas Hromowyk to intervene as
an additional class representative. The Court denied the
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider but allowed him to amend the
complaint to include Mr. Hromowyk.
On Jan. 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Tomassini and Hromowyk filed an amended
complaint alleging violations under Section 349. The Defendant
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the
Court.
On Sept. 27, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion for sanctions and a
motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Hromowyk's claim. The
Court granted the Defendant's motions for sanctions and summary
judgment as to Plaintiff Hromowyk and he was terminated from the
action.
In June 2020, the Defendant moved for leave to deposit funds with
the Court. The Court denied the Defendant's motion. S
On Aug. 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to remand the action
to state court. Soon thereafter, he accepted the Defendant's offer
of judgment.
On Oct. 30, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees
and bill of costs. On March 26, 2021, the Court awarded the
Plaintiff $125,882.78 in attorneys' fees and $4,699.30 in taxable
costs.
Currently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to
reconsider.
Discussion
Judge D'Agostino holds that the Defendant's motion to reconsider
has failed to present controlling decisions or data that the Court
overlooked resulting in a manifest injustice. She finds that there
is no intervening change in controlling law, nor is there new
evidence not previously available. Therefore, the Defendant's
motion for reconsideration is seeking to prevent manifest
injustice. The Defendant asserts that the Court erred by cutting
the Plaintiff's fees across the board by 46%, improperly calculated
the total fee award, and failing to exclude recovery of
unsuccessful claims. However, its motion to reconsider merely
attempts to reargue issues before the Court and, is denied.
Foremost, contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the Court
excluded hours that the Plaintiff expended relating to his class
claims. The Defendant's assertion that the Court improperly applied
its decision to the fees requested is also incorrect. Reducing the
Plaintiff's Counsel's hours individually and then across the board
would be duplicative.
The Defendant's remaining arguments merely attempt to relitigate
issues already rejected by the Court. The Defendant asserts that
the Court must grant its motion to reconsider because it failed to
articulate why the Plaintiff could recover such a large sum of
attorneys' fees when the Plaintiff was only awarded $2,000. Judge
D'Agostino, however, acknowledged the Defendant's argument but
determined that $125,882.78 was a reasonable fee amount and noted
the significant delays extending the time of litigation. Further,
with Section 349 claims, an award of attorneys' fees need not be
proportional.
The Defendant also asserts that the Court's award failed to
consider the Plaintiff's lack of success compared to all that he
sought to accomplish. However, the Court did so by excluding
recovery for the Plaintiff's unsuccessful class action claims.
Conclusion
Judge D'Agostino concludes that the Defendant's motion to
reconsider has failed to present controlling decisions or data that
the Court overlooked resulting in a manifest injustice. Thus, the
Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the
Local Rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Memorandum-Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/jv6a5w9n from
Leagle.com.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP, FL OFFICE, DANIEL C. CALVERT, ESQ. --
dcalvert@yourlawyer.com -- JORDAN L. CHAIKIN, ESQ., in Bonita
Springs, Florida, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
LAW OFFICES OF ELMER, ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C., ELMER R. KEACH, III,
ESQ., in Albany, New York, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP, JASON S. RATHOD, ESQ. --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO, ESQ. --
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- in Washington, D.C., Attorneys for
the Plaintiff.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C., GARY S. GRAIFMAN, ESQ. --
ggraifman@kgglaw.com -- JAY I. BRODY, ESQ. -- jbrody@kgglaw.com --
in Chestnut Ridge, New York, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
WHITEFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, GARY E. MASON, ESQ. --
gmason@wbmllp.com -- in Washington, D.C., Attorneys for the
Plaintiff.
COUGHLIN, GERHART LAW FIRM -- BINGHAMTON OFFICE, ALAN J. POPE,
ESQ., in Binghamton, New York, Attorneys for the Defendant.
THOMPSON, COBURN LAW FIRM -- ST. LOUIS OFFICE, KATHY A. WISNIEWSKI,
ESQ. -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- SHARON B. ROSENBERG,
ESQ., STEPHEN A. D'AUNOY, ESQ. -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com --
THOMAS L. AZAR, JR., ESQ., in St. Louis, Missouri, Attorneys for
the Defendant.
FOUR SEASONS: Has Until Nov. 9 to File Class Cert. Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Van Balderen, et al., v.
Four Seasons Miami Employment Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-21842 (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Joan A. Lenard entered an order granting the
Defendant's corrected unopposed motion for extension of time to
file its response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
-- The Defendant shall have until and including November 9,
2021 to file its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification based on the representation that there are
"conflicts and existing deadlines in other matters" that
require the requested extension, and the fact that
Plaintiffs' counsel does not oppose the requested
extension.
-- However, the Court notes that there are four attorneys of
record for Defendant -- two located in Atlanta, Georgia,
one located in Davie, Florida, and one located in Ithaca,
New York.
-- Future requests for extensions based on conflicts and
existing deadlines in other matters shall demonstrate that
all four attorneys listed as counsel for Defendant are
unable to meet the deadline due to conflicts in other
matters.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.[CC]
GAOTU TECHEDU: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Gaotu Techedu Inc. ("Gaotu" or the "Company") (NYSE:
GOTU) from March 22, 2021 through March 29, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Gaotu securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Gaotu Techedu Inc
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
According to the complaint, Defendants Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and
Morgan Stanley traded while in possession of material non-public
information and that: (1) Defendants obtained the material
non-public information pursuant to their agreements with Archegos
Capital Management's ("Archegos") and as a result of their serving
as prime brokers of Archegos. (2) Defendants knew, recklessly
disregarded, or should have known that they owed a fiduciary duty,
or obligation arising from a similar relationship of trust and
confidence, to Archegos to keep the information confidential. (3)
Nevertheless, while in possession of material, non-public adverse
information, Defendants collectively sold billions of dollars'
worth of Gaotu Techedu Inc. (GOTU) shares.
During one week in late March 2021, investment banks Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley traded on inside information by selling large
amounts of GOTU stock based on then publicly undisclosed
information obtained through their relationship with troubled
multi-billion dollar family office Archegos Capital Management.
On this news, shares of Gaotu Techedu Inc. stock fell over 60%
during the week of March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 20, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Gaotu securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/gaotutecheduinc-gotu-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-446/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
GBR PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Expenses, Williams Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARVIS WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GBR PIZZA, INC. D/B/A DOMINO'S, GERALD B.
RHODES, JOHN DOE 1-10, DOE CORP. 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00828 (M.D.N.C., October 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to
adequately reimburse the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
them the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff has worked at the Defendants' Domino's store at the
Goldsboro, North Carolina location from 2005 to present.
GBR Pizza, Inc., doing business as Domino's, is an operator of
numerous Domino's Pizza franchises in North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary-Ann Leon, Esq.
THE LEON LAW FIRM, P.C.
704 Cromwell Dr., Ste. E
Greenville, NC 27858
Telephone: (252) 830-5366
E-mail: maleon@leonlaw.org
- and –
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Bennett Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELIZABETH BENNETT, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GEBRUEDER KNAUF
VERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT, KG; KNAUF INTERNATIONAL GMBH; KNAUF
INSULATION GMBH; KNAUF UK GMBH; KNAUF AMF GMBH & CO., KG; KNAUF DO
BRASIL LTD.; PT KNAUF GYPSUM INDONESIA; KNAUF GIPS KG; KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD.; KNAUF PLASTERBOARD WUHU, CO., LTD;
GUANGDONG KNAUF NEW BUILDING MATERIAL PRODUCTS CO., LTD., Case No.
5:14-cv-02204, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on October 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:21-cv-02501-MSS-CPT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied
warranty, redhibition, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a
corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, violations of the Louisiana
Products Liability Act and Consumer Protectional Acts, and
equitable and injunctive relief and medical monitoring by
manufacturing, distributing, and marketing defective drywall
products.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG is an investment
holding company doing business in the U.S.
Knauf International GmbH is a provider of building materials based
in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Insulation GmbH is a manufacturer of insulation products,
with a principal place of business in Shelbyville, Indiana.
Knauf UK GmbH is a manufacturer of insulation and building products
based in Sittingbourne, England.
Knauf AMF GmbH & Co., KG is a manufacturer of insulation and
building products based in Grafenau, Germany.
Knauf Do Brasil Ltd. is a manufacturer of insulation and building
products based in Brazil.
PT Knauf Gypsum Indonesia is a manufacturer of insulation and
building products based in Indonesia.
Knauf GIPS KG is a manufacturer of insulation and building products
based in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of gypsum
drywall based in China.
Knauf Plasterboard Wuhu, Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of gypsum
drywall based in China.
Guangdong Knauf New Building Material Products Co., Ltd. is a
manufacturer of building products based in China. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (205) 332-1362
E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Inoa Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA INOA; AUGUSTA GUFFROY; CASSIE ISZA; MICHELLE WALLS;
ANGELIQUE VELEZ; PRINCESS WALKER; ERNESTINE SANDERS; QUINCY TILSON;
MANUEL OROZCO; HELEN HOWARD; ALYSSA SMITH; DANIELLE CHRISTENSEN;
and LASHONTA GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01171-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., Oct. 18, 2021)
is an action against the Defendant for deceptively misrepresenting
and concealing the existence or risk of dangerous heavy metals in
its baby food products, and its related testing practices.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs purchased the
Defendant's baby and toddler food products ("Gerber Baby Foods")
and fed them to their children for months or even years. Like so
many parents and caretakers, the Plaintiffs reasonably believed
that the Defendant's baby foods were safe to feed to their
children.
However, the Defendant falsely markets and represents that its food
is "nutritious," "safe," "high-quality," "wholesome," and
rigorously tested, while concealing the presence or risk of Toxic
Heavy Metals in its products, says the suit.
Had the Plaintiffs knew about the Gerber Baby Foods products, that
the products allegedly contained or were at risk of containing
Toxic Heavy Metals, or that the Defendant generally sold products
with harmful levels of Toxic Heavy Metals, she never would have
purchased them or would have paid less for them.
Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
Paul Stephan, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
pstephan@cohenmilstein.com
-and-
Christopher K. Leung, Esq.
Max E. Rodriguez, Esq.
Alison Borochoff-Porte, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
60 Broad St., 24th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (917) 985-3995
Email: Chris@PollockCohen.com
Max@PollockCohen.com
alison@PollockCohen.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
BETH HARTWELL-DENNIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01173-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., Oct. 18, 2021)
alleges that the Defendant sells baby food products containing
dangerous amounts of toxic heavy metals, such as inorganic arsenic,
lead, cadmium, and mercury.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff believed Defendant's
representations that its baby food products were safe. Yet, the
Defendant knowingly concealed all material information about Toxic
Heavy Metals, internal and external testing results, and its
products' hazards. Defendant sacrificed the health and safety of
infants, children, parents, and caregivers, to increase corporate
revenue. The Defendant lied to the Plaintiff and millions of
consumers and broke their trust and faith, by actively marketing
and selling baby food products as safe while the Defendant knew
that its products were unsafe and contained dangerous amounts of
Toxic Heavy Metals but decided to sell the products to parents
anyway, says the suit.
Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
Paul Stephan, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
pstephan@cohenmilstein.com
-and-
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Carol Villegas, Esq.
Jeffrey R. McEachern, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
Email: mcanty@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
jmceachern@labaton.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: End-Payor Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER STALEY, et al., v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al, Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), the End-Payor Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following six classes:
(a) The Truvada Class:
"All entities in the United States that indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some
or all of the purchase price of Truvada, and/or its
AB-rated generic equivalent sold by Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. or its affiliates, in
the Specified States 1 for consumption by their
members, employees, insureds, participants, or
beneficiaries, other than for resale, during the
period February 1, 2018 through the date of the order
certifying the class;"
(b) The Atripla Class:
"All entities in the United States that indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some
or all of the purchase price of Atripla, and/or its
AB-rated generic equivalent sold by Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. or its affiliates, in
the Specified States for consumption by their members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries,
other than for resale, during the period February 1,
2018 through the date of the order certifying the
class;"
(c) The Complera Class:
"All entities in the United States that indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some
or all of the purchase price of Complera in the
Specified States for consumption by their members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries,
other than for resale, during the period February 1,
2018 through the date of the order certifying the
class;"
(d) The Evotaz Injunctive Class:
"All persons or entities in the United States who
indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of
Evotaz for consumption by themselves, their families,
or their members, employees, insureds, participants,
or beneficiaries, other than for resale, during the
period May 14, 2015 through the date of final judgment
in this case;"
(e) The Prezcobix Injunctive Class:
"All persons or entities in the United States who
indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of
Prezcobix for consumption by themselves, their
families, or their members, employees, insureds,
participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale,
during the period May 14, 2015 through the date of
final judgment in this case;" and
(f) The cART Foundation Drug Injunctive Class:
"All persons or entities in the United States who
indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of
a Gilead cART Foundation Drug for consumption by
themselves, their families, or their members,
employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries,
other than for resale, during the period May 14, 2015
through the date of final judgment in this case;"
-- Excluded from the Truvada, Atripla, and Complera
Classes are:
(a) Defendants and their officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, or
affiliates;
(b) All federal and state government entities,
except for cities, towns, municipalities or
counties with self-funded prescription drug
plans;
(c) Fully insured health plans, i.e., plans for
which the insurer bears 100% of the risk for
the reimbursement obligations to members; and
(d) Pharmacy Benefit Managers.
-- Excluded from each of the Injunctive Classes are:
(a) Defendants and their officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, or
affiliates;
(b) All federal and state government entities,
except for cities, towns, municipalities or
counties with self-funded prescription drug
plans;
(c) Fully insured health plans, i.e., plans for
which the insurer bears 100% of the risk for
the reimbursement obligations to members;
(d) Pharmacy Benefit Managers; and
(e) The Judges in this case and any members of
their immediate families.
-- Additionally, excluded from the cART Foundation
Drug Injunctive Class are:
(a) Natural persons who at any time from May 14,
2015 through the date of the class
certification order filed a claim for personal
injury against any of the defendants alleged to
be caused by the consumption of a tenofovir-
containing product.
2. appointing: (i) the four named TPP Plaintiffs as
representatives of the Truvada Class; and (ii) Teamsters
as the representative of the Atripla and Complera Classes;
3. appointing: (i) Teamsters as the representative of the
Evotaz Injunctive Class; (ii) Teamsters, Local 1, FOP and
Brenda Emily Goodrow as representatives of the Prezcobix
Injunctive Class; and (iii) the four named TPP plaintiffs
and Ivy Kwan Arce, Gregg Gonsalves, Brenda Emily Goodrow,
Joshua McDonald, Andrew Spieldenner, and Troy Vazquez Cain
as representatives of the cART Foundation Drug Injunctive
Class;
4. appointing Daralyn Durie of Durie Tangri LLP, Steve
Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, and Steve Berman of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the
proposed classes of End-Payor Plaintiffs; and
5. requiring the parties to promptly meet and confer
regarding the appropriate form and manner of class notice
and to submit a joint proposed Notice Plan to the Court
within 21 days of the date of the class certification
order, provided, however, that if the parties cannot
agree on a joint notice plan, they shall each submit their
own notice plan.
The "Specified States" for each of the Damages Classes are:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Washington
D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
For the purposes of this class definition a Gilead cART Foundation
drug is any of one or more of: Atripla, Biktarvy, Complera,
Descovy, Genvoya, Odefsey, Stribild, Symtuza, Truvada, and Viread.
The "TPP Plaintiffs" refers to Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund (FOP); Service Employees
International Union, Local No. 1 Health Fund (Local 1); Teamsters
Local 237 Welfare Fund, Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund
(Teamsters); and Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund (Pipe
Trades).
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of
HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and influenza, including Harvoni and
Sovaldi.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nvAVh2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs are:
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Richard Brunell, Esq.
Tina Joann Miranda, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
Nicholas William Shadowen, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
W. Henry Huttinger, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
953 East 3rd Street
Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-4422
Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
E-mail: hhuttinger@durietangri.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas m. Sobol, Esq.
Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
Abbye R. Klamann Ognibene, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tom@hbsslaw.com
grega@hbsslaw.com
abbye@hbsslaw.com
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Staley Plaintiffs, are:
John Radice, Esq.
Dan Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515-0123
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
Michael Ols, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
mols@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 West Monroe, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
ekelly@sperling-law.com
arodriguez@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
- and -
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com
lglancy@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
bmurray@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Eugene Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey Kodroff, Esq.
William Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Motion to Dismiss Zantac MDL Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
medtruth.com reports that the federal judge in Florida presiding
over Zantac multidistrict litigation (MDL) has denied requests by
former manufacturers of the discontinued heartburn drug to dismiss
a class action over the drug's marketing and the severe health
problems it has allegedly caused in tens of thousands of
plaintiffs.
Judge Robin Rosenberg ruled on Oct. 8 that Zantac makers,
GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim, are to
face lawsuits filed by individuals who were formerly prescribed
Zantac and are seeking compensation for future medical monitoring
of cancer and for their financial losses, FiercePharma reported.
In April 2020, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that
branded Zantac and generic versions be removed from the market
after laboratory testing revealed that ranitidine, the medication's
synthetic active compound, was found to chemically decay at room
temperatures, creating unacceptable amounts of a carcinogenic
byproduct, NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine).
In July, generic Zantac makers escaped class action litigation when
Judge Rosenberg ruled that all the claims made against unbranded
makers were preempted by federal drug labeling laws.
To date, plaintiffs' attorneys claim that over 100,000 people who
took Zantac now have cancer, according to FiercePharma.
A 2019 USA Today report said that "Zantac was prescribed more than
15 million times a year with little worry about the safety of the
medication, available for decades." Testing of over-the-counter
alternatives to Zantac, including Pepcid, Tagamet, Nexium, Prevacid
and Prilosec found no NDMA, USA Today added.
Exposure to NDMA has been associated with several types of cancers.
The FDA was first alerted to the risk of NDMA contamination in
Zantac by Valisure, an independent online pharmacy that also
conducts laboratory testing of pharmaceuticals. Valisure told the
FDA that medical studies dating back to the early 1980s
demonstrated an association between ranitidine and cancer.
Two popular high blood pressure-lowering drugs, valsartan and
losartan, were recalled in 2018 because of NDMA contamination. [GN]
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Settles Class Action Over Mislabeled Chocolate
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Intake reports that as previously covered on this blog, a
class action lawsuit against Godiva Chocolatier alleges that the
claim 'Belgium 1926' on Godiva's products sold in the U.S. is
misleading because it implies that the chocolate is made in Europe
when it is actually made in Pennsylvania and is a different quality
than chocolate made in Belgium. On May 29, 2020, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied an injunction
but also refused to dismiss the case, rejecting Godiva's argument
that a reasonable consumer would certainly realize that the
disputed claim only means that the company was founded in Belgium
in 1926.
On October 12, 2021, following more than a year of settlement
negotiations through mediation, the plaintiffs asked the court to
approve a settlement in which Godiva has agreed to pay up to $15
million for claims by an estimated 18 million consumers nationwide
and $5 million to cover attorney fees and other costs. Consumers
who submit claim forms would be eligible to receive $1.25 per
product, up to a total of $25 per household with proof of purchase
or $15 without proof. While stating that a settlement is in the
company's best interest, a spokesperson for Godiva emphasized to
Law360 that 'Belgium 1926' signifies the place and the year of the
company's founding.
A separate lawsuit involving similar claims was dismissed with
consent from the plaintiff by the Superior Court for the District
of Columbia on March 18, 2021. 'Belgium 1926' continues to appear
on Godiva products for sale in the U.S. [GN]
GOLD LOUNGE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Boykin Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HYDEIA BOYKIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD LOUNGE, LLC, a Domestic For-Profit
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00177-CDL
(M.D. Ga., October 8, 2021) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of its
exotic dancers' statutory rights under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an exotic dancer.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has allegedly employed a
systemic company-wide policy, pattern, or practice of
misclassifying exotic dancer employees at the Defendant's Gold
Lounge gentlemen's club as "independent contractors." Therefore,
the Defendant totally failed to pay wages or any kind of
compensation to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
female exotic dancers at the Defendant's Gold Lounge gentlemen's
club. In addition, the Defendant unlawfully withheld or assigned
tips the Plaintiff and other female exotic dancers received from
customers, and unlawfully charged them kickbacks, fines, and
surcharges during their employment, says the suit.
Gold Lounge, LLC operates a gentlemen's club. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Mew IV, Esq.
BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
600 Peachtree St. NE Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Tel: (404) 781-1100
E-mail: tmew@buckeybeal.com
- and –
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Av, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley
alleging violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The case is
currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased
Vipshop Holdings Limited (NYSE:VIPS) American Depositary Shares
between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021 may contact the Thornton
Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/VIPS for more information. Investors may also
email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/VIPS
According to the Complaint, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are
global financial services institutions that served as prime brokers
for Archegos Capital Management. The case alleges that Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Vipshop shares
during the Class Period while in possession of material, non-public
information about Archegos, and its need to fully liquidate its
position in Vipshop because of margin call pressure. As a result of
these sales, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in
losses combined.
Interested VIPS investors have until December 13, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/VIPS
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/VIPS [GN]
GRAND CANYON: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Schedule Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carson Little v. Grand
Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00795-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order granting the parties'
stipulation to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's amended
motion for class certification and appointment of class
representative and class counsel
-- The Defendant's opposition brief regarding Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Representative and Class Counsel shall be due on or
before November 3, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's reply brief regarding Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Representative and Class Counsel shall be due on or before
November 17, 2021.
Grand Canyon University is a private for-profit Christian
university in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mplTdr at no extra charge.[CC]
GREEN MARKET: Abdulla Sues Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------
Jumana Abdulla, and those similarly situated v. GREEN MARKET CO-OP,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and THE VILLAGE OF
PINECREST, a Governmental Entity, Case No. 136568202 (Fla. 11th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 14, 2021), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of contract for termination same
without valid cause.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant contracted on April 27, 2021 for
Plaintiff to be a Vendor at the Pinecrest Gardens Marketplace. The
Green Market Co-Op, LLC is authorized to conduct the market and
operate same by the Village of Pinecrest and all contracts and
grievances pursuant to the contract are subject to administration
by the Village of Pinecrest. Village of Pinecrest is noted in the
Contract as the reporting and authority regarding complaints as
well as the owner of the property for which Defendant Green Market
operated.
The Plaintiff paid all appropriate fees and complied with all terms
of the contract. The Defendant violated the contract by terminating
same without valid cause on May 20, 2021. The Defendants singled
the Plaintiff out as an Arabic woman of Middle Eastern descent for
the purposes of harassment and discriminatory treatment and engaged
in targeted harassment not directed at any other individuals. The
Defendant alleged that Plaintiff was in violation of a non-existent
policy by not wearing a mask though the Plaintiff was in fact
wearing a mask at the times alleged by the Defendant. The Defendant
illegally terminated the contract and is in Breach.
The Plaintiff was preclude from earnings she would have received as
a result of contractual participation at the contracted for venue.
The Defendant is engaged in repeated bullying at the Farmers Market
at Pinecrest Garden which they operate and control with the
authority and blessing of Defendant VILLAGE OF PINECREST and they
are in fact agents of Defendant VILLAGE OF PINECREST, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a female of Middle Eastern and Arabic descent who
owns and operates a business known as Taste of the Holy Land, LLC.
GREEN MARKET CO-OP, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company
authorized to do business in Florida and Authorized to operate the
market at Pinecrest Gardens by Defendant VILLAGE OF PINECREST.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
Daniel H. Hunt, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
dhunt@rgpattorneys.com
GRUMA CORP: Can Compel Arbitration in Orozco Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMA OROZCO, Plaintiff v. GRUMA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01293-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss
the action filed by the Defendant on Sept. 17, 2020.
Background
Plaintiff Orozco filed two separate putative class action lawsuits
in Fresno County Superior Court against her former employer,
defendant Gruma. The Defendant subsequently removed both actions to
the federal district court. In the first action, the Plaintiff had
filed a complaint on June 15, 2020, alleging that the Defendant
violated various provisions of the California Labor Code with
regard to the payment of wages, and she sought recovery of civil
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor
Code Sections 2698, et seq., ("PAGA") -- Orozco v. Gruma Corp.,
1:20-cv-1290-AWI-EPG, Doc. No. 1 at 20, (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020)
("Orozco I").
A few days later, on June 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a complaint
initiating the second action, alleging state law claims for
retaliation, wrongful termination, sex discrimination, hostile work
environment, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation
in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California Government Code Section 12940, ("FEHA"). Upon removal to
the Court, Orozco I was assigned to Senior District Judge Anthony
W. Ishii, and the second action -- the case ("Orozco II") -- was
assigned to Judge Drozd.
On Sept. 14, 2020, shortly after removal and before any motions
were filed, the Defendant filed a notice of related cases on the
dockets in both Orozco I and Orozco II. The filing of the notice
was overlooked and the Court did not issue an order relating and
reassigning Orozco I and Orozco II to the same district judge.
In both cases, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration
and to dismiss the action, based upon the same facts (e.g., the
arbitration agreement the Plaintiff had signed) and presenting the
same legal arguments regarding the validity and enforceability of
that arbitration agreement.
In Orozco I, District Judge Anthony Ishii recently granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed that action.
The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the
Orozco II action, which the Defendant filed on Sept. 17, 2020,
remains pending.
The Plaintiff filed her opposition to the pending motion on Oct. 6,
2020, and the Defendant filed its reply thereto on Oct. 13, 2020.
In both actions, the Defendant filed objections to the Plaintiff's
evidence, namely objecting to the Plaintiff's declaration as
invalid because it lacks the date and location of execution.
On Oct. 5, 2021, the Defendant filed a notice on the docket in the
case informing Judge Drozd of the order that had been issued in
Orozco I to compel arbitration and dismiss that action. On Oct. 7,
2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority on the
docket in the case to direct the court's attention to a recent
ruling by the Ninth Circuit in Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America et al. v. Rob Bonta et al., No. 20-15291, 2021 WL
4187860 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2021).
Discussion
Judge Drozd has reviewed the order issued by Judge Ishii in Orozco
I granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to
dismiss that action, and agrees with the analysis set forth therein
and will incorporate that analysis by reference in the case. He
concludes that all of the Plaintiff's claims in the action are
subject to the valid arbitration agreement that she signed on Dec.
21, 2016. He explains that a district court has the discretion to
either stay the case pending arbitration or to dismiss the case if
all of the alleged claims are subject to arbitration. In the case,
because all of the Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration,
he concludes that dismissal is appropriate. Thus, he will grant the
Defendant's pending motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the
action.
Order
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Drozd granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and dismisses
the action. The parties will submit all claims pending in the
matter to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement
signed on Dec. 21, 2016. The action is dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9wune85j from Leagle.com.
GSF USA: Solis BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGEL SOLIS and XOCHI HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GSF USA, INC., Case
No. 2021 CH 04720, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 22,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-05664 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to develop
and/or make public its written policy to the Plaintiffs and Class
members; collecting, capturing, obtaining and storing the
Plaintiffs and Class members' biometric identifiers and/or
information without informing them in writing and obtaining a
written release; and failing to store their biometric data using
the reasonable standard of care within its industry.
GSF USA, Inc. is a commercial cleaning services provider based in
Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 787-4949
E-mail: Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com
Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com
GUARDIANS LLC: Underpays Security Guards, Wright Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JERAMIE WRIGHT and JAMES WEBB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GUARDIANS LLC, KROGER
COMPANY, ATOSC GROUP LLC and TRACY DOWDY, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02672-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn., October 25, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and overtime
pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as security guards.
Guardians LLC is a security services company based in Florida.
