/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211129.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 232
Headlines
A.V. PRO SERVICES: Gulamova Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation Pending
ABBVIE INC: Settlement Reached in Generic Drug Pricing Suit
ABBVIE INC: Settlement Reached in Restasis Antitrust Litigation
ADAMBA IMPORTS: Navarro Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALABAMA: Homeless Residents Class Certified in Singleton v. Taylor
ALIERA COS: Resident Plan Holders Class Certified in Jackson Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Illegally Tampers Intercom Devices, GateGuard Says
AMAZON.COM: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Deadlines in Del Rio Labor Suit
ANADARKO E & P: BEK et al., File Corrected Class Certification Bid
ANGIES LIST: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to March 14, 2022
ANTERO RESOURCES: Grissom Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Landowners
APPHARVEST INC: Association Sues Over 29% Drop of Stock Price
APPLE INC: Cook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid to File 4th Amended Antitrust Complaint
ASCENSION HEALTH: Halczenko's Bid for TRO, Prelim. Injunction Nixed
ASHFORD INC: Class Action vs Subsidiaries Pending
ATLANTIC UNION: Mawyer Sues Over Misrepresentation of Fees
ATLAS SENIOR: Must File Class Cert. Response by March 16, 2022
BALFOUR BEATTY: Reed FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Seeks to Delay Class Cert Discovery Date
BAYER US LLC: Huertas Slams Carcinogen in Anti-fungal Meds
BEKAERT CORP: Court Enters Initial Case Management Plan in Walker
BERKELEY, CA: Dominguez Suit Not Allowed to Proceed as Class Action
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit Underway in Delaware
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Court Signs Final Judgment in Baird Suit
BLISTEX INC: Odor Eaters Sprays Contain Benzene, Solis Suit Says
BRANDREP LLC: Court Enters Pretrial Preparation Order in Schick
BRIAN GUBERNICK: MacDonald May Amend Class Complaint, Court Says
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROOKLYN OAK DENTAL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Depalo Seeks Proper Wages, Hits Tip Pool
BURTON CLAIM: Class Cert Reply Deadline Extended to December 3
BURTON CLAIM: Ferguson Seeks Extension of FLSA Class Cert Reply
CALIFORNIA UNITED: Alcazar Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
CALIFORNIA: Bid to File Amended Suit in Quair v. Robinson Denied
CAREPARTNERS: To Settle Class Action Suit Regarding Cyber Attack
CARRABBA ITALIAN GRILL: Ford Hits Tip Pool, Seeks Minimum Wages
CASEY'S MARKETING: Greever Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CHEF MERITO: Denied Sales Drivers Breaks, Proper Wages, Says Suit
CHEIM & READ: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIRCLE MEDICAL: Wong Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CLIENT SERVICES: Court Awards Rhee Attorneys $71K in Fees
CMG CIT: Erguera Seeks to Certify Health Care Professional Class
COCA-COLA: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Jones Class Suit
CONAGRA BRANDS: Files Notice of Removal in Wage Lawsuit in Calif.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Ct. Enters Briefing Sched for Class Cert.
CONTACTUS LLC: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
CONTACTUS LLC: Time to File Class Cert Response/Reply Extended
CONTINUITY GLOBAL: Perez Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensable Wages
CONTROL GROUP: Camacho Files Suit in S.D. California
CORREVIO PHARMA: Feierstein May Distribute Class Settlement Funds
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Seeks to Certify Gas Station Owner Class
COSY HOUSE: Green Files Suit in E.D. New York
CR INTRINSIC: SEC's Bid for Transfer of $502K to Pay Epiq Granted
CREDIT LAW: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Bid Briefing Schedule Order
CRST INT'L: 2-Week Extension for Class Cert. Bid Deadlines Sought
CRST INT'L: Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Extended in Cervantes
DAKOTA 2000 INC: Knight Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
DHL EXPRESS: Taylor TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks Time Extension to Respond to Class Suit
DMD MANAGEMENT: Spencer Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
EASYSAVER REWARDS: Add'l $215K in Fees Awarded in Consumer Suit
EBAY INC: Dismissal of George and Pitteloud's Complaint Affirmed
ERIC GARCETTI: Ct. Sets Scheduling Conference for Jan. 24, 2022
EVERI HOLDINGS: Donahue Unclaimed Funds to be Distributed to Orgs.
EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending
EXELON CORP: ComEd's Lobbying Activities Related Suit Stayed
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs' Opening Appeal Brief Due January 2022
FACEBOOK INC: Trump Civil Rights Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
FARMERS INSURANCE: MSP Suit Seeks to Certify National Damages Class
FCA US LLC: Appeals Atty. Fee Ruling in Tomassini Suit to 2nd Cir.
FCA US: Mario Soares Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
FERGUSON CITY, MO: Fant, et al., Seek to Certify Six Classes
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Haines Seeks Stay of Current Deadlines in Suit
FILTERS FAST: Settlement in Powers Suit Gets Initial Nod
FIRST FIDELITY: Gay Files Suit in D. Oklahoma
FIRST STUDENT: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Sched Filed
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Smith's Bid to Amend Consolidated Class Suit OK'd
FLINT, MI: Class Settlement in Water Cases Wins Final Approval
FLORIDA: Appeals Court Dismisses ACLU Class Suit Over Bail Amounts
FLORIDA: Howard, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
FOGO DE CHAO: Dec. 8 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
GE CAPITAL: Bid Filed for Withdrawal of Adversary Proc. Reference
GEICO CASUALTY: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Wright
GEICO CASUALTY: Grossman Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Khami Securities Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Procter Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to E.D. Wis.
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Filed
GENERAL MOTORS: Emmrich Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Court Modifies Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
GENEVA LONE: Ct. Extends Discovery Deadline in Miller Class Suit
GEORGIA: Court Extends Deadlines in Cobb Class Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: McCoy Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Rosen Law Reminds of January 17, 2022 Deadline
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bids for Class Status Due July 21, 2022
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Akers Suit
GRANITE STATE: New Hampshire Court Refuses to Dismiss Grenier Suit
GREENLAND TECHNOLOGIES: Wheby Class Suit Dismissed
GREGORY HACKER: Werner Suit Seeks Class Certification
GSCR LLC: De Los Santos Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GSK CONSUMER: Settlement in Swetz Gets Final Nod
H&M HENNES: Wingo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
HAIN CELESTIAL: Halcon Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.Y.
HAWAI'I: Class Settlement in Chatman v. DPS Wins Final Approval
HEALTH INSURANCE: Moser Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 14, 2022
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HERTZ CORP: Customers File Class Action Over Alleged Stolen Vehicle
HOUSTON CASUALTY: Court Recommends Dismissal of R&J Class Suit
HOWARD BANK: Ct. Extends Time to File Class Cert Response in Brasko
IDAHO: Veenstra Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
INDUS COMPANIES: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Jan. 23, 2023
INFUCARE RX: Case Management & Scheduling Order Amended in Sharfman
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bid to DIsmiss Rice Class Suit Pending
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Liu and Fu Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klein Securities Class Suit
IVERSON MANSELLE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Enriquez Suit Dismissal With Prejudice Affirmed
JT RENOVATION: Quito Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JUPITER, FL: Court Tosses Amended Bid to Certify Class Action
JUUL LABS: Education Board Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ill.
JUUL LABS: Faces Millington Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Henry County Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
KOHL'S CORP: Hennessey Bid for Class Certification Tossed
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Toscano Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
KONRAD KLIMCZAK: Court Junks Klich Class Action
KONTOGENADA INC: Mata Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
KUEHNE + NAGEL: Fells Suit Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
L&L CONTRACTING: Semedo Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
LANA ROZENBERG: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEDGER SAS: California Court Dismisses Baton Suit Over Data Breach
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: McDonough Files Bid for Class Certification
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Bid to Set Class Cert Briefing Sched Filed
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Nath Hits Share Price Drop
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LOUIE'S SEAFOOD: New York Court Affirms Dismissal of Brown Suit
M&G 60TH STREET: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARSHALL HOTELS: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Deadlines in Link Suit
MATSON MONEY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 30, 2022
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Putative Class Suit Underway
MDL 1917: DPPs Seek Class Status w/ Regards to Irico Defendants
MDL 2670: Prelim. Approval of COSI Defendants' Class Deals Denied
MEDRANO USA: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
MEREDITH CORPORATION: McKinney Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
MICHIGAN: Karacson Civil Rights Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
MILLIMAN INC: Healy's Bid to Compel Doc Production Granted in Part
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Ct. OKs Settlement Class in McMorrow
NATERA INC: Copley Slams Hidden Charges in Prenatal Tests
NATIONAL SPINE: Ct. Enters 2nd Amended Case Mng't & Sched Order
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Kovich Suit
NCAA: Patelis Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NEW JERSEY: C.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Searches by NSW Police
NEW YORK: Time to File Response Extended to Dec. 13
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit
NICK'S MANAGEMENT: Naranjo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Ordered to Make Changes to Class Notice
NYC SMILE DESIGN: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Bid to Certify Class Stricken w/o Prejudice
OCEAN DETAILING: Morgan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ON24 INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of January 3, 2022 Deadline
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Russum Case Pending Resolution in Maney
OREGON: Snider, et al. Seek to Extend Time for Class Cert. Filing
OWLET INC: Schall Law Reminds of January 18, 2022 Deadline
PANELLA TRUCKING: Herrera-Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PARAMED INC: Leave to File Opinion Evidence Denied in Class Action
PAUL KEMPER: Court Junks Shaw Class Action with Prejudice
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: CHERS Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
PENTAIR WATER: Court Enters Final Judgment in Munoz Class Suit
PERVINE FOODS: Seljak Files Suit in S.D. New York
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get $115M in Fees in EpiPen Deal
PLAID INC: Settlement Deal in Cottle Suit Wins Initial Nod
POINT PARK: Ct. Enters Case Management Order in Figueroa Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Body Sprays Contain Benzene, Lopez Suit Claims
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Drake Class Action
QUANTUM HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 25, 2022
RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL: Lima Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing
RAZVAN POP: Uselmann Suit Seeks to Certify Owner-Operator Class
REALOGY GROUP: Appeal in Whitlach Putative Class Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bauman Putative Class Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Leeder Putative Class Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery in Sitzer Putative Class Suit Ongoing
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Moehrl Putative Class Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Pietoso Class Suit
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Class Settlement
RICOH IMAGING: Bondick Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
RINCONCITO ROSY: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ROBERT A. SIEGEL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBERT SIMON: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Moore TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Court Dismissed Stock Trading Conspiracy Suit
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Must File Response by Dec. 2
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert. Bid Filing
RYSE LLC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SATURN FASTENERS: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
SECURE LENDING: $1,113 in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Hand TCPA Suit
SHARP MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Imson Hits Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
SHUN LEE PALACE: Seeks Time Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
SNOW & ICE: Bernal Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Harding Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Flores FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
STABLE ROAD: Class Certification Schedule OK'd in Securities Suit
STATE FARM: Must Submit Amended Case Management Report by Dec. 3
STEPHANIE GOTTLIEB: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STONE PARK: Faces Suit Over Alleged Improper Ticket Collection
SUNSHINE RESTAURANT: Beasley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
TACTOPSUSA LLC: Faces Herrera FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Eichinger Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Daniels Seeks Time Extension to File Reply
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Osorio Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Kudatsky Suit Gets Final Nod
UBS FINANCIAL: California Court Issues Show Cause Order in Hsu Suit
UMB BANK NA: Island Farms Seek Payment for Grain Harvest
UNILEVER UNITED: Revised Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 17, 2022
UNILEVER US: Delcid Slams Benzene in Antiperspirant
UNITED PARCEL: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Rizvanovic Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan 31, 2022
UNITED STATES: Stay of Kent v. Vilsack Pending Miller Ruling Denied
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Court Enters Final Judgment in A.B. Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Jane Doe Appeals Denial of Bid for Relief
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Bid Continue Class Cert Hearing Tossed
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Class Suit vs Subsidiary Pending
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Usury-Related Suits Dismissed
WAL-MART: Parties Seek 60-Day Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in VLL Suit
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Ictech-Bendeck's Bids to Exclude Partly Granted
WATER WORKS GROUP: Pool Installers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Price-Fixing Related Class Suits Underway
WP COMPANY: Court Finally Certifies Settlement Class in Jordan
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Provides Update on Securities Class Action Suit
XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Class Suit Under Appeal
XPO LOGISTICS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 2022
YALLA GROUP: Xu and Li Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs in Crass Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Liable to Stock Price Decline, Silverberg Alleges
ZILLOW GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 18 Deadline
ZIPRECRUITER INC: Settlement Reached with Former Employee
ZOOSK INC: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule Sought
*********
A.V. PRO SERVICES: Gulamova Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.V. PRO SERVICES,
INC. The case is styled as Saiera Gulamova, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by
the Defendants v. A.V. PRO SERVICES, INC. D/B/A ASSISTED HOME CARE
SERVICES, ASSISTED HOME CARE, LLC, ASSISTED HOME CARE SERVICES,
LLC, AND ANY OTHER RELATED ENTITIES, Case No. 160458/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Nov. 18, 2021).
A.V. PRO SERVICES, INC. doing business as Assisted Home Health and
Hospice -- https://assistedcares.com/ -- offers a multitude of
services to our patients to meet their healthcare needs.[BN]
ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that in the plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal of the case captioned In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.
Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's
settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's Humira
patent portfolio violated state and federal antitrust laws.
The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.
In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with
prejudice.
"The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal," the Company said.
AbbVie is an American publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013.
ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that a suit is pending in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania styled In
re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation. The suit alleged that the company
violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.
The lawsuits pending in federal court consist of four individual
plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions:
one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers and one brought by Niaspan
end-payors.
The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.
In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of
Niaspan.
"In June 2020 and August 2021, the court denied the end-payors'
motions to certify a class," the Company said
In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's
Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California
regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition
provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking
injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.
AbbVie is an American publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013.
ABBVIE INC: Settlement Reached in Generic Drug Pricing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that the parties in the case In
re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation, have
reached an agreement to settle the class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits were filed by Allergan shareholders and consist of
three purported class actions and one individual action seeking
monetary damages and attorney's fees that have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as In re:
Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation.
"In July 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle the class
action lawsuits, which is pending court approval," the Company
said.
AbbVie is an American publicly traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013.
ABBVIE INC: Settlement Reached in Restasis Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that the parties have reached an
agreement to settle the case in re: Restasis (Cyclosporine
Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation.
The lawsuits, certified as a class action filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of Restasis, were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under the MDL Rules as In re: Restasis
(Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2819.
In May 2021, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter
that is subject to court approval.
AbbVie is an American publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013.
ADAMBA IMPORTS: Navarro Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Rufino Fernando Navarro, Ismael Mejia and Juan Rosas, on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Adamba Imports International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06342, (E.D. N.Y., November 16, 2021),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant
to the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.
Adamba Imports owns and operates a food, produce and beverage
warehouse facility that services local supermarkets and the food
service industry. Adamba employed Plaintiffs as warehouse clerks at
their facility located in Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant regularly required them to work approximately
between 50 hours to 57 and one-half hours per week without paying
the statutorily required overtime pay of one and one-half time
their regular rates of pay and failed to furnish them with accurate
and/or complete wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
ALABAMA: Homeless Residents Class Certified in Singleton v. Taylor
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,
Northern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned JONATHAN SINGLETON, RICKY
VICKERY, and MICKI HOLMES, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAL TAYLOR, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement, DERRICK
CUNNINGHAM, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Montgomery
County, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-99-WKW (M.D. Ala.).
In this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action, the Plaintiffs, homeless
residents of Alabama, challenge the constitutionality of two
Alabama statutes: Alabama Code Section 13A-11-9(a)(1) (prohibiting
loitering "in a public place for the purpose of begging")
(hereinafter "the Begging Statute") and Alabama Code Section
32-5A-216(b) (prohibiting individuals from standing on a highway
for the purpose of soliciting contributions) ("the Solicitation
Statute").
The Plaintiffs assert that these two statutes have criminalized
their speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution. They have sued Derrick Cunningham, the Sheriff
of Montgomery County, and Hal Taylor, the Secretary of the Alabama
Law Enforcement Agency, in their official capacities.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent:
all individuals who will in the future (1) stand on a
public street for the purpose of soliciting employment,
business, or contributions from the occupant of a vehicle,
or (2) loiter, remain, or wander in a public place for the
purpose of begging.
The Plaintiffs argue that the proposed class meets the
prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and can be maintained under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), as the injunctive relief sought is
appropriate for the class as a whole.
The Plaintiffs also argue, and the Defendants do not contest, that
their current counsel meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g) and should be appointed to represent the class as a whole.
Discussion
District Judge W. Keith Watkins holds that the proposed class meets
the Rule 23(a) prerequisites--numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy. Each of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites is challenged by
at least one Defendant.
To support a finding of numerosity, the Plaintiffs note that there
are over 3,200 homeless residents of Alabama, the Mobile Police
department made more than 200 panhandling arrests, and the Dothan
Police Department arrested 27 people for violating the Begging
Statute. Defendant Taylor argues that only seven individuals have
been prosecuted under the two challenged statutes. Defendant
Cunningham further notes that only one of those seven has been
prosecuted by the Macon County Sheriff's Office.
Judge Watkins finds that the Defendants mischaracterize this
inquiry. The question is whether the proposed class has twenty-one
to forty members, not whether all of those members have been cited
under the challenged statutes. Judge Watkins opines that the
Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to prove that the
proposed class does include more than 40 individuals.
The case involves a facial challenge to the two Alabama Statutes,
Judge Watkins notes. Deciding whether the Statutes are facially
unconstitutional will not involve any scrutiny of the individual
circumstances of enforcement. A decision on the fundamental issue
will affect the claims of each class member, regardless of his or
her particular circumstances. Therefore, the common questions are
the predominant, if not the sole issues in this case. Judge Watkins
finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated commonality and
typicality.
Sheriff Cunningham also asserts that the named Plaintiffs are
inadequate representatives because their declarations do not
clearly show a willingness to represent individuals outside the
City of Montgomery.
However, the supplemental declarations clearly show that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden in this respect, Judge Watkins
points out. Hence, the action satisfies the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites.
Judge Watkins also finds that this action is proper under Rule
23(b)(2) because relief is appropriate for the class as a whole. In
this case--involving a facial challenge to the Statutes--the relief
is certainly indivisible. Maintaining the action as a class action
is, therefore, appropriate.
Judge Watkins also points out that there is sufficient need for a
class action. Defendant Cunningham argues that a class action is
not appropriate because it is not "necessary." He argues that the
indivisible nature of the relief sought means that the addition of
a class of plaintiffs will not add any value to this case.
Of course, as the Plaintiffs point out, a change in relief sought
is not the only value that the class mechanism can bring, Judge
Watkins notes. In this case, where the Plaintiffs are necessarily
indigent and likely homeless, the class action mechanism provides
stability, protection against mootness, and ensures that the action
can continue should a named plaintiff go missing. That is value
enough for class certification, Judge Watkins insists.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Judge Watkins grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The Plaintiffs may proceed on behalf of all individuals who will in
the future (1) stand on a public street in the State of Alabama for
the purpose of soliciting employment, business, or contributions
from the occupant of a vehicle, or (2) loiter, remain, or wander in
a public place in the State of Alabama for the purpose of begging.
The attorneys currently representing the Named Plaintiffs are
appointed to represent this class of persons. The parties will file
a Rule 26(f) report on or before Dec. 1, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Nov. 8, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/6xeek7ez from
Leagle.com.
ALIERA COS: Resident Plan Holders Class Certified in Jackson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN JACKSON, DEAN MELLOM, JON
PERRIN AND JULIE PERRIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01281-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara
Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.
The Named Plaintiffs propose that the Court certifies a class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as follows: "All Washington residents who
acquired plans from or through The Aliera Companies, Inc., Aliera
Healthcare, Inc. and Trinity Healthshare, Inc. or any of those
entities' subsidiaries that purported to be health care sharing
ministry plans at any time from June 27, 2018 to July 8, 2021."
Judge Rothstein first considers whether the proposed class
satisfies the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a). She then considers
whether the requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) are met.
The parties identified approximately 2,832 Washington residents
enrolled in the Aliera/Trinity Plan from June 27, 2018 to July 8,
2021. Judge Rothstein holds that this satisfies numerosity, and she
finds that joinder would be impracticable.
With respect to commonality, the core legal questions that the
named Plaintiffs and all the class members sought in the case are:
(1) Whether the health plans that Aliera created, marketed, sold
and administered to class members met the legal requirements of an
HCSM under 26 U.S.C. Section 5000A and RCW 48.43.009; (2) Whether
Washington insurance law and regulations forbid the creation,
marketing, sale and administration of health care plans in the
"business of insurance" without authorization or other legal
exception; (3) Whether Aliera failed to obtain proper authorization
for the creation, marketing, sale and administration of an
insurance plan in Washington State; and (4) Whether Aliera's acts
and omissions in violation of Washington insurance law violated the
Washington Consumer Protection Act. Judge Rothstein holds that the
answers to these common questions will be the same for all the
class members. Hence, commonality is met.