Kroger Company is an American retail company headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
ATOSC Group LLC is a security services provider, with its principal
address located at 1901 Central Drive, Suite 730, Bedford, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
HONEST COMPANY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the common stock of The Honest Company, Inc. (NASDAQ:
HNST) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in May 2021 (the "IPO") of the important
November 15, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased The Honest Company common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a
contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join The Honest Company class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2161.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 15, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO's
registration statement featured false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) prior to the IPO, The Honest
Company's results had been significantly impacted by a
multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in the Diapers
and Wipes category and Household and Wellness category; (2) at the
time of the IPO, The Honest Company was experiencing decelerating
demand for such products; (3) as a result, The Honest Company's
financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about The
Honest Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join The Honest Company class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2161.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Hyzon Motors Inc.
f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation (NASDAQ: HYZN).
Shareholders who purchased shares of HYZN during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hyzon-motors-inc-f-k-a-decarbonization-plus-acquisition-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=20552&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: February 9, 2021 to September 27, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the
nature of its "customer" contracts and severely embellished its
"deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2) Hyzon could not
deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: November 29, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hyzon-motors-inc-f-k-a-decarbonization-plus-acquisition-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=20552&from=5
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of HYZN during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is November 29, 2021. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Hyzon
Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation
("Hyzon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HYZN). The class action is on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Hyzon common between February
9, 2021 and September 27, 2021. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than November 29, 2021.
The filed complaint alleges that Hyzon f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation made materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Hyzon was
misrepresenting the nature of its "customer" contracts and severely
embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2)
Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its
stated timeline; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Hyzon class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Hyzon class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning
more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.
Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you. [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of November 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Oct. 19 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Hyzon Motors
Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation (NASDAQ:
HYZN) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in HYZN:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/hyzon-motors-inc-f-k-a-decarbonization-plus-acquisition-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=20540&from=5
Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition
Corporation NEWS - HYZN NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Hyzon
Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its
"customer" contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and
"partnerships" with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its
announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Hyzon you have until November 29, 2021 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Hyzon securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the HYZN lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon") (NASDAQ: HYZN) between February
9, 2021 and September 27, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York. To get
more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyzon-motors-inc-f-k-a-decarbonization-plus-acquisition-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=20534&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition
Corporation NEWS - HYZN NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) Hyzon was
misrepresenting the nature of its "customer" contracts and severely
embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2)
Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its
stated timeline; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Hyzon,
you have until November 29, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Hyzon securities between February
9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyzon-motors-inc-f-k-a-decarbonization-plus-acquisition-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=20534&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HYZN)
(NASDAQ: HYZNW) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06636, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Hyzon between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased publicly traded securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 29, 2021 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Hyzon purports to be a leader in fuel cell electric mobility with
an exclusive focus on the commercial vehicle market, and a
near-term focus on back to base (captive fleet) operations.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its "customer"
contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and "partnerships"
with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles
in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
On September 28, 2021, market analyst Blue Orca Capital published a
report about the Company that, among other things, disclosed the
following, in pertinent part, regarding the Company's touted deals:
[H]yzon's Largest Customer is a Fake-Looking Chinese Shell Entity
Formed 3 Days Before Deal Announced; Channel Checks Reveal Next
Largest Customer Not Really a Customer; Phantom Big-Name Customers
Suggest Overstated Orders and Financial Projections.
On this news, Hyzon shares fell $2.58 per share, or 28%, to close
at $6.63 per share on September 28, 2021, damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ILLINOIS: Fails to Provide Proper Medical Care to Prisoners
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Hilles at injusticewatch.org reports that more than a decade
has passed since incarcerated people filed a class action lawsuit
accusing the Illinois Department of Corrections of failing to
provide adequate medical care to people in custody. But health care
in the state's prisons still falls short, and the department isn't
moving quickly enough to fix the myriad problems, according to a
new report from an independent monitor.
The monitor found that prison medical units are understaffed,
patient intake screenings do not fully address patients' medical
problems or create a care plan, and the department does not review
deaths in custody to identify opportunities for medical care
improvement, among dozens of other issues. These deficiencies have
led to delays in medical treatment and even caused preventable
deaths, the monitor wrote.
The report is the fourth filed by the monitor, Dr. John Raba, since
November 2019 as part of the ongoing lawsuit over the quality of
health care in Illinois prisons. A federal judge approved a consent
decree in 2019 and appointed Raba, a former chief medical officer
for the Cook County Health and Hospitals System, to oversee
implementation of a complete overhaul of health care in the state's
prison system.
But two years later, the "IDOC does not yet have a comprehensive
plan to address this consent decree; instead, it seems to primarily
respond to crises and threats of legal action," Raba wrote in his
report.
Illinois Department of Corrections spokesperson Lindsey Hess said
she could not comment on ongoing litigation.
But in a written response to the report filed in court, attorneys
for the corrections department said the impact of the Covid-19
pandemic took away time from addressing the consent decree
requirements, but the department "has experienced major
achievements since the last monitoring report" and "will continue
to work collaboratively with the monitor."
More than 11,000 incarcerated people in Illinois, about one-third
of the prison population, have been infected by Covid-19, and 88
people have died, according to the report. But the problems with
health care in Illinois' prisons have long predated the current
crisis.
Alan Mills, executive director of the Uptown People's Law Center,
which filed the initial lawsuit against the IDOC for inadequate
health care in 2010, said the report shows that the entire system
needs an "overhaul from bottom up" to "actually provide good care,
rather than just responding to whatever the crisis of the moment
is."
"Prisoners throughout the department of corrections, throughout all
prisons in Illinois, continue to suffer from serious medical needs,
which are not being met," Mills said. "So while bureaucrats dither,
people are suffering."
Raba said the department has only fully or partially addressed 11
of the 235 recommendations that he made in his last report in
February, which included creating an electronic medical record
system, improving nutrition and timing of meals for people in
custody with special dietary needs, and implementing standardized
initial health intake screenings for all incarcerated people. The
monitor found issues with practically all aspects of medical care
in the state's prisons, including daily sick calls, infirmary care,
urgent and emergency care, dental care, medication administration,
and medical record-keeping.
In one of dozens of specific examples of substandard care outlined
in the report, Raba describes a 82-year-old patient with dementia,
arthritis, high cholesterol, gastric reflux, hypothyroidism, and
chronic obstructive lung disease. The patient was losing weight,
but providers never evaluated what the patient was eating or
referred him to a dietitian, according to the monitor. Eventually,
the patient died of small bowel obstruction, without ever having a
nutritional analysis done, the report said.
In another case, a patient with severe asthma and nasal polyps that
caused difficulty breathing waited more than seven months before
being seen by an ear nose and throat specialist, according to the
report. The specialist ordered a CT scan and requested a follow-up
visit, but weeks passed before the appointment was scheduled. The
patient died two months later — days before his scheduled
follow-up appointment with the specialist. The monitor said his
death was "preventable."
Lack of staff and data collection plague health care system
Many of the issues with medical care stem from a lack of qualified
medical staff, a problem that has actually gotten worse in the past
two years, according to the report. In August, there were 11 fewer
physicians, three fewer physician assistants, and two fewer
optometrists than in November 2019, according to the report. There
are more than 340 vacant medical staff positions, up from 236 in
November 2019.
"The department of corrections has not even come up with a plan to
hire people, but perhaps even more importantly, they haven't
actually started hiring people they admit they need," Mills said.
Raba said some of the medical personnel the department has hired do
not have the proper qualifications. For example, the department
reported in May 2020 that it had hired a communicable and
infectious disease coordinator, but the person it hired had no
training in infection control and only eight months of relevant
work experience, according to the report. Six current physicians do
not have the proper credentials, and one former physician had his
license permanently revoked by the state licensing board before the
corrections department took action.
A different independent monitor in a separate lawsuit over mental
health care in Illinois prisons found similar issues with staffing
levels in a report filed in that case earlier this year.
The department has also stonewalled Raba's efforts to collect data
and documents that would help him determine their level of
compliance with the consent decree, Raba wrote in the report. In
addition, the department has pushed back against Raba's
recommendations for an implementation plan, arguing that he is
going beyond what is required by the consent decree.
"It appears that IDOC is willing to let the monitor develop a plan
for them but only if they can reject any of the monitor's
suggestions," Raba wrote. "If this doesn't change, the
implementation plan will continue to remain unfinished for the
foreseeable future."
Attorneys for the department countered that they have "engaged in
ongoing discussions regarding the implementation plan" with Raba
for the past two years.
U.S. District Court Judge Jorge L. Alonso, who oversees the consent
decree, has ordered the department of corrections to file an
implementation plan by Nov. 10. So far, the department has failed
to meet the deadlines for staffing and implementation plans, Mills
said. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Dec. 3., when
the judge will determine whether the latest implementation plan
submitted by the department is sufficient. [GN]
INTEGRATED PETROLEUM: Underpays Drilling Consultants, Sperry Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01036-LF-SCY (D.N.M., October 27, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated drilling consultants overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.
Mr. Sperry worked for the Defendant as a drilling consultant from
approximately May 2018 until August 2019.
Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc. is an oil and gas company
that provides consulting services in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JACKSON, MS: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Drinking Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Warren, writing for WLBT, reports that attorneys
representing 600 children have filed suit in federal court claiming
they had been exposed to lead for years and that the city of
Jackson attempted to cover it up.
On Oct. 19, victims filed a complaint against the city of Jackson,
the Mississippi State Department of Health, Trilogy Engineering
Services, and numerous current and former city and state officials
"for allowing the city's drinking water to become contaminated with
lead."
The plaintiffs in the case are children living in the capital city
who attorneys say have been exposed to lead for years.
The lead attorney in the case is Corey Stern, who was a lead
attorney for plaintiffs in the Flint, Michigan water case.
"Flint wasn't a one-off -- it was the canary in the coal mine that
opened our eyes to water crises playing out in cities across
America," he said in a news release. "Jackson is yet another tragic
and horrifying example of a city failing to do right by its
residents and ensure they have clean access to drinking water."
The suit states that the city learned of its impending lead problem
with its well system in 2013 and was warned again in 2014. However,
instead of addressing it, the city attempted a quick fix that made
the lead problem even worse. Then, the suit alleged that after the
city learned of the higher lead levels, it quietly switched back
over to the well system. All the time, residents were kept in the
dark.
"Tragically, MSDH and Jackson officials failed to warn Jackson's
citizens, including (the plaintiffs) . . . of the issues with
corrosive water from the river/reservoir until January 2016, five
months after it was no longer in use."
The city had attempted to address the problem by switching part of
its system off of the well system and onto the Pearl River and Ross
Barnett Reservoir. However, that water was far more corrosive than
the well water supply, "which caused lead to leach from Jackson's
pipes and lead levels in Jackson's drinking water to spike."
Attorneys go on to state that when city leaders learned of the
problem, they "took a series of actions that greatly exacerbated
the problem."
In April 2016, the suit claims then-Mayor Tony Yarber brought on a
campaign donor, Trilogy Engineering Services LLC "to conduct a
water study." Trilogy was owned by Thessalonian Leblanc, who held
"an off-the-books fundraiser" for Yarber during his mayoral run in
2014.
"Leblanc and Trilogy got a sweetheart deal -- they were paid nearly
as much to analyze the potential crisis as an actual fix to the
problem would have cost in 2014," the suit states. Meanwhile, when
confronted, city leaders, including then-Public Works Director
Kishia Powell, "downplayed" the public health threat.
"Unsurprising, the crisis in Jackson worsened as Trilogy bungled
its response and Jackson persistently refused to take basic actions
to ensure its citizens and water users have access to safe, clean
drinking water," the suit states.
"Despite the painfully obvious similarity to the public health
crisis in Flint, Michigan at that time, Powell repeatedly
downplayed the threat in Jackson and told members of the media and
the public that Jackson was no Flint."
According to the Associated Press, "the Flint water crisis began in
2014 "when the city began taking water from the Flint River without
treating it properly, contaminating it with lead."
Years later, the city continues to struggle with its water issues.
In March 2020, the EPA issued an Emergency Administrative Order
requiring Jackson to address numerous problems at its water
treatment plants.
According to that order, "conditions exist at the system that
(presented) an imminent and substantial endangerment to the persons
served by the system."
Federal officials conducted inspections at the O.B. Curtis and J.H.
Fewell water treatment plants in February 2020, at the behest of
the state health department. At the time, the city had failed to
provide proper reports to the Mississippi State Department of
Health for nearly three years.
Among findings, EPA determined that equipment at both plants was
not properly calibrated to "provide accurate dosing for proper
treatment of drinking water." In other words, the city could not
determine whether it was putting the accurate amount of chemicals
in the water being treated.
Inspectors also found that monitoring equipment at O.B. Curtis had
not been repaired or calibrated in three years after a technician
position at the plant had been vacated. Respondents also were
unable to perform membrane integrity tests and had failed to
perform filter maintenance at both plants.
Like in the previous instance, city leaders were criticized for not
making details of the EPA order public.
In late June, the city council approved an administrative order
giving EPA greater oversight in the city's efforts to bring its
water system into compliance with federal law.
Attorneys claim their clients, as well as other residents, have had
to struggle to find clean drinking water and that the city has
violated their due process rights "including the fundamental right
to bodily integrity."
"(The) plaintiff has also sustained violations of substantive due
process rights, including the fundamental right not to have the
state create, inflict and/or exacerbate dangers through the
culpable actions of public officials."
As for the health impacts, attorneys say their clients will
"forever suffer cognitive deficits" as a result.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Officials with the city of Jackson and MSDH declined to
comment.[GN]
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Over Electricity Denial May Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
jamaica-gleaner.com reports that despite a cease-and-desist order
being served on the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) to halt
its transformer protection programme, consultations are still under
way for a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents of Woodford
Park in St Andrew, who have complained about the loss of
electricity on a regular basis.
The JPS's efforts to implement a transformer protection programme,
which it argued had been necessary to protect equipment being
damaged due to illegal abstraction of electricity, had seen
frequent disruptions of home and business supplies with students
and teachers engaging in online classes being knocked offline and
some call centre staff unable to work from home.
The action has forced the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) to
issue a cease-and-desist order, instructing the JPS to stop the
wholesale denial of electricity to customers.
"The decision of the OUR is now in effect and we are watching to
see what happens in the next 90 days of the order. No one seems to
have known about the programme from the enquires that I have made,
and it gives the impression of some arbitrariness about the
action," St Andrew South Eastern Member of Parliament (MP) Julian
Robinson told The Sunday Gleaner.
"We will be watching to see how many times the community loses
electricity, during the cease-and-desist order period," he said.
[GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jimenez Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MELISSA JIMENEZ and CATALINA OCAMPO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-13113, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 22,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-62189-AHS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by manufacturing and selling sunscreen
products under Neutrogena brand containing high levels of benzene.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer
products, headquartered in Skillman, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste. 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
JUAN BARCENAS: Tremols Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS TREMOLS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JUAN BARCENAS INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC and JUAN
BARCENAS, Case No. 5:21-cv-05057-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge
P.K. Holmes, III entered an order that Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action and approval of
notice is granted as follows.
1. The Court conditionally certifies the case as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and authorizes
notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
-- The opt-in class will consist of all account managers
employed by Juan Barcenas Insurance and Financial
Services, LLC, and Juan Barcenas who worked more than
forty hours in any week anytime since March 17, 2018.
-- Within 7 days after receiving the contact information
for potential opt-in plaintiffs, Plaintiffs must
prepare and distribute notice to all putative
plaintiffs as allowed by this order.
-- The Plaintiffs must file any opt-in plaintiffs' signed
consent-to-join forms with the Court within 60 days
after receiving the contact information of potential
opt-in plaintiffs.
2. The Defendants are directed to provide the names, mailing
addresses, and email addresses of all putative members of
the collective action. Defendants may provide this
information in a manipulatable electronic format such as
Microsoft Word of Excel. Defendants have until October 27,
2021, to deliver the contact information to Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent-to-join forms
are approved in accordance with the changes above.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w0ckFi at no extra charge.[CC]
JUPITER, FL: Bernstein Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY BERNSTEIN, VINCENT
CURCIO, and JOHN ANGELONE, v. TOWN OF JUPITER, a municipal
Corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-81215-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the the Fair Labor
Standards Act, for the proposed Putative Class defined as
follows:
"All persons who are currently, or who were, employed by
the Town of Jupiter as law enforcement officers with the
rank of "police officer" or "sergeant" from June 2, 2018
to June 2, 2021, who worked overtime hours and were
entitled to receive overtime payments, and who received
"Assignment Pay;"
This Putative Class is substantially narrower and more
precise than what was proposed in Plaintiffs' original
motion and ensures that the Putative Class is proper for
certification. This Putative Class does not include
individuals that are exempt employees, individuals not
employed by Defendant, individuals who are non-similarly
situated, and individuals that may have worked for
subsidiaries;
2. extending the discovery period and all associated
deadlines by a period of 90 days following issuance of the
notice by the Court;
3. expediting production by the Defendant, within 10 days, of
a complete list of each person -- including his/her last
known home address, telephone number, and e-mail address-
who fits within the Putative Class;
4. requiring Defendant to format and produce, on an expedited
basis, a list both in hard copy and electronically in an
Excel spreadsheet, of each such person listed
alphabetically, and with each person's last known home
address, cellular number, and e-mail addresses in a
separate field corresponding with each name to facilitate
the preparation and sending of notice;
5. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send a substantially
similar Court-Approved Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail
to all such persons about their rights to opt into this
collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit;
6. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-Approved
Reminder Notice by e-mail and by U.S. Mail to all Putative
Class members; and
7. requiring Defendant to post notice in any and all break
rooms for the entire notice period and to provide a copy
of the Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class members
in the next paycheck / pay stub provided to Defendant's
current employees.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vVkz57
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert C. Johnson, Esq.
Michael J. Pike, Esq.
Daniel Lustig, Esq.
1209 N. Olive Ave.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 855-7585
Facsimile: (561) 855-7710
E-mail: pleadings@pikelustig.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Waverly Schools Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WAVERLY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-08246-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 22,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, added the suit.
Waverly Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 515 Snow Road in Lansing, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Logan Municipal Schools to Join E-Cigarette Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quay County Sun reports that the Logan Municipal Schools board
unanimously voted to join in a class-action lawsuit against two
e-cigarette-affiliated companies because of the costs and effects
of underage use of those products.
The board took the action during its Oct. 11 meeting after a closed
executive session to discuss possible litigation.
The lawsuit is against Juul Labs and Altria Group.
Superintendent Dennis Roch wrote in an email after the meeting the
Logan district seeks "to recover both previous expenditures and
prospective costs involved in preventing, responding to and
counteracting the effects of underage use of vaping products sold
by these two companies."
According to one recent report, more than 450 school districts
across the country have joined the federal lawsuit. Billions of
dollars are potentially at stake.
If no settlement is reached, a trial is scheduled to begin in
March.
In other business:
• In his facility update, Roch said two shade structures meant to
facilitate outdoor teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic were
ripped down by storms two days after they were installed.
Roch acknowledged the two structures were "stopgap" until more
durable shade structures would be erected, possibly by spring.
• In his academic update, Roch said teacher Clay Lightfoot
recently received two virtual-reality welding training boxes that
allow students to practice their skills before advancing to actual
welding situations. The district will use the boxes for two months
before they're moved to another school district.
Several instructors also will attend a weeklong construction trades
academy in Albuquerque. Five students also were scheduled to take a
drone-flying federal certification test. [GN]
KATE BROWN: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Maney Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT;
GEORGE NULPH; THERON HALL; DAVID HART; MICAH RHODES; and SHERYL
LYNN SUBLET, individually, on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, v. KATE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS; HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE GOWER;
MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; and KEN JESKE, , Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB
(D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered a scheduling
order as follows:
1. The Defendants may file a motion to dismiss paragraph
93(d) of the Fifth Amended Complaint by November 2, 2021.
If Defendants file a motion to dismiss paragraph 93(d),
the Plaintiffs' response is due by November 16, 2021, and
Defendants' reply is due by November 23, 2021.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file a Sixth Amended Complaint by
November 2, 2021, defining the Damages Class to include
adults incarcerated in ODOC facilities who received a
positive (i.e., reactive) COVID-19 antibody test result
during the relevant time period (and excluding individuals
whose positive antibody test result could be the result of
a COVID-19 infection prior to incarceration). If
Plaintiffs believe it is necessary to file a short
supplement in support of their motion for class
certification to address the amended definition of the
Damages Class, they may do so by November 19, 2021. The
deadline for Defendants to file an Answer to the Sixth
Amended Complaint is stayed until fourteen days after the
Court resolves Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss
paragraph 93(d).
3. The Plaintiffs shall continue to attempt to contact the
emergency contacts and family members of the decedents in
the proposed Wrongful Death Class, to send them the Court-
approved notice and medical records release authorization
card, and counsel shall continue to produce any returned
medical records authorization cards to counsel for
Defendants upon receipt. Only authorization cards received
and produced to counsel for Defendants by November 19,
2021 may be referenced in support of or opposition to the
pending motion for class certification. However, decedents
whose authorization cards are returned after November 19,
2021, shall not be excluded from the Wrongful Death Class,
if certified.
4. The Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due by December 10, 2021. Plaintiffs'
reply is due by January 7, 2022. The Court will hear oral
argument on the motion for class certification in January
2022.
5. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to provide notice and
obtain medical records of antibody-positive adults in
custody, and approves the proposed notice.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nDEUsd at no extra charge.[CC]
KEMPER CASUALTY: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Due November 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bhasker v. Kemper Casualty
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00260 (D.N.M.), the
Hon. Judge Kea W Riggs entered an order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification
shall be due November 17, 2021.
-- The Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Class Certification
shall be due December 17, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification
shall be due January 7, 2022.
The nature of suit states contract – insurance
Kemper is a diversified insurance company that provides services in
property and casualty insurance, along with life and health
insurance.[CC]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cantrelle Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWARD CANTRELLE and THOMAS and REBA HIXSON, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01805, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
October 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01451-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged redhibition,
construction or composition defect, design defect, inadequate
warning, breach of express warranty, and violation of Louisiana
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiffs' CPAP devices are now worthless. The Plaintiffs will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
M. Palmer Lambert, Esq.
Claire E. Berg, Esq.
GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER L.L.C.
2800 Entergy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 522-2304
Facsimile: (504) 528-9973
E-mail: gmenuier@gainben.com
plambert@gainsben.com
cberg@gainsben.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hancock Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY M. HANCOCK, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00113, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01450-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and medical monitoring.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Deakle, Esq.
Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
Ronald V. Johnson, Esq.
DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
802 N. Main Street
P.O. Box 2072
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Telephone: (601) 544-0631
Facsimile: (601) 544-0699
E-mail: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
rljohnson@djlawms.com
rvjohnson@djlawms.com
- and –
Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
Andrea Barient, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN
24110 Eden Street
P.O. Drawer 71
Plaquemine, LA 70765
Telephone: (888) 725-2477
Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
abarient@pbclawfirm.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Osman Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL OSMAN and ELLEN OSMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-11199, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on October 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01480-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, unjust enrichment, and
violations of state unfair trade practices and consumer protection
laws by manufacturing and selling defective Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure
(BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home
respiratory care.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC
19 Belmont Street
South Easton, MA 02375
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
Facsimile: (385) 278-0287
- and –
David S. Stellings, Esq.
Gabriel Panek, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1436
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
- and –
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
- and –
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 843-0775
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Powell Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID POWELL, SR., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-03412, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01549-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, medical monitoring, and violation of
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available, says the suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq.
Ashley B. DiLiberto, Esq.
MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2000 Academy Drive, Suite 200
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 810-9500
Facsimile: (856) 810-9918
E-mail: adiliberto@messalaw.com
jmessa@messalaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Stewart Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN STEWART, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01355, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01452-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged redhibition,
construction or composition defect, design defect, inadequate
warning, breach of express warranty, and violation of Louisiana
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
Emma Kingsdorf Schwab, Esq.
BARRIOS KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 524-3300
Facsimile: (504) 524-3313
E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com
eschwab@bkc-law.com
- and –
Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
Joseph E. "Jed" Cain, Esq.
Charles M. King, Esq.
HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ LLC
820 O'Keefe Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70113
Telephone: (504) 581-4892
Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
jcain@hhklawfirm.com
cking@hhklawfirm.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Summer Suit Moved From S.D. Ala. to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT M. SUMMER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00410, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on October 27, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01547-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, medical monitoring, and violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available, says the suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jubal L. Hamil, Esq.
DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, L.L.C.
Post Office Box 1031
Mobile, AL 36633
Telephone: (251) 432-6020
Facsimile: (251) 432-6071
E-mail: jhamil@dshfirm.com
KOSTECKI BROKERAGE: Karsan Value Sues Over Unfair Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARSAN VALUE FUNDS; and ROBERT GRUTERS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KOSTECKI BROKERAGE
PTY LTD.; MARIA ANASTAZIA KOSTECKI; and STEVEN MICHAEL KOSTECKI,
Defendants, Case No. 2021-0899 (Del. Ch., Oct. 18, 2021) is an
action seeking redress for the harms stemming from the Defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duty, and to recover all amounts that
defendants cost the Company's stockholders by their inequitable
manipulations of, and control over, the Company.
According to the complaint, on July 26, 2021, Alloy Steel announced
a transaction pursuant to which Buyer would acquire all outstanding
shares of Alloy Steel except for those owned by Maria Anastazia
Kostecki ("Ms. Kostecki") and Steven Michael Kostecki ("Mr.
Kostecki", and together with Ms. Kostecki, the "Kosteckis"). The
Kosteckis owned approximately 65% of the outstanding shares of
Alloy Steel Common Stock, and Ms. Kostecki owned 100% of the equity
stock of Buyer. As detailed in the merger agreement (the "Merger
Agreement"), Kostecki Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Buyer, would be merged
with and into Alloy Steel.
On August 16, 2021, Alloy Steel disseminated a definitive proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") relating to the Merger. The Proxy
Statement raised serious concerns regarding the Merger.
Specifically, the decision to allow the Company's minority
stockholders' shares to be acquired by Buyer came after an
abbreviated sale process by the Alloy Steel Board that lasted
approximately two months and failed to solicit any competing
proposals, says the suit.
The Board approved the sale of the Company for unfair consideration
and pursuant to an unfair process. As a result of the flawed and
corrupted process, the price per share that was paid for the
minority shares of the Company was grossly inadequate, the suit
added.
KOSTECKI BROKERAGE PTY LTD. manufactures and sells anti-wear and
hang-up solutions to mining and bulk materials industries. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
-and-
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
Jordan A. Cafritz, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
KPMG LLP: Ritorto Sues Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
MARC J. RITORTO, HILTON HEE CHONG, PAUL J. BURROUGHS and RICHARD
O'DRISCOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KPMG, LLP, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KPMG,
LLP, THE KPMG PENSION STRATEGY AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-19330 (D.N.J., October 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duties of prudence and failure to adequately monitor
other fiduciaries in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they
owed to the KPMG 401(k) Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other
participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively
and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care
to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of
cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the
availability of identical or similar investment options with lower
costs and/or better performance histories; and (3) failing to
control the Plan's recordkeeping costs. As a result of the
Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated Plan participants suffered losses.