As to typicality, the Named Plaintiffs, like all the other class
members, were sold an unauthorized and illegal health plan that was
designed, marketed, sold and administered by Aliera in violation of
Washington law. Therefore, the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are
typical of that of the proposed class.
As to adequacy of representation, the declarations from the Named
Plaintiffs confirm that they are familiar with the duties and
responsibilities of being a class representative and will continue
to diligently look out for the interests of all the class members.
In addition, Judge Rothstein finds that the counsel who represent
Named Plaintiffs have established that they have far-reaching
experience in health coverage class action litigation and will
continue to provide vigorous representation of the proposed class.
The proposed class representatives and class counsel are adequate.
Next, Judge Rothstein finds that predominance is met. She concludes
that the universal question on liability is whether the Defendants
marketed, sold and/or administered illegal health plans in
Washington State. This question does not require any individualized
factual analysis. Damages may also be determined on a classwide
aggregate basis based upon Aliera's own records, as provided to the
Sharity Chief Reconstruction Officer.
Lastly, Judge Rothstein holds that a class action is superior to
other available methods of adjudicating the controversy. Although
thousands of Washington residents were impacted by Aliera's sale of
unauthorized coverage, no other individual lawsuits are pending.
Many consumers would have a difficult time finding counsel able to
pursue the dispute.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Rothstein certifies the following
class: "All Washington residents who acquired plans from or through
The Aliera Companies, Inc., Aliera Healthcare, Inc. and Trinity
Healthshare, Inc. or any of those entities' subsidiaries that
purported to be health care sharing ministry plans at any time from
June 27, 2018 to July 8, 2021.
Judge Rothstein appoints the Named Plaintiffs as the class
representative; and Richard E. Spoonemore, Eleanor Hamburger of
Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, Michael David Myers and
Samantha Lin of Myers & Company, PLLC, and Cyrus Mehri and Jay
Angoff of Mehri & Skalet PLLC as the class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/49nm6rb2 from Leagle.com.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ, SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC, Richard E. Spoonemore --
rspoonemore@sylaw.com -- Eleanor Hamburger -- ehamburger@sylaw.com
-- MYERS & COMPANY, PLLC, Michael David Myers --
mmyers@myers-company.com -- Samantha Lin -- slin@myers-company.com
-- MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, Jay Angoff --
jangoff@findjustice.com -- Pro Hac Vice Cyrus Mehri --
cmehri@findjustice.com -- Pro Hac Vice, in Washington, D.C.,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
AMAZON.COM INC: Illegally Tampers Intercom Devices, GateGuard Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GATEGUARD, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.,
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09321 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for alleged violation of Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, tortious interference with contract, tortious
interference with prospective economic advantage, trespass to
chattels, wrongful misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment,
and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Antitrust Act of
1890 and Clayton Act of 1914.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, documented with photographic and video
evidence, resulting from Amazon's illegal pattern of tampering with
intercom and access control devices in multifamily residential
buildings in New York and across the nation, while lying to
low-level building personnel and deceiving property owners about
its authority to install its own access devices. Amazon has
interfered with GateGuard's contractual relations and prospective
economic advantage, committed computer fraud, misappropriated and
converted property to its own use, and unjustly enriched itself as
part of a broader scheme that attempts to monopolize the e-commerce
delivery market.
GateGuard, Inc. is a startup company that develops, manufactures
and sells security technology for multi-tenant apartment buildings,
with its principal place of business in Florida.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an electronic commerce services company, with
its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.
Amazon.com Services, Inc. is an electronic commerce services
company, with its principal place of business in Seattle,
Washington.
Amazon.com Services, LLC is an electronic commerce services
company, with its principal place of business in Seattle,
Washington.
Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company based in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eden P. Quainton, Esq.
QUAINTON LAW, PLLC
2 Park Ave., 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 419-0575
AMAZON.COM: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Deadlines in Del Rio Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Del Rio et al., v.
Amazon.com Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01152 (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order regarding
class certification deadlines/Hearings as follows:
-- Amended Pleadings due by: Nov. 30, 2021
-- Pre-class Certification June 30, 2022
Discovery due by:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class July 30, 2022
Certification due by:
-- Defendants' Motion for Summary July 30, 2022
Judgment due by:
The nature of suit Labor Litigation.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company which
focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, and digital streaming..[CC]
ANADARKO E & P: BEK et al., File Corrected Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC; CC
OPEN A, LLC; and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F.
GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO LAND
CORPORATION; and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case
No.1:20-cv-02352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs file corrected
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs are pursuing a breach-of-contract claim for a
putative class of landowners in Colorado and Wyoming, each of whom
(1) is subject to an unexpired Surface Owner Agreement ("SOA(")
with Defendants, and (2) has one or more wellheads on the surface
of their land that produces gas, oil, and other valuable minerals
from outside the land subject to their SOA.
Class-wide, Defendants have allegedly underpaid all SOA Class
Members by (a) reducing the stated SOA payment; (b) deducting
numerous unauthorized post-production costs from the value of the
oil and gas; or (c) both.
This case is appropriately certified as a class action under Rule
23. Every Class Member has a legally similar SOA with Defendants
("Class SOAs"); is similarly situated in that each has one or more
wells on the surface of its land that produces from outside the
land ("Class Wells("); and Defendants' pay practices are uniform
across the Class SOAs.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Rule 23(b)(3) Class:
"All owners of the surface of the land within the UP Strip
(Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah) subject to a Surface Owner
Agreement covering mineral interests once owned by Union
Pacific Railroad Company to which Defendants Anadarko Land
Corporation, Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, or Kerr-McGee Oil
and Gas Onshore, LP have succeeded and on which one or more
wellheads are located that produce oil and gas from the
subsurface beyond the boundaries of the lands (a/k/a
premises) covered by the Surface Owner Agreement;"
Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Mineral Management
Service (Indian tribes and the United States); (2) Defendant,
its affiliates, officers and directors; (3) Any NYSE or
NASDAQ listed company (and its subsidiaries) primarily
engaged in oil and gas exploration, gathering, processing, or
marketing; (4) any and all SOA holders that have no wellheads
on their land, or who have only wellheads on their land that
produce only from their land and not from beyond the
boundaries of their land; and (5) any and all SOA holders
whose payments are properly subject to both proportionate
reduction and the deduction of all post-production costs.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members are landowners of surface acreage
lying along the "UP Strip," which runs through Colorado, Wyoming,
and Utah. The UP Strip describes the millions of acres of
checkerboard land that the United States government granted to
Union Pacific during the mid-1800s to aid in the construction of a
transcontinental railway.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CIyhu0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
Gregory M. Bentz, Esq.
Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
lwalsh@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
gbentz@midwest-law.com
cschimmel@midwest-law.com
- and -
Lance Astrella, Esq.
ASTRELLA LAW, P.C.
1801 Broadway, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 292-9021
Facsimile: (303) 296-6347
E-mail: lance@astrellalaw.com
ANGIES LIST: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to March 14, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pro Water Solutions, Inc.
v. Angies List, Inc. et al., Case No.2:19-cv-08704-ODW-SS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting
plaintiff's ex parte application and continuing class certification
motion filing deadline to March 14, 2022.
Moreover, the Court orders that Plaintiff shall file its motion for
class certification at least 35 days before the scheduled hearing
date. The effect of this is to give Defendants two weeks to oppose.
Finally, if a party intends to identify witnesses (expert or
otherwise) for the potential use of their testimony in making or
opposing the class certification motion, that party is ordered to
disclose the witness to the other party as soon as reasonably
practicable so that both parties have the opportunity to propound
discovery on the witness if necessary. Failure to comply with this
directive may result in the Court disregarding the testimony of an
undisclosed witness (expert or otherwise) in ruling on the motion,
the Court says.
A copy of the civil minutes -- general dated Nov. 17, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HJY5cT at no
extra charge.[CC]
ANTERO RESOURCES: Grissom Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Landowners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE GRISSOM, et al., v.
ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-02028-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification of:
"All persons who executed a lease with Antero for mineral
interests underlying an Antero-owned horizontal well in the
Seneca System from which streams of raw liquids-rich natural
gas can be extracted, which lease contains the Form 2012 Gas
and Market Enhancement Clause and entitled its lessors to
receive royalty payments from Antero within the last four
years."
This case involves uniform oil-and-gas leases in Ohio's Utica Shale
Formation. The Plaintiffs and class members are landowners with
mineral interests who signed leases with Antero.
Antero allegedly breached these uniform leases by underpaying
royalties owed to the Plaintiffs and class members. Antero
improperly reduced class members' royalty payments by deducting the
costs it incurred to transform the natural gas stream taken from
landowners' wells into "marketable" natural gas products, such as
processed natural gas, known in the industry as Residue Gas, and
natural-gas liquids, known in the industry as NGLs, that Antero
could sell at various market hubs.
In 2012, the Plaintiffs and class members entered boilerplate
leases with Antero. The leases contain materially similar royalty
provisions -- specifically, the "Gas and Market Enhancement
Clause." These common lease provisions prohibit Antero from
deducting the costs related to "transforming the product into
marketable form." Thus, regardless of whether this Court ultimately
judges the Antero's Gas and Market Enhancement Clause to have
proscribed Antero's deductions, this clause is common to Plaintiffs
and class members.
Antero is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DNFbQ0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Logan Trombley, Esq.
Warner Mendenhall, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WARNER MENDENHALL
190 N. Union St., Suite 201
Akron, OH 44304
Telephone: (330) 535-9160
E-mail: logan@warnermendenhall.com
warner@warnermendenhall.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
bhollowell@karonllc.com
- and -
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Brian R. Swiger, Esq.
Victor Woods, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
bswiger@baileyglasser.com
VWoods@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Larry D. Shenise, Esq.
P.O. Box 471
Tallmadge, OH 44278
Telephone: (330) 472-5622
E-mail: ldshenise@sheniselaw.com
APPHARVEST INC: Association Sues Over 29% Drop of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPHARVEST, INC.
f/k/a NOVUS CAPITAL CORPORATION, JONATHAN WEBB, and LOREN EGGLETON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09676 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning AppHarvest's business, operations, and
prospects in order to trade AppHarvest securities at artificially
inflated prices between October 9, 2020 and August 10, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) AppHarvest lacked sufficient training and management for its
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, the Defendants' positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, AppHarvest's share price fell $3.46, or
approximately 29 percent, to close at $8.51 per share on August 11,
2021, damaging investors.
Plymouth County Retirement Association is a retirement association
based in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
AppHarvest, Inc., formerly known as Novus Capital Corporation, is
an agriculture technology company, with its principal executive
offices located in Morehead, Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
APPLE INC: Cook Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc., et al.
The case is styled as John Cook, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00311177-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
17, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company that specializes in consumer
electronics, computer software and online services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid to File 4th Amended Antitrust Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 11-cv-6714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an order:
-- denying the Consumer Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
fourth amended complaint;
-- granting Consumer Plaintiffs' motion to strike Apple's
motion to compel trial plan; and
-- denying motion to compel trial plan as moot.
Consumer Plaintiffs Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter, Robert
Pepper, and Edward Lawrence bring the putative class action against
Apple for Apple's alleged anticompetitive conduct and alleged
violation of the Sherman Act.
Before the Court are three motions. First, the Consumer Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, specifically
to include one additional affirmative claim for a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Consumer
Plaintiffs' UCL claim is based on Apple's alleged anticompetitive
conduct and alleged violation of the Sherman Act using all three
prongs of the Act: unfair, fraudulent and unlawful. Under the UCL,
the Consumer Plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and equitable
restitution. Second, Apple's motion to compel the Plaintiffs to
submit a trial plan in light of the Consumer Plaintiffs' pending
motion for class certification. Finally, the Consumer Plaintiffs'
motion to strike Apple's motion to compel the Plaintiffs to submit
a trial plan.
I. Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint
The case has a long history having been filed a decade ago. Upon
return from the Supreme Court, and with input from counsel, the
Court issued a scheduling order to expedite resolution of the case
by setting the briefing schedule for discovery cutoffs and class
certification. The Plaintiffs did not request to amend their
complaint at that time.
On January 9, 2020, the Court entered a Revised Case Management and
Pretrial Order setting the hearing for class certification on Feb.
1, 2021, and trial for March 7, 2022. Thereafter, in June 2020, due
in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties stipulated to a
revised schedule extending the schedule four months. The Court
granted the request and reset the trial date for July 11, 2022. The
Plaintiffs did not request to amend their complaint at that time.
In the related actions, the Developer Class filed a consolidated
class action complaint on June 4, 2019, which included a claim
under the UCL. Epic Games filed an action against Apple on Aug. 13,
2020, which also included a claim under the UCL, Epic Games v.
Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:20-5640-YGR (N.D. Cal.) ("Epic Games/Apple
case"). Thereafter, the Consumer Plaintiffs filed their own amended
complaint and chose again not to include a UCL claim.
Again, upon the parties' request, on Jan. 8, 2021, the Court
extended the briefing schedule for the class certification motion
requiring, among other things, that the Class Certification Motion
will be filed and supporting Expert Reports with all data upon
which they are based be produced by June 1, 2021. The hearing was
scheduled for Nov. 16, 2021. The Court did not vacate the trial
date nor did the Plaintiffs request to amend their complaint. Under
the current scheduling order, the following deadlines apply,
assuming the Court renders its decision on class certification by
Dec. 1, 2021: Deadline for Expert Reports -- Jan. 30, 2022;
Deadline for Rebuttal Reports -- March 16, 2022; Expert Cutoff --
April 15, 2022; Dispositive Motions/Dauberts -- filed May 30, 2022;
Joint Pretrial Statements -- June 10, 2022; and Trial -- July 11,
2022.
In preparing for an expedited trial in the Epic Games/Apple trial,
the Court repeatedly requested input from the Consumer Plaintiffs
and the Developer Plaintiffs, including their perspectives on the
legal issues being litigated, including the UCL. Not once did the
Consumer Plaintiffs request to amend their complaint.
In August 2021, counsel for the Developer Plaintiffs advised the
Court that they had reached a tentative settlement with Apple and
the Court preliminarily approved the settlement on Nov. 2, 2021.
After a bench trial in the Epic Games/Apple case, the Court issued
a 185-page decision on Sept. 10, 2021, with its findings, which
included a finding against Apple on the UCL claim.
On Oct. 8, 2021, counsel for the Consumer Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion, never really explaining why they never alleged a
UCL claim but merely stating that they would be "remiss not to,"
given the Court's decision in the Epic Games/Apple case.
Analysis
Apple contends that amendment should be denied because it would
upend the Court's scheduling order and reopen the pleadings.
Further, even under Rule 15, Apple claims (a) it would be
prejudiced by the amendment; (b) Consumer Plaintiffs unduly delayed
in seeking leave to amend; (c) Consumer Plaintiffs' proposed
amendment would be futile; (d) Consumer Plaintiffs have amended
their complaint "five" times; (e) and the timing of Consumer
Plaintiffs' amendment reflects bad faith.
1. Rule 16: Modification to the Court's Schedule
The schedule for this case was coordinated with two other related
cases; one of which has been tried and is now on appeal and the
other of which settled. Class certification briefing is complete
pending a hearing and, due to requests for extensions, the schedule
already overlaps with trial preparation. Thus, the request to
reopen pleadings to add a new claim would entirely disrupt an
already tight schedule, Judge Rogers holds.
Further, and importantly, Judge Rogers points out, counsel for the
Consumer Plaintiffs have utterly failed to explain their delay in
raising this issue. That this Court ruled in favor of Epic Games
for its UCL claim does not justify granting leave for the belated
request to reopen the pleadings, Judge Rogers adds.
Under a Rule 16 analysis, Judge Rogers holds that the motion should
be denied.
2. Rule 15 Analysis
a. Prejudice
While the Court acknowledges that the UCL claim overlaps with the
facts and theory set out in the operative complaint, it is a
distinctly different claim. As referenced, despite any overlap, the
breadth of the Consumer Plaintiffs' proposed amendments includes a
fraud component, which could widen the scope dramatically. For this
reason, Judge Rogers holds that Apple is correct that that
additional discovery will be needed to understand the nature and
scope of plaintiffs' UCL claim and the common evidence upon which
the class is relying to for class certification purposes.
Finally, given that the remedy identified in the proposed complaint
is entirely new, Judge Rogers states that additional expert
discovery would be required for both the plaintiff class and in
opposition thereto.
Judge Rogers opines that the Consumer Plaintiffs' argument that
they intend to pursue the same claim decided in the Epic
Games/Apple case is not consistent with their proposed complaint,
which does not address any of those factual issues at all. Nor do
the Consumer Plaintiffs dispute that they have never provided any
discovery to Apple on those claims, which would require additional
discovery both factual and expert to occur. While the Consumer
Plaintiffs argue that briefing on class certification can be done
with "succinct supplemental briefing," they do not demonstrate how
that is possible. Given the Court's experience in evaluating such
motions, it is doubtful.
Accordingly, this factor weighs against granting the motion for
leave to amend.
b. Undue Delay
The Court next examines whether undue delay exists. The counsel for
the Consumer Plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities, and time,
to amend their complaint. In fact, they last amended their
complaint in September 2020 and were aware, or on notice, that the
other two related cases included UCL claims. The Plaintiffs waited
nearly two years after this case had come back to this Court from
appeal before seeking leave to add the UCL claim, and only as a
result of having read this Court's decision.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs were unduly
delayed in seeking leave to add their UCL claim, weighing against
granting the motion for leave to amend.
c. Futility
With respect to the next issue of futility, the Court must be
satisfied that "no set of facts can be proved under the amendment
to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim
or defense," Missouri ex el rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646,656
(9th Cir. 2017).
Apple argues that the Plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief under
the UCL is futile because they have an adequate remedy at law.
While case law establishes that a plaintiff is precluded from
seeking equitable relief where there are other adequate remedies
available, nothing precludes the Plaintiffs from seeking
restitution under the UCL in the alternative from their other
remedies sought, Judge Rogers notes.
The Court is not convinced that the claim would be futile. This
weighs in favor of granting the motion.
d. Previous Amendments to Cure Deficiencies
Next, the Court considers whether the Plaintiffs' amendment is the
result of repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed. Apple argues that the Court should deny the
Consumer Plaintiffs' motion because the Plaintiffs have already
amended their complaint five times. Apple's argument overlooks the
purpose of the Plaintiffs' previous amendments. Aside from the
Plaintiffs' earlier amendment to fix an issue with standing, the
bulk of their amendments were not to cure deficient pleadings.
Instead, they were to add the consolidated plaintiffs and to expand
the relevant market definition. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' current
motion for leave to amend does not seek to cure any deficiency.
Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting the motion but
carries little applicability in this context.
e. Bad Faith
Lastly, the Court examines whether the Consumer Plaintiffs acted in
bad faith. Apple argues that the Plaintiffs acted in bad faith by
waiting to bring their UCL claim until after the Court's decision
in the Epic Games/Apple case.
Judge Rogers opines that the Consumer Plaintiffs' decision to seek
a UCL claim, while unduly delayed, does not rise to the level of
bad faith. Indeed, Apple's only cited authority, Lockheed Martin
Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)
is distinguishable. In Lockheed Martin Corp., the plaintiff waited
until discovery closed and while facing a motion for summary
judgment to bring additional claims and allege new factual
allegations. The Court found that such conduct "might reflect bad
faith." Rather, courts typically find bad faith where parties seek
leave to add frivolous claims in order to avoid having the case
dismissed. Such motive is absent from this case.
That said, the Court cannot discern any credible reason for delay
and counsel provide none. It appears counsel would like to benefit
from 20-20 hindsight. Thus, the Court could view the motion as one
of gamesmanship or the result of negligence in failing to allege a
claim which was found to be successful. Alternatively, the Court
could also view counsel's actions as reflecting a considered
decision that the UCL claim was not necessary or appropriate,
especially given that counsel states it wants to assert the UCL
claim "out of an abundance of caution."
Accordingly, given the lack of bad faith but also the lack of any
reasoned explanation for its actions or any good cause for
counsel's prior actions, this factor is neutral in terms of
granting the motion.
Conclusion
Based upon both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and a balancing
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the motion to amend is
denied. The Consumer Plaintiffs will proceed on the basis that they
have repeatedly reaffirmed. To find otherwise, would require the
Court to entirely modify the trial and pre-trial schedule in this
action which already requires the parties to double track pretrial
motions and trial preparation, and would reopen the pleadings for
additional Rule 12 motions.