KPMG, LLP is an audit firm, with a principal place of business at 3
Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
- and –
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
KUCOIN: Court Recommends Narrower Class in Williams Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE WILLIAMS, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. KUCOIN, MICHAEL
GAN, JOHNNY LYU, And ERIC DON, Case No. 1:20-cv-02806-GBD-RWL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended that
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted in part for a
narrower class that does not include purchasers of Tokens that
Plaintiff did not purchase as follows:
(1) a class be certified and defined as follows:
"All persons who purchased on the KuCoin exchange any
TOMO Tokens listed for sale on a domestic U.S. exchange,
or who otherwise purchased on the KuCoin exchange TOMO
Tokens in a domestic U.S. transaction, between September
15, 2017 and July 2, 2021;"
(2) Plaintiff Chase Williams be appointed Class
Representative; and
(3) The law firms Roche Freedman LLP and Selendy & Gay PLLC
be appointed Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff Williams purchased TOMO-brand digital tokens on
Defendant KuCoin, an online crypto-asset exchange. He brings this
putative class action on behalf of purchasers of TOMO tokens as
well as those who purchased nine other brands of digital tokens on
the KuCoin exchange.
Mr. Williams asserts claims for violations of federal and state
securities laws, claiming that KuCoin, and its principals,
transacted in unregistered securities and failed to register KuCoin
as a securities exchange and as a securities broker-dealer. By the
instant motion, Williams seeks certification of the class, his
appointment as class representative, and appointment of class
counsel pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Defendant KuCoin claims to be one of the world's most popular
crypto-asset exchanges, enabling trades in digital assets by
providing a marketplace and facilities for bringing together buyers
and sellers. KuCoin charges a fee for each transaction it
facilitates.
The digital assets sold by KuCoin include, among others, ten
digital tokens known as EOS, SNT, QSP, KNC, TRX, OMG, LEND, ELF,
CVC, and TOMO. The issuers of the Tokens did not register them as
securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and KuCoin
did not register itself as either an exchange or broker-dealer with
the SEC.
Defendant Michael Gan is a co-founder of KuCoin and Chairman of
KuGroup, a parent entity of KuCoin. Defendant Johnny Lyu is a
co-founder of KuCoin and Chief Executive Officer of KuCoin Global,
one of the three entities that make up KuGroup. Defendant Eric Don
is a co-founder and President of KuCoin.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Oct. 21, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bqfXus at no
extra charge.[CC]
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Lightning eMotors, Inc. ("Lightning eMotors" or
the "Company") f/k/a GigCapital3, Inc. ("GigCapital3") (NYSE: ZEV)
(NYSE: ZEV.WS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
and docketed under 21-cv-02774, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Lightning eMotors securities between May 7, 2021
and August 16, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased publicly traded securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 14, 2021 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Lightning eMotors designs, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles. The Company produces electric fleet medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles, including delivery trucks, shuttle buses,
passenger vans, chassis-cab models, and city transit buses.
Prior to its business combination with Lightning eMotors, as
described below, GigCapital3 was a special purpose acquisition
company, also known as a blank check company, incorporated for the
purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset
acquisition, share purchase, recapitalization, reorganization, or
similar business combination with one or more businesses or
entities.
On May 6, 2021, Lightning eMotors consummated a business
combination (the "Business Combination") with Lightning Systems,
Inc. ("Lightning Systems") pursuant to a certain Business
Combination Agreement, dated as of December 10, 2020, by and among
GigCapital3, Project Power Merger Sub, Inc, and Lightning Systems.
In connection with the consummation of the Business Combination,
the Company changed its name from GigCapital3, Inc. to Lightning
eMotors, Inc. On May 7, 2021, the Company's common stock and
warrants began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbols "ZEV" and "ZEV.WS", respectively.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company would record a
substantially greater net loss per share in the second quarter of
2021 compared to the second quarter of 2020 and would pull its full
year guidance for the remainder of 2021; (ii) accordingly, the
Company materially overstated its financial position and/or
prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 16, 2021, post-market, Lightning eMotors announced the
Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2021,
including a net loss per share of $0.79 compared to a loss of $0.10
in the second quarter of 2020. The Company also pulled its full
year financial guidance for the remainder of 2021, just days after
announcing a multi-year agreement with Forest River, a Berkshire
Hathaway company.
On this news, Lightning eMotors's stock price fell $1.63 per share,
or 16.93%, to close at $8.00 per share on August 17, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit class action lawsuit has
been filed against Lightning eMotors, Inc. ("Lightning eMotors" or
the "Company") (NYSE: ZEV) in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lightning eMotors securities
between May 7, 2021, and August 16, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").
All investors who purchased Lightning eMotors, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Lightning eMotors,
Inc., you may, no later than December 14, 2021, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Lightning eMotors, Inc.
Lightning eMotors designs, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles. The Company produces electric fleet medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles, including delivery trucks, shuttle buses,
passenger vans, chassis-cab models, and city transit buses.
On May 6, 2021, Lightning eMotors enacted a business combination
(the "Business Combination") with Lightning Systems, Inc. The
Company changed its name from GigCapital3, Inc. to Lightning
eMotors, Inc. and the Company's common stock and warrants began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
On August 16, 2021, after the close of trading, Lightning eMotors
announced the Company's financial results for the second quarter of
2021, including a net loss per share of $0.79, as compared to a
loss of $0.10 in the second quarter of 2020. The Company also
pulled its full year financial guidance for the remainder of 2021,
just days after announcing a multi-year agreement with Forest
River, a Berkshire Hathaway company.
On this news, Lightning eMotors's stock price fell $1.63 per share,
or 16.93%, to close at $8.00 per share on August 17, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
LLOYD AUSTIN: Seeks to Stay Rosario Class Certification Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES D. ROSARIO, et al.,
v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Defense, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01928-CKK (D.D.C.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. staying proceedings on Plaintiffs' class certification
motion; and
2. directing the parties to meet and confer and file a
proposed schedule for any pending and anticipated motions
within 14 days of Defendants' response.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on July 16,
2021, and served the Complaint on the United States Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia on August 16, 2021.
On September 21, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' motion for an
extension of its deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint until
November 29, 2021.
On October 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to certify a
class and appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EsPZTv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
Anthony J. Coppolino, Esq.
Chetan A. Patil, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box No. 883
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-4968
Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: chetan.patil@usdoj.gov
LOANDEPOT INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired
loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDI) common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's February 16, 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO" or the Offering"). Investors have until November 8,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
loanDepot is an independent retail mortgage lender that provides
residential loans, refinance loans, and personal loan products
nationwide.
In February 2021, loanDepot completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 3.85 million shares of Class A common stock at
$14.00 per share.
On August 3, 2021, loanDepot announced disappointing Q2 2021
results. In so doing, the founder, Chairman, and CEO admitted that
everything about loanDepot's business is "highly predictable" and
thus loanDepot had visibility at the time of the IPO as to where
its business was and was going. By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's
stock had declined to $8.07 per share, a more than 42% decline from
the IPO price.
The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) loanDepot's refinance originations
had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO due to
industry over-capacity and increased competition; (2) loanDepot's
gain-on-sale margins had already declined substantially at the time
of the IPO; (3) as a result, loanDepot's revenue and growth would
be negatively impacted; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired loanDepot securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Junks Astorga Second Amended Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA ASTORGA, et al.,
v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-09805-AB (AGRx),
Case No. 2:20-cv-09805-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' second amended
motion for class certification of:
"All persons arrested by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
(LASD) deputies at protests on misdemeanor charges of 23 Cal.
Pen. Code sections 407, 408, 409 [unlawful assembly and
participation therein; failure to disperse] and whose items
of personal property the LASD seized without a warrant or
other judicial review, property the LASD continues to
withhold from its owners even though (a) no owner has been
criminally charged, (b) the owner is not in LASD custody, (c)
the LASD has not obtained judicial review or authorization of
justify the ongoing seizures, and (d) the LASD has not
provided any notice and opportunity to be heard by the
putative class members who seek to reclaim their property."
The Court finds that class certification is inappropriate because
Plaintiffs have to established the degree of numerosity,
commonality, and typicality required by Rule 23(a).
This lawsuit, alleging violations of First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, among other claims, ensued.
On May 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint requesting injunctive relief and alleging Fourth, Fifth,
and Fourteenth Amendment violations by Defendants County of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Alex
Villanueva.
On August 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Motion
for Class Certification. The Defendants filed an opposition brief
on August 27, 2021, and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on September
3, 2021.
The Court detailed the parties' factual background in its prior
order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
On September 8, 2020, Plaintiffs Christina Astorga and Hugo Padilla
attended a protest in South Los Angeles called "Justice for Dijon
Kizzee." The Plaintiff Padilla rode his bicycle and livestreamed
the event from a Samsung S8 phone. Both were subsequently arrested
by the LASD and cited for failure to disperse (Astorga) and
unlawful assembly (Padilla).
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mqpZCf at no extra charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Renewed Bid to Certify OPG Related Classes Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAMYA BREWSTER, ELIAS
ARIZMENDI and JULIAN VIGIL, individually and as class
representative, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No.
5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs file renewed
motion to certify OPG related classes for their 42 U.S.C. section
1983 claims.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following
OPG Classes:
-- OPG 30 DAY CLASS:
"Vehicle owners (during the class period of November 2,
2012, through July 1, 2017) whose vehicles were i)
impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order for a
30 day impound; ii) not released from impound until the
30th day of the impound or later (determined based on
whether the class member was charged for at least 30 days
of storage); and iii) the owner retrieved their impounded
car from an Official Police Garage ("OPG") (tow yard) and
incurred, and paid, all fees and charges for an impound of
30 days (or more);" and
-- GENERAL OPG CLASS:
"During the class period for seizures and impounds
initiated from November 2, 2012, until July 1, 2017,
vehicle owners whose vehicles were I) impounded under the
authority of LAPD Special Order for a 30 day impound; ii)
released from impound after the first day of the impound
[OR not released from impound until such time, if any, to
be determined by the Court or Jury, that the impound
became unlawful based on duration of the impound alone];
and iii) the owner retrieved their impounded car from an
OPG) (tow yard) and paid all accrued fees and charges."
The Class Representatives for each OPG Class is Julian Vigil.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pQibM1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
MCLANE, B EDNARSKI & LITT
975 East Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 844-7660
Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
- and -
Donald W. Cook, Esq.
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 252-9444
Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net
- and -
Paul Hoffman, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
E-mail. hoffpaul@aol.com
- and -
John Clay Washington, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS
HOFFMAN & ZELDES
11543West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 396-0731
Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
E-mail: jwashington@sshhlaw.com
MACOUPIN COUNTY, IL: Lawsuit Targets Gov. Over Mandatory Masking
----------------------------------------------------------------
ksdk.com reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in Macoupin
County is seeking to block the statewide mask mandate in Illinois
schools.
"The law as it stands right now, in my position, and in my opinion
as a lawyer, says that a school district or the Governor or the
Department of Health can't just force a mask on somebody with them
having no ability to object," said attorney Thomas DeVore.
DeVore has drawn attention across Illinois for similar cases
against mask mandates, but he claims many people are missing the
point.
"It has nothing to do with masks," said DeVore. "Masks are just the
topic of conversation. It's 100% to do with due process. That's
what every court who has looked at this in the last two to three
months has said."
His latest lawsuit against Gov. Pritzker, the Illinois State Board
of Education, and the Illinois Dept. of Public Health is more than
300 pages long but DeVore says the basis for his argument is
simple.
"It's basic stuff you learned in civics that's been abandoned for
the last year and a half or almost two years where the Governor,
for whatever reason, is running this state by executive fiat,"
DeVore said. "He's writing them in tantamount to lawmaking, which
he can't do."
That's why DeVore has added more than 145 school districts as
defendants, including Carlyle, where the board initially ignored
the state guidance before reversing course after being placed on
probation.
"They should've taken a stand," said DeVore. "I understand the
position that they're in, but at the end of the day you have to do
what's right. Taking the path of least resistance is not always
correct."
"He's a grifter who is taking money from parents who are being
taken advantage of," said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
DeVore said he isn't seeking financial compensation in this case.
"If our legislature, which is in session, wants to pass some laws
that say that kids should be wearing masks in schools during these
circumstances or that school districts can send kids home related
to COVID," said DeVore. "If they want to do that then these issues
go away."
The case is set to be heard on Nov. 5 at 1:30 p.m. in a Macoupin
County courtroom. [GN]
MARYLAND: Union Files Motion to Compel Discovery in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Melser, writing for WBAL-TV 11 News, reports that the
Unemployed Workers Union has been trying to help thousands of
unemployed workers get the benefits owed to them.
However, lawyers said they're frustrated by what they call the
state's lack of cooperation.
Lawyers for the Unemployed Workers Union claim all of their
requests for information were denied by the state in the case, so
now they are filing a motion to compel discovery in hopes of
forcing the notion.
The state, on the other hand, said the lawsuit's claims have
already been dealt with.
"There are literally thousands, thousands of people both in this
city and around the state who have yet to see a dime of their
unemployment," said Sharon Black of the Unemployed Workers Union.
Representatives of the Unemployed Workers Union were outside the
Elijah Cummings courthouse on Oct. 19, rallying for those who still
haven't gotten all of their unemployment benefits.
"It's like every couple of months, I might receive my benefits and
then it'll be cut off," said Stephen Ceci, who is dealing with
unemployment issues.
People like Ceci, who lost his job as a banquet bartender at a
hotel when the coronavirus pandemic hit, still have not been able
to find full-time work.
"It's the anxiety, mental frustration, not knowing how are you
going to pay your bills, your cellphone," he said.
Lawyers tell 11 News that in September, they put in a request for
documentation from the Maryland Department of Labor, including how
many outstanding claims there were, policies for identification
verification and the process for putting someone on a hold status.
They claim the state denied their request, saying it was beyond the
scope of the case. Now, they will try and force the issue by filing
a motion to compel discovery.
"This is an outrage. How can you say anything and was supposed to
be a class action suit is beyond the scope when we're trying to
represent and fight them behalf of tens of thousands of
Marylanders," said Alec Summerfield, attorney for the Unemployed
Workers Union.
WBAL-TV 11 News reached out to the department and got a response
from Gov. Larry Hogan's office saying, "The plaintiffs' claims in
this matter have previously been resolved, so these activists'
requests and questions are irrelevant. We also remain fully
committed to ensuring the Attorney General bears the costs of
litigation."
There is a motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for Oct. 25.
No matter the outcome, the Unemployed Workers Union said it's
planning to picket the Department of Labor on Oct. 29. [GN]
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Angeion Group Announces Proposed Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement administrator Angeion Group announced that a settlement
has been reached with McCormick & Company, Inc. ("McCormick") in a
class action lawsuit about the labeling, marketing, and advertising
of certain McCormick Products. Plaintiff alleges that McCormick
made false and misleading claims regarding the Products as
"Natural" or "All Natural." McCormick denies all of the allegations
in the Litigation. The Court has not decided which side is right.
Who is Included?
You are included in this settlement as a Settlement Class Member if
you purchased certain McCormick products labeled as "Natural" or
"All Natural" from January 1, 2013, through September 23, 2021. For
a complete list of Products, please visit
www.McCormickSettlement.com.
What does the settlement provide?
The Settlement provides for a Settlement Fund in the amount of
$3,000,000 to pay (1) Settlement Class Members who submit valid and
timely Claim Forms; (2) Attorneys' Fees and Expenses that the Court
awards; (3) Class Notice and Administration costs; and (4) any
Incentive Award to the Plaintiff approved by the Court.
If you submit a valid Claim Form with Proof of Purchase, you will
receive a cash payment of $1.00 for each Product purchased, with no
limit or cap.
If you submit a valid Claim Form without Proof of Purchase, you
will receive a cash payment of $1.00 for each Product purchased, up
to a maximum of fifteen (15) Products.
The final payment amounts may be proportionately increased or
decreased on a pro rata basis depending on the total amount of
timely, valid, and approved Claim Forms received.
How do I get a payment?
You must submit a valid Claim Form no later than 90 days after
Final Approval. Claim Forms may be submitted online at
www.McCormickSettlement.com or printed from the website and mailed
to the address on the Claim Form. Claim Forms are also available by
calling 1-855-557-0058 or emailing info@McCormickSettlement.com.
Your other options.
If you are included in the settlement and do nothing, your rights
will be affected, and you won't get a payment. If you don't want to
be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself from
it by December 21, 2021. Unless you exclude yourself, you won't be
able to sue or continue to sue or be part of any other lawsuit
against McCormick about any of the legal claims this settlement
resolves. If you stay in the settlement (i.e., don't exclude
yourself), you may object to it or ask for permission for you or
your lawyer to appear and speak at the Final Approval Hearing - at
your own cost - but you don't have to. Objections and requests to
appear are due by December 21, 2021. More information about these
options is available at www.McCormickSettlement.com.
The Court's hearing.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 9:30AM on January
11, 2022, at United States District Court for the Western District
of New York, 100 State Street, Rochester, New York 14614. At the
Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. It will also consider
whether to approve Class Counsel's request for an award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, as well as the Class Representative's
Incentive award. If there are objections, the Court will consider
them. Judge Geraci will listen to people who have asked to speak at
the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to
approve the settlement. You or your lawyer may appear at the
hearing at your own expense. [GN]
MCKESSON CORP: Fax Machine Class in True Health Suit Decertified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., Plaintiffs v.
McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-02219-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California orders the
"Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class" decertified.
On Sept. 29, 2021, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause
why the class should not be decertified. In the Order to Show Cause
(OSC), the Court told the parties that they should cite any
relevant legal authority supporting their respective positions. It
incorporates the legal standards and analysis set forth in the OSC,
and adds the analysis below based on the parties' responses to the
OSC.
The Plaintiffs filed their Response to the OSC on Oct. 4, 2021. The
Defendants submitted a Response to Plaintiffs' Response on Oct. 6,
2021. On Oct. 8, 2021, the Court heard oral argument regarding the
OSC.
As explained in the OSC, an FCC decision issued after the class's
initial certification changed the requirements for TCPA liability.
There is now no liability under the TCPA for faxes received via an
online fax service, citing In the Matter of Amerifactors Fin. Grp.,
LLC Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Rules & Regulations
Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991 Junk Fax Prot. Act
of 2005, CG Dkt. Nos. 02-278, 05-338, 2019 WL 6712128, ¶ 3 (Dec.
9, 2019) ("Amerifactors").
While the Defendants sought decertification of the class after the
Amerifactors ruling issued, the Court gave the Plaintiffs the
opportunity to obtain class-wide proof sufficient to show how class
members received the faxes at issue. The Plaintiffs returned with
over 100 telephone carrier declarations, which the Defendants
supplemented with two additional telephone carrier declarations.
Telephone carriers who provided service to over 60% of the class
members affirmatively say they have no way of knowing if the class
member received faxes via a stand-alone fax machine or via an
online fax service. The Plaintiffs attempt to fill this evidentiary
gap with a proffered expert who opines on general trends in online
fax service usage, from which the Plaintiffs then make assertions
about the likelihood of particular individual consumer choices.
After reviewing the Plaintiffs' Offer of Proof, and the telephone
carrier declarations, the Court became concerned that the class
does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3),
which requires that "questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members." The Plaintiffs have not rebutted the concerns the Court
identified.
First, Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiffs' proposed
methodology does not amount to class-wide proof. Instead, it is
essentially an effort to aggregate, through an expert and the
Plaintiffs' counsel's own assumptions, individualized data based on
over a hundred different declarations concerning thousands of
discrete phone numbers to which faxes were sent. Second, the
individualized question of whether each class member received the
faxes at issue on a stand-alone fax machine predominates over
common questions. Accordingly, the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) is not met.
For similar reasons, Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement also
is not met, Judge Gilliam finds. The superiority requirement tests
whether "a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3). Where "the complexities of a class action treatment
outweigh the benefits of considering common issues in one trial,
class action treatment is not the 'superior' method of
adjudication." As explained, the core fact establishing TCPA
liability is only determinable through individualized inquiries.
Given the individual inquiries required to establish the proposed
class members' claims, class action treatment is not the superior
method of adjudication.
Judge Gilliam understands the desire of the Plaintiffs (and their
counsel) to resolve these claims via a class action lawsuit.
However, Amerifactors changed the landscape for TCPA litigation,
and under Ninth Circuit precedent, the Court must follow the FCC's
interpretation. In Judge Gillaiam's view, whether Amerifactors in
fact controls the case is determinative of the viability of the
case as a class action. The Plaintiffs can and no doubt will argue
on appeal that Amerifactors is not binding, and the Court and the
parties will get critical guidance from any ruling by the Ninth
Circuit on that issue.
After carefully considering the entire record in the case, Judge
Gilliam orders the "Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class" decertified.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/47xhvxk7 from Leagle.com.
MCKINSEY & CO: Will Face Class Action in Canada Over Opioid Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
legalreader.com reports that after facing litigation for its
alleged connection with the opioid crisis in the U.S., McKinsey &
Co. is back in the limelight - this time in Canada. Sotos Class
Actions and Goldblatt Partners LLP have jointly filed a class
action lawsuit against consulting firm (that has clients
worldwide), once again accusing it of helping to fuel opioid
epidemic. Defendants named in the suit include both McKinsey's
Canadian and its U.S. divisions.
Named plaintiff and representative for the class, Jordan Francis
Charlie, is a resident of Northern Ontario. Charlie was first
prescribed OxyContin in 2007 for pain associated with a back
injury. He developed an addition to opioids thereafter, which
affected many areas of his life, including losing his job in
forestry and the custody of his child.
In February 2021, McKinsey & Co. reached a nearly $600
million-dollar settlement in the U.S. after battling multiple U.S.
states. The plaintiffs with whom the company settled alleged the
consulting firm played a major role in promoting the sale of
OxyContin while working for Purdue Pharma L.P. Purdue has since
filed for bankruptcy protection itself and is set to be transformed
to a public benefit trust that will manufacture anti-addiction
treatments.
Prior to the settlement with U.S. plaintiffs earlier this year,
McKinsey's role in the epidemic became apparent as legal documents
surfaced during discovery supporting that the firm had worked
closely with the Purdue for years to help boost OxyContin profits.
In 2013, consultants suggested ways that Purdue could "turbocharge
sales of its OxyContin," according to the 2019 complaint filed by
the Massachusetts attorney general.
"McKinsey's efforts worked. The number of pills prescribed,
Purdue's profits and McKinsey's fees all skyrocketed," said North
Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, whose state received nearly
$19 million as part of the deal. "But so did the number of
overdoses."
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said following the
settlement, "Even though no amount of money can bring back the
lives lost, I hope our settlement provides funding for programs to
help those battling opioid addiction."
Under the multi-state deal, McKinsey & Co. also agreed to make
public all its communications with Purdue over the years, in
addition to its work with drug companies Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Mallinckrodt, and Johnson & Johnson. Some of these documents may
resurface in the current legal case.
According to the Canadian government, "prescription use of opioids
increased by 203% between 2000 and 2010." OxyContin was one of the
most commonly prescribed opioids. Public data also indicates "from
January 2016 to December 2020, there were 21,174 apparent
opioid-related deaths across Canada and 24,671 hospitalizations for
opioid-related overdoses."This is the first time McKinsey has ever
faced legal trouble in Canada for its alleged role in the opioid
epidemic.
A former McKinsey consultant, who wished to remain unnamed, stated,
"McKinsey's work driving revenues for opioid producers was the
banality of evil, MBA edition. They knew what was going on. And
they found a way to look past it, through it, around it, so as to
answer the only questions they cared about: how to make the client
money, and when the walls closed in, how to protect themselves."
The class action lawsuit seeks damages for "negligence, breaches of
consumer protections statutes, conspiracy, health care costs and
unjust enrichment." [GN]
MDL 2151: Thibeaux v. Toyota Motor Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the vehicle acceleration issue over Toyota vehicles captioned
"IN RE: TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION", MDL No. 2151, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case styled as Thibeaux,
et. al. v. Toyota Motor Corp., et. al, Case No. 6:21−01566, to
the U.S. Court for the Central District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned it to Judge James V. Selna for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
This case involves an alleged defect in certain Toyota vehicles
that causes sudden, unintended acceleration.
Thibeaux moved to vacate an order that conditionally transferred
their action to the Central District of California for inclusion in
MDL No. 2151 or, alternatively, to allow the Western District of
Louisiana additional time to rule on their motion to remand to
state court. Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (together, Toyota)
opposed the motion to vacate.
Thibeaux argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction over his
case is lacking, and that their pending motion for remand to state
court should be decided before transfer. However, the panel holds
that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer. Despite Thibeaux's argument, the panel
contends that his case shares factual questions with the MDL No.
2151 actions. The transferee court can rule on his motion for leave
to amend their complaint and should the transferee judge determine
that this action does not belong in the MDL, he can suggest that it
be remanded with a minimum of delay, ruled the panel.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3ExifV4
MDL 2244: Shattuck v. Medical Device, et al. Moved N.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 the case captioned as
John B. Shattuck v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc., A1A,
Inc., David Tully Eva, DePuy Inc, DePuy Orthopedics Inc, DePuy
Orthopaedics Inc, DePuy Synthes Sale, Inc., Johnson & Johnson
Services Inc., Johnson and Johnson, John Does 1-10, Medical Device
Business Services Inc, A1A Inc, DePuy Synthes Sales Inc, Johnson &
Johnson Services Inc and Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 2:21−00945,
(W.D. Wash., July 15, 2021) 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. Shattuck
moved to vacate the conditional transfer order principally by
arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over her case. The
panel contends that the case is best addressed by the transferee
judge, who can structure pretrial proceedings to accommodate the
needs of all parties to this litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3CzSIdD
MDL 2542: Panel Denies Remand of JBR's Anti-trust Case
------------------------------------------------------
In the Single-Serve Coffee antitrust litigation captioned "IN RE:
KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN SINGLE-SERVE COFFEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION",
MDL No. 2542, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Plaintiffs'
motions for Section 1407 remand of case captioned JBR, Inc. v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Case No. 1:14−04242, (S.D. N.Y.,
September 19, 2014).
JBR, Inc. moved for an order remanding the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California. Defendant
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., opposed the motion.
JBR, a coffee manufacturing company, produces, among other things,
"portion packs," which are pods containing coffee grounds that
consumers place into single-serve coffee brewing machines to
produce a single cup of coffee. JBR's portion packs, called
"OneCups," are primarily designed for use in a single-serve coffee
brewer called the "Keurig 1.0," which is made by Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. Keurig introduced a new single-serve brewer that
would gradually replace all Keurig 1.0 brewers on the shelves. JBR
alleges that this move would not allow consumers to use unlicensed
portion packs, such as JBR's OneCups.
JBR principally argued that the summary judgment issues are largely
case-specific, that the class certification issues in the MDL are
irrelevant and will delay resolution of the remaining pretrial
motions and continued inclusion in the MDL will delay its cases,
resulting in significant prejudice.
The panel contends that the transferee judge found that remand is
premature, that JBR's arguments simply ignore the common issues
such as defining the relevant market, determining whether harm to
competition occurred, and determining whether Keurig's
acquisitions, brewer redesign, alleged tying arrangements and
agreements with distributors, suppliers and other entities violated
federal antitrust law.
The panel further notes that JBR's concerns about the potential for
delay from class issues unrelated to the JBR action is speculative.
The transferee court addressed this concern, noting that "any delay
from class certification briefing is not prejudicial because JBR
will presumably be working on its summary judgment briefing during
this time." Additionally, the transferee court docket indicates
that class certification briefing is complete and summary judgment
motions is underway. The panel finds that JBR's alleged prejudice
from a delay in proceeding to trial also is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, the panel concludes that centralization is based on
the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just
those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation and that
remand is not appropriate at this time.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3nHXAa1
MDL 2738: Khan v. Johnson & Johnson Transferred to D. N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over Johnson & Johnson's talcum
powder titled "IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION", MDL
No. 2738, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidates the case captioned
as Naomi Khan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al., Case No.