II. Motion to Strike
The Consumer Plaintiffs move to strike Apple's motion to compel the
Plaintiffs to submit a trial plan under Local Rule 7-11. The
Plaintiffs argue that the motion should be stricken for three
reasons, namely: (1) it includes a procedural objection to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in violation of Local
Rule 7-3(a); (2) it improperly circumvents page limits; and (3) it
would upend the class certification schedule.
While Apple frames the motion as a separate motion, the Court notes
that the gravamen of the motion are arguments for denial of class
certification, including procedural objections. Its constitutional
arguments are also tied to the class certification process. Under
Local Rule 7-3(a), these arguments should have been included in
Apple's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. They were not. Given such, they are improper under
Rule 7-3(a), Judge Rogers finds.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to strike
Apple's motion to compel the Plaintiffs to submit a trial plan
because it violates Local Rule 7-3(a). The Court need not address
the Plaintiffs' other arguments. In light of this, Apple's motion
to compel is denied as moot.
However, the motion is denied without prejudice, to be refiled in
the context of trial if class certification is granted. Moreover,
the Court anticipates that the motion will need to consider the
class action settlement in Cameron, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No.
19-3074-YGR and the impact of that case, if any.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court denies the Consumer Plaintiffs' motion
to file a fourth amended complaint; grants the Consumer Plaintiffs'
motion to strike Apple's motion to compel a trial plan; and denies
without prejudice said motion.
This Order terminates Docket Nos. 471, 487, and 544.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4h9n4zyj from Leagle.com.
ASCENSION HEALTH: Halczenko's Bid for TRO, Prelim. Injunction Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL HALCZENKO Dr., JENNIFER JIMENEZ, ERIN NICOLE
GILLESPIE, VALERIE FRALIC, KRISTIN EVANS on behalf of Themselves
and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASCENSION HEALTH,
INC., ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC. d/b/a
ASCENSION ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02816-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary
restraining order and to set hearing on their motion for
preliminary injunction.
Background
Ascension St. Vincent Hospital is requiring its employees to be
vaccinated against COVID-19. Employees who do not get vaccinated or
receive an exemption from Ascension are to be put on unpaid leave
and then later terminated. The Plaintiffs -- who work in
Ascension's network -- requested exemptions from the vaccine
mandate based on their religious beliefs.
The Plaintiffs do not claim that Ascension's vaccine mandate is
unlawful. Instead, they contend that Ascension violated federal
anti-discrimination laws when it summarily denied their requests
for religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate. The Plaintiffs
have been told that employees who do not meet Ascension's vaccine
requirement by Nov. 12, 2021, "will be suspended" and that "failure
to meet this requirement" by Jan. 4, 2022 "will be considered
voluntary resignation."
On Nov. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Ascension
from putting the Plaintiffs on unpaid leave and/or terminating
their employment pending the EEOC's review of their claims of
religious discrimination and retaliation; and to set a hearing on
their motion for preliminary injunction. They seek relief from
Ascension's COVID-19 vaccine requirement, arguing that the
Defendants have not accommodated their religious beliefs under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e,
et seq.
The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that they "filed their charge of
discrimination with the EEOC asking it to investigate their claims
on a class wide basis.
Discussion
The Plaintiffs allege that they will suffer irreparable harm when
Ascension puts them on unpaid leave effective Nov. 12, 2021. First,
each Plaintiff identifies specific harm that they and their
families will likely experience if the Court does not intercede:
The inability to pay for necessary medication, or school tuition;
the loss of insurance coverage; the effect of termination on
medical licensure and non-compete agreements; and the possible loss
of a home. Next, the Plaintiffs contend that they will suffer
"serious physical and psychological consequences." Last, the
Plaintiffs allege that they will suffer irreparable harm because
the coercive nature of Ascension's policy creates an "impossible"
choice, that is, violate one's firmly held religious beliefs by
getting vaccinated or lose one's job.
While Judge Hanlon acknowledges the financial difficulty that the
Plaintiffs likely will experience, harm that typically results from
termination of employment is ordinarily insufficient to constitute
irreparable harm. He says, the fact that the Plaintiffs' claims
arise in the context of likely loss of employment, however, does
not foreclose the Plaintiffs from potentially being able to show
irreparable harm.
Although the only "immediate" harm that the Plaintiffs have
established with the requisite degree of certainty at this time is
financial harm resulting from unpaid leave, Judge Hanlon finds that
the Plaintiffs' complaint alleges other types of harm. He says. the
record is not sufficiently developed at this time for the Court to
make findings or conclusions as to whether, if proven, those harms
combined with forthcoming termination of employment on Jan. 4,
2022, constitute irreparable harm that entitles the Plaintiffs to
preliminary injunctive relief. He defers ruling on the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction so that the record may be more
fully developed with expedited discovery and a hearing. For now,
however, the Plaintiffs have not shown irreparable harm so the
Court's inquiry is over and the temporary restraining order must be
denied.
Conclusion
On the limited record before him, Judge Hanlon concludes that the
Plaintiffs have not shown irreparable harm, so they are not
entitled to the extraordinary relief of an immediate temporary
restraining order. The Plaintiffs have made allegations, however,
that if proven could show irreparable harm and support preliminary
injunctive relief. Therefore, further preliminary injunction
proceedings will proceed expeditiously.
The Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and to set
hearing on their motion for preliminary injunction is denied to the
extent that the Court will not issue a temporary restraining order
at this time and granted to the extent that the Court schedules the
case for a preliminary injunction hearing on Dec. 10, 2021, at 9:30
a.m. in Room 349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana. The Magistrate Judge is asked to hold a
status conference to set an expedited case management plan and
discovery schedule. The Court will hold a status conference at the
close of the discovery period and issue an order on a briefing
schedule and the order of proceedings for the preliminary
injunction hearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dapcy6su from Leagle.com.
ASHFORD INC: Class Action vs Subsidiaries Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that a class action is pending
against the Company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of state
of California for violation of employment laws.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in The Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging
violations of certain California employment laws. The court has
entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i)
a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly
deprived of rest breaks as a result of the subsidiary's previous
written policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest
breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees
who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from
employment.
While the Company believes it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because
there remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a
significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members
continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower
penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment
laws, the Company do not believe that any potential loss to the
Company is reasonably estimable at this time.
As of September 30, 2021, no amounts have been accrued.
Ashford Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed on April 2, 2014,
subsequently reincorporated in Maryland, that provides asset
management and advisory services to Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.
and Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc.
ATLANTIC UNION: Mawyer Sues Over Misrepresentation of Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Mawyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Case No.
3:21-cv-00726-DJN (E.D. Va., Nov. 18, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant arising from its routine practices of assessing multiple
$38 fees on an item.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant misleadingly and
deceptively misrepresents its fee practices, including in its own
contract. The Defendant's practices violate Virginia common law, as
well as the Defendant's own form contracts. The Defendant's
improper scheme to extract funds from account holders has
victimized the Plaintiff and hundreds of other similarly situated
consumers. Unless enjoined, the Defendant will continue to engage
in these schemes and will continue to cause substantial injury to
its consumers.
Overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds fees ("NSF fees") are among
the primary fee generators for banks. The Defendant unlawfully
maximizes its already profitable fees through its deceptive and
contractually-prohibited practice of charging multiple NSF fees, or
an NSF fee followed by an overdraft fee, on an item. Unbeknownst to
consumers, each time the Defendant reprocesses an electronic
payment item, ACH item, or check for payment after it was initially
rejected for insufficient funds, the Defendant chooses to treat it
as a new and unique item that is subject to yet another fee. But
the Defendant's contract never states that this counterintuitive
and deceptive result could be possible and, in fact, promises the
opposite, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has had a checking account with the Defendant.
Atlantic Union is one of the largest banks based in Virginia.
Atlantic Union is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia and maintains
branch locations across Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon J. Munro, Esq.
MUNRO LAW PC
P. O. Box 7205
Roanoke, VA 24019
Phone: (877) 652-6770
Fax: (540) 328-9290
Email: dmunro@trialsva.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-636-6481
Facsimile: 317-636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Taras Kick, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Phone: (310) 395-2988
Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
ATLAS SENIOR: Must File Class Cert. Response by March 16, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNITA GREEN,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ATLAS
SENIOR LIVING, LLC F/K/A SHEPHERD SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00237-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray
entered an order granting the Defendant to have up to and including
March 16, 2022 to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xjVbH7 at no extra charge.[CC]
BALFOUR BEATTY: Reed FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Reed, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc., Balfour Beatty
Infrastructure, Inc., Balfour Beatty Construction Company, Inc.,
Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC, Balfour Beatty Construction
Group, Inc., Case No. 30-02021-01216613-CU-OE-CXC was removed from
the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 5, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01846-JLS-ADS to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Balfour Beatty -- https://www.balfourbeatty.com/ -- is a recognized
leader in modern rail engineering.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
OUTTEN AND GOLDEN LLP
One California Street 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 638-8800
Fax: (415) 638-8810
Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
- and -
Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
Julio Sharp-Wasserman, Esq.
Ossai Miazad, Esq.
OUTTEN AND GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 245-1000
Fax: (646) 509-2060
Email: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
jsharp-wasserman@outtengolden.com
om@outtengolden.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Shahram Samie, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Phone: (310) 553-0308
Fax: (310) 553-5583
Email: ssamie@littler.com
- and -
Garrick Y. Chan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
333 Bush Street Suite 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 433-1940
Fax: (415) 399-8490
Email: gchan@littler.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Brooks Seeks to Delay Class Cert Discovery Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Norman Brooks,
III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
Bank of America, NA, Case No. 3:20-cv-01348-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order postponing the deadline
to complete class certification discovery until after it resolves
the parties' dispute regarding Defendant's discovery responses.
The Plaintiff proposed to extend the class certification discovery
deadline to allow the parties to resolve their disputes and to take
follow-up discovery as needed.
BANA refused, proposing that the parties take the depositions of
Plaintiff and its corporate representative, which are
unquestionably relevant to Rule 23 issues, after the November 19,
2021 deadline.
The Plaintiff disagrees that this is appropriate, particularly
because a deposition of BANA's witness is highly relevant to its
assertions regarding burden and numerosity and may lead to the need
for further discovery.
BANA operates as a bank.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DKgdRO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market St., Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Tammy Hussin, Esq.
HUSSIN LAW FIRM
1596 N. Coast Hwy 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone: (877) 677-5397
Facsimile: (877) 667-1547
E-mail: Tammy@HussinLaw.com
BAYER US LLC: Huertas Slams Carcinogen in Anti-fungal Meds
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Huertas and Eva Mistretta, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bayer US LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-20021, (D. N.J., November 16, 2021), seeks to
recover damages, damages and restitution for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment and
for violation of New York General Business Law.
Bayer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.
It sells Lotrimin and Tinactin products throughout the United
States and the State of New York. Lotrimin is the brand name for
Clotrimazole, which is an over-the-counter antifungal medication.
Tinactin is the brand name for Tolnaftate, another antifungal
medication.
Plaintiffs claim that both Lotrimin and Tinactin spray products
contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity
that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. As part of its
recall, Bayer announced it will provide consumers a refund for the
Products, provided the consumer submits proof of purchase.
Plaintiffs claim that the recall does not promise any changes to
Bayer's manufacturing and distribution process so as to prevent
future contamination. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
BEKAERT CORP: Court Enters Initial Case Management Plan in Walker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN WALKER, et al., v.
BEKAERT CORPORATION, Case No. 5:21-cv-01468-SL (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an order on initial case management
plan as follows:
-- Deadline to Add Parties or Amend Nov. 29 2021
Pleadings:
-- Deadline to Submit Proposed Dec. 3, 2021
Protocol for Discovery of
Electronically-Stored Information
(or to request Court Assistance):
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion Feb. 14, 2022
for Conditional Class
Certification, Expedited Opt-In
Discovery and Court-Supervised
Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs:
-- Deadline for Defendants' March 31, 2022
Opposition to Motion for
Conditional Class Certification
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply April 20, 2022
in Support of Conditional Class
Certification
Bekaert Corporation develops and manufactures fencing products for
the agricultural industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xlu9iq at no extra charge.[CC]
BERKELEY, CA: Dominguez Suit Not Allowed to Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MERCED DOMINGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
BERKELEY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08599-SI (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California advises the Plaintiffs that their case may
not proceed as a class action.
an order regarding service of the complaint and the Plaintiff's
request for temporary restraining order.
On Nov. 4, 2021, 10 pro se Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the
City of Berkeley and other Berkeley government departments. The
Plaintiffs also filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis, as
well as a motion for a temporary restraining order. The same day,
the Court granted the in forma pauperis applications, and on
November 8, it issued summons and prepared the service packet to
enable the U.S. Marshals to serve the complaint and other documents
on the Defendants.
Judge Illston recognizes the importance of the issues raised by the
Plaintiffs' filings, and she finds that it is appropriate for the
Defendants to be served and to have an opportunity to respond to
the motion for a temporary restraining order before the Court takes
any action on the Plaintiffs' motion.
Judge Illston advises the Plaintiffs that because they are
representing themselves, the case may not proceed as a class
action. She encourages them to contact the Homeless Action Center
at info@homelessactioncenter.org or (510) 540-0878, as well as the
Pro Se Help Desk at FedPro@sfbar.org or (415) 782-8982 to speak
with an attorney who will provide basic legal help, but not legal
representation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2xj5mb7m from Leagle.com.
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit Underway in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action
suit entitled, Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).
On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).
The Complaint alleged that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserted claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment.
The Complaint sought, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments
were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments,
including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected
at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms. The
Complaint also sought costs and disbursements, including attorneys'
fees.
On July 1, 2020, the Company filed their response to the Complaint
and denied the claims asserted therein.
On November 5, 2019, the Board determined that ratifying the
declassification of the Board and the change in the voting standard
as set forth in the Amendments, as well as ratifying the filing and
effectiveness of the Amendments, is in the best interests of the
Company and its stockholders. The Board thus approved resolutions
ratifying such acts and the filing and effectiveness of the
Amendments under Section 204 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law.
On July 23, 2020, the stockholders of the Company approved the
ratification of the declassification of the Board and the change in
the voting standard as set forth in the Amendments as well as the
filing and effectiveness of the Amendments. On July 23, 2020, the
Company filed a Certificate of Validation with the Delaware
Secretary of State.
On October 8, 2020, the Court entered an agreed-to order dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.
On October 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
asserting individual, class and derivative claims for breach of
fiduciary duties against the company's directors.
On October 26, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss.
On March 8, 2021, the defendants filed a reply in further support
of the motion to dismiss. The oral argument on defendants' motion
to dismiss took place on June 10, 2021 and, pursuant to a request
from the Court, the parties are in the process of filing
supplemental briefing.
The defendants intend to continue to defend against the litigation
vigorously.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Court Signs Final Judgment in Baird Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Charles Baird, et al., Plaintiffs v.
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01892-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, signed the
parties' Stipulated Final Judgment.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action,
brought pursuant to ERISA Sections 502(a)(2) & 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1132(a)(2) and 1132(a)(3), and over all Parties to the
Action, including all members of the BlackRock Plan Class.
The Court adopts and incorporates as if fully set forth in the
Order Granting Motion for Final Settlement Approval and Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards ("November 3 Order").
The Court approves the Settlement embodied in the Settlement
Agreement, which includes the payment of $9.65 million by the
Defendants, as constituting a fair, reasonable and adequate
settlement and compromise in this Action in accordance with all
applicable laws, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and
orders that the Settlement Agreement will be effective, binding,
and enforced according to its terms and conditions, upon the
following certified Class: All participants (and their
beneficiaries) in the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan during the
Class Period of April 5, 2011, through July 12, 2021.
The Court determines that the Defendants have fully complied with
all requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332, 1453, and 1711-1715.
The Court dismisses with prejudice the Action and all Released
Claims asserted therein whether asserted by Class Representatives
on their own behalf or on the behalf of the Class Members, or
derivatively to secure relief for the Plan, without costs to any
Party other than as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
The Plan and each Class Member (and their respective heirs,
beneficiaries, executors, administrators, estates, past and present
partners, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, predecessors,
successors, and assigns) shall be conclusively deemed to have, and
by operation of the Final Judgment will have, fully, finally, and
forever settled, released, relinquished, waived, and discharged the
Released Parties and the Plan from all Released Claims.
The Court expressly retains jurisdiction over all Parties, the
Action, and this Settlement Agreement to resolve any dispute that
may arise regarding this Settlement Agreement or the Orders
referenced herein, and no Party will oppose the reopening and
reinstatement of the Action on the Court's active docket for the
purposes of effecting this paragraph. Any motion to enforce this
Settlement Agreement may be filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California or asserted by way of an
affirmative defense or counterclaim in response to any action
asserting a violation of the Settlement Agreement.
The Class Counsel is awarded $2,798,500 in Attorneys' Fees, to be
paid in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and reimbursement
of $641,557.58 for expenses.
Each Class Representative is awarded a Service Award of $10,000. In
addition, each Class Representative is also eligible for a share of
the payment from the Settlement Fund as a member of the Class.
Upon entry of the Final Judgment, all Parties, including the
BlackRock Plan Class, will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and
by the November 3 Order and Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Final Judgment dated
Nov. 8, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/9m662mtc from
Leagle.com.
BLISTEX INC: Odor Eaters Sprays Contain Benzene, Solis Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERMAN SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLISTEX INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-24115-DLG (S.D. Fla., November 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
warranty, and breach of express warranty.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
and marketing of aerosol antiperspirant sprays under the brand name
Odor Eaters, which have been tested and shown to be adulterated
with benzene, a known human carcinogen. The presence of benzene in
the Defendant's Odor Eaters sprays was not disclosed in the
products' label. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentation,
the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed. They would not
have purchased and used the contaminated sprays had they know they
were unsafe and have, therefore, not received the benefit of their
bargain, the lawsuit says.
Blistex Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care products, with its
principal place of business at 1800 Swift Drive Oak Brook,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Citron, Esq.
MAC LEGAL, P.A.
4601 Sheridan Street, Ste. 205
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 395-2954
E-mail: Michael@maclegalpa.com
- and –
Igor Hernandez, Esq.
CORNISH HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, PLLC
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 780-6058
E-mail: ihernandez@chglawyers.com
- and –
Ely R. Levy, Esq.
LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 727-8570
E-mail: elevy@lawlp.com
BRANDREP LLC: Court Enters Pretrial Preparation Order in Schick
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA SCHICK, et al., v.
BRANDREP LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03013-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Illston entered a pretrial preparation order as follows:
-- Further case management: Feb. 1, 2022
at 3:00 pm.
-- Joint case management Feb. 4, 2022
statement:
-- Deadline for amendment of Feb. 11, 2022
the pleadings:
-- Non-expert discovery cutoff is: June 30, 2022
-- Plaintiff's designation of July 15, 2022
experts:
-- Defendant's expert Aug. 5, 2022
disclosures:
-- Rebuttal: Aug. 19, 2022
-- Expert discovery cutoff is: Aug. 31, 2022
-- Plaintiff to file motion Sept. 2, 2022
for class certification:
-- Opposition due: Sept. 16, 2022
-- Reply due: Sept. 23, 2022
-- Hearing on class Oct. 7, 2022
certification:
BrandRep is a digital marketing agency that offers local SEO, PPC,
social media, and web design.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FHcoNx at no extra charge.[CC]
BRIAN GUBERNICK: MacDonald May Amend Class Complaint, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Darren MacDonald, Plaintiff v. Brian
Gubernick PLLC, et al., Defendants, CV-20-00138-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz.),
District Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona
-- denies Defendants Brian Gubernick, PLLC and Brian
Gubernick's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint; and
-- grants the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend.
The Plaintiff filed this class action suit against the Defendants
alleging that they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers. The
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges that on Jan. 4,
2018, the Plaintiff received a call on his cell phone from
Christine Hotchkin, an agent of the Defendants' business. The
Plaintiff alleges that calls were made to him and other class
members using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator. The call was made using a Mojo Dialer based on a lead
the Defendants' business provided to Hotchkin.
On March 9, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' request to stay
proceedings in this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
ruling in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. The Supreme Court issued an
opinion in that case on April 1, 2021 (see Facebook, Inc. v.
Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021)). Shortly after the Supreme Court
issued its opinion, the Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss
contending that the Plaintiff's FAC must be dismissed because the
Plaintiff did not plead facts that the Mojo Dialer uses a random or
sequential number generator.
Analysis
The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss argues that the Plaintiff's FAC
must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the Supreme
Court's definition of an automatic telephone dialing system in
Duguid.
Plaintiff's TCPA Claim after Duguid
In the Duguid opinion, the Supreme Court held that under the TCPA,
a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number
using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a
telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.
However, the Supreme Court refused to go so far as to include any
equipment that merely stores and dials telephone numbers in its
definition of an autodialer. Yet, a footnote of the opinion
recognized that a device may still constitute an autodialer under
the TCPA if it randomly dials numbers from a preproduced list.
The Defendants argue that the Duguid opinion footnote is dicta and
that the Court should ignore it for the purposes of ruling on this
motion.
When taking the Duguid footnote into account, both the Plaintiff's
FAC and proposed SAC state a valid claim for relief under the TCPA.
The SAC alleges that the Mojo Dialer includes a "Power Dialer" that
can automatically call an entire list of leads. The SAC also
alleges that the Mojo Dialer can import lists of leads, with
associated phone numbers, and can then generate sequential numbers
and store these sequential numbers in a database, to indicate the
automatic dialing order for leads.
Additionally, the SAC alleges the system can automatically call
through a list of leads in sequential order. Bolstering these
allegations, the Plaintiff notes that when he answered the call, he
noticed that it began with a pause, which typically indicates the
use of an autodialer.
These allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action under
the TCPA, even after Duguid, Judge Brnovich holds.
Leave to Amend
Allowing the Plaintiff to amend his FAC will not prejudice the
Defendants at this early stage in litigation, and amendment would
not be futile because the Court has determined that the SAC will
plausibly state a claim for relief under the TCPA, Judge Brnovich
opines. Thus, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to
Amend.
Within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order, the
Plaintiff may submit his proposed SAC. The Plaintiff must clearly
designate on the face of his amended complaint that it is the
"Second Amended Complaint." He is reminded that it supersedes the
original complaint, see Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th
Cir. 2012), and it must be complete in itself and must not
incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading,
including exhibits.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend is granted. The
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. The Plaintiff will
file his proposed SAC within 14 days of the entry of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/jby9hkss from Leagle.com.
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Heights
Dental, P.C. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Brooklyn
Heights Dental, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-09539 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brooklyn Heights Dental, P.C. --
https://www.brooklynheightsdental.com/ -- aims to providing
comprehensive dental care to patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BROOKLYN OAK DENTAL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Oak Dental
Care, P.C. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Brooklyn Oak
Dental Care, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-09540 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brooklyn Oak Dental Care -- https://www.theparkslopedentist.com/ --
offers a wide range of dental services for teens and adults.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Depalo Seeks Proper Wages, Hits Tip Pool
------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Depalo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Buffalo Wild
Wings International, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04779, (N.D.
Ga., November 18, 2021), seeks minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York labor laws.
Defendant operates a nationwide chain of full-service restaurants
under the trade name "Buffalo Wild Wings" where Depalo worked as an
hourly-paid tipped waiter at the Buffalo Wild Wings in Centereach,
New York. She claims to be paid less than the minimum wage and
Defendants utilized the tip credit to meet its minimum wage
obligation to its tipped workers.
However, tipped employees were also required to perform non-tipped
work while being compensated at the tip credit rate, asserts the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
A. Lee Parks, Esq.
John L. Mays, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
Email: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
BURTON CLAIM: Class Cert Reply Deadline Extended to December 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferguson v. Burton Claim
Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00580 (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting consent motion for
extension of time to file Response/Reply as to response in
opposition to motion, motion to certify class conditionally and to
issue notice.
The reply deadline is extended to December 3, 2021, says Judge
Lydon.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Burton Claim Service is a provider of multi-line insurance
adjusting, appraisal, inspection & catastrophe services.[CC]
BURTON CLAIM: Ferguson Seeks Extension of FLSA Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATOYA FERGUSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BURTON CLAIM SERVICE, INC., and SEIBELS CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00580-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting a four-day extension to reply to the
Defendants' Response to her motion to conditionally certify Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and to issue notice.
The Plaintiffs' current deadline to reply is November 29, 2021. If
the Court grants the four-day extension, her deadline to reply will
be December 3, 2021. She requested extension will not affect other
deadlines. There have been no previous requests to extend this
deadline. Her Counsel has consulted with Counsel for Defendant
Burton Claim Service, Inc. and Counsel for Defendant Seibels Claims
Solutions, Inc., each of whom consent to this extension request,
the Plaintiff says.
Founded in 1988, Burton Claim Service is a provider of multi-line
insurance adjusting, appraisal, inspection and catastrophe
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30Z68SH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Local Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective,
are:
Blaney A. Coskrey, III, Esq.
COSKREY LAW OFFICE
1201 Main Street, Suite 1980
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 748-1202
Facsimile: (803) 748-1302
E-mail: coskrey@coskreylaw.com
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective, are:
Matt Dunn, Esq.
Rebecca King, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY& DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
CALIFORNIA UNITED: Alcazar Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ESTEBAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA UNITED MECHANICAL, INC. and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV388469, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on November 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09003 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wage, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair competition.
California United Mechanical, Inc. is a provider of miscellaneous
construction services located in San Jose, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mitchell F. Boomer, Esq.
Janelle J. Sahouria, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Mitchell.Boomer@jacksonlewis.com
Janelle.Sahouria@jacksonlewis.com
CALIFORNIA: Bid to File Amended Suit in Quair v. Robinson Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended
complaint in the lawsuit titled SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR., Plaintiff v.
DAVE ROBINSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01214-DAD-EPG
(PC) (E.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Sammy R. Quair, Sr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.
On Sept. 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate issued findings and
recommendations recommending that the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to file an amended complaint in order to include class action
allegations be denied because as a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff
is not entitled to file a class action lawsuit, or assert claims on
behalf of anyone except himself.
The pending findings and recommendations were served on the
Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to
be filed within 14 days after service. To date, no objections to
the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in
which to do so has now passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that
the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by
proper analysis.
Accordingly, the findings and recommendations issued on Sept. 16,
2021, are adopted. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an
amended complaint is denied. The action is referred back to the
assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ffpkfabw from Leagle.com.
CAREPARTNERS: To Settle Class Action Suit Regarding Cyber Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarePartners has agreed to pay up to $3,444,000 to settle a
proposed privacy breach class action. The settlement is pending
approval by the Ontario Superior Court in a virtual hearing which
will take place on February 9, 2022.
The class action relates to a cyber-attack that targeted
CarePartners' computer systems in or around June 11, 2018. The
class action alleges that the personal information of patients and
staff was inappropriately accessed as a result of the cyber-attack.
Some of the information was removed and ultimately produced to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the hackers in an attempt to
extort a ransom from CarePartners. The personal information that
was accessed by the hackers may include detailed medical records,
financial information, employment records, and personal contact
information, among other things.
At the time of the cyber-attack, CarePartners was the custodian of
records relating to approximately 237,000 patients and had over
4,500 employees and contractors.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, any patient or
non-unionized employee whose personal health information or
personal information was produced to the CBC may make a claim for
compensation. If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court,
the amount of compensation to which the class member will be
entitled will depend on the number of affected persons, and the
number of people who make claims to be included in the distribution
of the settlement.
More information about this class action, the terms of the proposed
settlement, and the settlement approval hearing, is available at
www.carepartnersclassaction.ca or
https://www.hshlawyers.com/expertise/mass-tort-class-action-litigation/carepartners-class-action-lawsuit/.
The plaintiffs, Arthur Redublo and Donna Moher, are represented by
the Toronto law firms of Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP, Waddell Phillips
PC, and Schneider Law Firm. [GN]
CARRABBA ITALIAN GRILL: Ford Hits Tip Pool, Seeks Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chauncey Ford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carrabba Italian Grill, LLC and OS
Restaurant Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02964, (D.
M.D., November 18, 2021), seeks minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Maryland labor laws.
Defendant operates a nationwide chain of full-service restaurants
under the trade name "Carrabba's Italian Grill" where Ford worked
as an hourly-paid tipped waiter at the Carrabba's Italian Grill
location in Bowie, Maryland. He claims to be paid less than the
minimum wage and Defendants utilized the tip credit to meet its
minimum wage obligation to its tipped workers.
However, tipped employees were also required to perform non-tipped
work while being compensated at the tip credit rate, asserts the
complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
WYLY & COOK, PLLC
1415 N. Loop W, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77008
Telephone: (713) 236-8330
Facsimile: (713) 863-8502
Email: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
CASEY'S MARKETING: Greever Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jolene Greever, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CASEY'S MARKETING COMPANY and CASEY'S GENERAL STORES,
INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00362-CRW-SHL (S.D. Iowa, Nov. 18, 2021), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as a result of the
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff
sufficient minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendant requires Delivery Drivers to incur and/or pay
job-related expenses, including but not limited to automobile costs
and depreciation, gasoline expenses, automobile maintenance and
parts, insurance, financing, cell phone costs, and other equipment
necessary for delivery drivers to complete their job duties. The
Defendant does not track the Plaintiff's or other Delivery Drivers'
actual expenses nor does the Defendant keep records of all of
those. The Defendant does not reimburse Plaintiff and other
Delivery Drivers for their actual expenses. The Defendant does not
reimburse Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at the IRS standard
business mileage rate. The Defendant does not reimburse the
Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at a reasonable approximation
of Delivery Drivers' expenses. As a result of the automobile and
other job-related expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Delivery Drivers, they were deprived of minimum
wages guaranteed to them by the FLSA. The Defendant knew or should
have known that it was not paying the Plaintiff and other Delivery
Drivers sufficient minimum wages. The Defendant has willfully
failed to pay minimum wage to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Delivery Drivers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid Delivery
Driver from January of 2019 until the present.
The Defendant owns and operates multiple restaurants in Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Thomas Newkirk, Esq.
NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, PLC
521 East Locust Street, Suite 300
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Phone: (515) 883-2000
Email: tnewkirka@newkirklaw.com
CHEF MERITO: Denied Sales Drivers Breaks, Proper Wages, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Estrada, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chef Merito, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21VECV01589 (Cal. Super., November 17, 2021),
seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all
hours worked and minimum wage rate, reimbursement of
business-related expenses, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professional Code.
Chef Merito operates as a manufacturer and distributor of
seasonings, spices, and blends where Estrada worked as a route
sales driver. Plaintiff alleges that Chef Merito failed to provide
him with meal and rest periods and/or premium wages for such,
minimum pay and overtime wages, failed to provide accurate written
wage statements, failed to reimburse necessary business-related
expenses and failed to timely pay final wages following separation
of employment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
CHEIM & READ: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheim & Read Gallery
Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Cheim & Read Gallery
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09584 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cheim & Read -- https://www.cheimread.com/ -- is a contemporary art
gallery in New York, founded in 1997 by John Cheim and Howard
Read.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
CIRCLE MEDICAL: Wong Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle Medical
Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Wong, an
individual, on behalf of himself, similarly situated employees, and
the State of California v. Circle Medical Technologies, Inc., a
California Corporation; Does 1-10, Inclusive; Case No. CGC21596179
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 8, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Wrongful Discharge."
Circle Medical Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.circlemedical.com/
-- provides software solutions. The Company designs and develops
healthcare application for users to scan health insurance card and
book an appointment with an affiliated primary care physician.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Jaffee, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CODY JAFFE
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 524-3268
Fax: (415) 941-5780
Email: cody@codyjaffelaw.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Court Awards Rhee Attorneys $71K in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HIESEOK RHEE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLIENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-12253-JMV-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John
Michael Vazquez entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and
costs;
2. awarding the Plaintiff $71,267.50 in attorneys' fees and
$500 in costs; and
3. awarding a total judgment, along with the offered judgment
amount, in the amount of $72,768.50.
After receiving a debt collection letter from Defendant for a debt
that Plaintiff allegedly owed, Plaintiff filed this putative class
action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (the "FDCPA"). The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.
On July 21, 2020, this Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that Plaintiff
had standing to assert his claims and that he stated a single FDCPA
violation claim. D.E. 28, 29. The Court, however, dismissed two
other FDCPA claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
On October 16, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with an offer of
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The
Plaintiff purportedly did not respond to the offer of judgment,
thus the offer "is considered withdrawn."
The Plaintiff then filed a motion to certify a class on April 14,
2021. On May 4, 2021, the Court administratively terminated the
motion because of ongoing discovery disputes that could potentially
impact class certification. The Plaintiff, however, did not re-file
his motion to certify a class. Instead, on July 23, 2021, Defendant
served Plaintiff with a second offer of judgment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FDYbRt at no extra charge.[CC]
CMG CIT: Erguera Seeks to Certify Health Care Professional Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITA ERGUERA, an
individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
CMG CIT ACQUISITION, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-01744-NONE-JLT
(E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class with respect to the state
claims for unpaid overtime, unlawful business practices,
and waiting time penalties (Cal. Labor Code):
"All non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed
by CMG CIT Acquisition, LLC in California who, at any time
since December 8, 2016, worked overtime and received a per
diem allowance;"
2. appointing her as representative of the class;
3. appointing Hayes Pawlenko LLP, Matthew B. Hayes, and Kye
D. Pawlenko as class counsel for the class; and
4. directing the parties to meet and confer on a proposed
notice of certification and submit the proposed notice
and/or any disputes thereon to the Court within two weeks
of the order granting class certification.
CMG CIT operates as a health care staffing and recruiting agency.
The Company specializes in travel and permanent placement of
nurses.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xivA19
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kkye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
COCA-COLA: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Jones Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE JONES, et al., v.
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC. et al., Case No. 3:20-CV-00654-FDW-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order
denying the parties' motion to stay.
The parties shall take notice that the hearing on the Plaintiffs'
pending Motion to Certify Class is rescheduled to Tuesday, December
14, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5B of the Charles R. Jonas
Federal Building, 401 W. Trade Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation filed on November 23, 2021,
wherein the parties move to stay this action along with all pending
deadlines -- including the class certification hearing currently
set for December 7, 2021 -- for 45 days to allow for mediation on
December 29, 2021.
After a careful review of the pleadings, the Court declines to
delay this case and the parties' Motion is denied.
The Court encourages the parties to continue their settlement
efforts, whether through mediation with Mr. Robert A. Meyer or
otherwise. However, the Court finds a stay of all pending deadlines
unwarranted at this time and exercises its discretion "to control
the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time
and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."
Coca-Cola, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, is an
independent Coca-Cola bottler in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rfInkd at no extra charge.[CC]
CONAGRA BRANDS: Files Notice of Removal in Wage Lawsuit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra filed a notice of removal for a class action lawsuit that
alleges the packaged foods company violated California labor and
wage laws.
Under the Class Action Fairness Act, a defendant has the right to
remove a state court action to a federal district court if any
member of the proposed class is a citizen of a state other than
that of the defendant, the proposed class includes more than 100
individuals, the defendant is not a governmental entity and the
claims exceed $5 million. Conagra claims the lawsuit meets all
required criteria.
California resident Hilda Alvarez, who worked for defendants
Conagra Brands Inc., a Delaware based corporation, and its
subsidiary Conagra Foods Packaged Foods LLC from July to August
2021, filed the complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court in
October. The lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to compensate
her for minimum and overtime wages and business expenses, as well
as to pay her owed wages in a timely manner after her employment
was terminated. In addition, Alvarez alleges the company did not
provide accurate wage statements or uninterrupted rest and meal
periods.
"Throughout the statutory period, Defendants failed to furnish
Plaintiff and the Class with accurate, itemized wage statements
showing all applicable hourly rates, and all gross and net wages
earned (including correct hours worked, correct wages earned for
hours worked, correct overtime hours worked, correct wages for meal
periods that were not provided in accordance with California law,
correct wages for rest periods that were not authorized and
permitted to take in accordance with California law," the lawsuit
states.
The plaintiffs are seeking restitution of unpaid wages with
prejudgment interest, reimbursement of business expenses, statutory
wage penalties pursuant to Sections 203 and 226 of the California
Labor Code, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs are represented by Moon & Yang APC. [GN]
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Ct. Enters Briefing Sched for Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVEN MOSES, STARAISHA
MORRIS, DWAYNE DALE, ISMAIYL JONES, AYANNA BEACHAM, ANDRE MURRAY,
VICTOR BALLAST, and LUIS SIMONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW
YORK, INC., GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, LLC, GRIFFIN SECURITY SERVICES,
MICHAEL SMITH, WINSTON SMITH, ANDREW MUNIZ, and AARON MUNIZ, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01200-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr. entered a revised stipulation and revised order re
briefing schedule for class certification that:
1. The Defendants' opposition(s) to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall be filed on or before December
13, 2021.
2. The Plaintiffs' repl(ies) in further support of their
motion for class certification shall befiled on or before
January 17, 2021.
3. This matter shall be heard at oral argument before the
Court on February 4, 2022or as soon thereafter is
convenient for the Court's schedule.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lnxLMr at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTACTUS LLC: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHADEZA PYFROM, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. CONTACTUS, LLC ET AL.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04293-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order granting extension of time of 14 days
through and including December 14, 2021, within which to respond to
Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b)
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qX3zLA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Patter, Esq.
Sarah M. Benoit, Esq.
ULMER & BERNE LLP
65 E. State Street, Suite 1100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 229-0000
Facsimile: (614) 229-0001
E-mail: jpatter@ulmer.com
sbenoit@ulmer.com
CONTACTUS LLC: Time to File Class Cert Response/Reply Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pyfrom v. ContactUS, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04293 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey
M. Vascura entered an order granting motion for extension of time
to file response/reply, and motion to certify class conditional
class Certification and court-supervised notice to potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs.
-- Responses due by Dec. 14, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
ContactUS Communications is a U.S. based contact center services
organization supporting global brands across a variety of
industries.[CC]
CONTINUITY GLOBAL: Perez Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensable Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CONTINUITY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01274 (E.D. Va.m Nov. 17, 2021), is brought for violations
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as a direct result of
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff wages for compensable
pre-shift work duties, failure to pay all non-overtime wages for
due and owing for compensable work duties performed each week up to
but not exceeding 40 hours.
The Plaintiff has been a full-time employee, working at or about 45
to 48 hours per week for the Defendant's benefit. The Defendant and
the Plaintiff and each of the Class Members entered into a verbal
and/or written contract with Defendant wherein Defendant agreed to
pay the Plaintiff and each of the Class Members at their
individually set regular hourly pay rates for all compensable hours
worked for the Defendant's benefit. The Defendant materially
breached its contractual duties and obligations to Named Plaintiff
and the Class Members by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Class
Members all wages earned and due and owing at their contractually
guaranteed regular hourly rates for all compensable hours worked
for Defendant's benefit, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendant as a case aid
and/or performing related employment duties for the benefit of
Defendant at United States Army Base Fort Bill, in or near El Paso,
Texas, and has been employed in this or a substantially similar
capacity since about August 14, 2021.
The Defendant is a limited liability company, formed under the laws
of the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
CONTROL GROUP: Camacho Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Control Group
Media Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jose Medina
Camacho, Rhonda Cotta, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The Control Group Media Company, LLC,
Truthfinder, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, Case No.
3:21-cv-01957-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
The Control Group (Now PeopleConnect) -- https://peopleconnect.us/
-- provides online social network services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lily E. Hough, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 212-9300
Email: lhough@edelson.com
CORREVIO PHARMA: Feierstein May Distribute Class Settlement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSH FEIERSTEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CORREVIO PHARMA CORP.,
MARK H.N. CORRIGAN, WILLIAM HUNTER, JUSTIN A. RENZ, and SHEILA M.
GRANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-11361-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Valerie E. Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds.
The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants identified in Exhibits
B-1 and B-2 to the Declaration of Josephine Bravata Concerning the
Results of the Claims Administration Process, at the direction of
Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. pursuant to the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement filed with the Court on Sept. 3, 2020
and the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in
the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action that
was distributed pursuant to the Court's prior Order.
Any person asserting any rejected or subsequently filed claims are
finally and forever barred as of June 30, 2021, the date used to
finalize the administration based on the Bravata Declaration.
Judge Caproni finds that the administration of the Settlement and
proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Fund comply with the
terms of the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation and that all
persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the claims
submitted therein, or otherwise involved in the administration or
taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund,
including, but not limited to the Class Counsel and the
Court-appointed Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services
("SCS"), are released and discharged from any and all claims
arising out of such involvement, and all the Class Members are
barred from making any further claims against the Net Settlement
Fund or the Released Parties beyond the amount allocated to them
pursuant to the Order.
The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants will bear the
notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180
DAYS AFTER DISTRIBUTION DATE." The Class Counsel and SCS are
authorized to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has
not cashed his, her, or its check within said time.
Pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, if any funds remain in the Net
Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, then,
after SCS has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have
Settlement Class Members who are entitled to participate in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund cash their distribution
checks, any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after nine
months from the initial distribution the Claims Administrator,
under the supervision of Lead Counsel shall, if feasible,
reallocate such balance among Authorized Claimants in an equitable
and economic fashion. Thereafter, any balance that still remains in
the Net Settlement Fund will be donated to such non-sectarian,
not-for-profit organization(s) to be recommended by Lead Counsel
and approved by the Court.