3:21−01054, (October 13, 2021, D. N.J.) to MDL 2738, in the same
court and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge
Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
This complaint involves allegations that Johnson & Johnson's talcum
powder products cause ovarian cancer following perineal
application.
Khan moved to vacate said transfer order for inclusion in MDL No.
2738 arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction over her case
is lacking, and that her pending motion for remand to state court
should be decided before transfer. However, the panel has held that
such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3pIL3pu
MDL 2741: Gilmore v. Monsanto Case Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL
No. 2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
case captioned Scott Gilmore v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
1:20−01085 (August 19, 2021, D. Del.) to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and assigned to the
Honorable Vince Chhabria for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The actions in this multidistrict litigation involve common
questions of fact arising out of allegations that Monsanto's
Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate,
causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Like the plaintiffs in the MDL,
Plaintiff Gilmore asserts product liability claims against Monsanto
and alleges that exposure to Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
and share multiple factual issues with the cases already in the
MDL.
Gilmore and Monsanto moved to vacate said transfer order. The
opponents of transfer emphasize that the proposed settlement only
releases claims seeking economic damages based on alleged
overcharges for Roundup products and expressly excludes from the
release any claims for personal injury and medical monitoring,
which constitute the bulk of the MDL.
The panel contends that the transfer in this instance likely will
result in significant added efficiencies and that the transferee
judge is best placed to determine whether the proposed Gilmore
class settlement will affect the actions and claims in the MDL. The
transferee court has overseen this litigation since 2016,
shepherding the parties through discovery and presiding over a
bellwether trial. The transferee judge thus has great familiarity
with the parties, the issues presented by the Roundup litigation,
and past attempts to resolve various aspects of the litigation
through settlement. The Delaware court, in contrast, lacks this
experience and would have to invest significant time and resources
to decide the pending motion for preliminary approval of the
Gilmore settlement. While transfer may entail some initial delay,
the overall interests of justice and efficiency will be enhanced.
The panel further contends that the transfer of an action is
appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action
might experience inconvenience or delay.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 8, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2Zp03Of
MDL 2804: Six Prescription Opioids Product Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids
captioned "In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation," MDL No.
2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers six cases from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Dan A. Polster for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the six cases initially moved to vacate said order
conditionally transferring their actions while Defendants
AmerisourceBergen Corporation, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation,
Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson Corporation opposed the motion.
This multi-district litigation alleges improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities and towns across the country. Defendants Endo Health
Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, CVS Health, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson
Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC,
Allergan U.S.A., Inc., Cephalon Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Watson
Laboratories Inc. are pharmaceutical companies and dealers.
The panel finds that the six actions share a factual core with the
MDL actions alleging that the manufacturer and distributor
Defendants' alleged knowledge of, and conduct regarding the
diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs, thus
falls within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiff's argument that federal
jurisdiction is lacking over its case does not present an
impediment to transfer and that given the undisputed factual
overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified to
facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole and
not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation,
ruled the panel.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3bcUrJI
MDL 2912: Pfizer v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals Transferred to Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the patent litigation, "In Re: Palbociclib Patent Litigation,"
MDL No. 2912, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers case docketed
Pfizer Inc., et. al. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al.,
(Case No. 1:21−00157, February 25, 2021, M.D.N.C.) to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware and assigning them to
Colm F. Connolly for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Synthon Pharmaceuticals moved to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 2912 while
Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
Pfizer filed this action after the defendant pharmaceutical
companies submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking
approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to manufacture
and sell generic versions of Ibrance (Palbociclib) capsules. The
action is a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement suit in which Pfizer
alleges that defendants have infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,723,730.
The panel contends that said action involves common questions of
fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2912,
sharing factual questions arising from allegations that each
Defendant has infringed one or more of three U.S. Patents by
seeking FDA approval to market generic Ibrance in the United
States. The panel further contends that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 4, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3GoHLxE
MDL 2967: Rojas' Biometrics Dispute Consolidated to Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case "In Re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer Privacy
Litigation," MDL No. 2967, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an
order consolidating case styled as Suarez Rojas, Lisa Knox, Reyna
Maldonado, Valeria Thais, Mijente Support Committee, Norcal Resist
Fund and Steven Renderos, Plaintiffs v. Clearview AI, Inc., et.
al., (Case No. 3:21-04572, June 14, 2021, N.D. Cal.) to MDL No.
2967, in the same court, and with the consent of that court,
assigned the case to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Clearview is accused of covertly scraping three billion photographs
of facial images from the internet and then used artificial
intelligence algorithms to scan the face geometry of each
individual depicted in the photographs in order to harvest the
individuals' unique biometric identifiers. Clearview created a
searchable biometric database that contained biometrics and allowed
users of the database to identify unknown individuals merely by
uploading a photograph to the database.
In opposing transfer, Plaintiffs argued that their case is outside
the MDL's scope because their case includes individual claims
against four municipal defendants and is focused on fear of police
action chilling protected speech activities and does not seek class
certification. They also argue federal jurisdiction is lacking and
transfer would cause plaintiffs inconvenience and prejudice.
The panel contends that while their complaint has an emphasis on
law enforcement agencies, MDL No. 2967 comprises similar private
entities who obtained access to and used the Clearview database.
A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3bcZ5Yd
MESA PACKING: Settlement in Miguel-Sanchez Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MIGUEL-SANCHEZ, et
al., v. MESA PACKING, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00823-VKD (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement.
The Court also grants plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards. Specifically, the Court awards the
following costs: $400,000 in attorneys' fees, $4,315.74 in
litigation costs, and $7,500 to each named plaintiff as class
representatives.
In this wage-and-hour class action dispute, plaintiffs William
Miguel-Sanchez, Luis Antonio Meza-Estrada, and Sergio Jimenez-Cruz
allege that defendant Mesa Packing, LLC violated the California
Labor Code; the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Protection Act; and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Mesa Packing was founded in 1978. The Company's line of business
includes providing farm services such as crop harvesting.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EqByiW at no extra charge.[CC]
METALS CO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of TMC The Metals Company Inc. ("TMC") (NASDAQ: TMC)
(f/k/a Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corporation) between
March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased TMC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit TMC the metals company Inc
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com.
TMC is a Canadian deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on
the collection, processing, and refining of polymetallic nodules
found on the seafloor of the Clarion Clipperton Zone of the Pacific
Ocean (the "CCZ"). Deep sea exploration rights are regulated by the
International Seabed Authority ("ISA"). TMC's primary assets are
three exploration licenses granted by the ISA. These licenses,
which are held via three subsidiaries, are: (i) Nauru Ocean
Resources Inc. ("NORI"); (ii) Marawa Research and Exploration
Limited ("Marawa"); and (iii) Tongo Offshore Mining Limited
("TOML").
According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1)
TMC had significantly overpaid undisclosed insiders to acquire
TOML; (2) TMC artificially inflated its NORI exploration
expenditures to give investors a false scale of its operations; (3)
TMC's purported 100% interest in NORI was questionable given prior
disclosures to the ISA that NORI was wholly owned by two Nauruan
foundations, and that all future income from NORI would be used in
Nauru; (4) there were serious environmental risks of deep-sea
mining polymetallic nodules; (5) TMC's private investment in public
equity (PIPE) financing was not fully committed and, therefore, TMC
would not have the cash necessary for large sale commercial
production; and (6) TMC's valuation was significantly less than
Defendants represented.
On September 13, 2021, Bloomberg published an article revealing
that two investors had failed to provide $330 million as part of
the PIPE component of TMC's go-public deal. The article also
questioned TMC's "green credentials," revealing that
"[e]nvironmentalists claim that TMC's activities will damage
sensitive ecosystems and destroy vital biodiversity" and that
"[s]ince the SPAC deal was announced in March, more than 500
scientists have signed a letter calling for a moratorium on
deep-sea mining until the environmental risks are better
understood." On this news, TMC's shares fell $2.45 per share, or
over 20%, damaging investors.
On October 6, 2021, before market hours, market research firm
Bonitas Research released a report detailing multiple issues
plaguing TMC, including that it had overpaid on licenses to
potential undisclosed insiders, had artificially inflated
exploration expenses by more than 100%, had questionable ownership
claims to NORI, and had a history of affiliating with bad actors.
On this news, TMC shares fell another 7%, further damaging
investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased TMC the metals company Inc. securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/tmcthemetalscompanyinc-tmc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-451/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
METALS CO: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of TMC the metals company Inc. (NASDAQ: TMC) resulting
from allegations that TMC may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased TMC securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2173.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 6, 2021, before markets opened,
market researcher Bonitas Research released a report alleging
multiple issues plaguing TMC. The report alleged: (1) overpayment
on licenses to potential undisclosed insiders; (2) artificially
inflated exploration expenses; (3) a potentially unusable license
for which TMC paid $43 million in cash and stock; and (4) a history
of affiliating with bad actors.
On this news, TMC share prices dropped $0.32, or over 7%, to close
at $4.14 on October 6, 2021, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN A. PITT,
Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to MICHAEL A. PITT,
Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of MICHAEL A. PITT, and on
Behalf of the Class, v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00694-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
1. certifying the case as a class action with the Class
defined as:
"All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured,
of Defendant's individual life insurance policies that
were renewed, issued, or delivered by Defendant in
California, and in force on or after January 1, 2013, and
which Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment
of premium without Defendant first providing all the
notices, grace periods, and offers of designation required
by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72;"
2. appointing Plaintiff Susan A. Pitt as the Class
Representative; and
3. appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and
Winters & Associates as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with
California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. In this
Motion, Plaintiff asserts that class certification is appropriate
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because (1) the class
that Plaintiff seeks to certify is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (2) there are questions and answers of
law or fact common to class members; (3) the claims of the
representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class she
seeks to represent; and 14 4) the representative Plaintiff and her
counsel will fairly and adequately protect the 15 of the proposed
class.
Metropolitan Tower operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExWep4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Soto Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 723859/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Queens Cty., October 25, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
The case arises from a debt collection letter sent by Defendant
Midland Credit Management to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant
Midland Funding wherein the Defendants' failed to inform the
Plaintiff that the subject debt was no longer subject to a lawsuit
as of the date of the letter. Additionally, the Defendants demanded
payment of the debt, which would have revived the earlier debts and
restarted the statute of limitations if the Plaintiff had repaid
any portion of the debt. The Defendants failed to disclose the fact
that repayment would restart the statute of limitations, in
violation of statutory law, says the suit.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection agency based
in Albany, New York.
Midland Funding, LLC is a debt collection agency based in Albany,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201)282-6500
E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Files Appeal in Bryant Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midwest Construction Services, Inc. filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled OSCAR BRYANT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., dba TRILLIUM; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01588-PA-KK in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.
This case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 22, 2021, the
lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 16,
2021.
The appellate case is captioned as Oscar Bryant v. Midwest
Construction Services, Inc., Case No. 21-80105, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 13,
2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, DBA Trillium, is represented by:
Brandon Reed McKelvey, Esq.
MEDINA MCKELVEY, LLP
925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95678
Telephone: (916) 960-2211
E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com
Plaintiff-Respondent OSCAR BRYANT, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated, is represented by:
Jill Jessica Parker, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 622-4278
E-mail: jparker@blackstonepc.com
MINDGEEK HOLDING: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Human Trafficking
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Howorun at citynews.ca reports that this story contains
graphic content related to violence and abuse, and may be
disturbing to some readers. If you or someone you know may be a
victim of human trafficking, you can call the Canadian Human
Trafficking Hotline: 1-833-900-1010
Over the course of several years, Jane Doe was raped and sexually
abused by a family member. When he died, she thought she could
finally close that chapter of her life. But then, a social media
message reopened that book.
"It was in my "message requests," so I didn't see it right away,"
Jane Doe, as she is known in a $600M class action lawsuit against
MindGeek - the owner of PornHub, told CityNews. "When I opened it,
I froze."
The message included a link to a video a former high school friend
found on PornHub. He said he recognized her and was flagging it for
her to check.
Pornhub is one of the largest pornography empires in the world and
it's becoming even more of a household name, but not for good
reasons.
The Montreal-based website, has been accused of sharing
pornographic videos of people without their consent, of human
trafficking and even disseminating child pornography.
Pornhub has been subject to parliamentary probes, multiple lawsuits
across the world and a class-action lawsuit here in Canada. The
company recently settled a lawsuit involving 50 women, including
four Canadians, who alleged they were duped into taking part of a
massive human trafficking ring.
The only class-action suit in Canada against MindGeek is being
spearheaded by Jane Doe. At the time the video was shot, she was
only twelve years old.
"I could tell just based on the image . . . . what occurred in the
video," said Jane Doe.
"There were links to others. And I was able to locate more videos
by going through the comments section, clicking them, and seeing
that through still images. But this was still me around the same
age and different events," said Jane. "It just took my breath
away."
The $600 million class-action lawsuit filed in a Quebec court in
December, alleges that up until recently, MindGeek had no policies
or procedures to investigate several aspects of their videos.
These include:
-- Steps to ensure each video was obtained with consent;
-- Content user's practices or reputation;
-- Did not have enough properly trained moderators to review
footage for sex trafficking, rape or underage people.
MindGeek has so far declined to comment on the case.
"I feel like it had to have been so incredibly obvious to anybody
watching it that this was a child and I thought that if this ever
existed on the Internet that, you know, it's on the dark web where
people are intentionally going to look for this and it's not for
public consumption," said Jane Doe.
In February, MindGeek's senior leadership testified at
parliamentary hearings they had introduced new age verification
processes, had human moderators watch every single video, and
increased user reporting features for the speedy removal of
inappropriate content.
But Jane Doe said she hit roadblocks when trying to get the content
of her taken down. She said she used the link on the PornHub
website for content removal and submitted the videos of her.
Jane Doe said she received a generic response about five days
later, but still is not sure if it has been removed.
"But even if PornHub takes it down, it'll just resurface somewhere
else because there's those download features available. It's always
going to be there," she added.
The company says they have since removed the download function for
most of their content, excluding paid content.
Several other victims have testified that PornHub put up big
roadblocks to have content taken down.
"It sucks. It really sucks. It really sucks to think that it
doesn't matter how old I am, that my sexual abuse as a child is
immortalized in videos and not just on somebody's private computer,
but on the internet and its never going to go away," said Jane
Doe.
When asked if she thinks MindGeek is taking this issue seriously,
Jane Doe said she doesn't feel they are understanding the "true
impact of their actions and roles in this."
"Any time somebody comes up to you and says, 'Hey, I think I
recognized you from somewhere.' Instantly, you're going, 'Oh my
god.' And it's always a thought, it doesn't go away, that 'What if
this person's seen them?'," said Jane Doe.
Similar allegations promptedVisa and MasterCard to end their
relationship with the porn giant - and much of PornHub's content
has been removed over the past 18 months.
The website draws 170 million visitors a day, including four
million Canadians, and generates $460 million in annual revenue,
according to the company. It frequently ranks among the dozen
most-visited sites in the world, ahead of Netflix and Zoom. [GN]
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Cookies Misleadingly Labeled, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action contends that Mondelez Global's Lorna Doone
Shortbread Cookies are misleadingly labeled in that their
ingredients are inconsistent with what buyers would expect from a
product touted as "shortbread."
According to the 16-page lawsuit, although shortbread, as consumers
understand it, is usually made with butter, flour and sugar and
contains no leavening agent, the Lorna Doone cookies substitute
vegetable oils for butter and contain baking soda. The result, the
suit argues, is a product that "lacks the nutritional,
organoleptic, and sensory attributes of shortbread."
The case claims Mondelez has violated food labeling laws by
erroneously representing the product as "Shortbread Cookies" while
failing to state on the front label that the cookies lack the
characterizing butter ingredient consumers expect to find in
shortbread.
"The front label fails to inform consumers that if they want
'Shortbread Cookies,' they will have to supply their own butter,
and somehow remove the baking soda," the filing charges, claiming
buyers have overpaid for a product that was worth less than its
represented value.
The lawsuit states that federal food labeling regulations require
products' front labels to include a "common or usual name" that
describes, "in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic
nature of the food or its characterizing properties or
ingredients." Per the suit, the Lorna Doone cookies' front label --
which includes the description "Shortbread Cookies" and, in some
versions of the packaging, a statement that the product provides a
"Melt in your Mouth Taste" -- falsely implies that the snack
contains the ingredients normally expected to be in a food labeled
with the common or usual name of "shortbread," namely butter and
excluding a leavening ingredient.
The product's ingredients list reveals, however, that the cookies
contain no butter at all and that the shortening is provided
"exclusively" by canola and palm oil, according to the case.
Moreover, the product contains baking soda, a leavening ingredient
not normally found in shortbread, the lawsuit alleges.
The presence of vegetable oils as a substitute for butter renders
the defendant's "Melt in Your Mouth" statement false and misleading
given vegetable oils do not melt at mouth temperature and "leave a
waxy mouthfeel," the case attests.
Further, the Lorna Doone cookies allegedly contain an artificial
butter flavor that the lawsuit claims should have been disclosed on
the product's front label.
The complaint contends that consumers would not have purchased the
Lorna Doone cookies, or would have paid less, had they known the
truth about the product's ingredients. [GN]
NANO-X IMAGING: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of December 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
or acquirers of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX) ("Nano-X")
securities between June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021 has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
All investors who purchased shares of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Nano-X Imaging Ltd.,
you may, no later than December 6, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
On June 17, 2021, Nano-X submitted a 510(k) submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for its multi-source version
of the Nanox.ARC. A 510(k) is a type of premarket submission made
to the FDA to demonstrate that a device to be marketed is as safe
and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally
marketed device. Following this submission, defendants touted the
Nanox ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects in various public
statements and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
On August 19, 2021, Nano-X reported that Nano-X "received a request
for additional information from the [FDA] concerning the Company's
last 510(k) submission of its multi-source device, Nanox.ARC," and
that "[t]he submission file is placed on hold pending a complete
response to the FDA's list of deficiencies," with "[t]he Company's
response . . . due within 180 days from the date of the request for
additional information."
On this news, Nano-X's ordinary share price fell nearly 10%,
damaging investors.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
NAPW INC: E.D. New York Certifies Class in Bayne Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH BAYNE, and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NAPW, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN, and
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY NETWORK, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3591 (MKB) (RER) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo
K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York grants the Plaintiffs' motion in part by certifying the
class, directing the Defendants to produce a list of all class
members to the Plaintiffs, and giving the parties 30 days to submit
an agreed-upon notice to the class members.
On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff Bayne commenced a putative class action
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals,
alleging that the Defendants had violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations.
Ms. Bayne and the multiple FLSA opt-in plaintiffs move to certify a
class of all individuals who worked for the Defendants in New York
selling memberships to the National Association of Professional
Women and International Association of Women from June 20, 2012, to
the present.
On March 18, 2021, the Court referred the Plaintiffs' motion to
Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. for a report and
recommendation. By report and recommendation dated Aug. 10, 2021,
Judge Reyes recommended that the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motion in part by certifying the class, directing the Defendants to
produce a list of all class members to the Plaintiffs, and giving
the parties 30 days to submit an agreed-upon notice to the class
members ("R&R").
No objections to the R&R have been filed and the time for doing so
has passed.
Judge Brodie has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear
error, adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1). Accordingly, she certifies a Rule 23(b)(3) class
consisting of all "individuals employed in New York from June 20,
2012 to the present by NAPW, Inc. and Professional Diversity
Network, Inc. to sell memberships to the women's networking
organization known as National Association of Professional Women
and the International Association of Women," not including
"corporate officers, shareholders, directors and administrative
employees."
Judge Brodie directs the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs a
list of all class members, including names and last known
addresses, within 30 days of her Oder; and orders the parties to
submit a proposed notice to the class members within 30 days of her
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zmj7wdht from Leagle.com.
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Prisoners' Solitary Confinement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bradbury at saltwire.com reports that the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador has certified a class-action lawsuit
seeking compensation for prisoners who have been subjected to
extended periods of solitary confinement.
The certification application, filed by lawyers with Morris Martin
Moore law firm, was submitted with the consent of the provincial
government. Since only the court has the authority to certify an
action, Justice Valerie Marshall took submissions from both parties
before granting the order Thursday, Oct. 21.
Up until it went to court Tuesday, the class action included
between 50 and 60 participants, said lawyer Jim Locke of Morris
Martin Moore.
More former inmates have contacted the law firm to express interest
in joining the action since then.
The next step, Locke said, will be to issue public notices with
information for other potential participants.
The claim alleges the use of solitary confinement for 15 days or
longer "constitutes cruel and unusual treatment," violates inmates'
protected rights, and breaches the province's duty to care for
those incarcerated in its institutions: Her Majesty's Penitentiary,
Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women, Bishop's
Falls Correctional Centre, West Coast Correctional Centre and
Labrador Correctional Centre.
Locke said he's been hearing similar stories from the ex-inmates
who have contacted him, describing their time in solitary
confinement from the 1990s to now, as discipline or while
experiencing mental-health issues.
"A lot of them speak to the immediate effects, and they use
euphemisms like, 'I felt like I was losing my mind.' They talk
about emotional outbursts, punching the wall or banging their head
off the wall, which is a common one. Crying fits. Auditory and
visual hallucinations," Locke told SaltWire Network. "A lot of
people also speak of the longer-lasting effects, including getting
out of there and having difficulty interacting with people, social
anxiety at a very high level. Normal reactions by others can be
perceived as an invasion of their personal space.
"The irony is that they spent time trying to get out of solitary
confinement, but once they're out, they have difficulty being
around other people."
Former inmates have described correctional officials finding ways
around the maximum segregation period by bringing them back onto a
regular unit briefly before giving them new internal charges to
warrant another separate solitary period, Locke said.
"When are we going to clue in and say this is not working?" Locke
asked, suggesting the prisons would do better by taking a more
therapeutic approach.
The provincial government announced in October 2017 a new
segregation policy for adult prisons, after a review of standards
and practice. The report submitted by a segregation review
committee laid out 18 recommendations, which the province accepted.
Among them: that inmates experiencing mental-health issues not be
placed in segregation; that the maximum 15-day segregation period
be shortened to 10 days; that inmates in segregation have access to
improved mental- and physical-health services and no loss of
visitation privileges; and that physical conditions in the
segregation cells be humane.
"As an organization we must ensure that everyone in our care is
treated humanely, with respect and dignity. Housing inmates in
segregation is stressful to both inmates and staff, and through
progressive change, these measures can help alleviate that stress,"
Owen Brophy, who led the review committee as the province's
superintendent of prisons, said at the time.
Locke said it's not clear if and how all the recommendations have
yet been implemented and it's impossible to take back the damage
that's been done to those who have suffered in segregation. While
the goal of the class action is to provide them with compensation,
Locke said he hopes there will be wider-reaching impacts.
"Our hope is that this class action, instead of a handful of
individual actions, will get the attention of the province and
we'll see meaningful change that has the effect of fixing things,"
he said.
A similar class-action lawsuit against the attorney general of Nova
Scotia was certified by that province's superior court earlier this
year. [GN]
NIBCO INC: Matson Settlement Deal Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MATSON, BARBARA
MATSON, YOLANDA GARRET, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHLF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. NIBCO INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00717-RBF (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Richard B. Farrer entered a final settlement
approval order as follows:
1. finally certying the provisionally certified settlement
class;
2. finally approving the Settlement Agreement dated December
22, 2020;
3. appointing Ross Hart, Esquire, of the Arbitration
Mediation Conciliation Center as the Special Master;
4. appointing Todd J. Menna of Element Materials Technology
as the Independent Engineering Consultant; and
5. directing the Parties to implement and consummate the
Settlement according to the terms and provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.
-- Settlement Class:
All Persons that own or have owned at any time since
January 1, 2005, a residential structure constructed
by: (a) D.R. Horton, Inc.-Birmingham (including, but
not limited to, those for which the plumbing
contracting was performed by or on behalf of Dupree
Plumbing Co. Inc.) and which is located in the
following cities in Alabama: Bella Vista; Bessemer;
Birmingham; Calera; Chelsea; Cottondale; Hoover;
Kimberly; Leeds; Maylene; McCalla; Montgomery;
Northport; Odenville; Pinson; Pratville; Springville;
Trussville; and Tuscaloosa; and/or (b) Continental
Homes of Texas, L.P. (including, but not limited to,
those for which the plumbing contracting was performed
by or on behalf of Christianson Air Conditioning and
Plumbing, LLC) and which is located in the following
cities in Texas: Boerne; Cibolo; Converse; Live Oak;
Medina County; New Braunfels; Royse City; San Antonio;
San Marcos; Schertz; Seguin; and Universal City, that
contains or contained NIBCO’s Tubing, Fittings, or
Clamps, including with respect to both (a) and/or (b),
their spouses, joint owners, heirs, executors,
administrators, mortgagees, tenants, creditors,
lenders, predecessors, successors, trusts and trustees,
and assigns ("Occupant Persons"); as well as all
Persons who have standing and are entitled to assert a
claim on behalf of any such Occupant Persons, such as
but not limited to a contractor, distributor, seller,
subrogated insurance carrier, or other Person who has
claims for contribution, indemnity or otherwise against
NIBCO based on claims for Qualifying Leaks of the
Tubing, Fittings, or Clamps with respect to such
residential structures. The Settlement Class includes
all Persons who subsequently purchase or otherwise
obtain an interest in a property covered by this
Settlement without the need of a formal assignment by
contract or court order."
A list of the residential structures in Alabama and
Texas included in the Settlement Class has been
provided to the Settlement Administrator and made
available on the Settlement Website.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are D.R. Horton,
Inc.-Birmingham, Dupree Plumbing Co. Inc., Continental
Homes of Texas, L.P., and Christianson Air Conditioning
and Plumbing, LLC (collectively "Specific
Contractors").
Also excluded from the Settlement Class is any Person
(other than the named Plaintiffs in the Litigation)
who, as of October 22, 2020, had pending litigation in
any court or tribunal against NIBCO asserting claims
based on a Covered Product.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) NIBCO,
its officers, directors, affiliates, legal
representatives, employees, successors, and assigns,
and entities in which NIBCO has a controlling interest;
(ii) judges presiding over the Litigation; and (iii)
local, municipal, state, and federal governmental
entities.
-- Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel
is Reaffirmed.
-- The Court previously appointed Plaintiffs David Matson,
Barbara Matson, and Yolanda Garret as the Class
Representatives of the Settlement Class and hereby
reaffirms that appointment. The Court also reaffirms
the appointment of Austin Tighe of Nix Patterson LLP;
Robert E. Linkin of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP; J. David
Rowe of DuBois Bryant & Campbell LLP; Brandon J. Grable
of Grable Grimshaw Mora, PLLC; and Kirby D. Farris of
Farris, Riley & Pitt, LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel.
-- Service Awards and Attorneys’ Fees Are Warranted.
The Plaintiffs seek an award of $20,000 split evenly
between the Plaintiffs David and Barbara Matson and
Yolanda Garret (i.e., $10,000 for the Matsons and
$10,000 for Ms. Garret). The Court finds that this
award is appropriate under the circumstances of this
case and adequately will compensate Plaintiffs for the
service they provided in this action and the burdens
they shouldered. Moreover, permitting Plaintiffs to
recover a service award here won't tax class members;
NIBCO has agreed to separately pay this amount.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for a service
award is granted.
On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs David and Barbara Matson initiated
this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
alleging that Defendant NIBCO manufactured or distributed defective
cross-linked polyethylene tubing ("PEX tubing") that caused or will
cause them and the putative class members to suffer water damage to
their residences. Their live Complaint raises claims for (1) breach
of express warranty pursuant to section 2-313 of the Uniform
Commercial Code, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability
pursuant to section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and (3)
Strict Liability Design Defect, Manufacturing Defect, and Failure
to Warn.