SCS is ordered to discard paper or hard copies of Proofs of Claims
and supporting documents not less than one year after all
distributions of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible claimants,
and electronic copies of the same not less than three years after
all distributions of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible
claimants.
The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tumuk38c from Leagle.com.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Seeks to Certify Gas Station Owner Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIT ROW, INC., et. al., v.
COSTOCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00738-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying a
class in this action on behalf of:
"all gas station owners who are deemed competitors of
Costco's Bellevue gas station on those days where Costco is
shown to have violated the Unfair Sales Act, and whose
respective unleaded fuel prices were higher than Costco's."
Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r0fV5I
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William P. McKinley, Esq.
Patrick J. Coffey, Esq.
MENN LAW FIRM, LTD.
2501 E. Enterprise Avenue
P.O. Box 785
Appleton, WI 54912-0785
Telephone: (920) 731-6631
E-mail: William-mckinley@mennlaw.com
COSY HOUSE: Green Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cosy House, LLC. The
case is styled as Dassy Green, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Cosy House, LLC doing business as Cosy
House Collection, Case No. 1:21-cv-06385 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Cosy House Collection -- https://www.cosyhousecollection.com/ --
offers a wide variety of high quality and affordable home
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Schlachet, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
3515 Severn Road
Cleveland, OH 44118
Phone: (216) 225-7559
Fax: (216) 932-8138
Email: markschlachet@me.com
CR INTRINSIC: SEC's Bid for Transfer of $502K to Pay Epiq Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. CR
INTRINSIC INVESTORS, LLC, MATTHEW MARTOMA, and DR. SIDNEY GILMAN,
Defendants, and CR INTRINSIC INVESTMENTS, LLC, S.A.C. CAPITAL
ADVISORS, LLC, S.A.C. CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, S.A.C. INTERNATIONAL
EQUITIES, LLC, and S.AC. SELECT FUND, LLC, Relief Defendants, Case
No. 1:12-cv-8466 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Disburse Funds to Pay Fees and Expenses of
Distribution Agent.
The Clerk of the Court will issue a check on the Court Registry
Investment System ("CRIS") account under the case name designation
"SEC v. CR Intrinsic, et al." for the amount of $501,646.94 payable
to "Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions" for the payment of fees
and expenses of the Distribution Agent. The check will contain the
notation "SEC v. CR Intrinsic Investments, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-8466-VM, Invoices #21786A, #22062A, #22152A, #22342A,
#28972, #29039, and #29132.
The Clerk will send the check by overnight mail to: Epiq Class
Action & Claims Solutions Dept 0286 PO Box 120286 Dallas, TX
75312-0286.
The Commission's counsel will provide the Clerk of the Court with
the necessary overnight shipping information and the SEC's billing
number.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/38nw93pj from Leagle.com.
CREDIT LAW: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Bid Briefing Schedule Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC
A/K/A THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN LLC, D/B/A CREDIT LAW CENTER, AND
THOMAS ADDLEMAN A/K/A TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order that:
1. CLC shall file its response in opposition to the motion
for class certification on or before January 13, 2022.
2. The Plaintiff shall file his reply in support of his
motion for class certification on or before February 17,
2022.
3. The Plaintiff shall provide a complete set of the briefs
and exhibits for his motion for class certification to the
Court on February 24, 2022.
4. Pursuant to the Court's Order on October 8, 2021, the
Court shall conduct a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
class certification on April 21, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in
Kansas City, Kansas, in a courtroom to be determined at a
later date.
National Credit is a consumer advocate credit firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cMQf48 at no extra charge.[CC]
CRST INT'L: 2-Week Extension for Class Cert. Bid Deadlines Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE
CROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., and CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00075-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting a two-week extension to the deadlines for
their motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P.
23.
Currently, the Plaintiffs' motion and brief are due on December 1,
2021, the Defendants' response is due on January 7, 2022, and
Plaintiffs' reply is due on January 21, 2022.
The Plaintiffs request a two-week extension of the deadlines so
that Plaintiffs' motion would be due on December 15, 2021,
Defendants' response(s) on January 21, 2022, and Plaintiffs' reply
on February 4, 2022.
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r2H7R2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone (845) 255-9370
E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
CRST INT'L: Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Extended in Cervantes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES, and
MIKE CROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., and CRST EXPEDITED, INC.,
Case No. 20-CV-75 CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams
entered an order extending briefing deadlines for Motion for Rule
23 Class Certification as follows.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to December 15, 2021
file a motion for class
certification is extended to:
-- The Defendants' response deadline January 21, 2022
is extended to:
-- The plaintiffs' reply deadline February 4, 2022
is extended to:
-- All other deadlines listed in
the supplemental scheduling order
and discovery plan remain firm.
CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZrHfym at no extra charge.[CC]
DAKOTA 2000 INC: Knight Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Auston Knight, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dakota 2000 Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-03025 (D. S.D., November 17, 2021), seeks all available
relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Knight worked as a production flow back supervisor on Defendant's
work sites, performing manual labor necessary for the oil and gas
operations. He claims to regularly work in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek without any overtime wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
DHL EXPRESS: Taylor TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Case No.
CACE-21-019444, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
November 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-62376-RAR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number without prior
express consent.
DHL Express (USA), Inc. is a logistics company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Pertnoy, Esq.
Alejandro J. Paz, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
Telephone: (305) 374-5600
Facsimile: (305) 659-6313
E-mail: jeffrey.pertnoy@akerman.com
alejandro.paz@akerman.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks Time Extension to Respond to Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER CAMERON, et al.,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02908-APM (D.D.C.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its time to
respond to the Complaint and for a stay of its deadline to oppose
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Defendant's response to the Complaint is currently due on
November 26, 2021, and its opposition to the motion for class
certification is currently due on November 19, 2021. To allow
counsel for the defendant sufficient time to investigate
plaintiffs' allegations, the defendant seeks an extension of time
to December 17, 2021, to respond to the Complaint.
The Defendant also requests that plaintiffs' opposition to
defendant's motion to dismiss be due on January 28, 2022, and
defendant's reply in support of its motion to dismiss be due on
February 11, 2022. Further, to avoid unnecessary motions practice,
defendant seeks a stay of its time to oppose plaintiffs' motion for
class certification pending resolution of defendant's motion to
dismiss.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl A. Racine, Esq.
Chad Copeland, Esq.
Fernando Amarillas, Esq.
Richard P. Sobiecki, Esq.
Helen M. Rave, Esq.
CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION
400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 805-7512
E-mail: richard.sobiecki@dc.gov
helen.rave@dc.gov
DMD MANAGEMENT: Spencer Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISA SPENCER, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. DMD MANAGEMENT, INC.
D/B/A LEGAGY HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01698-CAB
(N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of
Representative Plaintiff and others similarly situated;
2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail, email
and text message to the following:
"All present and former State Tested Nursing Aides
("STNAs") who were employed by Defendants and who worked
40 or more hours in any workweek at any time from August
31, 2018 to the present."
3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form;
4. directing the Defendants to provide within 14 days an
electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
delimited format a Roster of all individuals that fit the
definition above that includes their full names, dates of
employment, last known home addresses, personal email
addresses, and phone numbers;
5. directing Defendants to provide a Declaration that the
produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and
6. directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses,
email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any
potential opt-in plaintiff.
DMD Management provides healthcare services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ra4MiB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
EASYSAVER REWARDS: Add'l $215K in Fees Awarded in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
supplemental attorney's fees in the lawsuit styled IN RE EASYSAVER
REWARDS LITIGATION, Case No. 09-cv-02094-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs seek an additional award of $215,370.75 in fees in
this consumer class action that reached a settlement. The Motion is
unopposed. The Court finds the request suitable for determination
on the papers submitted and without oral argument.
Background
The Court chronicled the action's lengthy history in its previous
fee orders. Relevant here, this case is a consumer class action
where the Court approved a settlement with two components. First,
the settlement provided for class members to receive credits with a
total face value of $25.5 million. Second, the settlement
established a $12.5 million common fund for paying refunds to class
members, attorney's fees, litigation costs, incentive awards, and
settlement administration expenses. Any funds left over will be
distributed to several cy pres beneficiaries.
In 2013, the Court approved the Plaintiffs' counsel's request for
$8.7 million in attorney's fees. After subtracting this award and
the other items from the common fund, about $3 million remained for
distribution to the cy pres beneficiaries. Brian Perryman objected.
He argued the cy pres award was improper and the attorney's fee
award did not comply with the Class Action Fairness Act's
requirements for coupon settlements.
The Court rejected Objector's challenges, and he appealed. The
Ninth Circuit vacated the settlement approval and remanded for
further proceedings in light of its then-recent decision in In re
Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litigation, 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.
2015), which addresses what qualifies as a "coupon" under CAFA.
After another final approval determination, as well as a second
trip to the Ninth Circuit and back, the Plaintiffs filed a new
motion for attorney's fees. They asked for the same amount of
attorney's fees as before--$8.7 million. The Court ultimately
bifurcated the fee award. Specifically, the Court permitted the
Plaintiffs to resubmit a request for attorney's fees that was based
on only the non-coupon portion of the settlement--i.e., the $12.5
million cash fund--and then later seek an additional fee award
based on the value of the coupons redeemed by the class members--if
any.
Around this time, bankruptcy-related events unfolded that further
muddled this case. Eventually, the Court addressed a renewed fee
motion from the Plaintiffs based "solely on the cash fund"
component of the settlement. The Plaintiffs sought a reduced fee
award of $5.7 million based on the lodestar method.
By this time, in light of the bankruptcy developments, the Court
valued the cash fund at $10.5 million--instead of $12.5 million.
The Court determined that awarding the Plaintiffs' counsel $5.7
million for recovering $10.5 million would be unreasonable. After
applying the lodestar method, the Court found it appropriate to
adjust the $5.7 million lodestar with a 0.6 multiplier. That
adjustment reduced the $5.7 million lodestar to $3.42 million,
which is approximately 32.5% of the then-estimated $10.5 million
recovery for the class. However, the Court further noted that if
the "Plaintiffs are ultimately successful in obtaining more
benefits for the class than the anticipated $10.5 million cash
fund, they may return to the Court to file a request for a
supplemental award of fees."
The Plaintiffs now do so, reporting that their counsel ultimately
secured an additional monetary benefit for the Class through the
bankruptcy proceeding. Having reviewed the accompanying
declarations, the Court adopts the Plaintiffs' summary of the more
recent events.
In short, because the Plaintiffs' counsel achieved greater success
in the bankruptcy matter than anticipated in the Court's prior fee
order, they now seek to recoup additional attorney's fees.
Analysis
The Court already determined that the lodestar method is the
correct approach for fee requests based on the settlement's common
fund.
For their supplemental fee request, the Plaintiffs submit a
proposed lodestar that includes 184.12 hours of time. This time was
spent ascertaining, researching, pursuing, and securing the
insurance policies and carrier contributions for the cash funding
of the settlement through the bankruptcy proceeding, written
demands, mediation, and settlement, which resulted in a payment to
the class that is $661,811 larger than expected.
The Court finds these hours are the amount "reasonably expended on
the litigation" in addition to those hours addressed in the Court's
prior fee order. The Court also finds the Plaintiffs' counsel's
proposed rates are appropriate. They are materially the same as the
rates the Court approved in the prior order from 2020. The Court,
thus, adopts the Plaintiffs' proposed lodestar of $143,580.
The Court turns to considering whether this figure should be
enhanced with a risk multiplier or otherwise adjusted under the
factors under Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70
(9th Cir. 1975).
The Plaintiffs' counsel requests a modest 1.5 multiplier of their
lodestar for the additional money received to the cash fund. They
argue the bankruptcy developments threw a wrench into an already
complicated case. It was not clear whether the bankrupt Defendant's
insurance policies would cover the settlement or be available in
light of the bankruptcy. Nor was it clear whether the insurers
would agree to fund the settlement considering the appellate and
bankruptcy developments. Hence, the Plaintiffs' counsel accepted
this legal Rubik's cube with an expectation that they would receive
a risk enhancement if they obtained a favorable result for the
class as indicated by the Court's Order.
The Court finds a multiplier is appropriate. The Plaintiffs'
counsel exceeded the Court's expectations and recovered $661,811
more than expected from the bankrupt Defendant's insurers. This
additional benefit to the Class is the foremost consideration.
Further, the Plaintiffs' counsel's additional work involved
enforcing an almost decade-old settlement agreement against a
bankrupt Defendant that was purchased by a third party. This work
required more skill and involved more difficult issues than typical
class action settlement proceedings. Hence, having considered the
Kerr factors and the risk involved, the Court finds it appropriate
to apply the requested multiplier to the Plaintiffs' counsel's
lodestar.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Supplemental Attorney's Fees. The Court awards the Plaintiffs'
counsel an additional $215,370.75 in attorney's fees from the
settlement's common fund in light of their successful efforts to
secure $661,811 more for the Class than the Court's prior order
anticipated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5jk9mwkx from Leagle.com.
EBAY INC: Dismissal of George and Pitteloud's Complaint Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY GEORGE, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
eBAY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A162129 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two,
affirms the judgment of dismissal against Appellants Gary George
and Nicole Pitteloud.
Background
The Appellants were two of a group of plaintiffs who sued eBay,
Inc. and PayPal, Inc., challenging various provisions in their
respective user agreements. The Plaintiffs' operative second
amended complaint alleged 23 causes of action, 13 against eBay
alone, seven against PayPal alone, and three against both
Defendants.
Both Defendants demurred to the second amended complaint (SAC), and
the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend as
to 20 of the causes of action, including to 14 of the 16 causes of
action alleged against eBay. The court thus allowed three causes of
action to proceed, two of which were against eBay -- the first, for
breach of contract (against both defendants), and the 17th for
violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Some three and one-half years later, the Appellants opted out of
the case that was proceeding against eBay, and voluntarily
dismissed the two causes of action against it. Judgment of
dismissal was entered against them, from which the Appellants
appeal, contending the trial court got it wrong as to 11 of the
causes of action as to which the trial court sustained the demurrer
without leave to amend.
Analysis
As indicated, the Appellants appeal the ruling on 11 causes of
action, the second, seventh, eighth, ninth, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th,
16th, 19th, and 20th. Fundamental to their argument on four of the
causes of action -- the second, ninth, 15th, and 20th -- is the
contention that the provisions attacked in these causes of action
are unconscionable. The Appellants' brief lumps these four causes
of action together in its discussion.
In addition, the 12th, 13th, and 14th causes of action are all
based on the fundamental premise that eBay hides listings,
"secretly," "completely," and on a "regularly recurring basis." And
as the Appellants' brief acknowledges, these three causes of action
are related, their brief describing the 13th cause of action as
"similar" to the 12th, and the 12th and 13th as "highly relevant"
to the 14th.
Against that background, the Court of Appeals analyzes the SAC, and
concludes that the demurrer was properly sustained as to all of the
challenged causes of action, as they all fail to state a claim.
a. The Second, Ninth, 15th, and 20th Causes of Action
The second, ninth, 15th, and 20th causes of action are all premised
on the contention that the eBay user agreement was unconscionable,
a principle to which the Appellants devote over 13 pages of their
brief.
The Court of Appeals holds that the SAC has not alleged
unconscionability -- neither procedural nor substantive. While the
complaint conclusorily asserts that the user agreement is a
contract of adhesion, it has not alleged facts demonstrating that
it is unconscionable, as it does not allege that sellers on eBay
had no alternatives. The Appellants' unconscionability claim fails
because they do not allege they were unable to avoid eBay's
allegedly unconscionable policies by, for example, selling on other
online marketplaces. In sum, the circumstances alleged hdo not
support oppression -- and certainly not surprise.
But even if the Appellants could be said to have alleged procedural
unconscionability, the Court of Appeals holds that it is minimal at
best. They would thus have to allege a high degree of substantive
unconscionability under the sliding scale described in the cases.
This, they have not done.
b. The Seventh Cause of Action
The seventh cause of action is styled "Interference with
Contractual Relations." The Appellants describe for over two pages
what they claim to have alleged in the SAC as to this cause of
action.
The Court of Appeals finds that the Appellants make no effort to
explain why the bare assertions of intent at paragraph 133 meet the
requirements of the tort. Nor do they claim that some other
allegations in the SAC beyond paragraph 133 provide the factual
support needed to state a claim. Indeed, the facts alleged
elsewhere in the SAC actually undermine any conclusion that eBay
acted with wrongful intent in implementing its dispute resolution
process. As alleged in paragraph 75, eBay's dispute resolution
process is designed to "provide protection for both buyers and
sellers" and ensure that users have a positive experience in a
"safe, fair, and enjoyable marketplace."
c. The Eighth Cause of Action
The eighth cause of action is styled "Breach of Implied Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing." It is based on the claim that eBay
amended the user agreement to include shipping charges in the
calculation of final value fees charged to sellers -- a policy, not
incidentally, expressly set forth in the eBay fees schedule. Thus,
because the Appellants expressly agreed to the challenged fees,
they resort in the eighth cause of action to the theory that eBay
breached an implied duty in implementing the policy.
To no avail, the Court of Appeals states. It finds that eBay's user
agreement expressly provides that its "fees schedule" can be
modified "from time to time" "with at least 14 days' notice by
posting the changes on the eBay site." As other courts have found,
this provision bars any claim that eBay owes an implied duty not to
modify its fees. The Court of Appeals also notes that where there
is independent consideration the implied covenant cannot be used to
vary the express terms of the contract.
d. The 12th, 13th, and 14th Causes of Action
The 12th, 13th, and 14th causes of action are styled respectively
"Breach of Contract for Hiding Plaintiffs' Listings," "Intentional
Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage re Hiding of
Listings," and "Deceptive Business Practices in Violation of
Business and Professions Code section 17200." As indicated, all are
based on the fundamental premise that eBay hides listings,
"secretly," "completely," and on a "regularly recurring basis." As
the Appellants' brief puts it at one point, eBay allegedly makes
certain "listings completely invisible and not capable of being
seen by prospective buyers."
Appellants' brief acknowledges that the three causes of action are
related, their brief describing the 13th cause of action as
"similar" to the 12th, and the 12th and 13th as "highly relevant"
to the 14th. Appellants also acknowledge that eBay has the
"contractual right to downgrade visibility." Against that
background, we address all three causes of action together.
The Court of Appeals holds that at no place do the Appellants
identify any listing on eBay that was made "completely invisible"
or "completely hidden." Their brief does make the conclusory
assertions that "all" of their listings were hidden "for a
substantial period of time," and that they "had no chance of
selling their items" through the eBay website. Not only that, facts
alleged elsewhere in the SAC undermine the existence of any such
practice. The 13th cause of action -- for intentional interference
with prospective economic advantage -- fails for the additional
reason that it lacks the necessary factual allegations of the
requisite economic relationship that was disrupted. Last, merely
referring to unidentified "repeat buyers" is insufficient, when
there are no facts to show that the unidentified buyers were likely
to purchase the unidentified listings that were supposedly "hidden"
by eBay.
e. The 16th Cause of Action
The 16th cause of action is styled "for Declaratory Relief,
Injunctive Relief, and Damages for Enforcing Contract Provisions
Which Constitute Illegal Penalties and Forfeitures." It alleges
that by applying restrictions on sellers who violate eBay's seller
performance standards, eBay imposes "illegal penalties and
forfeitures" and restrains appellants from practicing a profession
under Business and Professions Code section 16600.
Hardly, says the Court of Appeals. It finds that the challenged
provisions do not impose a "forfeiture" or "penalty" because they
do not require sellers to pay any money to eBay or to forfeit any
property or independent rights. Nor do eBay's seller requirements
restrain appellants from practicing a profession under Business and
Professions Code section 16600. The Appellants have not alleged
facts "showing that the restrictions on seller activity on eBay
create a covenant not to compete or otherwise restrict their
ability to engage in a profession" or that appellants were "unable
to sell their wares anywhere else." Not only do Appellants not
allege anything remotely analogous, they could not, as the selling
restrictions apply only to the eBay marketplace, and in no way
prevent appellants from selling their goods elsewhere.
f. The 19th Cause of Action
The 19th Cause of Action is styled "Aiding and Abetting Buyers in
Defrauding Sellers." The essence of the claim is that eBay
supposedly allows "a substantial number of unscrupulous buyers" to
take advantage of the Appellants by eBay allegedly resolving
disputes in favor of buyers.
The Court of Appeals holds that the Appellants' conclusory
allegation that eBay was "aware" of "unscrupulous buyers who take
unfair advantage of sellers" is manifestly insufficient. Moreover,
knowledge alone, even specific knowledge, is not enough to state a
claim for aiding and abetting. Nowhere do the Appellants allege
with the requisite specificity that what the "unscrupulous buyers"
allegedly did -- i.e., the activity eBay allegedly "aided and
abetted" -- was tortious, let alone fraudulent.
g. Closing Observation
Neither in the trial court nor do the Appellants argue that in the
event the demurrer were to be sustained, it be with leave to amend.