NIBCO's PEX tubing has been the subject of extensive litigation
since at least 2013, beginning with the class action styled Cole v.
NIBCO, Case No. 13-cv-7871-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. filed Dec. 27, 2013),
which resulted in a final court-approved settlement on April 11,
2019.
The Plaintiffs and other Alabama and Texas homeowners, however,
ultimately were excluded from the Cole class, prompting Plaintiffs
to pursue their claims separately. The Plaintiffs did so first by
filing an individual petition in state court against builder DR
Horton and later adding NIBCO as a Defendant. Ultimately, after
engaging discovery with respect to their individual claims,
Plaintiffs chose to seek relief on a class-wide basis and filed
this action, while simultaneously nonsuiting their state court
action.
NIBCO, for its part, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and the
Class, and instead asserts that any failures related to the PEX
tubing resulted from the actions of others, including but not
limited to installation errors. To that end, NIBCO moved to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6), raising various defenses
including that (1) Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead an
express-warranty claim; (2) Plaintiffs’ implied-warranty claim
was time barred; and (3) Plaintiffs’ strict-liability claims were
barred by the statute of limitations and the economic-loss
doctrine.
On December 22, 2020 -- a year and a half after Plaintiffs first
instituted this action and while NIBCO’s motion to dismiss was
pending -- Plaintiffs advised the Court that they successfully
resolved their claims with NIBCO. The Court granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval on February 23, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nFNFlA at no extra charge.[CC]
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Weiner to File Decertification Response Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WEINER, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
Case Number: 2:14-cv-02597-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Plaintiff's Request to File Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendants' Motion for Decertification and Supporting Documents
Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 141.
The following unredacted documents will be filed under Seal
pursuant to Local Rule 141 and the Stipulated Amended Protective
Order entered in the case on April 26, 2019:
1. The Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for
Decertification (24 pages);
2. The Declaration of Mark Pifko in Support of Plaintiff's
Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Decertification
(3 pages); and
3. Exhibits 1-11 to the Declaration of Mark Pifko (180 pages).
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4r6f26xd from Leagle.com.
OLD DOMINION: Stay of Ocampo Suit Extended for Additional 90 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON L. OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE
INC., Defendant, Case No. C18-1875 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha
J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, extends the stay of the action for an
additional 90 days.
The case is a proposed class-action for unpaid and wrongfully
withheld wages filed by a truck driver. The case has been stayed
because dispositive legal issues in separate cases were before the
Washington Supreme Court, on a certified question, and on petition
for review to the Ninth Circuit, which was denied, and on petition
for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Parties ask to extend the
stay for another 90 days so they can discuss settlement in light of
the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, on Oct. 4, 2021.
Having considered the Parties' positions and finding good cause,
Judge Pechman treats the report as a stipulated motion, grants the
motion, and extends the stay for an additional 90 days. This will
be the only stay for the purpose of settlement negotiation. The
Parties are directed to submit a joint status report before the
stay expires with a proposed plan for what issues, if any, remain,
and are further directed to contact the Court immediately if they
reach a settlement.
The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kv3vcwny from Leagle.com.
OVINTIV USA: Rawlinson Sues Over Drilling Managers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BUDDY RAWLINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OVINTIV USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-01032 (W.D. Tex., October 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
oilfield personnel overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Rawlinson worked for the Defendant as a drilling manager from
approximately March 2019 until July 2019.
Ovintiv USA, Inc. is a multinational oil and gas company operating
throughout the United States and in Texas, headquartered in Denver,
Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Grievance Arbitration Award in PSCOA Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association,
Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Corrections, Respondent, Case No. 380 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge
Ellen Ceisler of the U.S. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the Grievance Arbitration Award, dated March 15, 2021,
issued by Arbitrator Jared N. Kasher.
Introduction
Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association (PSCOA)
petitions for review of the Grievance Arbitration Award. Arbitrator
Kasher concluded that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department
of Corrections (DOC) did not violate the terms of its collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) with PSCOA when it instructed PSCOA
members to not report for work on the June 19, 2020 Juneteenth
special holiday, which Governor Tom Wolf had declared the prior
day.
Background
PSCOA is the exclusive bargaining representative for all DOC
employees whose positions are within the H-1 bargaining unit, as
certified by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board pursuant to the
Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), Act of July 23, 1970, P.L.
563, as amended, 43 P.S. Section 1101.101-1101.2301.
PSCOA and DOC are parties to a CBA that has been in place since
2001. The CBA addresses how changes to staff schedules and
operations, as well as time off for regular and special holidays,
will be treated.
On June 18, 2020, Governor Wolf declared that June 19, 2020
(Juneteenth), would be a special holiday for employees of
Commonwealth agencies under his jurisdiction, which includes all
members of PSCOA. As such, all DOC employees represented by PSCOA
were entitled to the special holiday, subject to the applicable
provisions of the CBA. Governor Wolf's declaration encouraged
employees to "celebrate this day safely with the people closest to
you or in service of your community."
Thereafter, DOC instructed a number of its employees to take the
special holiday off and to not report for work the next day. DOC
did not provide two weeks' notice of this schedule change, nor did
it meet and discuss the change with PSCOA's members. Consistent
with Article 9, Section 6 of the CBA, employees who worked the
Juneteenth special holiday were paid their regular hours and given
one day off in the future. Employees who did not work on Juneteenth
were given the day off with pay.
PSCOA filed a class action grievance on behalf of all H-1
bargaining unit members who were instructed not to work on June 19,
2020, as a result of Governor Wolf's declaration. In its grievance,
PSCOA alleged that DOC's grant of a special holiday to certain DOC
employees on Juneteenth, without the requisite two weeks' notice or
the opportunity to meet and discuss the schedule change with PSCOA,
violated the terms of the CBA. PSCOA asserted that DOC unilaterally
changed its employees' schedules by instructing them to not report
for work, causing them to lose out on future time off with pay.
After unsuccessfully resolving the matter through the grievance
procedure outlined in the CBA, the parties submitted the grievance
to arbitration pursuant to the CBA and Section 903 of PERA, 43 P.S.
Section 1101.903.
On Jan. 13, 2021, Arbitrator Kasher held an arbitration hearing on
the grievance. At the hearing, PSCOA presented evidence that DOC
did not provide timely notice nor an opportunity to meet and
discuss before it advised its employees to go home and take the
special holiday off, in violation of the CBA. PSCOA also asserted
that, in 2004, the parties arbitrated a similar class action
grievance involving Article 6 of the parties' CBA (2004 Case), and
PSCOA admitted the decision in the 2004 Case into evidence.
In the 2004 Case, DOC directed 10 PSCOA members to take a holiday
on New Year's Day, instead of working their regularly scheduled
shifts that day and earning additional compensation for doing so.
In the 2004 Case, Arbitrator William W. Lowe determined that DOC
implemented a schedule change under Article 6 of the CBA, but that
DOC did not violate the CBA because it provided two weeks' notice
and a meet-and-discuss opportunity as required by Article 6. PSCOA
maintained that, in the instant case, Arbitrator Kasher was bound
by Arbitrator Lowe's prior decision and, thus, should conclude that
DOC implemented a schedule change without proper notice in
violation of the CBA.
In response, DOC asserted that by giving its employees the
Juneteenth special holiday off, it was simply attempting to comply
with Governor Wolf's declaration. DOC argues that even if it failed
to comply with the notice requirements of Article 6, there was no
adverse impact on any DOC employees. DOC argued that the employees
who were sent home received their full pay for the day, plus a
shift differential. DOC further asserted that employees who were
given the day off on June 19, 2020, got one day off, while
employees who worked that day received one day off at a future time
pursuant to Article 9, Section 6 of the CBA.
Following the hearing and the parties' submission of post-hearing
briefs, on March 15, 2021, Arbitrator Kasher issued his Award
denying the grievance. Arbitrator Kasher concluded that DOC did not
violate the CBA when it directed certain employees to stay home on
June 19, 2020, to celebrate the Juneteenth special holiday. He
further determined that the case is distinguishable from the 2004
Case. Therefore, Arbitrator Kasher concluded that DOC "did not
violate the CBA when it instructed some employees to stay home to
celebrate the Juneteenth holiday" on June 19, 2020, and denied the
grievance. PSCOA now petitions for review of that decision.
Analysis
1. Essence Test
First, PSCOA argues that the Award is not rationally derived from
the CBA because Arbitrator Kasher expanded the CBA's terms and
conditions by excusing DOC's failure to comply with the notice and
meet-and-discuss provisions of Article 6. It also argues that
Arbitrator Kasher's Award impermissibly created an "impossibility"
exception that was neither contemplated nor bargained for by the
parties in the CBA.
Judge Ceisler disagrees with both contentions. Considering the
"high degree of deference" the Court must give to an arbitrator's
interpretation of a contract, she concludes that the Award
logically flows from Arbitrator Kasher's interpretation of the
language in Article 6, Section 5 of the CBA. She also rejects
PSCOA's contention that Arbitrator Kasher "created new contractual
language that provides an exception" to the CBA "where one did not
previously exist." The emergency language was not created by
Arbitrator Kasher; it is expressly included in the parties'
contract. Judge Ceisler concludes that Arbitrator Kasher's
interpretation and application of the parties' CBA can easily be
reconciled with the contract's express language. Therefore, she
concludes that the Award is rationally derived from the CBA.
2. Conflict with 2004 Case
Finally, PSCOA contends that the Award does not draw its essence
from the parties' CBA because it conflicts with Arbitrator Lowe's
award in the 2004 Case, which involved the same contractual
provision and the same parties.
Judge Ceisler disagrees. She agrees with Arbitrator Kasher that the
2004 Case is factually distinguishable from the case. The 2004 Case
involved a regular holiday, not a special holiday declared by the
Governor. Because the 2004 Case involved a regularly scheduled
holiday, DOC was able to provide two weeks' notice and to hold a
meet-and-discuss opportunity with PSCOA. As a result, Arbitrator
Lowe did not need to interpret or apply the emergency language in
Article 6.
Consistent with the 2004 Case, Arbitrator Kasher determined that
requiring employees to take a holiday on a day when they were
previously scheduled to work constituted a schedule change under
the CBA. With regard to notice, however, Arbitrator Kasher
concluded that DOC did not violate the terms of the CBA because it
was impossible for DOC to satisfy Article 6's notice requirements,
since Governor Wolf declared the Juneteenth special holiday less
than 24 hours before the start of the holiday. This circumstance
was not present in the 2004 Case. Therefore, we conclude that the
Award in the case does not conflict with the award in the 2004
Case.
Conclusion & Order
Arbitrator Kasher considered the unique circumstances presented by
Governor Wolf's unanticipated declaration of the Juneteenth special
holiday, interpreted the relevant provisions of the parties' CBA,
and denied the grievance. Based on her review of the record and
Arbitrator Kasher's decision, Judge Ceisler cannot conclude that
the Award in the case "indisputably and genuinely is without
foundation in, or fails to logically flow from, the parties' CBA."
Accordingly, she affirmed the Award.
President Judge Brobson and Judge Crompton did not participate in
the decision of the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4udmcjbz from Leagle.com.
PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Loses Bid to Junk Sinkfield Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLECIA SINKFIELD, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. PERSOLVE
RECOVERIES, LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-80338-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order as follows:
1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
2. The Defendant's Motion for Judicial Notice is denied.
3. The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied without
prejudice.
4. The deadline for class discovery is extended until
November 30, 2021.
5. The Plaintiff shall re-file the motion for class
certification by December 10, 2021.
6. The parties shall, by November 9, 2021, engage in an
informal settlement conference with one another.
Persolve is a full service legal recovery and collection firm that
focuses on litigation in California and national collections.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CEzEuN at no extra charge.[CC]
PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Tate Class Suit Over Defective CPAP Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN TATE and STEPHEN FLANNERY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC
and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-01285-HEA (E.D. Mo., October 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
medical monitoring, and violations of state unfair trade practices
and consumer protection laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiffs' CPAP devices are now worthless. The Plaintiffs will be
forced to replace the device at considerable cost when a
replacement is available.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
Telephone: (314) 541-0317
E-mail: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
- and –
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR
422 South Curson Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Telephone: (314) 662-2836
E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
PHOENIX GLASS: Brambila Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL BRAMBILA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PHOENIX GLASS, INC. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. RG21113094, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-08266 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and regular wages, failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize
and permit rest breaks, failure to timely pay final wages, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business
practice.
Phoenix Glass, Inc. is a construction company based in Washington.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bradley E. Schwan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 1500, Lock Box 116
Dallas, TX 75201-2931
Telephone: (214) 880-8100
Facsimile: (214) 880-0181
E-mail: bschwan@littler.com
PIZZA BRAKE: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Expenses, Stevens Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIA STEVENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA BRAKE INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, and
STUART BJERKE, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00327-RGE-SHL (S.D.
Iowa, October 27, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
adequately reimburse the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
them the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
at a Domino's Pizza store located in North Liberty, Iowa from
approximately March 2019 until July 2021.
Pizza Brake Inc. is an operator of a Domino's Pizza franchise store
located in Iowa. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
ERBE LAW FIRM
2501 Grand Avenue, First Floor
Des Moines, IA 50312
Telephone: (515) 281-1460
Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
E-mail: harleyerbe@erbelaw.com
- and –
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
PIZZA HUT: Robert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER ROBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-01967 (E.D. La., October 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver
from approximately August of 2019 until January of 2020.
Pizza Hut of America, LLC is an operator and owner of a Pizza Hut
franchise in Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Adam Savoie, Esq.
DUDLEY DEBOSIER INJURY LAWYERS
4300 Youree Drive, Suite 250
Shreveport, LA 71105
Telephone: (318) 517-6107
Facsimile: (225) 831-1606
E-mail: asavoie@dudleydebosier.com
PJ LOUISIANA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Egan Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI EGAN; and KAITLYN RODMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PJ LOUISIANA, LLC, Case
No. 5:21-cv-03681 (W.D. La., Oct. 18, 2021) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
drivers.
PJ LOUISIANA, LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
G. Adam Savoie, Esq.
DUDLEY DEBOSIER INJURY LAWYERS
4300 Youree Drive, Suite 250
Shreveport, LA 71105
Telephone: (318) 670-7365
Facsimile: (225) 831-1606
Email: asavoie@dudleydebosier.com
PREFERRED BUILDING: Summary Judgment in SEIU-USWW Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEIU-USWW, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
PREFERRED BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case
No. A159790 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
First District, Division Five, affirms the trial court's order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and awarding
attorney fees.
Background
A class of janitors were employed by VPM Maintenance Management,
LLC (VPM) at a residential complex (the Site). After VPM terminated
its janitorial contract with the Site, a successor janitorial
contractor (Successor) replaced VPM. Janitors and their union
(Union) (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Successor for failing to
retain Janitors under state and local laws.
The Janitors worked for VPM providing janitorial services at the
Site. The Union was Janitors' elected bargaining representative. In
2014, VPM notified the Union that it was considering terminating
its janitorial contract with the Site. In June 2014, VPM and the
Union executed an agreement regarding this potential termination.
The Termination Agreement provided that, in the event that VPM
terminated its janitorial contract with the Site, VPM would offer a
specified severance package to employees who executed an agreement
stating they were voluntarily resigning and releasing all claims
against VPM. The Termination Agreement also included the following:
"Neither the Union nor any bargaining unit employee waives any
rights under the Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act to require any
successor employer to offer employment to existing employees."
In February 2015, VPM informed the Union that it was terminating
its janitorial contract with the Site effective April 13, 2015.
Janitors each signed a separation agreement. The Separation
Agreements stated the employee was voluntarily resigning; provided
lump sum payments based on the employee's years of service;
included a release of all claims against VPM; and stated the
employee's last day would be April 13, 2015, or earlier at VPM's
election.
On April 10, 2015, VPM informed the Union that VPM was electing to
move up Janitors' last day pursuant to the Separation Agreements
and "today will be everyone's last day." For the following three
days, the Site hired another company to provide essential
janitorial services; VPM did not provide these services at the
Site.
On April 14, 2015, Successor began providing janitorial services at
the Site. On that date, Janitors appeared at the Site and asserted
their right to retention. Successor did not retain any of the
Janitors.
In May 2015, the Plaintiffs sued Successor, alleging violations of
the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (Lab. Code, Sections
1060-1065; DJOA), and the Displaced Worker Protection Act (S.F.
Police Code, Sections 3300C.1-3300C.6; DWPA). Multiple motions for
summary judgment and/or summary adjudication were filed and denied
in whole or in part.
In November 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the trial court granted. The court subsequently
awarded attorney fees to the Plaintiffs and issued judgment. The
appeal followed.
Discussion
I. Summary Judgment
The DJOA "requires contractors who are awarded contracts for
janitorial or building maintenance services at a particular site to
retain certain employees working for the terminated contractor for
a 60-day transition employment period, and to offer those workers
continued employment if their performance during the 60-day period
is satisfactory. It requires a terminated contractor to provide the
name, date of hire, and job classification of each employee
employed at the site to the successor contractor within three
working days after receiving notice that its contract has been
terminated.
A. Employees
Under the DJOA, an employee of the terminated contractor who was
not offered employment by the successor contractor may sue the
successor for back pay, including the value of any lost employment
benefits. If the employee is the prevailing party, the trial court
'shall award the employee reasonable attorney's fees and costs as
part of the costs recoverable.' The DWPA similarly provides that
persons employed under service contracts will be retained by a
successor contractor for a 90-day transition period.
Successor argues Janitors were not "employees" within the meaning
of the DJOA and DWPA. The DJOA defines "employee" as "any person
employed as a service employee of a contractor or subcontractor who
works at least 15 hours per week and whose primary place of
employment is in the State of California under a contract to
provide janitorial or building maintenance services." The DWPA
provides a similar definition; the only differences are not
material in the case.
The Court of Appeals conclude that April 10, 2015 -- the last day
VPM provided janitorial services at the Site -- was "the time of
contract termination" for purposes of the DJOA and DWPA, regardless
of any other nominal or technical contract end date. Janitors were
therefore employees at the time of contract termination. Its
analysis is not impacted by Janitors' statements in the Separation
Agreements that they voluntarily resigned. Setting aside the
question of whether their departure is accurately characterized as
voluntary, Janitors' resignations were effective at the end of the
day on April 10, 2015. Therefore, Janitors were still employees at
the time of contract termination.
Successor also makes much of Janitors' receipt of severance
packages from VPM. The Court of Appeals fails to see how this
severance -- received by Janitors in exchange for their release of
all claims against VPM -- impacts its interpretation of Successor's
obligations under the DJOA and DWPA. Nor is it persuaded by
Successor's argument that, if it affirms the trial court, a janitor
and terminated contractor could never "voluntarily sever their
employment relationship without triggering a retention obligation
for the successor." Most obviously, a janitor could waive his or
her rights under the DJOA or DWPA.
B. Preemption
Successor argues the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.
Section 185; Section 301).
The Court of Appeals disagrees. Section 301 "'provides federal
court jurisdiction over controversies involving
collective-bargaining agreements.'" As relevant in the case, if the
right underlying the state law cause of action is "substantially
dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement, the
state law claim is preempted by Section 301." However, a defendant
cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that
asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action
into one arising under federal law.' In other words, if the claim
is plainly based on state law, Section 301 preemption is not
mandated simply because the defendant refers to the CBA in mounting
a defense.
Successor argues the Plaintiffs' claims are dependent on the
Termination Agreement negotiated by VPM and the Union because: (1)
Janitors cannot be "employees" within the meaning of the DJOA and
DWPA because they resigned; (2) therefore, Janitors must rely on
the reservation of rights in the Termination Agreement to pursue
their DJOA and DWPA claims; and (3) the reservation of rights
applies to "existing employees," the meaning of which is disputed
by VPM and the Plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals holds that Successor's argument fails at the
first step: The Plaintiffs were employees within the meaning of the
DJOA and DWPA, without needing to rely on the Termination
Agreement. To the extent interpretation of the Termination
Agreement is required by Successor's defenses, preemption does not
result.
C. Cause
The DJOA provides a successor contractor is excused from the
retention obligation if it "has reasonable and substantiated cause
not to hire a particular employee based on that employee's
performance or conduct while working under the terminated
contract." The DWPA similarly provides.
Successor argues Janitors' conduct of resigning provided such
cause. The Court of Appeals disagrees, saying Successor's argument
appears to be that Janitors' resignations constituted "cause"
because they rendered them no longer employees for whom retention
was required under the DJOA and DWPA. The Court of Appeals has
rejected this argument.
D. Waiver and Estoppel
Successor argues there are material issues of fact as to whether
Janitors waived their right to retention under the DJOA and DWPA or
are estopped from asserting such rights.
Again, the Court of Appeals disagrees. It holds that waiver means
the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. It
requires an existing right, the waiving party's knowledge of that
right, and the party's 'actual intention to relinquish the right.'
To the extent that Janitors' resignations suggest an intent to
waive their rights under the DJOA and DWPA, the Court of Appeals
holds that the express reservation of rights in the Termination
Agreement creates the inescapable inference that Janitors did not
so intend. Similarly, for purposes of estoppel, to the extent there
is a dispute of fact as to whether Janitors intended their
resignations to indicate they had no rights under the DJOA and
DWPA, or whether Successor had a right to so believe, the express
reservation of rights in the Termination Agreement is irrefutable
evidence that Janitors sought to disabuse VPM (and anyone VPM
communicated with) of this notion.
In addition, on the first day of Successor's contract for
janitorial services, Janitors appeared at the Site and expressed
their understanding that they were entitled to retention. The
record therefore permits meaningful appellate review.
E. Impossibility
Successor argues it was impossible to comply with the DJOA and
DWPA. It argues it was impossible to comply with any obligations
under the DJOA and DWPA because it was told by the Site there were
no employees, and neither the Site nor VPM provided it with a list
of employees. However, on Successor's first day at the Site,
Janitors personally appeared and asserted their status as employees
of the terminated contractor. Thus, at the latest by its first day
on the job, Successor knew there may have been employees covered by
the DJOA and DWPA, and further knew or could easily obtain the
identity of such employees. There is no evidence that Successor's
compliance with the statute was impossible.
II. Attorney Fees
Successor challenges the amount of attorney fees awarded the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs requested lodestar fees with a
multiplier of 2. The trial court awarded the requested lodestar
fees but with a 1.4 multiplier.
A. Downward Adjustment
Successor argues the lodestar should have been adjusted downward
because Plaintiffs overstaffed the case with eight attorneys.
The Court of Appeals holds that Successor has failed to demonstrate
the trial court abused its discretion. The overall amount of time
for which counsel seek compensation is reasonable in light of the
factual and procedural complexity of the case, which included a TRO
request, discovery, five motions for summary judgment/summary
adjudication by both parties, a contested motion for class
certification, and a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of
Appeal.
B. Improper Double Counting
Successor contends the trial court improperly double counted the
attorneys' skill by relying on it to enhance the fee award when it
was already encompassed by the lodestar.
The Court of Appeals finds that the trial court identified four
factors warranting a multiplier of 1.4. One of these factors was
counsel's representation "resulting in a rare summary judgment in
favor of a plaintiff class." The trial court thus impliedly found
the Plaintiffs' counsel exhibited skill beyond that expected of
comparable attorneys. Successor's disagreement with this assessment
does not demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion or
improperly double counted counsel's skill.
C. Multiplier
Successor argues the trial court relied on the Plaintiffs'
"counsel's skill but provided no reasoning for why the Plaintiffs'
counsel's skill was extraordinary." As noted, the trial court found
counsel achieved a rare result. In any event, the trial court was
not required to explain how it calculated that factor, and we will
generally presume the attorney fee award was correct on matters as
to which the record is silent.
Successor also challenges the trial court's reliance on an
"unsupported" assertion that the litigation precluded other
employment and the court's failure to consider the resources of the
Union in determining that the fee was contingent. The Court of
Appeals need not consider these factors because the multiplier is
supported by the other factors relied on by the trial court.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. The Respondents will recover their costs
on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycupntm9 from Leagle.com.
Greenberg Traurig, Karin L. Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com --
Charles Birenbaum -- birenbaumc@gtlaw.com -- Jamie Rich --
birenbaumc@gtlaw.com -- and Tayanah Miller -- millerta@gtlaw.com --
for the Defendant and Appellant.
Weinberg, Roger, & Rosenfeld, Antonio Ruiz --
aruiz@unioncounsel.net -- Jannah V. Manansala --
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net -- Alexander S. Nazarov --
anazarov@unioncounsel.net -- and Caitlin Gray --
cgray@unioncounsel.net -- for the Plaintiff and Respondents.
PREMIER SENIOR: Faces Robbin Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
TINA ROBBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-01164-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., October 26, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and unjust
enrichment.
Ms. Robbin was employed by Defendant as a salesperson at its Seneca
Lake Terrace facility located at 3670 PreEmption Road, Geneva, New
York from November 2019 to April 2021.
Premier Senior Living, LLC is a provider of residential living
facilities for seniors, headquartered at 245 Park Avenue, 39th
Floor, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
- and –
James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com
PRIME CHOICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Espinosa Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA ESPINOSA; and CHRISTINA NEIGHBORS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIME CHOICE
URGENT CARE, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00835 (E.D. Tex.,
Oct. 18, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs Espinosa and Neighbors were employed by the Defendant as
receptionist and medical assistant, respectively.
PRIME CHOICE URGENT CARE, PLLC provides medical services.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
-and-
Corrina Chandler, Esq.
CHANDLER & SHAVIN, PLLC
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 863-9063
Facsimile: (972) 692-5220
Email: chandler@chandlershavin.com
RAUSCH STURM: Can Compel Arbitration in Schmitt FDCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR E. SCHMITT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; and CHERYL SCHMITT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs v. RAUSCH,
STURM, ISRAEL, ENERSON & HORNIK, LLP, GREGORY W. ENERSON, JULIE A.
RAUSCH, PAUL THIELHELM, and DISCOVER BANK, Defendants, Case No.
8:21CV11 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the Defendant
Discover Bank's motion to compel arbitration.
Background
Plaintiffs Cheryl Schmitt and Victor Schmitt are Nebraska residents
who were previously sued by Defendant Discover in Nebraska state
court. Discover is a credit card company. Rausch, Sturm, Israel,
Enerson & Hornik, LLP is a debt collector and law firm, and the
individual defendants are attorneys within that firm. The law firm
and attorneys acted on behalf of Discover to recover alleged credit
card debts from the plaintiffs in a state court action.
Bringing the action on behalf of not only themselves but also the
putative class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs'
first claim alleges the RS Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 by
communicating directly with consumers who were known to be
represented by an attorney, and by adding interest to lawsuits
after the alleged accounts were "charged off" with interest waived.
The Plaintiffs' second claim alleges violations of the Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act ("NCPA") (Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1601
et seq.), against both Discover and the RS Defendants. The
Plaintiffs allege the Defendants committed unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in violation of the NCPA by filing county court debt
collection complaints, sending letters, and seeking and adding
unauthorized interest after the alleged accounts were charged off.
Discover argues the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration
under the terms in their respective Cardmember Agreements. In
support of its motion, Discover submitted the declaration of Janusz
Wantuch, the Director of Credit Risk Management for Discover
Products Inc. Wantuch attested to the contents of each Plaintiff's
Cardmember Agreement.
Plaintiff Cheryl Schmitt's original Cardmember Agreement did not
contain an arbitration agreement. However, the agreement contained
a change of terms clause. Discover changed the terms of Cheryl's
Cardmember Agreement effective April 2003. Before the April 2003
agreement became effective, Discover mailed Cheryl a "Notice of
Right to Reject Arbitration" and Cheryl did not send Discover
correspondence indicating that she rejected the arbitration
clause.