Despite that, eBay has an argument addressing the issue, contending
that leave to amend was properly denied. The Court of Appeals
agrees with eBay, especially as the Appellants do not even argue
the point.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals rejects the Appellants' contention, concluding
the trial court properly sustained the demurrer and did not abuse
its discretion in doing so without leave to amend. It thus affirms
the judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/etyxemds from Leagle.com.
Franklin & Franklin APC, J. David Franklin --
j.franklin@franklinlegal.com; Law Offices of Anthony A. Ferrigno,
Anthony A. Ferrigno, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants Gary
George, et al.
McDermott Will & Emery LLP, William P. Donovan, Jr. --
wdonovan@mwe.com; Irene Y. Le -- ile@mwe.com; Cooley LLP, Matthew
D. Brown, Kristine Forderer -- kforderer@cooley.com -- Attorneys
for Defendant and Respondent eBay, Inc.
ERIC GARCETTI: Ct. Sets Scheduling Conference for Jan. 24, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES WHO ARE UNHOUSED, ET AL., v. ERIC GARCETTI ET AL., Case No.
2:21-cv-06003-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter
entered an order setting a scheduling conference for January 24,
2022, at 10:30 am.
The Court will set a date for the hearing on the motion to certify
class at the Scheduling Confernce, so the hearing currently
scheduled for November 29, 2021 is vacated.
In addition, discovery shall be paused until the parties set dates
with the Court at the Scheduling Conference.
The Court previously vacated the Scheduling Conference in this
matter based on Plaintiffs' filing of a second amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's Civil Minutes – General dated Nov. 22, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30ZouT5 at no
extra charge.[CC]
EVERI HOLDINGS: Donahue Unclaimed Funds to be Distributed to Orgs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the remaining
unclaimed funds in the settlement amount in Geraldine Donahue, et
al. v. Everi Payments Inc., et al., will be distributed to
nonprofit charitable organizations in compliance with the Court's
October 4, 2021 approval.
Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi Payments Inc., et al. is a
putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Division, Chancery
Division.
The original defendant was dismissed and Everi Holdings and FinTech
were substituted as the defendants on April 22, 2019.
The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi Holdings and Everi FinTech (i) have violated
certain provisions of Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) by their failure, as agent to the original defendant, to
properly truncate patron credit card numbers when printing
financial access receipts as required under FACTA, and (ii) have
been unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for
transactions conducted at the original defendant's facilities.
The plaintiff sought an award of statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs. The parties settled this matter on a nationwide
class basis.
On December 3, 2020, the Court entered the Final Order and Judgment
approving the settlement and dismissing all claims asserted against
Defendants with prejudice.
Everi Holdings and Everi FinTech have paid all funds required
pursuant to the settlement.
Distributions were made to class members and remaining unclaimed
funds will be distributed to nonprofit charitable organizations in
compliance with the Court's October 4, 2021, approval.
Everi said, "When the distribution of unclaimed funds to charitable
organizations is complete, the parties will file a joint notice of
completion of all settlement terms and ask the Court to close the
file."
Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. and Everi Payments Inc. The Company operates
through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video
and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions,
integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency
software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit initiated by
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) customers is pending.
Three putative class action lawsuits against Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and Exelon were filed in Illinois state court in
the third quarter of 2020 seeking restitution and compensatory
damages on behalf of ComEd customers. The cases were consolidated
into a single action in October of 2020.
In November 2020, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion
to intervene in the cases pursuant to an Illinois statute allowing
CUB to intervene as a party or otherwise participate on behalf of
utility consumers in any proceeding which affects the interest of
utility consumers.
On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB's intervention, but
denied its request to stay these cases.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd
and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds on January 11, 2021. Briefing on that motion
was completed on March 2, 2021.
The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the federal court
plaintiffs discussed above, to jointly engage in mediation.
The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but
no settlement was reached.
Oral argument on the state court pending motion to dismiss was
held on August 4, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the court set a
tentative ruling date on the motion to dismiss for November 30,
2021.
Exelon said, "It is unclear at this time what impact the recent
filings by the federal court plaintiffs and CUB will have on this
action and the pending motion to dismiss."
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXELON CORP: ComEd's Lobbying Activities Related Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the court granted
the U.S. government's motion to intervene and discovery remains
stayed until further order of the court in the putative class
action suit related to ComEd's lobbying activities.
A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain officers
of Exelon and Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) was filed in
federal court in December 2019 alleging misrepresentations and
omissions in Exelon's SEC filings related to ComEd's lobbying
activities and the related investigations.
The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of
the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020. The court
denied the motion in April 2021.
On May 26, 2021, defendants moved the court to certify its order
denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. Briefing on
the motion was completed in June 2021 and the motion remains
pending.
Litigation has proceeded and in May 2021, the parties each filed
respective initial discovery disclosures.
On June 9, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses to the complaint.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery; however, on
September 9, 2021, the U.S. government moved to intervene in this
lawsuit and stay discovery relating to the U.S. government's
ongoing criminal proceedings until the parties to the litigation
agree to an acceptable protective order.
The court granted the U.S. government's motion on September 23,
2021 and discovery remains stayed until further order of the
court.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs' Opening Appeal Brief Due January 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that plaintiffs' opening
appeal brief is due January 14, 2022. Four putative class action
lawsuits against Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and Exelon
were filed in federal court in the third quarter of 2020 alleging,
among other things, civil violations of federal racketeering laws.
In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to
intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on
December 23, 2020.
On December 2, 2020, the court appointed interim lead plaintiffs in
the federal cases which consisted of counsel for three of the four
federal cases.
These plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 5, 2021.
CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd only on the same
day.
The remaining federal case, Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al,
differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual
defendants not named in the consolidated complaint. However, the
Potter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint without
prejudice on April 5, 2021.
ComEd and Exelon moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint and CUB's complaint on February 4, 2021 and briefing was
completed on March 22, 2021.
On March 25, 2021, the parties agreed, along with state court
plaintiffs, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties
participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no
settlement was reached.
On September 9, 2021, the federal court granted Exelon's and
ComEd's motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs' and CUB's
federal law claim with prejudice.
The federal court also dismissed the related state law claims made
by the federal plaintiffs and CUB on jurisdictional grounds.
Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. Plaintiffs' opening appeal brief is due January 14, 2022,
Exelon's and ComEd's response brief is due February 14, 2022, and
Plaintiffs' reply brief is due March 7, 2022.
Plaintiffs also refiled their state law claims in state court and
have moved to consolidate that action with the already pending
consumer state court class action. CUB also refiled its state law
claims in state court.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
FACEBOOK INC: Trump Civil Rights Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the
United States, ELIZABETH ALBERT, KIYAN and BOBBY MICHAEL, and
JENNIFER HORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., and MARK ZUCKERBERG, Case No.
1:21-cv-22440, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09044-JSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and declaratory judgement
of unconstitutionality of Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act by banning Plaintiff Trump's access to his Facebook account,
his followers, and the public at large.
Facebook, Inc. is a multinational technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq.
VARGAS GONZALEZ BALDWIN DELOMBARD, LLP
815 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Third Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 631-2528
E-mail: Matthew@VargasGonzalez.com
- and –
John P. Coale, Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
2901 Fessenden St. NW
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 255-2096
E-mail: johnpcoale@aol.com
- and –
Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM L.L.C.
2721 St. Charles Ave, Suite 2A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 616-5226
E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com
- and –
John Q. Kelly, Esq.
Michael J. Jones, Esq.
Roland A. Paul, Esq.
Ryan S. Tougias, Esq.
Sean M. Hamill, Esq.
IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA
170 Mason Street
Greenwich, CT 06830
Telephone: (203) 661-6000
Facsimile: (203) 661-9462
E-mail: jqkelly@ibolaw.com
mjones@ibolaw.com
rpaul@ibolaw.com
rtougias@ibolaw.com
shamill@ibolaw.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: MSP Suit Seeks to Certify National Damages Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida
Entity, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02522-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion to certify a national damages
class against Defendants.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a
national issues class under Rule 23(c)(4).
On January 22, 2019, the parties agreed to enter into data matching
whereby they would submit their data to a third-party vendor to
conduct a "matching analysis."
Matching Defendants' data with Plaintiffs' has identified numerous
MSP Act reimbursement claims, demonstrating that Plaintiffs'
methodology can be applied class-wide to identify and quantify
Class Member claims. 1 Meanwhile, HHS, the Eleventh Circuit, and
the Ninth Circuit, all have undermined Defendants' theories and
arguments, clearing the path for efficient prosecution of MSP Act
claims against recalcitrant primary payers such as Defendants.
MSP Act liability is "remarkably simple;" and each Defendant is
liable when (1) it is a primary plan, (2) that failed to pay first
or reimburse (i.e., had a responsibility to repay a secondary
payment) and failed to do so, causing (3) damages.
The Defendants include ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS
INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC.; 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE CO.;
MIDCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY; FOREMOST PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY PREFERRED INSURANCE
COMPANY; FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND
RAPIDS, MICHIGAN; and FARMERS NEW CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oXtjVl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S Le Jeune Rd., Fl. 10
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: cwhorton@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
- and -
Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon, Blvd. Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
E-mail: arolnick@riveromestre.com
- and -
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN, & COFFIN LLP
2505 Energy Center
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
Telephone: (504) 355-0086
Facsimile: (504) 355-0089
E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
FCA US LLC: Appeals Atty. Fee Ruling in Tomassini Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant FCA US LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:14-CV-1226, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York (Syracuse).
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Tomassini commenced the
putative class action on Sept. 8, 2014 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.
On Aug. 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to remand the action
to state court. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff 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.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 2, 2021, Judge
Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York denied the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order awarding the Plaintiff
$125,882.78 in attorneys' fees and $4,699.30 in taxable costs,
saying it failed to present controlling decisions or data that the
Court overlooked resulting in a manifest injustice.
The Defendant seeks a review of this ruling in an appellate case
captioned as Tomassini v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 21-2785, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
November 5, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant FCA US LLC, FKA Chrysler Group LLC, is
represented by:
Alan John Pope, Esq.
COUGHLIN & GERHART, LLP
99 Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 2039
Binghamton, NY 13904
Telephone: (607) 723-9511
Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Tomassini, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gary Steven Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
FCA US: Mario Soares Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA COSTA, individually,
and MARIO SOARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC, a
Delaware Corporation, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-11810-ADB (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff Mario Soares moves the Court to enter an
order:
1. certifying the following two classes:
-- A Rule 23(b)(3) Class ("Damages Class"), defined as:
"All persons in Massachusetts who currently own or
lease, or who have owned or leased, any Class Vehicle 1
manufactured by Chrysler or any of its subsidiaries or
affiliates that is equipped with an AHR system;" and
-- A Rule 23(b)(2) Class ("Injunctive Class"), defined as:
"All persons in Massachusetts who currently own or
lease any Class Vehicle manufactured by Chrysler or any
of its subsidiaries or affiliates that is equipped with
an AHR system."
2. appointing him as class representative; and
3. appointing the law firms of Justice Law Collaborative,
LLC; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and
Kershaw, Cook & Talley, PC as class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Nov. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nIiyag
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (415) 313-9000
Facsimile: (415) 313-9965
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LC
19 Belmont Street
South Easton, MA 02375
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
E-mail: kim@justicelc.com
- and -
Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 779-7000
Facsimile: (916) 721-2501
E-mail: stalley@kctlegal.com
ian@kctlegal.com
FERGUSON CITY, MO: Fant, et al., Seek to Certify Six Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keilee Fant, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
CITY OF FERGUSON, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. appointing them as Class Representatives and their counsel
as Class Counsel; and
2. certify the following five classes pursuing damages
and one class seeking prospective relief:
a. A Bearden Class consisting of all persons who have, at
any time since February 8, 2010, been kept in jail by
the City of Ferguson for failing to pay a fine, fee,
bond, surcharge, or cost, without an inquiry into their
ability to pay (Count One).
b. A Gerstein Class consisting of all persons who have, at
any time since February 8, 2010, been held in jail by
the City of Ferguson after a warrantless arrest for
longer than a reasonable period of time (48 hours at a
maximum or such shorter period of time as the Court may
determine) prior to a finding of probable cause by a
neutral magistrate for their arrest and continued
detention (Count Seven).
c. A Jail-Conditions Class consisting of all persons who,
at any time since February 8, 2010, were held in the
City of Ferguson jail (Count Four).
d. A Warrant Class consisting of all persons who have, at
any time since February 8, 2010, been held in jail by
the City of Ferguson after being arrested on a warrant
issued by the City (Count Three).
e. A Post-Judgment Class consisting of all persons who
have, at any time since February 8, 2010, been jailed
by the City of Ferguson because of their non-payment in
connection with a prior judgment (Counts Two, Five, and
Six).
f. A Declaratory and Injunctive Class consisting of all
persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to
the City of Ferguson from fines, fees, costs, or
surcharges arising from judgments in cases prosecuted
by the City (Counts Two, Five, and Six).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DJvoKJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angela Daker, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 371-2700
E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com
- and -
J. Frank Hogue, Esq.
Claire Leonard, Esq.
Shannon Lane, Esq.
701 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626-3623
E-mail: fhogue@whitecase.com
claire.leonard@whitecase.com
shannon.lane@whitecase.com
- and -
Hafsa S. Mansoor, Esq.
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-819-7670
E-mail: hafsa.mansoor@whitecase.com
- and -
Blake A. Strode, Esq.
John M. Waldron, Esq.
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (855) 724-2489
E-mail: jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org
- and -
Marco Lopez, Esq.
Ryan Downer, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 844-4975
E-mail: marco@civilrightscorps.org
- and -
Brendan Roediger, Esq.
John Ammann, Esq.
SLU LAW CLINIC
100 N. Tucker Blvd.
Saint Louis, MO 63101-1930
Telephone: (314) 977-2778
E-mail:Brendan.roediger@slu.edu
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Haines Seeks Stay of Current Deadlines in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN P. HAINES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
8:19-cv-02995-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to stay the current deadlines in this litigation
until the pending motion for class certification and the
cross-motions for summary judgment are decided.
The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is currently
pending. It has been ripe for decision since August 19, 2021, when
Fidelity filed its Sur-Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
In addition, both Plaintiff's summary judgment motion and
Fidelity's summary judgment motion are pending. The parties filed
their respective summary judgment replies on September 23, 2021.
Fidelity has requested that this Court decide the class
certification motion prior to any decision on the parties' motions
for summary judgment to avoid issues with one way intervention.
The only deadlines that remain pending in the operative scheduling
order pertain to motions in limine (December 16, 2021), a final
pretrial meeting (December 23, 2021), a joint pretrial statement
(December 30, 2021), and a pretrial
conference (January 6, 2022).
The trial term is currently scheduled to begin in February 2022.
Fidelity National is an insurance company servicing East Florida
from Jacksonville to Plantation.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HKI32u at no extra charge.[CC]
The Trial Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ ǀ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
- and -
Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313
Clearwater, FL 33755
Telephone: 727 231-6400
E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com
The Trial Counsel for Fidelity National Title of Florida, Inc.,
are:
Jeffrey N. Golant, Esq.
Mary Ellen R. Himes, Esq.
FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
200 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 210
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Telephone No: (954) 414-2111
Facsimile No: (954) 414-2101
E-mail: maryellen.himes@fnf.com
pleadingsfl@fnf.com
FILTERS FAST: Settlement in Powers Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANGER POWERS, ROBERT
LEGG, JENNIFER McCREARY, BETTY OWEN, And LYDIA POSTOLOWSK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FILTERS FAST, LLC, a North Carolina corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00982-jdp (W.D. Disc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson
entered an order:
1. granting class certification for settlement purposes only:
-- The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement
Class defined as follows:
"All residents of the United States whose payment card
was used on the Filters Fast website
(www.filtersfast.com) to make a purchase between July
15, 2019 and July 10, 2020;"
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judge(s)
presiding over this matter, any members of the judicial
staff, the officers and directors of Filters Fast, and
persons who timely and validly request exclusion from
the Settlement Class;
2. designating and appointing the Plaintiffs Sanger Powers,
Robert Legg, Jennifer McCreary, Betty Owen, and Lydia
Postolowski as Settlement Class Representatives;
3. designating as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g): William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood and David K. Lietz of Mason Lietz & Kdinger LLP;
and
3. approving preliminary settlement approval.
The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on October 26,
2020. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege various claims
against Filters Fast arising out of a cyberattack on the Filters
Fast website that caused potential compromise of payment card
information of certain of Filters Fast’s customers that Filters
Fast announced in August 2020, including claims alleging
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
violation of Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation
of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, violation of the Maryland
Personal Information Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs and Filters Fast have entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release dated June 15, 2021 following mediation
overseen by the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (retired) of JAMS, in
which the Parties have agreed to settle this case subject to the
approval and determination of the Court as to the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement which, if
approved, will result in dismissal of the Action with prejudice.
The Action is provisionally certified as a class action for
settlement purposes only, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e).
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cCPHO0 at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST FIDELITY: Gay Files Suit in D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Fidelity Bank.
The case is styled as Rebecca Gay, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. First Fidelity Bank, Case No.
CJ-2021-4812 (D. Okla., Oklahoma Cty., Nov. 8, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Breach OF Agreement - Contract."
First Fidelity Bank -- https://www.ffb.com/ -- is a community bank
located in Oklahoma and Arizona offering a wide variety of personal
and business banking products and services.[BN]
FIRST STUDENT: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Sched Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN and CYNTHIA
PROVENCIO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; FIRST 24 STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRSTGROUP
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties entered an order to
further continue the deadlines for the class certification briefing
schedule as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Opposition to Motion Dec. 16, 2021 Jan. 13, 2022
for Class Certification:
-- Reply to Opposition Jan. 10, 2022 Feb. 3, 2022
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Hearing on Plaintiff's Feb. 24, 2022 March 3, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification:
On August 9, 2021, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiffs
to file a Motion for Class Certification and continued the briefing
schedule on that motion.
The Plaintiffs were to file their Motion by October 14, 2021,
Defendants' Opposition deadline was set for December 16, 2021, and
Plaintiff's Reply was set for January 10, 2022.
On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff's filed their Motion for Class
Certification. The Defendants indicated that they would like to
take the depositions of class members whose declarations were
offered in support of the motion, and the Parties met and conferred
to schedule the depositions in November.
First Student provides bus transportation services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nSmiG1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone (310) 432-0000
Facsimile (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
aburton@lelawfirm.com
- and -
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
E-mail: David J. Dow, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: ddow@littler.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Smith's Bid to Amend Consolidated Class Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB SMITH, Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-3755 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate
Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
when a party seeks leave of court to file an amended pleading, "the
court should freely give leave when justice so requires." This
rule, which allows a liberal policy in favor of granting
amendments, "reinforces the principle that cases 'should be tried
on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.'"
Thus, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in deciding motions
for leave to amend.
The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiffs should be given
leave to amend their complaint. Yet, the Plaintiffs initially
raised, then withdrew, a condition that amendment be granted only
if the Defendants were denied the opportunity to file a motion to
dismiss the amended pleading. Of course, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure will govern the Defendants' filing of responsive
pleadings.
For good cause shown, Judge Jolson granted the Motion to Amend
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. She directed the Clerk to file
(Doc. 69-1) as the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/822avaa from Leagle.com.
FLINT, MI: Class Settlement in Water Cases Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To ALL
CASES, Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E.
Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted the motion for final approval
of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
Introduction
Before the Court is a motion for final approval of a partial
settlement that provides compensation to tens of thousands of
people who were impacted by exposure to lead, legionella, and other
contaminants from the City of Flint's municipal water supply system
during the events now known as the Flint Water Crisis. The
settlement resolves thousands of claims pending in the Court, the
Genesee County Circuit Court, and the State of Michigan Court of
Claims. The settlement involves both class action and non-class
action lawsuits. The portion of the $626.25 million settlement to
be paid by the State of Michigan is one of the largest settlements
in the State's history.
The settlement reached is a remarkable achievement for many
reasons, not the least of which is that it sets forth a
comprehensive compensation program and timeline that is consistent
for every qualifying participant, regardless of whether they are
members of a class or are non-class individuals represented by
their own counsel.
Background
The Plaintiffs are tens of thousands of Minors, Adults, individuals
and entities who owned or leased residential property, and
individuals and entities who owned or operated a business, all of
whom allege that they suffered losses and damages resulting from
Defendants' roles in the Flint Water Crisis. The Defendants
participating in the settlement ("Settling Defendants") are not all
of the Defendants involved in the Flint Water litigation, and
accordingly, the settlement is only a partial settlement of the
Flint Water cases.
The Settling Defendants include: the State of Michigan and its
individual officials, which are collectively referred to as the
"State Defendants"; the City of Flint, its City Emergency Managers,
and several City employees, collectively referred to as the City
Defendants; McLaren Health Care Corporation, McLaren Regional
Medical Center, and McLaren Flint Hospital, collectively referred
to as the McLaren Defendants; and Rowe Professional Services
Company, referred to as Rowe.
The settlement reached between the Plaintiffs and the Settling
Defendants is in a document entitled the Amended Settlement
Agreement ("ASA"). The ASA contains provisions that apply to
Minors, Legally Incapacitated Individuals ("Ms"), Future Minor
Claimants, Adults, property owners and renters, and business owners
and operators. In addition, the ASA addresses funding for
Programmatic Relief, which will provide special education services
for qualifying individuals.
The ASA provides that the Settling Defendants are to deposit their
agreed-upon Settlement Amounts in the established FWC Qualified
Settlement Fund. The State Defendants are obligated to pay $600
million; the Flint Defendants are obligated to pay $20 million; the
McLaren Defendants are obligated to pay $5 million; and Rowe is
obligated to pay $1.25 million.
The ASA appoints Archer Systems, LLC as the Claims Administrator.
The Special Master oversees various aspects of the settlement
pursuant to the ASA. In addition, the ASA provides for a Settlement
Planning Administrator ("SPA"). The SPA is overseen and supervised
by both the Master Guardian Ad Litem ("Master GAL") Miriam Wolock
and the Special Master. Accordingly, there are multiple levels of
protection over the settlement funds and its administrators.
The ASA establishes a registration process. It requires all members
of the Settlement Class and all Individual Plaintiffs who wish to
participate in the settlement to submit a Registration Form to the
Claims Administrator no later than March 29, 2021. The ASA also
allows individuals who failed to submit all required information
upon their initial registration to resubmit their materials.
Therefore, no one is excluded from participating in the settlement
merely because they initially submit an incomplete or incorrect
Registration Form.
The ASA provides that after the Claims Administrator has reviewed
the Registration Forms, the Claims Administrator will post a list
of "all persons and entities who have registered and been found
eligible to participate as a Claimant in the Settlement Program."
The posting of this list triggers two events: First, it triggers
the start of the Claims Process, and second, it triggers the
Settling Defendants' Walk-Away Rights under the ASA. As to the
Claims Process, eligible participants on the Claims Administrator's
list are required to submit their Claim Materials to the Claims
Administrator within a specified time.
Regarding the Walk-Away Rights triggered by the Claims
Administrator's posting of the eligible registrant list, each
Settling Defendant has the right to "walk away" from the ASA in its
sole discretion, but only for the reasons specified in the ASA, as
applicable to each Settling Defendant. Settling Defendants have 30
days after the receipt of the final registrant list to exercise
their right to walk away from the ASA.
Once the Claims Process begins, the Claims Administrator's focus
shifts to determining Monetary Awards. On the Claim Form, a
Claimant may select the Settlement Category that they believe is
applicable. The FWC Qualified Settlement Fund is divided into six
Sub-Qualified Settlement Funds which are: (i) Minors six years old
or younger on the date the individual was first exposed to Flint
Water; (ii) Minors age seven to 11 years old on the date the
individual was first exposed to Flint Water; (iii) Minors age 12 to
17 years old on the date the individual was first exposed to Flint
Water; (iv) Adults age 18 and over on the date the individual was
first exposed to Flint Water; (v) Residential Property
Owners/Renters; and (vi) Businesses that experienced property and
economic losses.
The net funds available from the FWC Qualified Settlement Fund for
payments to Claimants are allocated into the Sub-Qualified
Settlement Funds as follows: (i) Minor children age six or younger
(the Minor Child Sub-Qualified Settlement Fund) receive 64.5% of
the net funds; (ii) Minor children age seven to eleven (the Minor
Adolescent Sub-Qualified Settlement Fund) receive 10% of the net
funds; (iii) Minor children age twelve to seventeen (the Minor Teen
Sub-Qualified Settlement Fund) receive 5% of the net funds; (iii)
$35 million of the net funds are set aside for Future Minor
Plaintiffs, as described in the Preliminary Approval Order; (iv)
Adults receive 15% of the net funds; (v) Property owners and
renters receive 3% of the net funds; (vi) Business owners and
operators receive 0.5% of the net funds; and (vii) 2% of the net
funds are set aside for the Programmatic Relief portion of the
settlement, which was described in the Preliminary Approval Order.
Accordingly, those who qualify as a Minor Child, Minor Adolescent,
and Minor Teen under the ASA receive the largest proportion, or
79.5%, of the net funds.
There are 30 Settlement Categories presented in the Compensation
Grid, which is attached to the ASA as Exhibit 8. The Settlement
Categories include: individuals of any age with lead levels in
their blood or bone; Minor Children, Minor Adolescents, and Minor
Teens with cognitive deficits; Minor Children who were born preterm
or with a low birth weight; Minor Children who were formula fed;
Minor Children, Minor Adolescents, and Minor Teens who lived in a
residence with residential water with a specified level of lead or
with lead or galvanized steel service lines; Minor Children, Minor
Adolescents, and Minor Teens who were exposed to Flint Water during
the Flint Water Crisis but have none of the proofs of exposure set
forth above; Minor Children, Minor Adolescents, and Minor Teens who
were exposed to Flint Water after July 31, 2016; Adults with
serious personal injuries; Adults with physical injuries; Adults
exposed to Flint Water after July 31, 2016 and with a lead level or
physical injury; women who suffered from miscarriages; individuals
who were diagnosed with legionnaires disease, resulting in illness
or death; individuals who owned or rented residential property; and
businesses that suffered from property damage or economic loss.
Each one provides for a different level of compensation; however,
all Claimants who qualify for the same Settlement Category are
compensated under the Compensation Grid equally. In other words,
every Claimant in a certain Settlement Category receives an
identical amount of compensation as all other Claimants in that
Category. But the actual compensation these Claimants receive may
vary because each Claimant's outstanding liens (if any) are
deducted from the individual award.
These Settlement Categories are the only distinction between
Claimants' Monetary Awards in the ASA. Accordingly, individuals are
treated the same in terms of their eligibility to qualify for a
Settlement Category, regardless of whether they are represented by
their own counsel or whether they are members of the Settlement
Class proceeding with or without the assistance of a lawyer.
Individuals who might otherwise be barred from bringing a claim by
the statute of limitations or statute of repose would not be barred
from recovering under the ASA.
With respect to Liens, the ASA provides that Claimants are
responsible for informing the Claims Administrator and the Lien
Resolution Administrator of all known Liens with claims against
their monetary award. The Claims Administrator is authorized under
the ASA to establish procedures and protocols to resolve certain
liens on behalf of Claimants. In this way, the ASA streamlines the
lien-satisfaction process and maximizes the possibility that
Claimants' liens could be satisfied at a discount, which has been
achieved in other settlements nationwide.
The ASA provides for a reconsideration process for Claimants to
undertake if they disagree with a decision by the Claims
Administrator the Claims Administrator, such as the determination
of their Settlement Category on the Compensation Grid. Participants
in the reconsideration process may submit a Reconsideration Request
and, if the dispute remains, they may submit an appeal to the
Special Master. In addition, the ASA sets forth a thorough dispute
resolution procedure for disputes involving "the meaning of,
compliance with, and/or implementation of the Settlement
Agreement." This dispute resolution procedure is the "exclusive
mechanism to resolve disputes and disagreements arising under the
Settlement Agreement."
In exchange for participating in the settlement, Claimants provide
the Settling Defendants with Releases and Covenants Not to Sue
("Releases"). The Releases release the Settling Defendants from:
(1) all claims, notices, demands, suits, and causes of action,
known and unknown; (2) damages whenever incurred and liabilities of
any nature, whatsoever; and (3) liability arising from the alleged
acts or omissions of any of the Claimants plead in their
complaints. Individuals who sign the Releases ("Releasors") agree
not to initiate, continue, or help with any proceeding against the
Settling Defendants and agree not to challenge the validity of the
Releases. Releasors acknowledge that they waive all future claims
against the Settling Defendants. Further, the ASA separately
provides that the Settling Defendants release one another from any
claims they have now or in the future arising out of the Flint
Water Crisis.
The Court issued its Preliminary Approval Order on Jan. 21, 2021
and the Order took effect on Jan. 27, 2021. Pursuant to the ASA,
the March 29, 2021 registration deadline is also the deadline for
filing objections. The Court received 106 timely objections from
registered individuals who are unrepresented by counsel. The Court
also received several objections related to the Plaintiffs' motion
for attorney fees.
On July 12, 13, and 15, 2021, the Court held a fairness hearing on
the final approval motion and the Plaintiffs' request for attorney
fees and expenses. On Oct. 20, 2022, the Court issued a Stipulated
Order amending the ASA to allow the McLaren Defendants to waive
their Walk-Away Rights under Paragraph 18.2 in exchange for their
continued participation as a Settling Party and allowing the
McLaren Defendants' total contribution to the FWC Qualified
Settlement Fund to be $5 million.
Discussion
A. Non-Class Portion of the Settlement
Judge Levy is satisfied that the Individual, non-class components
of the ASA that require Court approval are fair and in the best
interests of Minors, LIIs and, though not required, the represented
adults. Accordingly, final approval is granted as to the non-class
components of the ASA.
B. Class Plaintiffs' Portion of the Settlement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) requires that the Court
evaluate certain factors before the Court can find that a
settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Rule 23(e)(2)'s
factors overlap with many of the Sixth Circuit's International
Union factors for determining whether a class settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Sixth Circuit indicates that the
likelihood of success on the merits is the most important factor in
the analysis. Judge Levy finds that the Rule 23(e)(2) and Sixth
Circuit factors weigh in favor of granting final approval.
C. Notice to the Class and Due Process
To grant final approval, the Court must find that the Notice to the
Class satisfies due process. Due process in this context "requires
that notice to the class be reasonably calculated, under all
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the
action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
Judge Levy finds that the notice plan was implemented in an
appropriate manner. The Notice Plan as implemented, and its
content, satisfies due process.
D. Certification of the Settlement Class
The Class Plaintiffs seek certification of the Settlement Class,
which is defined in Section 1.72 of the ASA as follows: "All
persons or entities who are or could be claiming personal injury,
property damage, business economic loss, unjust enrichment, breach
of contract, or seeking any other type of damage or relief because
at any time during the Exposure Period of April 25, 2014 through
Nov. 16, 2020 they: (1) were an Adult who owned or lived in a
residence that received water from the Flint Water Treatment Plant
or were legally liable for the payment of such water; (2) owned or
operated a business including income earning real property and any
other businesses that received water from the Flint Water Treatment
Plant or were legally liable for the payment for such water; or (3)
were an Adult during the Exposure Period and who ingested or came
into contact with water received from the Flint Water Treatment
Plant.
Judge Levy finds that the analysis in the Preliminary Approval
Order applied the same Rule 23(a) and (b) standards that govern the
analysis at the final approval stage. Accordingly, she finds that
the Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) for
certifying a class for settlement purposes. The Settlement Class is
certified.
E. Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel and the Executive Committee
as Class Counsel for Settlement Purposes
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1), when the Court
certifies a class, including for settlement, it "must appoint class
counsel." The Co-Lead Class Counsel requested appointment of
themselves and the Executive Committee as the Settlement Class
Counsel in their motion for final approval.
Over the last four years, the Court has had the opportunity to
evaluate and re-evaluate Co-Lead Class Counsel's qualifications and
performance and has found both satisfactory. The Court reviewed
Co-Lead Class Counsel's qualifications in the Preliminary Approval
Order. Based on that analysis, Judge Levy appoints the Interim
Co-Lead Class Counsel and the Executive Committee as the Settlement
Counsel under Rule 23(g).
F. Report and Recommendation on Late Registrants
On Nov. 9, 2021, the Special Master filed a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") Regarding Late Registrants. In it, she
reported that 1,219 individuals submitted registrations after the
March 29, 2021 deadline and she recommended that the Court permit
"any registrant who registered on Sept. 28, 2021 to participate in
the settlement and that any such registration be considered
timely." The Special Master provided the R&R to the Settling
Parties, and none objected to her recommendation. Judge Levy has
carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs in its reasoning and result.
The R&R is adopted. Accordingly, any registration received by Sept.
28, 2021, is considered timely.
G. Objections
Judge Levy denied objections to the settlement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Judge Levy finally approved the ASA, including the
Compensation Grid, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The following Settlement Class and Subclasses are certified under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):
a. Settlement Class: all persons or entities who are or could
be claiming personal injury, property damage, business economic
loss, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, or seeking any other
type of damage or relief because at any time during the Exposure
Period they: (1) were an Adult who owned or lived in a residence
that received water from the Flint Water Treatment Plant or were
legally liable for the payment of such water; (2) owned or operated
a business including income earning real property and any other
businesses, that received water from the Flint Water Treatment
Plant or were legally liable for the payment for such water; or (3)
were an Adult during the Exposure Period and who ingested or came
into contact with water received from the Flint Water Treatment
Plant.
b. Adult Exposure Subclass: all persons who were Adults
during the Exposure Period and who ingested or came into contact
with water received from the Flint Water Treatment Plant at any
time during the Exposure Period and who are claiming or could claim
a resulting personal injury.
c. Business Economic Loss Subclass: all individuals or
entities who owned or operated a business, including income earning
real property and any other businesses, that received water from
the Flint Water Treatment Plant at any time during the Exposure
Period and who are claiming or could claim a resulting business
economic loss.
d. Property Damage Subclass: all Adults or entities who owned
or were the lessee of residential real property that received water
from the Flint Water Treatment Plant, or were legally liable for
the payment for such water, at any time during the Exposure
Period.
The following individuals are appointed as Class Representatives
for purposes of Settlement:
a. Rhonda Kelso, Barbara and Darrell Davis, Tiantha Williams,
and Michael Snyder, as personal representative of the Estate of
John Snyder, as representatives of the Adult Exposure Subclass;
b. Elnora Carthan and David Munoz as representatives of the
Property Damage Subclass; and
c. 635 South Saginaw LLC, Frances Gilcreast, and Neil Helmkay
as representatives of the Business Economic Loss Subclass.
The firms previously appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Bonanni &
Rivers, P.C., and the Executive Committee, are appointed as
Settlement Class Counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g) to represent the Settlement Class and Subclasses.
Nothing in the Order should be construed as an abrogation of any
immunity available to the State of Michigan or its officers,
employees, or departments.
The non-class components of the ASA are approved.
All objections are denied.
Judge Levy's Opinion and Order prompts Individual Plaintiffs and
Class Members to file motion(s) related to final orders and
judgments, as well as issues unique to each group to implement the
ASA as contemplated by Article VIII.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/dkc43faj from Leagle.com.
FLORIDA: Appeals Court Dismisses ACLU Class Suit Over Bail Amounts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Marrero at tampabay.com reports that an appeals court has
dismissed a class action petition filed by the ACLU of Florida on
behalf of 11 people held in Manatee and Sarasota county jails on
what the civil rights group calls unaffordable bail amounts.
A three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal on
dismissed a petition filed a day earlier on behalf of 11 people
being held in the two county jails. The petition, which named the
state of Florida and the sheriffs in each county as respondents,
said that in each case, the state failed to clearly show that no
alternative conditions of release to the unaffordable bail amounts
were workable.
That's a violation of the petitioners' rights to due process under
the Fourteenth Amendment, the petition said.
The petition asked the court to certify Manatee and Sarasota
classes and permit the respective class representatives and the
ACLU Foundation of Florida to represent them. According to the
petition, at any given time, the proposed Manatee class includes
roughly 75 people and the Sarasota class about 40 to 50 people.
The three appeals court judges -- Darryl C. Casanueva, Craig C.
Villanti and Daniel H. Sleet -- concurred in dismissing the suit
"for each petitioner to file a separate petition," according to the
order.
"Although this option possibly means 11 separate resolutions of 11
separate petitions, we are reviewing our options about how best to
bring this systematic problem to the appellate court," Benjamin
Stevenson, an attorney with the ACLU, said in a statement after the
ruling.
By the end of the day Wednesday, the ACLU had filed separate
petitions for each of the 11 people, according to a spokesperson
for the organization.
Spokespeople for Sarasota Sheriff Kurt Hoffman and Manatee Sheriff
Rick Wells previously referred the Times to Attorney General Ashley
Moody's office, which responds to such petitions. A spokesperson
for Moody's office has not responded to two emails this week.
The cash bail system has been a frequent target of social justice
reformers and legal scholars, who say the system criminalizes
poverty, bloats jail populations and disproportionately affects
people of color. [GN]
FLORIDA: Howard, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EARL HOWARD, DAMON
PETERSON, CARL TRACY BROWN, and WILLIE WATTS on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MELINDA N.
COONROD, RICHARD D. DAVISON, and DAVID A. WYANT in their official
capacities, Case No. 6:21-cv-00062-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action with the following
class definition:
"All persons who (i) were convicted of a crime committed
when they were under the age of eighteen; (ii) were
sentenced to life in prison or a term of years exceeding
their life expectancy (defined as greater than 470
months); (iii) are currently in the custody of the Florida
Department of Corrections; (iv) have never been paroled;
and (v) are or will become eligible for release to parole
supervision but only through the parole process;"
2. appointing them as class representatives;
3. appointing as Class Counsel Holland & Knight and its
attorneys Tracy Nichols, Stephen P. Warren, Laura
Renstrom, and Andrew Balthazor; and Juvenile Law Center
and its attorneys Marsha Levick, Andrew Keats, and Katrina
Goodjoint; and
4. granting further relief that may be just and proper
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants uniformly apply the same
parole process and evaluative standards -- which fail to take into
account maturity and rehabilitation -- when
considering whether to release Juvenile Lifers to parole
supervision. In the wake of Graham, Miller, and Montgomery, this
practice is clearly unconstitutional -- and it must change. The
Class Members deserve a meaningful opportunity for release
consistent with Supreme Court precedent and the Constitution.
Certifying the Proposed Class will be the most efficient route to
redress this wrong, the Plaintiffs add.
Robert Earl Howard, Damon Peterson, Carl Tracy Brown and Willie
Watts are Juvenile Lifers who are serving sentences in the custody
of the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDC").dants.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qZ65AX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marsha Levick, Esq.
Andrew Keats, Esq.
Katrina Goodjoint, Esq.
JUVENILE LAW CENTER
1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1900B
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-625-0551
E-mail: mlevick@jlc.org
akeats@jlc.org
kgoodjoint@jlc.org
- and -
Tracy Nichols, Esq.
Stephen P. Warren, Esq.
Andrew W. Balthazor, Esq.
Laura B. Renstrom, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-8500
E-mail: tracy.nichols@hklaw.com
stephen.warren@hklaw.com
andrew.balthazor@hklaw.com
laura.renstrom@hklaw.com
FOGO DE CHAO: Dec. 8 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN GARCIA-ALVAREZ,
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. FOGO DE CHAO
CHURRASCARIA (PITTSBURGH) LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00124-ALM
(E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline for filing the Motion for Class
Certification in this action up to and including December 8, 2021
making the Defendants response due on or before December 22, 2021.
The Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 8, 2020 and on
October 29, 2020, he filed his First Amended Complaint.
On July 20, 2021, the Defendants timely filed an Answer to the
First Amended Complaint. The current discovery in this matter
expired on November 15, 2021 per the October 7, 2021 order.
The Parties have exchanged written discovery requests and responses
and have taken the 30(b)(6) and multiple plaintiff depositions.
The deadline to submit the Motion for Class Certification is
currently set for Sunday, November 28, 2021.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l09fR2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adeash Lakraj, Esq.
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
E-mail: alakraj@theleachfirm.com
cleach@theleachfirm.com
- and -
Jay Forester, Esq.
Katherine I. Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St Paul St., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jforester@foresterhaynie.com
kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
Richard Celler, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Scheck, Esq.
Mary Ruth Houston, Esq.
Shutts & Bowen LLP
300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
E-mail: pscheck@shutts.com
mhouston@shutts.com
- and -
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Victoria L. Vish, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4520 Main Street, Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64111
E-mail: Patrick.hull@ogletree.com
victoria.vish@ogletree.com
GE CAPITAL: Bid Filed for Withdrawal of Adversary Proc. Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Nyree Belton, Debtor and Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GE Capital
Consumer Lending, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09492 (S.D. N.Y.,
November 16, 2021), both Plaintiff and Defendant move the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an
order withdrawing the reference of the Class Action Adversary
Complaint against GE proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court.