Plaintiff Victor Schmitt applied for a credit card account with
Discover. In January 2005, Discover sent Victor his new card and a
copy of the Cardmember Agreement, dated March 8, 2004.
In both the 2003 and 2004 agreements, the first paragraph under the
heading "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ACCOUNT" states "You have
the right to reject the arbitration provision with respect to your
new account within 30 days after receiving your Card." The first
section of the Cardmember Agreement contains a boldfaced notice
that "The Arbitration of Disputes Section on page 12 includes a
waiver of a number of rights, including the right to a jury trial."
The Arbitration of Disputes section on page 12 contains notice that
if arbitration is elected by either party, there will be no right
for either party to litigate in court or to have a jury trial, and
no right to join or consolidate claims by or against cardmembers,
or to arbitrate any claims as a representative or member of a
class.
In 2018, Discover amended the Cardmember Agreement. The "Acceptance
of Agreement" paragraph states "You accept this Agreement if you do
not cancel your Account within 30 days after receiving a Card. You
also accept this Agreement if you or an Authorized User use the
Account. You may, however reject the 'Arbitration of Disputes'
section as explained in that section." Wantuch's affidavit states
that each Plaintiff accepted the Cardmember Agreement through the
use of the card, and that Discover did not receive notice that
either plaintiff rejected the Arbitration of Disputes clause within
the cardmember agreement.
The arbitration clauses in the 2003, 2004 and 2018 Cardmember
Agreements allows for arbitration of any claim "arising from or
relating to" the Plaintiffs' accounts, if either party chooses to
resolve the claim by binding arbitration instead of in court. The
Plaintiffs challenge the validity of the agreement for a number of
reasons. First, they assert the agreement is both procedurally and
substantively unconscionable, and that enforcement of the
arbitration clause would cause logistical problems. They also
assert the Plaintiffs' claims are outside of the scope of the
arbitration agreement, and that all Defendants have waived
arbitration by filing lawsuits in county court and/or affirmatively
participating in the case.
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Discover's motion to
compel arbitration. RS Defendants join Discover's motion. Discover
seeks to enforce the arbitration provisions contained in cardmember
agreements for the Plaintiffs' credit card accounts. The RS
Defendants join that motion. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion to
arbitrate.
Discussion
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a written arbitration agreement
"shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract." Under Section 2, an arbitration clause may be deemed
unenforceable if upon application of state law, a court concludes a
party was unfairly pressured to agree to a contract with an
unwanted arbitration provision. The Federal Arbitration Act, as a
matter of federal law, requires that any doubts concerning the
scope of arbitrable issues be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Conclusion
Judge Zwart concludes that the arbitration provisions in the
Discover cardmember agreement are enforceable, and the Plaintiffs'
claims for recovery against Discover and the RS Defendants are
within the scope those arbitration provisions. Neither Discover nor
the RS Defendants have waived their right to arbitration.
Therefore, as required under the FAA, the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration will be granted.
Accordingly, Judge Zwart granted Discover's motion to compel
arbitration. The RS Defendants' request to join arbitration is
granted and the Plaintiffs' claims against the RS Defendants will
be submitted to arbitration. The Plaintiffs' dispute will be
promptly submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the
arbitration clauses quoted and discussed in the Opinion.
The action is stayed pending arbitration. Every 90 days from the
date of the Order, the counsel will file a joint status report with
the court regarding the progress of the arbitration proceedings.
The clerk will administratively close the case and set a Jan. 15,
2022 case management deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24pe5exk from Leagle.com.
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Securities Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Resideo Technologies, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:19-cv-02863-WMW-KMM (D. Minn.),
the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order:
1. certifying, solely for purposes of effectuating the
proposed Settlement, a class consisting of:
"all persons and entities who or which purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Resideo during the
period from October 15, 2018, through November 6, 2019,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby;"
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants;
(ii) Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell); (iii) the
officers and directors of Defendants and Honeywell during
the Class Period; (iv) Immediate Family of the Individual
Defendants and of the excluded officers and directors; (v)
any entity in which any Defendant, any excluded officer or
director, or any member of their Immediate Family has or
had a controllinginterest; (vi) any affiliates, parents or
subsidiaries of Defendants and Honeywell; (vii) the legal
representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors, or
assigns of any of the foregoing, in their capacities as
such; and (viii) those who timely and validly request
exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the Notice, or who are otherwise
excluded by the Court;
2. designating the Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives
for the Settlement Class;
3. appointing Co-Lead Counsel Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and
Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g), Fed. R. Civ. P.;
4. granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement --
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement; and
5. setting a settlement hearing on January 27, 2022, at 9:00
a.m.
Resideo Technologies, Inc. provides home comfort and security
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bo4XbG at no extra charge.[CC]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Robinhood Outage Litigation, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01626-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato
entered an order that the briefing schedule in connection with
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is as follows:
1. Defendants' opposition to the motion for class
certification shall be due December 3, 2021; and
2. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class
certification shall be due December 22, 2021.
Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company. The Company provides online and mobile application-based
discount stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BnV7Xi at no extra charge.[CC]
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, are:
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq.
Julia Peng, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: amurphy@cpmlegal.com
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
lhakala@cmplegal.com
nrahman@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
jpeng@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
Laurence D. King, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
kherkenhoff@kaplanfox.com
lking@kaplanfox.com
Attorneys for Defendants Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood
Securities, LLC and Robinhood Markets, are:
C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
E-mail: bwisoff@fbm.com
- and-
Maeve O'Connor, Esq.
Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 909-6000
Facsimile: (212) 909-6836
E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
egreenfield@debevoise.com
bfetzer@debevoise.com
SAN BERNARDINO CTY, CA: Allegations Made Against Defender's Office
------------------------------------------------------------------
abc7.com at reports that four employees of the San Bernardino
County Public Defender's Office have filed a class action claim
alleging sexual assault, battery, harassment, discrimination and
retaliation.
The alleged victims describe a culture of widespread harassment
inside the public defender's office carried out by those at the
very top of the organization.
"I've been reporting instances of sexual harassment and violence
against women since 2011," said Laura Alvarez, one of the
claimants. "Nothing has ever been done until today."
Alvarez, along with three other women named in the claim, spoke out
at a news conference on Thursday hosted by attorney Brad Gage at
his Woodland Hills office. He said the claim filed against San
Bernardino County is a precursor to a lawsuit.
"No woman should ever feel their job is on the line where the only
way they can keep the job is to have sex with the boss," said
Gage.
The claimants described the alleged actions of former public
defender Christopher Gardner, who led the organization until
resigning in December 2020.
According to the claim, Gardner used his position "as a subterfuge
to obtain sex from female subordinates."
"My boss pursued me for a romantic relationship, and every time I
tried to end it, he refused," said Stacy Thacker, who alleges that
Gardner's actions turned violent when she tried to report him to
authorities. "The attempts I made to report him resulted in him
attempting to run my car off the freeway. When I attempted to
report the assault to the police, he used his position of authority
to get the police reports thrown out."
Another alleged victim, Gricelda Arciniega, also described
allegations of sexual harassment.
"My boss rubbed himself inappropriately in my presence," said
Arciniega. "He would ask me to go into his office, and when I
refused, he gave me a bad evaluation."
According to the claim, Gardner repeatedly kissed, hugged, and
forced another alleged victim's hand onto his genitals.
However, Gage said the allegations go beyond Gardner.
According to the claim, one employee "obtained oral copulation at
work from a young lawyer who is now at County Counsel."
"Members in the upper management were going on trips on taxpayer
money to have sexual liaisons with subordinate employees," said
Gage. "It's not just men at the top accused of sexual misconduct,
but also one of the female chiefs is accused as well of having
utilized her power to engage in a sexual relationship with a young
man, and using her influence to give him benefits."
San Bernardino County responded to the claim with the following
statement to Eyewitness News.
"San Bernardino County has no higher priority than providing a
safe, equitable and harassment-free working environment for all of
our employees. The County takes allegations of harassment, sexual
misconduct, and retaliation very seriously and immediately conducts
full investigations into any and all reports of misconduct. The
County has a strong zero-tolerance policy against workplace
misconduct and retaliation and requires employees to read and sign
the policy upon hiring and as part of all regular employment
evaluations."
Eyewitness News reached out to Gardner for comment. He has not
replied to our request for a response. [GN]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY;
PHILIP PRESSEL; and WYLENE HINKLE; individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public
entity; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:19-cv-00054-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order denying without
prejudice the renewed motion for class certification.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs may either file a third motion for
class certification or proceed with this action solely with the
individually named Plaintiffs pursuing only injunctive and
declaratory relief. By October 27, 2021, the Plaintiffs must file
with the court a Notice of Intent to file a third motion for class
certification, if that is that course of action they intend to
pursue. If the renewed motion for class certification is made
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), notwithstanding class notice is not
expressly required under 23(b)(2), any renewed motion must include
a plan on (1) how notice will be provided to putative class
members, sufficient to notify them of the likelihood that they may
be waiving the right to sue under California law if they remain a
class member and, (2) how the ability to opt out of the class
action will be provided to each class member. Plaintiffs have up to
and including November 10, 2021, to refile their third motion for
class certification."
On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs, who are individuals with
disabilities, filed a putative class action complaint asserting
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act, the California Civil Code, and the
California Government Code.
In the operative Second Amended Complaint it is alleged that
Plaintiffs have found their access to San Diego's sidewalks
diminished by the proliferation of dockless electric vehicles
currently in use in the city.
They allege that people using the dockless electric vehicles either
travel on the sidewalks or block paths of travel because the
vehicles are discarded in the middle of sidewalks or at other
rights-of-way, making it difficult for people with disabilities to
safely traverse the pathways.
San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for
its beaches, parks and warm climate. Immense Balboa Park is the
site of the renowned San Diego Zoo, as well as numerous art
galleries, artist studios, museums and gardens.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/310nyxR at no extra charge.[CC]
SPEEDWAY LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in De Block Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NANCY DE BLOCK, individually and on behalf of a
collective of others similarly situated v. SPEEDWAY LLC, Civil
Action No. 20-824 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
Introduction
The case is an action brought under the Equal Pay Act ("EPA").
Plaintiff De Block now moves to certify conditionally a collective
action in connection with her claims alleging that Speedway
violated the Act by paying salaried female general managers less
than their male counterparts.
Discussion
The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") provides a specific
enforcement mechanism for EPA claims, permitting an aggrieved
employee to bring a collective action on behalf of "themselves and
other employees similarly situated." This mechanism is similar to a
Rule 23 class action, except that it requires other aggrieved
employees to affirmatively "opt-in" to the collective action.
A. Conditional Certification of the Collective
Plaintiff De Block seeks collective certification for claims under
the EPA, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d)(1), alleging that Defendant
Speedway "failed to pay their female General Managers the same as
their male General Managers, despite performing substantially the
same work under equal working conditions." The burden is on the
Plaintiff to "produce some evidence" that other similarly situated
female General Managers at Speedway exist who may have been subject
to the same discriminatory pay practice alleged against Speedway.
In support of her motion, the Plaintiff has submitted her own
deposition testimony, the sworn declarations of five present or
former female Speedway general managers willing to opt-in to the
proposed collective, two 30(b)(6) deposition transcripts of
Speedway representatives, a "Responsibility Statement" for the
general manager position at Speedway, and Speedway's "Compensation
Manual."
Taking the record as a whole, Judge McHugh notes that the Speedway
Compensation Manual describes a compensation policy that is
commonly applicable to the pay grades for salaried general
managers—pay grades 4, 5, and 6 for purposes of the action --
which was confirmed by Speedway's 30(b)(6) representative Jessica
McCoart, a member of Speedway's human resource department involved
with corporate compensation. Every pay grade under the compensation
policy has a midpoint benchmarked to a market rate and, with some
exceptions, all employees assigned a specific pay grade are paid
between 80% and 120% of that midpoint.
Speedway contends that this window permits variations "based on an
individual's circumstances, including their store level, their
tenure or experience level, the store's sales performance, the
store's adherence to Speedway standards and safety requirements,
competition for talent, and market differences in pay rates." That
may ultimately prove to be the case, but conditional certification
will permit discovery to proceed so that the parties can develop a
factual record to determine whether Speedway applies this facially
neutral policy in a non-discriminatory manner or not.
For the purposes of an anticipated decertification motion
specifically, the question for the Court and the burden on the
Plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence will be whether the
Plaintiff and the opt-ins are in fact similarly situated or whether
the additional factors identified by the Defendant are exhaustive
of the pay differentials alleged by the Plaintiff and the opt-ins.
B. Notice to the Collective and Consent to Join Form
The Plaintiff provides a proposed notice and proposed consent to
join form and requests an order for Speedway to produce a list of
all employees who meet the collective action class definition
within 14 days. She also requests that the notice be conspicuously
posted in all stores. Finally, the Plaintiff requests an order on
the due dates for the consent forms. Defendant Speedway has not
addressed any of these issues in its briefing.
The Court has significant discretion over the management of a
collective action notice in order to "ensure that it is timely,
accurate, and informative." Nevertheless, "both the parties and the
court benefit from settling disputes about the content of the
notice before it is distributed." To facilitate this, Judge McHugh
directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the proposed
notice, consent form, and its attendant mechanisms of information
exchange and opt-in, and resubmit the proposed notice plan, with
any necessary briefing or objections, to the Court for review. Such
submission will be made within 28 days of the order accompanying
the Memorandum.
Conclusion
Judge McHugh concludes that the Plaintiff has met her burden at the
preliminary stage to make a "modest factual showing" of similarly
situated employees.
For the reasons he set forth, Judge McHugh granted the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff's counsel
Rebecca S. Predovan, Marc S. Hepworth, Charles Gershbaum, and David
A. Roth from Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth PLLC and Derrek William
Cummings from Weisberg Cummings P.C. are appointed counsel for the
conditionally certified collective. And the parties will meet and
confer over the notice plan and submit said plan along with any
necessary briefing to the Court for review. An appropriate order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5xekv8ff from Leagle.com.
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Corwin Law Files Federal Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corwin Law, a consumer advocacy law firm based in Boca Raton, has
filed a class action lawsuit against Spirit Airlines, Inc.
("Spirit") on behalf of ticket purchasers who had scheduled flights
between July 30, 2021, and August 9, 2021.
In the multi-count lawsuit, captioned Amber Terreta and Debra
Rayner v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-62148-JEM, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, the class representatives describe being forced to
purchase tickets at a higher price on other carriers due to the
cancelation of their flights by Spirit. These cancelations were
caused by severe labor storages that Spirit was fully aware of
prior to the scheduled dates of travel. Tens of thousands of
customers, like the Plaintiffs, purchased tickets relying on
Spirit's contractual obligations to handle the traffic of its
scheduled flights only to be stuck for hours or days in airports
with little to no communication from Spirit. Instead, Spirit
ignored its customers, refusing to compensate passengers for
canceled flights, and failing to make alternative travel
arrangements on other airlines or provide hotel accommodations.
Spirit's actions directly caused their customers to suffer immense
stress and discomfort, incur increased travel fees, and to miss
thousands of family and business events.
Many of the Spirit consumers were left on their own to get
alternate flights, secure accommodations, book ground
transportation, etc. since there were no gate agents, and the
ticketing counters were closed. Instead, they were met with airport
security and/or police officers who were turning people away from
these locations telling them that there was no one there who could
assist them.
"Consumers booked and purchased their tickets never thinking that
they would be stranded and abandoned by Spirit Airlines. It is a
travesty that Spirit has a total disregard for its consumers,"
noted attorney Marcus W. Corwin.
Corwin Law has been seeking justice for their clients since 1986.
For more information visit www.corwinlawfirm.com [GN]
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Maurice Blackburn Investigates Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Blackburn is investigating a class action against Star
Entertainment Group Ltd (ASX:SGR) (formerly Echo Entertainment
Group Ltd (ASX:EGP) on behalf of its shareholders following
revelations of alleged inadequacies in Star's systems for ensuring
compliance with its obligations for managing anti-money laundering
(AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) risks.
The revelations were made on the news program 60 Minutes on 10
October 2021 following its joint investigation with The Sydney
Morning Herald and The Age into Star.
At the centre of the revelations is a 2018 audit report prepared by
KPMG and presented to Star's board's audit committee which set out
deficiencies in Star's systems and processes, noting, among other
things, that there was "inadequate resourcing in place to operate
the AML/CTF Program" and that its risk assessment system "does not
consider terrorism financing as required by the AML/CTF Act".
The report also highlighted parts of Star's operations where
AML/CTF risks may be higher, such as its operation of junket tours
for its "high-roller" customers.
Following the revelations, there was a significant market response
resulting in a decline in Star's share price of approximately 23%
($0.98) in a single day of trading on 11 October 2021, reportedly
wiping nearly $1 billion off its market value.
The proposed class action will allege that Star engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct; breached its continuous
disclosure obligations; and conducted its affairs contrary to the
interests of members as a whole in the period.
Shareholders that acquired shares in Star (including by way of
dividend reinvestments) in the period 12 October 2015 to 11 October
2021 are invited to register their interest in the proposed class
action.
Contact the Star Shareholder Class Action team on:
Email: Star@mauriceblackburn.com.au
Call: 1800 434 056 [GN]
SUNSET FOOD: 7th Cir. Affirms Remand of Railey Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's order remanding the case, RANITA RAILEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUNSET FOOD MART, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 21-2533 (7th Cir.), to the state court.
Introduction
Ms. Railey clocked in and out of work at Sunset in Lake Forest,
Illinois, by placing her hand on a biometric scanner. She later
brought a class action in state court alleging violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Two years into
litigation, Sunset removed the case to federal court. The district
court found Sunset's removal untimely.
Background
Ms. Railey began working at Sunset, a small Illinois grocery chain
with five stores, in January 2016. Three years later she filed a
putative class action on behalf of herself and other Sunset
employees alleging that the company's use of a biometric time clock
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Railey's
complaint survived dismissal and proceeded to discovery, when, in
November 2020, Sunset removed the case to federal court.
The company rooted the removal in its view that Railey's claims
were completely preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act.
Sunset explained the timing of the removal by pointing to an
interrogatory response it received from Railey in October 2020 in
which she confirmed her membership in a labor union. Several months
later, in January 2021, Sunset filed what it called a "Supplemental
Statement in Support of Jurisdiction" urging the district court to
find that the Class Action Fairness Act also supported removal. For
her part, Railey sought to have the case remanded to state court.
After extensive briefing, the district court found Sunset's removal
untimely and ordered the case remanded to state court. First, the
district court considered the timeliness of Sunset's
preemption-based removal. It concluded that the case was not
initially removable because nowhere in her state court complaint
did Railey allege membership in a union. The absence of such an
allegation, the district court reasoned, meant that the ordinary
30-day time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1) did
not apply.
Second, the district court considered Sunset's alternative
contention that the Class Action Fairness Act supplied an
independent basis for removal. On this front, the company contended
that Railey's change in domicile from Illinois to Georgia as the
litigation proceeded in state court meant the parties had become
minimally diverse and thus the case was removable under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2)(A). The district court disagreed, finding that
in the case, too, Sunset's removal was untimely.
The Seventh Circuit then granted Sunset's request to appeal the
district court's remand order.
Discussion
The Seventh Circuit holds that the district court was right to
remand the case. Congress created an exception to Class Action
Fairness Act jurisdiction for "home-state controversies." The
exception directs that district courts "shall decline to exercise
jurisdiction" over a class action in which "two-thirds or more of
the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and
the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the
action was originally filed." Railey invokes this precise
exception, observing that both Sunset and all of the putative class
members (per her proposed class definition) are Illinois citizens.
Ms. Railey is right that these circumstances precluded Sunset's
removal under the Class Action Fairness Act. By limiting the class
to Illinois citizens, Railey eliminated any concern that any Sunset
employees domiciled outside the state comprise greater than
one-third of the class and all but "guaranteed that the suit would
remain in state court."
The company's arguments against the exception's applicability --
that Railey has defined herself out of the class; that she waived
this position by not raising it below; that a class pursuing
Biometric Information Privacy Act claims cannot be restricted to
Illinois citizens; and that the individual, subjective nature of
citizenship creates a predominance issue precluding class
certification -- are unavailing. Railey has brought a putative
class action on behalf of Illinois citizens against a small
Illinois grocery chain under Illinois law, and "it doesn't take any
evidence to establish that Illinois citizens make up at least
two-thirds of the members of a class that is open only to Illinois
citizens." Id. And even accepting that the home-state controversy
exception is not jurisdictional, we believe the proper course is to
follow Congress' direction in Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and affirm the
district court's remand order.
The Seventh Circuit closes with a few words on the district court's
assessment of Sunset's preemption-based removal of Railey's claims.
It can address the issue because, alongside exercising the
appellate jurisdiction supplied by Section 1453(c)(1), "it is free
to consider any potential error in the district court's decision."
Its recent decision in Fernandez v. Kerry, Inc. suggests that
Railey's claims may, in fact, be preempted by the Labor Management
Relations Act. On these facts, however, the Seventh Circuit has
little difficulty concluding the district court was right to grant
Railey's motion to remand. Its reasoning travels a different path,
though.
Sunset missed its preemption-based removal window. Diligent counsel
had everything necessary to recognize that the Labor Management
Relations Act may preempt Railey's or the class' claims. Railey's
class definition also gave Sunset clear notice that the proposed
class included all of and indeed only the company's Illinois
employees -- many, if not most, of whom are subject to collective
bargaining arrangements.
The Seventh Circuit urges not to read its Opinion to impose any
meaningful burden on the Defendants. It stands fully by its prior
determination that district courts are not required to engage in a
"fact-intensive inquiry about what the defendant subjectively knew
or should have discovered" about the plaintiff's case to assess the
timeliness of a defendant's removal. It adds only the
straightforward observation that, when it comes to removal, a
defendant can be held to information about its own operations that
it knows or can discern with ease.
That is so in the case, for the circumstances are akin to asking a
defendant corporation whether it knows its place of incorporation
and principal place of business. With hardly any effort, Sunset
could have discerned —-- from the moment it received the original
complaint -- that a collective bargaining agreement governed its
employment relationship with Ranita Railey and bore on the claims
of the putative class. That reality means that the 30-day removal
clock in Section 1446(b)(1) began to tick when Railey served her
complaint in February 2019. Sunset's November 2020 preemption-based
notice of removal was therefore untimely, and the district court's
remand order was appropriate.
Order
The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4aheu5t5 from Leagle.com.
SUPER NORIEGA: Faces Tapia Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN TAPIA, MARIO ZAMUDIO, ALFONSO PEREZ, JESUS RAMIREZ, WENCESLAO
MARTINEZ, SAUL PEREZ, YOEL JULIAN and OSCAR PAZ BAROJAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SUPER NORIEGA LLC (d/b/a BABY BRASA), FRANCO NORIEGA,
MILAN KELLER, EDUARDO TREJO and CARLA NORIEGA, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-08778 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to comply
with recordkeeping provisions, failure to provide accurate wage
statements failure to reimburse business expenses, unlawful wage
deductions, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks, food
preparers, food runners and busboys at Baby Brasa restaurant,
located at 173 7th Avenue, New York, New York at any time between
March 2020 and October 2021.
Super Noriega LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under
the name Baby Brasa, located at 173 7th Avenue, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 31, 2022
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN DOWNING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TAPESTRY, INC. d/b/a COACH, Case No. 2:21-cv-06381-MCS-GJS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marlk C. Scarsi entered an scheduling order
as follows:
Event Date
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off June 13, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) May 23, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) July 13, 2022
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off Aug. 15, 2022
-- Deadline to File a Motion for Jan. 31, 2022
Class Certification
-- Deadline to File a Reply in March 14, 2022
Support of the Motion for
Class Certification
-- Hearing Date omn Motion for Class April 4, 2022
Certification
Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company. It is based in New York City and is the parent company of
three major brands: Coach New York, Kate Spade New York and Stuart
Weitzman.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nLuZkc at no extra charge.[CC]
TRUCK INSURANCE: Final Order & Judgment Forms in Sonoma Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sonoma Sol LLLP, et al., Plaintiffs v. Truck Insurance
Exchange, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-00069-PHX-DJH (D.
Ariz.), Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona denied the Parties' Joint Motion for Entry of
Proposed Forms of Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, and to
Vacate the Final Approval Hearing on Nov. 9, 2021.
On July 16, 2021, the Court satisfied the first requirement of the
approval process when it granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class, Appointment of
Settlement Class Representatives and Class Counsel, and Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Class Settlement.
Judge Humetewa must now conduct a fairness hearing to entertain any
of the Proposed Class members objections to (1) the treatment of
this litigation as a class action and/or (2) the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. After the fairness hearing, she will make a
final determination as to whether the parties should be allowed to
settle the class action pursuant to the terms agreed upon.
Notwithstanding the parties' contention that no objections exist,
and no member of the Settlement Class has standing to appeal the
Court's judgment, Judge Humetewa will nevertheless hold a Final
Approval Hearing. The Ninth Circuit is clear that a hearing must be
held to "inquire into the terms and circumstances of any dismissal
or compromise to ensure that it is not collusive or prejudicial."
Moreover, in its previous Order, the Court expressed concern about
the named Plaintiffs' proposed incentive payments. Specifically, it
instructed the parties to be prepared to explain at the hearing the
efforts taken as Proposed Class representatives and establish the
reasonableness of the awards, including any actual damages
sustained because of the Defendant's actions. The parties have not
attempted to explain this issue to date, and Judge Humetewa will
hear the parties' arguments at the Final Approval Hearing.
Therefore, the parties have not established cause for the Court to
vacate the Final Approval Hearing, and Judge Humetewa will deny the
Motion.
Accordingly, Judge Humetewa denied the Motion for Entry of Proposed
Forms of Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, and to Vacate the
Final Approval Hearing. She affirms the Final Approval Hearing set
for 9:30 a.m. on Nov. 9, 2021, in Courtroom 605, at the Sandra Day
O'Connor United States Courthouse, Phoenix, Arizona.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35wx76fh from Leagle.com.
UNITED PROPANE: Eyes FLSA Conditional Cert. Hearing Set for Nov. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EYES, et al., v.
UNITED PROPANE GAS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-00208 (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Richardson Wyrick entered an order
that a hearing to address Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification shall be held on
Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
Video connection information will be distributed to counsel via
email, says the Court.
United Propane delivers propane gas and heating services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GH6r4K at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate put in place for military service
members, federal employees, and federal civilian contractors
violates their constitutional rights, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.
Lead plaintiff Navy Seal 1 claims the COVID-19 vaccine mandate put
in place by President Joe Biden violates Class Members religious
beliefs and is an insult to their service to the country.
Navy Seal 1 wants to represent a Class of military service members,
civilian federal employees, and civilian federal contractors who
have been denied religious exemption from taking the COVID-19
vaccine.
The plaintiff says his request to be religiously exempt from taking
the COVID-19 vaccine was denied and that he was subsequently
removed from his position in the US Navy.
The federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate stipulates that members of the
US Navy and US Marines have until Nov. 28 to be fully vaccinated,
according to the class action lawsuit.
Members of the US Army and US Air Force, meanwhile, have until Dec.
15 to be fully vaccinated, while members of the US Coast Guard and
civilian federal employees and contractors have until Nov. 22,
according to the class action lawsuit.
Navy Seal Claims Biden's Vaccine Mandate Takes Away the 'Very
Constitutional Rights' Service Members Seek to Protect
Navy Seal 1 claims the vaccine mandate seeks to take away the very
constitutional rights they and their fellow service members have
taken an oath to protect.
"For that ultimate sacrifice in defense of the Constitution and our
freedoms, Defendants are threatening these military heroes with
dishonorable discharge for even requesting a religious exemption
from the COVID-19 shots," the class action lawsuit states.
Federal employees and military service members who aren't given an
exemption and don't abide by the COVID-19 vaccine mandate face
discipline including the potential for a dishonorable discharge or
court martial, according to the class action lawsuit.
Navy Seal 1 claims a dishonorable discharge is the worst punishment
a military service member can face and would be an affront to their
services and the sacrifices they have made.
"Dishonorable discharge is worse than criminal conviction for these
service members because it is a badge of disgrace that follows them
for the rest of their lives," states the class action lawsuit
states.
Navy Seal 1 claims the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate violates
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution, and the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act.
Navy Seal 1 is requesting a temporary restraining order keeping the
defendants from enforcing the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate and
for defendants to begin accepting all religious exemption requests.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed last month by two military
service members who argued that active-duty service members who
have gotten COVID-19 and recovered should be exempt from having to
take the vaccine.
Are you a federal employee or military service member who feels the
vaccine mandate is a violation of your constitutional rights? Let
us know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by Roger K. Gannam, Mathew D.
Staver, Horatio G. Mihet, Daniel K. Schmid, and Richard L. Mast of
Liberty Counsel.
The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Class Action Lawsuit is Navy
Seal 1, et al. v. Biden, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-02429, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Must Face Breach-of-Contract Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders, writing for The Daytona Beach News-Journal, reports
that an Alachua County circuit judge has refused to dismiss a
potential class-action lawsuit that contends the University of
Florida should refund fees to students who were forced to learn
remotely last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Monica Brasington issued a nine-page ruling on Oct. 18 that
cleared the way for the university to face a breach-of-contract
claim. The case is one of numerous similar lawsuits filed against
universities and colleges across the state.
The named plaintiff, Anthony Rojas, was a UF graduate student in
spring and summer 2020 who paid tuition and fees. If the case is
ultimately certified as a class action, it could affect tens of
thousands of students who could not take in-person classes or
participate in campus activities last year as UF tried to prevent
the spread of COVID-19.
Attorneys for the university argued, in part, that the case should
be dismissed because of sovereign immunity, a legal concept that
generally shields government agencies from lawsuits.
But Brasington wrote that "when a governmental entity enters into
an express, written contract that is authorized by the powers
granted to it by the Legislature, it waives its sovereign
immunity."
"It is the court's finding that, at this stage of the litigation,
plaintiff has adequately (pleaded) the existence of an express
contract between himself and UF in which plaintiff agreed to pay
fees in exchange for specific services to be provided by UF during
the spring 2020 and summer 2020 semesters, in accordance with (a
section of state law), and its corresponding regulations,"
Brasington wrote.
The lawsuit, filed in April, seeks pro-rated refunds of such things
as activity fees, transportation fees and athletics fees. It does
not seek tuition refunds. In addition to the breach-of-contract
claim, Rojas' attorneys also alleged "unjust enrichment" by UF ---
though Brasington dismissed that allegation.
"We are not challenging the required tuition or the ensuing
diploma, but all of these other charges that were physically
impossible to take advantage of during the height of the pandemic,"
Adam Moskowitz, a Coral Gables attorney representing Rojas, said in
a prepared statement. "Some states like Georgia already agreed to
reimburse such specific funds."
In seeking dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim, attorneys for
the university disputed that an "express contract" existed between
UF and Rojas. In a June motion, they wrote that Rojas had provided
a "hodgepodge of documents" that did not constitute an express
contract.
"There is no contract between plaintiff and UF, let alone an
express contract, thereby dictating dismissal of plaintiff's breach
of contract claim based upon sovereign immunity," the motion to
dismiss said. "Plaintiff's request that this court accept various
documents from multiple sources to arrive at an enforceable express
contract does not comport with applicable law."
But Rojas' attorneys pointed to documents such as what is known as
a "financial liability agreement," a tuition statement and a fee
schedule.
"UF's main argument is that plaintiff 'cobbles together' various
documents to allege an express contract and that this is
insufficient to show a 'meeting of the minds.' In Florida, however,
any one document, or even several documents together, may
constitute an express contract so long as they show an 'offer,
acceptance and consideration,'" Rojas' attorneys wrote in an August
document. [GN]
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Burke Labor Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIDGET BURKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Case No.
AAN-CV21-6044675-S, was removed from the Superior Court for the
Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford, in the State of Connecticut,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on
October 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-01416 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor law violations
in Connecticut.
Urban Outfitters, Inc. is a multinational lifestyle retail
corporation, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Golder, Esq.
Carolyn A. Trotta, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
90 State House Square, 8th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-0404
Facsimile: (860) 247-1330
E-mail: David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com
Carolyn.Trotta@jacksonlewis.com
VAIL CORP: Court Dismisses McCauliffe Class Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL McCAULIFFE, McKENNA CONNOLLY, STEPHEN CONTI,
STEVEN BEILEY, TERRY CHECHAKLI, NORMAN CHENEY, and MATTHEW BALKMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE VAIL CORPORATION, d/b/a Vail Resorts Management
Company d/b/a Vail Resorts, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-01121-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss all claims.
The case was consolidated with Case Nos. 1:20-cv-01881-RBJ-KLM;
1:20-cv-01134-RBJ; 1:20-cv-01163-RBJ-KLM; 1:20-cv-01176-RBJ;
1:20-cv-01468-RBJ-KLM; 1:20-cv-01475-RBJ; 1:20-cv-01529-RBJ;
1:20-cv-01585-RBJ-KLM; and 1:20-cv-01364-KLM.
Background
The Plaintiffs were unable to use ski passes they had bought from
Defendant Vail after the Defendant closed its ski resorts due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs brought the putative class
action lawsuit asserting contractual, quasi-contractual, and state
consumer protection claims and seeking refunds for the unused
portions of their passes.
Vail operates 37 "mountain ski resorts and urban ski areas" across
the world. It sold at least five kinds of passes: Epic Passes, Epic
Local Passes, regional Epic Passes, specialty Epic Passes, and Epic
Day Passes. Vail's website, from which all named Plaintiffs
purchased their ski passes, stated that 2019-2020 passes were not
"eligible for a refund of any kind." Its Season Pass Deposit &
Cancellation Policy stated that "the passholder also acknowledges
that this pass is non-refundable unless Pass Insurance has been
purchased." The website's terms and conditions provided that its
use was governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.
As COVID-19 spread across the country in early 2020, reports linked
infection clusters to Colorado ski resorts. Vail suspended
operation of its North American ski areas on March 15, 2020 and,
shortly thereafter, closed its ski areas for the remainder of the
2019-2020 ski season. At that time Vail refused to provide any type
of refund to passholders. About a month later, on April 27, 2020,
Vail announced that it would issue credits to passholders impacted
by the shutdown. The credits, which varied from 20% to 80% of the
pass purchase price based on the number of days that pass had been
used, could be redeemed by purchasing a 2020-2021 pass on or before
Sept. 17, 2020.
The named Plaintiffs all had planned to use their passes after the
date Vail closed its ski areas. Most Plaintiffs requested refunds
directly from Vail. All expected their pass would provide unlimited
access throughout the 2019-2020 ski season and would not have
purchased their pass, or would have paid substantially less for it,
had they known that Vail "would not provide the full benefits of
the Pass, while retaining all of the money it collected for the
Pass."
The Plaintiffs brought the action individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class consisting of "all persons in the United
States who purchased any Epic Season Pass or an Epic Daily Pass
that had unused days after March 14, 2020." They assert 14 claims:
(1) breach of contract; (2) breach of warranty; (3) breach of
implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing; (4) unjust
enrichment; (5) money had & received; and, on behalf of putative
subclasses, (6) - (14) violations of various California, New York,
Illinois, Florida, and Washington State consumer protections
statutes.
Vail moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.
Discussion
A. Consideration of Materials Outside the Pleadings
The Plaintiffs' complaint cites and quotes various statements made
by Vail on its website. These include advertisements, policy
statements, and disclosures about Epic Passes, Epic Local Passes,
Epic Day Passes, Vail's deposit and cancellation policy, Vail's
2020 fiscal results, and Vail's credits offered to passholders
impacted by the COVID-related shutdowns. The Plaintiffs claim, and
Judge Jackson accepts at this stage of litigation, that these
statements formed part of the contract between themselves and Vail.
At the Court's request, the Plaintiffs submitted screenshots of
many webpages they cite.
Judge Jackson finds that the documents and webpages cited by the
Plaintiffs are incorporated by reference in the Plaintiffs'
complaint. Alternatively, he finds that the documents and webpages
are authentic, referred to in the complaint, and central to the
Plaintiffs' claims. In either case, Judge Jackson finds it
appropriate to consider these documents and webpages at this stage
of litigation.
B. Breach of Contract
1. Epic Passes and Epic Local Passes
The Plaintiffs claim that Vail breached its contract "by retaining
the consideration received from the Plaintiffs and the Class while
closing its ski resorts for the remainder of the season." According
to the Plaintiffs, Vail's breach occurred as a result of two
actions: Closing ski resorts and retaining the money paid by the
Plaintiffs. The complaint implies that Vail could have performed
under the contract by either keeping its ski areas open longer or
by issuing refunds for closures.
Judge Jackson holds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
breach of contract. Vail did not close its resorts prematurely, it
closed when skiing was no longer safe. Nor did Vail fail to
compensate the Plaintiffs, it issued satisfactory credits. The
Plaintiffs claim that Vail's breach was the combined effect of
premature resort closure and failure to refund. Because neither
claim is plausible on the face of the complaint, the Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim is dismissed.
2. Regional Epic Passes, Specialty Epic Passes, and Epic Day
Passes
For Regional Epic Passes, Specialty Epic Passes, and Epic Day
Passes, the Plaintiffs do not allege that Vail promised "unlimited
unrestricted access." Nonetheless, they claim that that Epic Day
Pass holders "expected that the Pass would confer unlimited access
throughout the entire 2019-2020 ski season."
Judge Jackson finds that such an expectation is untethered from the
contract and unsupported by the record. The Plaintiffs do not
allege a breach of contract regarding Regional, Specialty, and Epic
Day Passes because they do not plead a basis for such passholders
to expect expansive access to Vail's resorts beyond March 15, 2020.
Even if expecting "unlimited, unrestricted access" were reasonable
regarding Regional, Specialty, and Epic Day Passes, the same
analysis as above would apply. Judge Jackson therefore finds that
the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of contract.
C. Breach of Express Warranty
The Plaintiffs state that "Vail created an express warranty through
its advertising statements that the Passes would provide
'unlimited, unrestricted access' to its ski areas through the
2019-2020 season" and through its other statements referencing an
"entire season."
Assuming that the Epic Passes fall under Colorado's warranty
statute, Judge Jackson holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for breach of express warranty. The Plaintiffs claim
that Vail's promises to provide "unlimited, unrestricted access" or
access for an entire ski season became part of the basis of the
bargain. Judge Jackson must accept this factual contention at this
stage of litigation. However, the Plaintiffs do not allege facts
sufficient to find that Vail breached this warranty.
As discussed, the promise that a pass would provide "unlimited,
unrestricted access" was a promise to impose no cap or holiday
blackout dates on that pass. The Plaintiffs do not allege that Vail
imposed such limits or restrictions. Vail's promise to provide
access for an entire ski season was a promise to keep resorts open
until it determined in good faith that skiing and snowboarding were
no longer safe. The Plaintiffs do not allege that skiing or
snowboarding were safe after Vail closed its resorts. Finally, even
assuming -- despite the no-refund clause -- that an implicit
promise by Vail "to issue partial refunds" became part of the basis
of the bargain, the record shows that Vail did issue such refunds
when it offered $121 million in credits.
D. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
The Plaintiffs assert that Vail breached the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing "by failing to refund to the Plaintiffs and the
Class the money paid for the unusable portion of their Epic
Passes." They claim that Vail's failure to refund money deprived
the Plaintiffs of "some benefit of the bargain originally intended
by the parties" and that this failure to refund was "dishonest
and/or outside the scope of accepted commercial practices."
Judge Jackson holds that neither the Plaintiffs' premises nor their
conclusions withstand scrutiny. First, Vail did not fail to refund
money; it offered credits towards future purchases. Second, for the
reasons articulated, the parties could not reasonably have
"originally intended" that Vail would issue cash refunds. Finally,
Vail's decision to shutter ski operations in response to a deadly
worldwide pandemic that had already been classified a national
emergency -- and whose transmission had been specifically linked to
ski resorts -- was neither dishonest nor outside accepted
commercial practices.
Forgoing profits for the health of one's customers is not
dishonest. And Closing down a business when required to do so by
state and local officials is well within accepted commercial
practices. Given the propriety of Vail's closing its resorts, its
decision to offer credits was not dishonest or outside commercial
practices. The Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
E. Quasi-Contract Claims
Quasi-contracts, often called contracts implied in law, are "are
obligations created by law for reasons of justice." They award
restitution when "inequity would result" from a defendant retaining
a benefit already conferred by a plaintiff. The Plaintiffs assert
two such claims: Unjust enrichment and money had and received.
1. Unjust Enrichment
The Defendant argues that an express contract governs the parties'
relationship and precludes all quasi-contract claims. The
Plaintiffs respond in three ways. First, they argue that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) permit alleging
inconsistent claims in the alternative. They similarly assert that
pleading quasi-contract claims in the alternative is permissible
when as here, a party argues that a contract may be unenforceable.
Finally, they argue that their unjust enrichment claim falls within
the exception permitting quasi-contract claims for matters outside
the scope of the express contract, because "the contract as a whole
does not address whether and when Vail may cancel without issuing a
refund."
Judge Jackson holds that the Plaintiffs cannot survive the
Defendant's motion to dismiss unless they "state a claim on which
relief can be granted." The question remains whether plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim "allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable." This requires either a
finding that there is no enforceable express contract or a finding
that the Plaintiffs' claim falls into one of the two established
exceptions.
The Plaintiffs' second justification for their unjust enrichment
claim, that they may plead quasi-contract in the alternative
because they claim the express contract is unenforceable, holds no
water. Judge Jackson holds that this argument requires their
alternative claim -- that the express contract does not exist -- to
be well-pled. The Plaintiffs' claim does not fall within the first
exception for conduct outside the express contract. Nor does the
Plaintiffs' claim fall within the second exception for situations
where a plaintiff has no remedy under an enforceable contract, such
as when a contract fails or is rescinded. The Plaintiffs do not
fall within this exception because they do have a remedy under the
enforceable contract with Vail: Breach of contract. The fact that
the Plaintiffs have not plausibly pled breach of contract does not
entitle them to an unjust enrichment claim.
2. Money Had and Received
Judge Jackson finds that the economic loss rule prevents the
Plaintiffs' claim for money had and received. The Plaintiffs base
this claim on Vail's closure of its ski areas and failure to issue
refunds -- the same actions underlying Vail's alleged breach of
contract. Were Vail required to keep its resorts open or issue cash
refunds, those obligations would derive from the parties' contract.
The Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege a basis for these
obligations beyond the contract. Because the Plaintiffs have not
alleged "that any duty independent of the oral and written
contracts was breached," their claim for money had and received is
dismissed.
F. State Consumer Protection Claims
The Plaintiffs assert claims under various state laws on behalf of
putative state subclasses. The Defendant argues that a
choice-of-law provision bars these statutory claims. The use of
Vail's website, through which all named plaintiffs purchased their
passes, was governed by Colorado law. The Defendant contends that
Colorado's substantive and choice-of-law rules preclude claims
based on other states' consumer protections statutes. The
Plaintiffs respond that the choice-of-law provision does not bar
the Plaintiffs' non-Colorado claims.
Judge Jackson need not conduct a choice-of-law analysis to decide
the issue before him. Assuming without deciding that the
choice-of-law provision does not bar non-Colorado claims, he finds
that the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims under the other
states' consumer protection statutes.
Order
For the reasons he stated, Judge Jackson granted the Defendant's
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. He
dismissed the case with prejudice. As the prevailing party, the
Defendant is awarded costs to be taxed by the Clerk pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/cjzvv8a8 from Leagle.com.
VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Duncan at skyhinews.com reports that a total of 16 current
and former Vail Resorts employees have joined a proposed class
action lawsuit alleging that the company violated the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act as well as state labor laws in Colorado and
eight other states. Here is what we know so far about their
claims.
The lawsuit, known as Quint et al. vs. Vail Resorts, was first
filed December 2020 in Colorado District Court on behalf of Randy
Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina, who are current or former
employees at Beaver Creek Resort.
Quint, Linn and Molina each filed declarations detailing their
experiences with the company along with a 167-page complaint filed
by their attorneys. They are represented by California-based
attorneys Edward P. Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston, who have
declined to comment on the case.
The 167-page document filed a total of 22 complaints against Vail
Resorts, including violations of state labor laws in a total of
nine states where the company operates resorts: Colorado,
California, Utah, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New York,
Vermont and Michigan.
The complaint includes allegations of the company failing to pay
employees for all hours worked as well as for overtime hours,
meals, rest periods and training. It also alleges that the company
does not properly reimburse employees for the equipment needed to
perform the basic functions of their jobs like skiing/snowboarding
gear and cellphone costs.
Quint has worked as a seasonal employee and, later, a full-time
snow sport instructor for seven years at Beaver Creek Resort. He
estimated that between December 2017 and December 2019, he should
have been paid for an additional 470.17 hours, amounting to
$8,363.30 in unpaid wages.
Linn -- also a resident of Colorado who has worked as a part-time
and full-time snow sports instructor at Beaver Creek -- claims he
worked 213 hours he was not paid for from December 2017 through
March 2020, as well as 130 hours of unpaid overtime, according to
the lawsuit.
As instructors, Quint and Linn said they are expected to log 6.5
hours for a full-day private lesson in accordance with company
policy even though they often work 9- or 10-hour days.
The allotted 6.5 hours logged for each full-day lesson should be
recorded from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and should account for the
full-day lesson as well as lunch, morning team meetings, parent
conferences, class list completion, "Epic Mix Academy," and
completion of time cards, according to company policy cited in
declarations filed by Quint and Linn.
"It was impossible to complete all of these tasks during the
product/lesson hours," Quint and Linn wrote. For example, morning
team meetings begin at 8:45 a.m., which falls outside of the hours
employees are able to log.
The company's guidelines stipulate that employees "self-report"
time worked outside of those six and a half hours for approval by
their supervisor.
However, the lawsuit claims that policy is contradicted by other
parts of the Ski and Snowboard Schools Resource & Guideline Manual
that ask employees to get previous approval for additional hours
whenever possible and only allows self-reporting under specific
circumstances.
The manual states that employees "are expected to manage their day
and work for the assigned lesson time," unless a guest requests to
extend their lesson, according to the declarations.
"Any instructor who manipulates this system . . . . is subject to
immediate discipline up to and including termination," according to
excerpts of the manual cited in the declarations.
The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action status to
prosecute the case on behalf of a larger group or "class" impacted
by the allegations, which in this case, are current and former
employees who worked for Vail Resorts over the past three years.
Vail Resorts issued a statement at the beginning of October saying
that the company "dispute(s) the accuracy of the claims raised by
the plaintiffs."
"Vail Resorts is, and has always been, committed to treating its
employees fairly and in compliance with all applicable laws," Jamie
Alvarez, the company's director of corporate communications, said
in a written statement issued on behalf of the company.
Vail Resorts is currently represented by Jonathan O. Harris and
Raul Chacon, Jr. of the firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart. Neither Vail Resorts nor its counsel have responded to the
Vail Daily's most recent requests for comment.
In the months since the December 2020 filing, 13 other current or
former Vail Resorts employees have joined on to the lawsuit as
"opt-in plaintiffs." Each opt-in plaintiff signed off on a boiler
plate statement certifying that they have similar complaints.
Opting in also means that they will be entitled to any compensation
negotiated if the case is ultimately settled.
The statement states that plaintiffs were not compensated for
"‘off-the-clock' work including, but not limited to, traveling
between employee parking lots and (their) locker room or worksite,
the donning and doffing of uniforms and equipment or training time
. . . . "
It also alleges that plaintiffs were "not paid (their) regular rate
of pay per hour set forth in (their) employment agreement for all
hours worked in non-overtime weeks or at one and one-half times my
regular rate of pay per hour for all hours worked over 40 hours in
overtime weeks."
It often takes resort workers -- ski instructors, ticket sales
employees, lift operators, etc. -- a considerable amount of time to
travel from resort parking lots up the mountain to their work
sites. With the additional time it takes to put on and take off
snow gear, not being paid for this time can add up quickly, the
main complaint states.
Also among the 22 counts brought against Vail Resorts is a
complaint known as "unjust enrichment," alleging that the company
has benefited financially from years of "willfully and
systematically" failing to pay employees for all hours worked.
"In violation of federal and state laws, Vail Resorts has illegally
reaped millions of dollars at the expense of plaintiffs and other
class members," the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit has yet to receive conditional certification for class
or "collective action" status and multiple requests for evidence
are still pending with the Colorado District Court.
A federal judge assisting with the case recently granted a request
filed by Vail Resorts to postpone the case while the company moves
to settle two similar lawsuits filed against the resort operator in
a California District Court. [GN]
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: VIPS) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now.
Class Period: Mar. 22, 2021 - Mar. 29, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 13, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/VIPS
Contact An Attorney Now: VIPS@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (VIPS) Securities Class Action:
The lawsuit arises from Goldman Sachs' and Morgan Stanley's use of
insider information to avoid billions of dollars in losses tied to
the high-profile downfall of Archegos Capital Management by
unloading Vipshop shares on "unwitting investors."
Specifically, the complaint alleges Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley
and other Wall Street Banks served as prime brokers for Archegos,
the now defunct family office of troubled trader Bill Hwang.
Unbeknownst to investors, by 2020, the brokerage banks allowed
Archegos to take on billions of dollars of exposure to volatile
equities, including Vipshop, through swaps contracts, dramatically
elevating the risk posed by these concentrated positions.
ViacomCBS' $3 billion stock offering on Mar. 23 served as Archegos'
"Achilles heel." The offering caused a decline in ViacomCBS' share
price, triggering Archegos' imminent collapse. Knowing of Archegos'
likely insolvency, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs violated U.S.
securities laws by unloading the troubled shares before the public
knew about Archegos' inability to satisfy its lenders' margin
calls, which allowed the banks to avoid billions of dollars in
losses and pass on those losses to other investors.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants acted on
inside information to leave retail investors holding the bag," said
Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.
If you invested in Vipshop and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Vipshop, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and/or Archegos should
consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email VIPS@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Orders More Briefing in Mandani Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE MANDANI, et al., Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07287-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California directed the parties to submit a
statement explaining why it is in the best interests of the class
to hold the final fairness hearing prior to the expiration of the
Claims Period.
The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on Sept. 30, 2021.
At that hearing, the defense counsel suggested that a de facto
condition of the proposed settlement is a final fairness hearing
within 60 to 90 days of the date on which the Claims Administrator
mails individual Class Notice to all reasonably identifiable
Settlement Class Members ("Notice Date"). In contrast, Settlement
Class Members will have 140 days following the Notice Date to
submit a claim ("Claims Period").
The Defense counsel's request for a final fairness hearing within
60 to 90 days of the Notice Date means that neither the Court nor
the parties will know how many Settlement Class Members ultimately
will submit a claim under the proposed settlement at the time the
fairness hearing is held. Judge Gilliam is concerned that a final
determination of fairness may not be possible without knowing how
many claims are submitted under the proposed settlement. In the
Court's experience, the final fairness hearing generally occurs
after the Claims Period has expired, which obviates this concern.
The parties are directed to submit a statement of no more than five
pages explaining why it is in the best interests of the class (as
opposed to the best interests of the Defendant) to hold the final
fairness hearing prior to the expiration of the Claims Period. The
parties should cite any relevant analogous cases in which the final
fairness hearing was held prior to the expiration of the Claims
Period, with a particular focus on any settlements that did not
involve a dedicated settlement fund but instead included a
claims-only structure like the one in the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/27n3dpjw from Leagle.com.
WASHINGTON, DC: Black Policewoman Told to Get Abortion, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Meara at bet.com reports that in a class-action lawsuit filed,
a Washington D.C. assistant police chief says she was told to get
an abortion in order to keep her job.
NBC News reports that Chanel Dickerson, who has been with the
department since 1988, according to the department's website was
one of 10 women behind the lawsuit against the city that alleged
widespread discrimination.
"My choice to have a baby was personal, and it should've been mine
alone and not for an employer ultimatum," Dickerson said Tuesday
(October 19) at a community meeting. "I was told I had to have an
abortion or be fired from the MPD cadet program." She said she was
18 at the time. It is unclear what happened afterward.
Dickerson and the other former and current employees of the MPD
said in the lawsuit that they were discriminated against because of
their race and gender. Additionally, they claim the man in charge
of addressing harassment has expressed hostility toward women
officers and tried to discredit those coming forward for help.
NBC News reports the Metropolitan Police Department did not respond
to a request for comment but said in a previous statement that it
could not comment on pending litigation but "is committed to
treating all members fairly and equitably throughout our
organization." [GN]
WESTIN DIA: Settlement Deal in Barlow Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY BARLOW,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WESTIN DIA OPERATOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01612-RMR-KLM (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Regina M.
Rodriguez entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to
certify class for settlement purposes, to preliminarily approve
class action settlement, and to authorize notice to settlement
class as follows:
1. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class for the
purpose of effectuating settlement:
"All employees who worked at the Westin Denver
International Airport hotel as Service Express and/or In-
Room Dining employees between May 1, 2018, and February
10, 2021;"
2. The Court appoints Timothy Barlow as the Class
Representative;
3. The Court appoints David H. Miller and Adam M. Harrison,
from The Sawaya & Miller Law Firm as Class Counsel;
4. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement;
5. The Court approves the Notice and Opt-out Forms to be sent
to Settlement Class Members;
6. The Court approves Rust Consulting LLC as Settlement
Administrator;
7. The Court authorizes notice to the Settlement Class and
Orders that:
a. The Settlement Administrator shall mail and email the
Approved Notices to all Settlement Class Members within
14 days of the Settlement Administrator's receipt of a
list of all members of the Settlement Class, including,
to the extent reasonably available, their full names,
last known home addresses, last known telephone
numbers, last known email addresses, and last four
digits of their Social Security Numbers;
b. The Settlement Class Members shall have 60 days from
the date on which the Notices are sent to opt out of,
object to, or remain in the Settlement;
c. The Settlement Administrator shall conduct skip tracing
and other efforts in conformity with the standards of
the class administration industry to locate any
Settlement Class Members whose Notices are returned as
undeliverable;
d. The Settlement Administrator shall perform a second
mailing of the Notices to any Settlement Class Member
whose Notices were initially returned as undeliverable,
and for whom an alternate address was located through
its skip tracing and other efforts.
8. The Parties shall file a joint motion seeking final
approval of the Settlement no later 30 days after the
termination of the notice period;
9. A final fairness hearing is set for April 14, 2022 at
10:00am. The Settlement Administrator shall include this
date on the Notices sent to the Settlement Class.
The Plaintiff, Timothy Barlow, is an employee of Westin DIA
Operator, LLC. On May 1, 2020, Barlow filed this lawsuit against
Defendant in the District Court for the City and County of Denver,
Case No. 2020CV31518.
In his Complaint, Barlow alleged that Westin violated Colorado Wage
and Hour Law by: (1) failing to pay Barlow and other purported
class members the applicable Colorado minimum wage rates; and (2)
by taking approximately 25% of Barlow's and the purported class
members' gratuities.
The Defendant removed the lawsuit to this Court on June 6, 2020.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Barlow's complaint,
asserting that his claims were preempted by Section 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. section 185(c). Barlow
also filed a motion asking the court to certify to the Colorado
Supreme Court the question of whether "service charges" are
considered "tips" or "gratuities" under Colorado Wage and Hour Law.
The Court dismissed both motions.
Under the Parties' proposed Settlement:
(1) Westin DIA will pay a total settlement payment of
$47,500.00 to resolve the Settlement Class Members'
claims that were brought or could have been brought in
this action;
(2) Westin DIA will compensate the Settlement Administrator
for administering the settlement with funds separate and
apart from this $47,500.00 settlement consideration; and
(3) Westin DIA will, in conjunction with 2021 bargaining over
potential renewal of and/or changes to the applicable CBA
with its employees' union, bargain in good faith
regarding the base wage provided for Service Express
and/or In-Room Dining employees in that CBA.
The total settlement payment will be distributed to the class
members pro rata in proportion to the number of relevant
hours that each class member worked as a Service Express
and/or In-Room Dining employee during the pay periods from
May 1, 2018 through February 10, 2021. The Parties anticipate
that, after attorney fees and costs, and a Service Award to
Barlow, each Settlement Class Member will be paid
approximately $0.56 for each relevant hour (both regular and
overtime) that they worked during the relevant period. Class
Counsel plans to seek attorney fees and costs of
approximately 1/3 of the total settlement payment, and a
Service Award of $5,000.00 to Mr. Barlow for his time,
efforts, and personal risk undertaken on behalf of the
Settlement Class Members.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mpkwLX at no extra charge.[CC]
WOLF'S STEAKHOUSE: Underpays Bartenders, Rubenstein Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE RUBENSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOLF'S STEAKHOUSE, INC. and
WILLIAM WOLF, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-62215 (S.D. Fla.,
October 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay applicable minimum wages,
retaliation, and conversion.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender from
November 2020 until June 6, 2021.
Wolf's Steakhouse, Inc. is a steakhouse owner and operator with its
principal place of business in Cooper City, Broward County,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Eiss, Esq.
Shanna Wall, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.
7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 112
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 914-7890
Facsimile: (855) 423-5298
E-mail: chuck@icelawfirm.com
shanna@icelawfirm.com
ZOOM VIDEOCOMMUNICATIONS: Deal in Privacy Suit Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: ZOOM VIDEOCOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-03670-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order:
1. granting the preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement Certification for Settlement Purposes Only:
The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as
follows:
"All Persons in the United States who, between March 30,
2016 and the Settlement Date, registered, used, opened, or
downloaded the Zoom Meetings Application, except
for (i) all Persons who have only registered, used,
opened, or downloaded the Zoom Meetings App through an
Enterprise-Level Account or a Zoom for Government Account,
(ii) Zoom and its officers and directors, and (iii) the
Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the action is assigned
and any member of those Judges' staffs or immediate family
members;"
2. appointing Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc.
to serve as the Settlement Administrator;
3. approving, as to form and content, of the proposed Claim
Form, Long Form Notice, Publication Notice, and Summary
Notice; and
4. setting Final Approval Hearing on April 7, 2022, beginning
at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Zoom is an American communications technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jRPU3V at no extra charge.[CC]
[*] Australian Government Proposes Major Class Action Law Reforms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Situation: The Australian Federal Government has released a
draft exposure bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for
Consultation) Bill 2021: Litigation funders ("Draft Bill"), that
proposes significant changes to Australia's class action regime.
The Draft Bill adds to earlier class action regulatory reforms,
including regulations which require litigation funded class actions
to comply with the 'managed investment scheme' ("MIS") requirements
in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and litigation funders to hold
an Australian financial services licence.
The Result: The Draft Bill aims to further regulate litigation
funding in the class action context through the MIS regime. If
passed by Federal Parliament, the Draft Bill would effectively cap
the fees paid by class members to lawyers and litigation funders at
30% of any settlement or award of damages. The Draft Bill would
also give courts the power to vary a proposed distribution to
ensure it is 'fair and reasonable'. Further, payment of the
funder's fee would be limited to class members who expressly sign
up to the scheme, rather than all class members who fall within the
class definition.
Looking Ahead: The proposed reforms, if passed, would constitute
some of the most significant reforms to Australia's class action
regime in recent history and have the potential to place downward
pressure on the number of class actions commenced, by placing an
upper limit on the returns litigation funders may achieve and
restricting the payment of fees to members of the scheme.
Proposed Reforms
The Draft Bill makes clear that 'a class action litigation funding
scheme' is an MIS, in line with an earlier ruling of the Federal
Court of Australia in Brookfield Multiplex Limited v International
Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147. This express
statutory recognition of such schemes as MISs seeks to render
ineffective any attempts to overcome regulation of litigation
funding through parties challenging that court decision in
subsequent litigation.
The Draft Bill also adds requirements for a class action litigation
funding scheme's constitution, including:
-- Class members must agree in writing to be a member of the
scheme, and be bound by the terms of the scheme's constitution;
-- Each funding agreement for the scheme must include a 'claim
proceeds distribution method' for determining the amount of any
claim that is to be paid to the scheme's general members;
-- The funding agreement must be subject to Australian law;
-- The funder must pay for any court-appointed referee who examines
the reasonableness of the funders fee and/or any contradictor as to
whether to make any order to approve or vary the agreement's claim
proceeds distribution method;
-- The scheme's responsible entity must not be paid any amount in
relation to the scheme that is greater than the entity's reasonable
costs for managing the scheme.
The court may approve or vary the claim proceeds distribution
method to ensure that the method is fair and reasonable in relation
to the interests of the scheme's general members as a whole.
The Draft Bill sets out a range of factors that the court 'must
only have regard to':
(a) in relation to the proceedings, the following: (i) the amount,
or expected amount, of claim proceeds for the scheme; (ii) the
legal costs for the proceedings incurred by the funder and the
extent to which those legal costs are reasonable; (iii) whether the
proceedings have been managed in the best interests of the general
members to minimise the legal costs for the proceedings; (iv) the
complexity and duration of the proceedings;
(b) the extent of the commercial return to the funder for the
scheme in comparison to the costs incurred by the funder in
relation to the scheme;
(c) the risks accepted by the parties to the agreement by becoming
parties to the agreement;
(d) the sophistication and level of bargaining power of the general
members in negotiating the agreement;
(e) any other compensation or remedies obtained by any of the
scheme's general members in relation to the transactions or
circumstances that are the subject of the class action litigation
funding scheme;
(f) any other factors prescribed by regulations made for the
purposes of this paragraph.
The court must also receive and consider the reports of the referee
and contradictor referred to above 'unless it is not in the
interests of justice to do so'.
The Draft Bill would also establish a rebuttable presumption that a
return to the general members of a class action litigation funding
scheme of less than 70% of their gross proceeds is not fair and
reasonable. The Draft Bill follows the recommendations of a report
by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial
Services into litigation funding and the regulation of the class
action industry released in December 2020 ("Report"). The Report
referred to a finding by the Australian Law Reform Commission that
the median return to class members, up to 2018, was 51% for funded
claims, as opposed to 85% for claims where litigation funders were
not involved. In announcing a consultation process on the proposed
30% cap to fees in May 2021, the Attorney-General said it was 'of
particular importance to ensure successful applicants were
adequately compensated in their cases as well as preventing
litigation funders and law firms from taking disproportionate fees
in the process'.
The Draft Bill also has the effect, through specifying the
condition for the enforceability of a litigation funding agreement,
that a court would not make orders which extend the funder's fee or
commission to class members who are not members of the class action
litigation funding scheme (i.e., who have not agreed in writing to
become a member of the scheme).
Three Key Takeaways
1. The Draft Bill provides the courts with express power to obtain
expert assistance (through the independent referee and
contradictor) in the review of litigation funding fees and to
ensure that the fees charged by a funder are fair and reasonable.
The Draft Bill also creates a rebuttable presumption that a fee
that results in the class members receiving less than 70% of gross
proceeds from a class action is not fair and reasonable.
2. The Draft Bill would appear to end the practice of making of
orders for nonfunded class members (i.e., class members who have
not signed an agreement with a litigation funder but who fall
within the class definition) to contribute to the costs of the
litigation, such as through a common fund order. It would also mean
that class actions with litigation funding would most likely be
brought using a closed class definition which would necessitate
reliance on 'book building' to sign up class members to the scheme.
However, this may precipitate an increase in competing class
actions as not all class members may be included in one class
action.
3. The Draft Bill constitutes one of the most significant proposed
changes to Australia's class action scheme in recent history. It
has the potential to place downward pressure on the number and size
of class actions commenced by placing an upper limit on the returns
litigation funders may achieve and restricting the recovery of fees
to members of the scheme. We will continue to monitor the progress
of the Draft Bill and provide updates to clients in future
publications. [GN]
[*] Bill Proposes Major Class Action Law Reforms in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq., Annie Leeks, Esq., Michael Legg, Esq., Michael
Lundberg, Esq., Daniel Moloney, Esq., and Holly Sara, Esq., of
Jones Day, report that the Australian Federal Government has
released a draft exposure bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment
(Measures for Consultation) Bill 2021: Litigation funders ("Draft
Bill"), that proposes significant changes to Australia's class
action regime. The Draft Bill adds to earlier class action
regulatory reforms, including regulations which require litigation
funded class actions to comply with the 'managed investment scheme'
("MIS") requirements in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and
litigation funders to hold an Australian financial services
licence.
The Result: The Draft Bill aims to further regulate litigation
funding in the class action context through the MIS regime. If
passed by Federal Parliament, the Draft Bill would effectively cap
the fees paid by class members to lawyers and litigation funders at
30% of any settlement or award of damages. The Draft Bill would
also give courts the power to vary a proposed distribution to
ensure it is 'fair and reasonable'. Further, payment of the
funder's fee would be limited to class members who expressly sign
up to the scheme, rather than all class members who fall within the
class definition.
Looking Ahead: The proposed reforms, if passed, would constitute
some of the most significant reforms to Australia's class action
regime in recent history and have the potential to place downward
pressure on the number of class actions commenced, by placing an
upper limit on the returns litigation funders may achieve and
restricting the payment of fees to members of the scheme.
Proposed Reforms
The Draft Bill makes clear that 'a class action litigation funding
scheme' is an MIS, in line with an earlier ruling of the Federal
Court of Australia in Brookfield Multiplex Limited v International
Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147. This express
statutory recognition of such schemes as MISs seeks to render
ineffective any attempts to overcome regulation of litigation
funding through parties challenging that court decision in
subsequent litigation.
The Draft Bill also adds requirements for a class action litigation
funding scheme's constitution, including:
-- Class members must agree in writing to be a member of the
scheme, and be bound by the terms of the scheme's constitution;
-- Each funding agreement for the scheme must include a 'claim
proceeds distribution method' for determining the amount of any
claim that is to be paid to the scheme's general members;
-- The funding agreement must be subject to Australian law;
-- The funder must pay for any court-appointed referee who examines
the reasonableness of the funders fee and/or any contradictor as to
whether to make any order to approve or vary the agreement's claim
proceeds distribution method;
-- The scheme's responsible entity must not be paid any amount in
relation to the scheme that is greater than the entity's reasonable
costs for managing the scheme.
-- The court may approve or vary the claim proceeds distribution
method to ensure that the method is fair and reasonable in relation
to the interests of the scheme's general members as a whole.
The Draft Bill sets out a range of factors that the court 'must
only have regard to':
(a) in relation to the proceedings, the following: (i) the amount,
or expected amount, of claim proceeds for the scheme; (ii) the
legal costs for the proceedings incurred by the funder and the
extent to which those legal costs are reasonable; (iii) whether the
proceedings have been managed in the best interests of the general
members to minimise the legal costs for the proceedings; (iv) the
complexity and duration of the proceedings;
(b) the extent of the commercial return to the funder for the
scheme in comparison to the costs incurred by the funder in
relation to the scheme;
(c) the risks accepted by the parties to the agreement by becoming
parties to the agreement;
(d) the sophistication and level of bargaining power of the general
members in negotiating the agreement;
(e) any other compensation or remedies obtained by any of the
scheme's general members in relation to the transactions or
circumstances that are the subject of the class action litigation
funding scheme;
(f) any other factors prescribed by regulations made for the
purposes of this paragraph.
The court must also receive and consider the reports of the referee
and contradictor referred to above 'unless it is not in the
interests of justice to do so'.
The Draft Bill would also establish a rebuttable presumption that a
return to the general members of a class action litigation funding
scheme of less than 70% of their gross proceeds is not fair and
reasonable. The Draft Bill follows the recommendations of a report
by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial
Services into litigation funding and the regulation of the class
action industry released in December 2020 ("Report"). The Report
referred to a finding by the Australian Law Reform Commission that
the median return to class members, up to 2018, was 51% for funded
claims, as opposed to 85% for claims where litigation funders were
not involved. In announcing a consultation process on the proposed
30% cap to fees in May 2021, the Attorney-General said it was 'of
particular importance to ensure successful applicants were
adequately compensated in their cases as well as preventing
litigation funders and law firms from taking disproportionate fees
in the process'.
The Draft Bill also has the effect, through specifying the
condition for the enforceability of a litigation funding agreement,
that a court would not make orders which extend the funder's fee or
commission to class members who are not members of the class action
litigation funding scheme (i.e., who have not agreed in writing to
become a member of the scheme).
Three Key Takeaways
1. The Draft Bill provides the courts with express power to obtain
expert assistance (through the independent referee and
contradictor) in the review of litigation funding fees and to
ensure that the fees charged by a funder are fair and reasonable.
The Draft Bill also creates a rebuttable presumption that a fee
that results in the class members receiving less than 70% of gross
proceeds from a class action is not fair and reasonable.
2. The Draft Bill would appear to end the practice of making of
orders for nonfunded class members (i.e., class members who have
not signed an agreement with a litigation funder but who fall
within the class definition) to contribute to the costs of the
litigation, such as through a common fund order. It would also mean
that class actions with litigation funding would most likely be
brought using a closed class definition which would necessitate
reliance on 'book building' to sign up class members to the scheme.
However, this may precipitate an increase in competing class
actions as not all class members may be included in one class
action.
3. The Draft Bill constitutes one of the most significant proposed
changes to Australia's class action scheme in recent history. It
has the potential to place downward pressure on the number and size
of class actions commenced by placing an upper limit on the returns
litigation funders may achieve and restricting the recovery of fees
to members of the scheme. We will continue to monitor the progress
of the Draft Bill and provide updates to clients in future
publications. [GN]
[*] Class Actions Proceeding Before English Courts on the Rise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenson Harwood reports that the number of class actions
proceeding before the English courts is on the rise. From a series
of recent decisions, the criteria by which collective action claims
can be pursued are now being refined. In this article, we consider
the particular requirements for each procedural route and look at
the guidance given on suitability in recent case law, including the
Court of Appeal decision in Jalla v Shell International Trading and
Shipping Co Ltd1 and the Competition Appeal Tribunal decisions in
Merricks v Mastercard2 and Le Patourel v BT3
There are four principal procedural mechanisms via which collective
redress may be pursued before the English court on behalf of a
claimant class:
1. separate claims which are collectively case managed under a
group litigation order pursuant to CPR 19.10 - 19.15 and PD19B
("GLOs");
2. representative actions pursuant to CPR 19.6 or 19.7
("representative claims");
3. opt-out and opt-in actions for breaches of competition law
pursuant to s47A of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; and
4. test cases (primarily under the Financial Markets Test Case
Scheme pursuant to paragraph 6 of PD63AA).
GLOs: Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc
GLOs are becoming increasingly popular and over a hundred GLOs have
now been granted in relation to a diverse range of claims including
product liability, financial services, shareholder actions, data
breach and ESG-related issues.
Under a GLO, each claimant commences a claim in their own right
(known as "opting in"). However, to be brought under the remit of a
GLO, claims must give rise to "common or related" issues of fact or
law. This test permits some differences in the claims pursued by
different members of the group (by contrast to the stricter
criteria for representative claims, as to which see below). While a
trial will determine collectively the contested issues of fact or
law, damages are assessed for each individual claimant (or category
of claimant) separately. Either claimant or defendant can apply for
a GLO at any time and if it is opposed by either party, the court
will hear submissions on the application.
The Nchanga Copper Mine GLO gave rise to a number of significant
judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision establishing
jurisdiction in Vedanta v Lungowe5. Following that decision, the
High Court ruled on the application by Vedanta (the anchor
defendant to the claim) to have the claims against it heard under a
GLO. The resulting judgment provides a useful analysis of the
principles by which claims can be joined under GLOs and the role of
the lead solicitor.
The claim related to environmental damage from a copper mine in
Zambia brought by some 2000 claimants. More than one firm of
solicitors acted for different claimant groups and the claims were
issued several years apart. Vedanta applied for a GLO because it
argued (and the court agreed) that the issues in the separate sets
of proceedings were "classic GLO issues". Although different
communities were involved, the pollution all resulted from the same
mine and the same type of damage was alleged in each claim. The
court observed that while there were inevitably some
"claimant-specific issues", this did not prevent the making of a
GLO.
In imposing a GLO, the court acknowledged there is "limited
authority" on the interaction between solicitors for different
claimant groups in a GLO. However, it identified the following
principles:
* Parties are generally entitled to choose their own
representatives but in group litigation, that right is qualified
and takes second place to the rights of the group as a whole. This
is achieved by the role of the lead solicitor.
* The relationship between the lead solicitor and other firms
must be carefully defined in writing. Where it is not, the court
will become involved.
* In group litigation, claimants represented by a lead solicitor
are only entitled to instruct one counsel team. Different groups of
claimants are not entitled to instruct different groups of
counsel.
The judgment in this case illustrates the necessity for careful
planning in group litigation. Where parties are represented by
multiple sets of solicitors (as is frequently the case due to the
size and scope of group litigation actions), documentation of the
respective roles is key. As to the nature of the claim, a group
litigation order permits some variation in the individual
claimants' cases, in contrast to other forms of collective
redress.
Representative claims - Lloyd v Google LLC and Jalla v Shell
By contrast to a GLO, a representative claim is pursued on an
opt-out basis; one or more claimants represent the other members of
class, who must all have "the same interest in a claim". This means
the test is considerably higher than for a GLO. Further, claimants
in a representative claim must all seek the same remedies pursued
on a 'lowest common denominator basis'. This means the claim is
brought at the most basic level, i.e. without relying on any
specific circumstances which might increase an individual's damages
award. Claims with materially different factual backgrounds cannot
therefore be brought.
A number of representative claims are currently being pursued
through the courts. However, the extent to which the procedure can
be adopted in data breach claims is currently uncertain pending the
Supreme Court's decision in Lloyd v Google LLC. In this case, Mr
Lloyd (the representative claimant) is trying to pursue a claim on
behalf of several million affected data subjects in relation to the
so-called "Safari Workaround" (by which Google obtained, without
consent, browser generated information of Apple iPhone users)8. In
the context of an application to serve out of the jurisdiction, the
Court of Appeal considered that the claim was appropriate to be
pursued as a representative claim because the class of claimants
all had the "same interest", having all suffered the same type of
damage over the same period of time. If the Supreme Court upholds
the Court of Appeal's decision, this is very likely to lead to the
increased use of representative claims in this area.
The "same interest" test
More recently, in Jalla v Shell, the Court of Appeal gave further
guidance on the "same interest" test, concluding that in this
instance, it was not met.
The claim against Shell is procedurally complex and based on
alleged environmental damage to some 28,000 claimants as a result
of an oil spill off the coast of Nigeria. Unlike the claimant class
in Lloyd v Google, here the court found that there was no
commonality of interest. On issues ranging from limitation to
causation and damage, the court found the class of claimants was so
diverse that the proceedings would have to be case-managed and
tried as if they were 28,000 separate claims. Although the
claimants argued that their claim was "materially
indistinguishable" from Lloyd v Google, the Court of Appeal
disagreed:
* In Lloyd v Google the relief claimed was damages for the loss
of control of data which the Court of Appeal found could be awarded
without the need to prove financial loss or distress. The relief
claimed was therefore common to every claimant.
* In Jalla v Shell, by contrast, the claim was for remediation
relief. This required each claimant to prove sufficient damage
either to warrant injuncting the defendants to carry out the
clean-up or to award compensation sufficient for the claimants to
carry it out themselves.There were also complex issues of
limitation which would have caused difficulties for some but not
all claimants, making it difficult to proceed on a representative
basis. In short, the court found that none of the purposes of a
representative action (to save time and costs) would be met.
In rejecting the appeal, the court noted that representative
actions remain relatively uncommon and that in cases where there
are significant numbers of claimants with similarities in their
claim but also not insignificant differences, the parties and/or
the courts will usually choose to proceed under a GLO or via a
representative sample of claimants.
Competition law claims
The Supreme Court has recently considered collective action in
competition law cases. Its decision in Mastercard v Merricks [2020]
UKSC 519, confirming that an opt-out collective action could go
forward (likely to encompass some 46 million individuals), has
signalled support for collective redress procedures where it would
not otherwise be economically viable for individual members of a
significant class to otherwise pursue claims.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) had originally found that the
claim was not suitable for the collective procedure order (CPO)
regime. However, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, ruling
that the difficulty identified by the CAT in analysing and
distributing damages across the claimant class was not a sufficient
reason to refuse certification.
Since the Supreme Court's decision, the Competition Appeal Tribunal
has certified most aspects of the collective proceedings in
Merricks as an opt-out CPO. However, the tribunal addressed three
issues which may have a bearing on future CPOs:
The authorisation of Mr Merricks to act as the class representative
was subject to two challenges. First, Mastercard alleged he was
unsuitable on account of his handling of a historic dispute with a
proposed class member, which argument the tribunal
dismissed.Secondly, the tribunal itself determined that it was
necessary (even without challenge by Mastercard) for it to
scrutinise the new litigation funding agreement (LFA) put in place
by Mr Merricks following a change in funder. The tribunal noted it
had a responsibility to protect the interests of the members of the
proposed class and expressed concern that the funder had too broad
a discretion to terminate. The LFA was therefore amended to provide
that termination by the funder had to be based on independent legal
and expert advice. Following an objection by Mastercard that it had
no means of enforcing the new LFA, the funder also provided an
undertaking that it would discharge any adverse costs award that
might be made against Mr Merricks.In relation to the claim for
compound interest, the CAT held that Mr Merricks had failed to put
forward a credible or plausible methodology to calculate the costs
incurred in financing additional borrowing or to cover the lost
interest that would otherwise have been earned but for the
overcharge. It therefore refused to certify the compound interest
element of the claim.
While the Supreme Court concluded there should be only a limited
examination of the merits in the certification process, this
decision shows that the CAT retains a role in scrutinising the
scope of the claim.
Following this decision, the CAT also recently granted a second
opt-out CPO in Le Patourel v BT Group10. These decisions mark a
significant expansion of the class action mechanism in competition
law (and a number of other CPO applications are currently awaiting
judgment). However, to obtain a CPO it remains necessary to
establish not only that a CPO is more suitable than an individual
claim but that the claim itself can survive an application for
strike out/summary judgment and that, where an opt-out is sought -
that this is a more appropriate mechanism than an opt-in claim.
Both tests were satisfied in Le Patourel.
The future for class actions
The appropriate procedural mechanism for a class action will always
depend on the facts of the case. In general, the two key issues for
claimant lawyers to consider are the economic viability of the
claim and the similarities in the claims. The practical and
economic difficulties inherent in GLOs mean that often, if viable,
a representative claim is considerably more attractive. However,
the type of claim for which this procedure can be used is limited.
Where a GLO is used, it is crucial that the role of the lead
solicitor and any other representatives are clearly defined.
Even where a claim does not fit within the specific procedural
mechanisms available, group litigation is still possible. In Jalla,
the court observed that while the claim could not proceed on a
representative basis, it remained the subject of "perfectly
workable litigation". Further, in Município de Mariana and others
v BHP Group PLC11, the Court of Appeal recently granted permission
to appeal a decision striking out a claim by over 200,000 Brazilian
claimants, concluding that despite concerns regarding the "inherent
unmanageability" of the claim, the litigation retained a "real
prospect of success". [GN]
[*] Online Estate Agencies to Face Class Action From Former Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Lewis, writing for The Negotiator, reports that a hundred
estate agents who have previously worked at several high profile
hybrid estate agencies have signed up to join a group litigation
order -- commonly known as a 'class action' -- to sue their former
'employer' for lost holiday pay and pension contributions.
The legal action, which is to be launched by specialist law firm
Contractors For Justice (C4J), is being brought under HMRC's IR35
contractor regulations.
It is likely that the thousands of agents who have worked for
companies such as Purplebricks, YOPA and many smaller ones in a
self-employed capacity would be eligible to join the class action.
C4J spokesperson Peter Fletcher says: "HMRC and the courts are
clear that just designating your staff as self-employed does not
mean that you may operate those workers as employees in all but
name just to save the company from paying holiday pay, statutory
pension contributions and so on.
"In recent cases involving Amazon and Uber it's been found that
self-employed contractors were in fact workers in the eyes of the
law.
"Our action against online estate agencies that may have designated
their workers as self-employed when in fact they may not have been,
is being commenced in a similar vein to these other well-known
outcomes and therefore we are very confident of our success in
reclaiming in some cases many thousands of pounds for the
individuals concerned."
The IR35 legislation seeks to prevent companies using full-time
contractors and self-employed agents to do what would have
traditionally been directly-employed roles.
"The sums involved that could be clawed back from these agencies by
former self-employed agents are estimated to be approximately £20
million," says Russell Quirk, whose PR company is handling the
publicity for the class action.
Any legal case will revolve around whether the agents involved
passed the test as bona fide self-employed suppliers or whether, in
reality, they were staff in everything but name. Tests could
include how much control the company had over a self-employed
agent, whether targets were set, leads supplied directly and
whether an agent's work could have been done by someone else or
only them.
Earlier this year Purplebricks brought all its self-employed LPEs
and Territory Owners in-house as employees.
In response to the C4J announcement, a Purplebricks spokesperson
says: "All Territory Operators entered into a commercial licence
agreement and this was clearly set out in their contract with
Purplebricks. We have always taken legal advice in regards to our
licensing model -- and the advice is very clear that these
individuals were operating as limited companies, running their own
business and with full control over their own staff."
C4J says the initial basis of its class action centres upon the
non-payment of holiday pay which C4J say previous and current
workers may be due if it is proven that they were in fact employed
for the purposes of the legal definition.
The claim will also seek to recover the workplace pension
contributions that potentially should have been made by the
'employer'. The sum total of just these two elements is 12.07% of
each year's earnings for the former and up to 8% for the latter,
plus interest.
C4J stress that their action on behalf of agent individuals relates
to business models that directed their agents 'as if they were
employed'. Hybrid agencies that merely 'support' self-employed
agents such as Keller Williams, eXp, Nested and the like are deemed
to operate a significantly 'hands-off' model and are likely to sit
outside of any such claim.
Agents wishing to find out more should visit the C4J website.
"Following this and other recent high-profile cases, together with
the well-publicised HMRC changes to the IR35 legislation in recent
years, there is clearly a growing awareness of employment status in
the workforce," says Lee McIntyre-Hamilton of Keystone Law.
This growing awareness should be heeded as a warning to employers
who are deliberately breaching the rules. However, more
prominently, it will also no doubt cause concern for many employers
who are genuinely trying to comply with the rules but, owing to
their complexity and the fact that employment status is based
largely on case law, may incorrectly assess the position.
The Negotiator has approached YOPA for comment. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***