On May 31, 2012, Belton filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York. Said court entered a
discharge order on September 11, 2012. On April 30, 2014, Belton
filed a Class Action Adversary Complaint against GE in the
Bankruptcy Court. Said Amended Class Action Adversary Complaint
continues to be the operative pleading in the action alleging that
GE's failure to update its credit furnishing to reflect Chapter 7
bankruptcy discharges pressures consumers to repay discharged debt
in order to have the negative information removed from their credit
reports.
On May 10, 2021, GE filed a supplemental memorandum in support of
its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, but prior to a hearing
or decision on the motion, both parties mediated the dispute and
reached a proposed nationwide class settlement. [BN].
Belton is represented by:
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
Anne M. Nardacci, Esq.
Adam Reese Shaw, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518) 434-0600, (518) 694-4227
Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
anardacci@bsfllp.com
ashaw@bsfllp.com
- and -
Charles Wayne Juntikka, Esq.
CHARLES JUNTIKKA & ASSOCIATES, LLP
30 Vesey Street, Suite 100
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (212) 315-3755
Fax: (212) 315-9032
Email: charles@cjalaw.com
GE Capital Consumer Lending, Inc. is represented by:
Michael W. Ross, Esq.
Joseph L. Noga, IV, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-3908
Tel: (212) 891-1600, 891-1676
Email: mross@jenner.com
jnoga@jenner.com
GEICO CASUALTY: Court Extends Class Cert. Deadlines in Wright
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA WRIGHT v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00823-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Scott D. Johnson entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to extend time for class certification
deadlines.
The current Scheduling Order for this case is modified as follows:
1. Discovery, including discovery March 31, 2022
from experts, pertaining to the
issue of class certification:
2. Expert reports for class
certification must be submitted
to opposing parties as follows:
Plaintiff(s): December 20, 2021
Defendant(s): February 21, 2022
3. Plaintiffs to file a Motion for December 20, 2021.
Conditional Class Certification
of Collective Action and for
Notice to Prospective Class Members:
4. Deadline for Defendants to file February 21, 2022.
an opposition to any Motion for
Conditional Class Certification
of Collective Action:
5. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file April 1, 2022.
a reply to Defendants' opposition:
GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CLjU8t at no extra charge.[CC]
GEICO CASUALTY: Grossman Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Todd Grossman and Mujo Perezic filed an appeal from a
court ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled Todd Grossman, Mujo
Perezic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Geico Casualty Company, Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO
General Insurance Company, Case No. 21-cv-2799, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New York.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, brought this action against Geico Casualty Co., Geico
Indemnity Co., and Geico General Insurance, Co., alleging breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York General
Business Law, stemming from Geico's alleged unfair profiting as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated
September 13, 2021 granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, and directing the Clerk of Court to dismiss all pending
motions and to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Grossman v. Geico Casualty
Company, Case No. 21-2789, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on November 5, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Todd Grossman and Mujo Perezic, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com
Defendants-Appellees Geico Casualty Company, Geico Indemnity
Company, and GEICO General Insurance Company are represented by:
David Thomas McTaggart, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 471-1814
E-mail: dtmctaggart@duanemorris.com
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Khami Securities Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NAHIL KHAMI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GENERAC HOLDINGS INC., AARON JAGDFELD,
and YORK A. RAGEN, Case No. 2:21-cv-06777, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
November 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01343-SCD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing
materially false and/or misleading statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission concerning Generac's business,
operational and financial results in order to trade Generac
securities at artificially inflated prices between February 23,
2021 and July 29, 2021.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a manufacturer of energy technology
solutions, headquartered in Waukesha, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Procter Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CAREY DON PROCTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GENERAC HOLDINGS INC., AARON
JAGDFELD, and YORK A. RAGEN, Case No. 2:21-cv-07009, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin on November 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01342-NJ to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by filing materially false and/or misleading statements with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning Generac's
business, operational and financial results in order to trade
Generac securities at artificially inflated prices between February
23, 2021 and July 29, 2021.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a manufacturer of energy technology
solutions, headquartered in Waukesha, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Deadlines Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIRKO, INC. and LISA MAE
JENNINGS individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02638-PAB (N.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that the
class certification schedule be re-set as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's class certification motion to be filed on
or before January 14, 2022;
-- The Defendant's response to be filed on or before March 14,
2022; and
-- The Plaintiff's reply to be filed on or before April 14,
2022. Plaintiff's counsel has conferred with counsel for
Defendant, and Defendant does not oppose this motion.
Ms. Jennings respectfully requests modification of the class
certification briefing deadlines previously entered in this case.
Under the current schedule, the Plaintiff's class certification
motion is due on November 26, 2021. The Defendant's response is due
no later than January 25, 2021. Plaintiff's reply is due no later
than March 11, 2021.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oYnO8Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff Jennings is represented by:
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Western Reserve Law Building
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Emmrich Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is styled as Ben Emmrich, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05990 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 8, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
General Motors -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 899-9090
Email: smm@cliffordlaw.com
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Court Modifies Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANA OLIVOS VALDEZ, an
individual, DANILLIE WILLIE, an individual, PATRICIA THEUS, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and as aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC, a
Delaware Corporation; GENESIS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ALEXANDRIA CARE CENTER, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; THE REHABILITATION CENTRE OF
BEVERLY HILLS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00976-DMG-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order on the the parties' stipulation
seeking to modify the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as follows:
-- The Defendants' deadline to submit their opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is February 11,
2022.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to submit their reply to
Defendants' opposition is March 11, 2022.
-- The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be held on March 25, 2022 at 10:00 a.m
Genesis Healthcare provides health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l29I5p at no extra charge.[CC]
GENEVA LONE: Ct. Extends Discovery Deadline in Miller Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM C. MILLER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GENEVA
LONE HILL, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00338-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of discovery deadline
and revising the remaining deadlines as follows:
1. Prior to the completion of discovery, the parties may
request a referral to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lynne
A. Sitarski, United States District Court, to schedule a
settlement conference. Counsel, the parties, and/or
persons with full settlement authority must appear at the
conference unless excused in advance by Magistrate Judge
Sitarski.
2. All fact and class discovery shall be completed by
February 28, 2022.
3. Any motion for class certification under Rule 23 shall be
filed by March 30, 2022, with a proposed schedule. Any
response shall be filed within 14 days of the filing ofthe
motion with a proposed schedule for class certification.
4. In the event a class action schedule is not requested,
Plaintiff's expert reports shall be provided to opposing
counsel by April 29, 2022, and any responsive expert
report shall be provided within 30 days of receipt.
5. Any dispositive motions shall be filed by June 28, 2022;
any response to the dispositive motions shall be filed
within 21 days of the filing of the motion.
6. A final pretrial conference will be held on or about
August 29, 2022, to schedule the trial date.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FJ1nLR at no extra charge.[CC]
GEORGIA: Court Extends Deadlines in Cobb Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON COBB, et al.,
etc., v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COM-MUNITY SUPERVISION, et al.,
etc., Case No. 1:19-cv-03285-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William
M. Ray, II entered a consent order extending deadlines as follows:
-- Renewal of Plaintiffs' Motion for January 10, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Defendants' Motion for Summary January 12, 2022
Judgment:
-- Responses to Motions: February 11, 2022
-- Replies in Support of Motions: March 14, 2022.
The Georgia Department of Community Supervision is an executive
branch agency of the U.S. state of Georgia. DCS is headquartered in
the James H "Sloppy" Floyd Veterans Memorial Building with
additional field offices throughout the state.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FIeJrC at no extra charge.[CC]
GERBER PRODUCTS: McCoy Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michelle McCoy, Kermit McCoy, each individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Gerber Products
Company, a Michigan corporation; Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation; Does 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No.
2:21-cv-07568, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on Nov. 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00360-RGE-SBJ to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an
American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in
Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington,
Virginia. Gerber is a subsidiary of Nestle.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
Matthew John Matern, Esq.
Mikael Hans Stahle, Esq.
Scott Ashford Brooks, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Phone: (310) 531-1900
Fax: (310) 531-1901
Email: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Catherine S. Simonsen, Esq.
Bryan A Merryman, Esq.
WHITE AND CASE LLP
555 South Flower Street Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
Phone: (213) 620-7700
Fax: (213) 452-2329
Email: catherine.simonsen@whitecase.com
bmerryman@whitecase.com
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Rosen Law Reminds of January 17, 2022 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Soaring Eagle
Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: DNA; NASDAQ: SRNG) between May 11, 2021
and October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ginkgo investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Ginkgo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2172.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's failure to derive real revenue from
third-party customers left it almost completely dependent on
related parties; (2) as a result, most, if not all, of the
Company's revenue came from related parties the Company created,
funded, or controlled through its ownership and board seats; (3)
the Company was misclassifying and underreporting related party
revenue in order to conceal the Company's near total-dependence on
related parties; (4) many of the Company's new R&D partners are
undisclosed related parties and/or façades; (5) as a result, the
Company's valuation was significant less than Defendants disclosed
to investors; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
17, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2172.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bids for Class Status Due July 21, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sunny Kaur, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Government Employees
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00522-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon.
Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered a pretrial order as follows:
-- Jury Trial set for: Sept. 14, 2022
at 09:00 AM
-- Hearing on class certification Aug. 18, 2022
is scheduled for: at 11:00 a.m
-- Motions for certification due: July 21, 2022
The Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American
auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nIv5ua at no extra charge.[CC]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in Akers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI AKERS, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-00060-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge David L. Bunning
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- 1. Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures: on or before
November 22, 2021
-- 2. Motion to Join Parties/Amend on or before
Pleadings: January 20, 2022
-- 3. Class Action Expert Witness
Disclosures and Reports
Deadline for Plaintiff: on or before
May 19, 2022
Deadline for Defendant: on or before
June 19, 2022
-- 4. Motion for Class Certification
Initial Motion: on or before
August 18, 2022
Response: on or before
September 18, 2022
Reply: on or before
October 3, 2022
The Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American
auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rdHEjv at no extra charge.[CC]
GRANITE STATE: New Hampshire Court Refuses to Dismiss Grenier Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied
Granite's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled Rita Grenier and
Edwin Grenier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Granite State Credit Union, Does 1 through 5, Case No.
21-cv-00534-LM (D.N.H.).
Plaintiffs Rita and Edwin Grenier bring this putative class action
against Granite and "Does 1 through 5," alleging injuries stemming
from Granite's overdraft fees and policies. The Plaintiffs allege
that--by not properly informing consumers how overdrafts are
assessed--Granite has violated, and continues to violate, the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act's, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 ("EFTA"),
implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. Section 1005, et seq.
("Regulation E").
Pending before the court is Granite's motion to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Background
Regulators, private litigants, and the courts have recently devoted
significant attention to overdraft fees. Issues occur when a
disclosure does not adequately convey how overdraft fees are
assessed. There are two balances financial institutions can use to
calculate whether the amount of money in an account dips below
zero: either the "actual balance" or the "available balance." The
"actual balance" is the actual amount of money in an
accountholder's account at any particular time. The "available
balance," in contrast, is the actual amount of money in the account
minus any "holds" on deposits and pending debits that have not yet
been posted. For this reason, calculating overdrafts based on the
available balance often leads to more frequent overdrafts because
there is less money available in the account due to holds and
pending transactions.
Thus, plaintiffs across America have filed a number of "virtually
identical lawsuits" challenging institutions that use the available
balance method where the opt-in notice does not explain how it
assesses overdraft fees.
The Plaintiffs in this case bring one such lawsuit. They allege
that Granite used a one-page notice entitled "What You Need to Know
about Overdrafts and Overdraft Fees" (the "Opt-in Disclosure"). The
Opt-in Disclosure states that an overdraft "occurs when you do not
have enough money in your account to cover a transaction, but we
pay it anyway." It does not outline the distinction between the
actual balance method and the available balance method.
Thus, the Plaintiffs allege that Granite has violated, and
continues to violate, Regulation E because the phrase "enough
money" does not specify whether Granite calculates overdrafts based
on the actual balance or the available balance. Essentially, they
argue that the Opt-in Disclosure does not provide a "clear and
readily understandable" explanation of the institution's overdraft
service.
Discussion
Granite moves to dismiss on the grounds that, first, it did not
violate Regulation E and, second, that the EFTA's safe harbor
provision, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693m(d)(2), insulates it from
liability.
Granite first argues that when the Opt-in Disclosure is read in
conjunction with a document entitled "Terms and Conditions of Your
Account" (the "Membership Agreement"), Granite satisfies Regulation
E's disclosure requirements. Granite attaches the five-page
Membership Agreement to its motion, and alleges it is the operative
agreement governing the Plaintiffs' relationship with Granite. The
Membership Agreement states that Granite assesses overdrafts based
on the available balance. It then proceeds to describe in further
detail the difference between actual balance and available balance.
The Membership Agreement was not attached to--or referenced in--the
complaint.
Even assuming that the Membership Agreement could be considered at
the motion to dismiss stage, the Plaintiffs have still plausibly
alleged violations of Regulation E. Regulation E requires financial
institutions to provide disclosures about their overdraft policies
"segregated from all other information," i.e. in a standalone
document, District Judge Landya McCafferty holds. Because the
Plaintiffs allege that the Opt-in Disclosure is the segregated
document, only it is relevant to the Plaintiffs' claim. The
Membership Agreement is extraneous information, irrelevant to
whether the Opt-in Disclosure itself--i.e., the segregated
document--adequately explains Granite's overdraft policy.
Looking only at the Opt-in Disclosure, then, the Plaintiffs
plausibly state a claim that the phrase "enough money" does not
adequately provide a "clear and readily understandable" explanation
of "the institution's overdraft service," Judge McCafferty holds.
Thus, the Plaintiffs plausibly state a claim that Granite's Opt-in
Disclosure violates Regulation E.
Granite next argues that the EFTA's safe harbor provision insulates
it from liability. The EFTA protects financial institutions from
liability for any failure to make disclosure in proper form if a
financial institution utilized an appropriate model clause issued
by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the Federal Reserve
Board.
Judge McCafferty notes that courts across the country have
addressed arguments identical to Granite's argument here, and the
vast majority have held that that using language identical to that
in Model Form A-9 does not necessarily insulate a financial
institution from liability.
Granite cites two unreported district court cases holding
otherwise--Rader v. Sandia Lab. Fed. Credit Union, No.20-559
JAP/JHR, 2021 WL 1533664, at *13-*14 (D.N.M. April 19, 2021); and
Tilley v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, No.
2:17-cv-01120-JNP-BCW, 2018 WL 4600655, at *4-*6 (D. Utah Sept. 25,
2018). The Court does not find the reasoning of these cases to be
persuasive.
Rather than following either of these cases, the Court agrees with
the sound reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit and the previously
cited district court cases holding that the safe harbor provision
did not defeat the Plaintiffs' claims.
Thus, Judge McCafferty holds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly
stated a claim that the clause from Model Form A-9 was not
"appropriate" because the language did not describe Granite's
overdraft policy in a "clear and readily understandable" way.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Granite's motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/e8t7m7x2 from Leagle.com.
GREENLAND TECHNOLOGIES: Wheby Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Greenland Technologies Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2021, that the plaintiff, the Company and all other named
defendants entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding
("MOU"), pursuant to which a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of
the Action captioned Wheby v. Greenland Acquisition Corporation, et
al., Case No. 19-1758-MN (D. Del.) was filed on October 14, 2019.
On September 19, 2019, a purported class action challenging the
Business Combination was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, captioned Wheby v. Greenland
Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1758-MN (D. Del.).
The Action alleged certain violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and sought, among other things, to enjoin
the Business Combination from closing (or, if consummated, to
rescind the Business Combination or award rescissory damages), to
require the Company to issue a separate proxy statement, and to
receive an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 14, 2019, the plaintiff, the Company and all other named
defendants entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU"), pursuant to which a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
of the Action was filed on October 14, 2019.
The Stipulation of Dismissal was approved and entered by the
District Court on October 15, 2019.
Among other things, the Stipulation of Dismissal acknowledged that
the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the
Commission on December 1, 2020 mooted the plaintiff's claims
regarding the sufficiency of disclosures, dismissed all claims
asserted in the Action, with prejudice as to the plaintiff only,
permits the plaintiff to seek an award of attorneys' fees in
connection with the mooted claims, and reserves the defendants'
rights to oppose such an award, if appropriate.
"Pursuant to the MOU, the parties have engaged in discussions
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees, if any, to which the
plaintiff's counsel is entitled in connection with the Action," the
Company said.
As of January 25, 2021, the Company have been settled with
Company's counterparty which paid into in total $65,000.
As of September 30, 2021, those discussions have been completed.
Greenland Technologies Holding Corporation is a British Virgin
Islands company. It is a developer and manufacturer of traditional
transmission products for material handling machineries and a
developer of a robotic cargo carrier prototype expected to be
available for commercial use in the near future in China.
GREGORY HACKER: Werner Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL K. WERNER v.
GREGORY HACKER, Case No. 21-cv-01431-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the court to enter an order for class certification, of the
class requested in the complaint, and appointment of Mr. Werner as
class representative, and Thomas G. Maag and the Maag Law Firm,
LLC, as class counsel.
The Plaintiff further requests the Court to delay briefing and
ruling on same, until such time as the parties have had a
reasonable opportunity for basic discovery related to the issues of
class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l3qIIn
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darrell K. Werner, Esq.
Thomas G. Maag, Esq
MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
22 West Lorena Avenue
Wood River, IL 62095
Telephone: (618) 216-5291
E-mail: tmaag@maaglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Cook, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
500 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Telephone: (217) 785-4555
Facsimile: (217) 782-8767
E-mail: lisa.cook@ilag.gov
GSCR LLC: De Los Santos Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Ronny De Los Santos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GSCR LLC, Mario Gatti and Matthew
Guiffrida, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06391,
(E.D. N.Y., November 17, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime premium pay owed pursuant to both the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including claims for
unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unlawfully withheld gratuities and
for failure to provide proper wage notices, and wage statement
violations.
Defendants have owned and operated "Muse@The End" restaurants and
"Muse Restaurant & Aquatic Lounge" and "Muse In the Harbor" where
De Los Santos worked as dishwasher and line cook. He claims to be
denied minimum wage for all hours worked and not paid overtime
premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
Website: www.PeltonGraham.com
GSK CONSUMER: Settlement in Swetz Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN SWETZ, individually
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GSK
Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-04731-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Nelson S. Roman entered an order granting final approval
to class action settlement and certifying settlement class as
follows:
1. certifying the following Settlement Class:
"All individuals who purchased Benefiber Healthy Shape
Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Original
Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Sugar-Free
Powder Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Prebiotic Powder Fiber
Supplement On-The-Go Stick Packs (Flavored or Unflavored),
and/or Benefiber Prebiotic Fiber Supplement Chewables for
personal or household use, and not for resale, in the
United States during the Class Period;"
Specifically excluded from the Class are (1) GSK, its
officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
employees, successors, and assigns, and entities in which
GSK has a controlling interest; (ii) judges presiding over
the Litigation; and (iii) local, municipal, state, and
federal governmental entities;"
2. appointing Susan Swetz and Philip White as Class
Representatives of the Settlement Class; and
3. appointing Jason Sultzer, The Sultzer Law Group P.C.;
Melissa Weiner, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Doug
McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Gary Mason,
Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP; Charles Schaffer, Levin Sedran
& Berman; Ryan Clarkson and Katherine Bruce, Clarkson Law
Firm, P.C.; and Chris Moon, Moon Law APC as Co-Lead Class
Counsel.
GSK releases Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel from any and
all claims that arise out of or relate in any way to the
institution, prosecution, or settlement of the Released Claims.
On August 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs submitted their Motion for Final
Approval of the Class Action Settlement and, thereafter, submitted
supplemental briefing regarding the Settlement Class's reaction to
the settlement. No objections were submitted.
On November 18, 2021, this Court held a Final Approval Hearing to
determine whether the terms of the Settlement Agreement were fair,
reasonable, and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted
by the Settlement Class against the Defendants.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nOtHWO at no extra charge.[CC]
H&M HENNES: Wingo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSICA WINGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L.P. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV000339, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09000 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required
records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred
in discharge of duties.
H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. is a company that retails apparels and
cosmetic products, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew L. Satenberg, Esq.
Catherine Rose Noble, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
E-mail: ASatenberg@manatt.com
CNoble@manatt.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Halcon Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GIDGET HALCON and NAMIA HOSSAIN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP,
INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-02156, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on November 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06527-JS-AYS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud,
constructive fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
and the California Unfair Competition Law by manufacturing,
distribution, and marketing of baby foods containing toxic heavy
metals.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is an American food company
headquartered in Lake Success, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Cinela Aziz, Esq.
Jessica Behmanesh, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
cinela@wilshirelawfirm.com
jbehmanesh@wilshirelawfirm.com
HAWAI'I: Class Settlement in Chatman v. DPS Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY CHATMAN, FRANCISCO ALVARADO, ZACHARY GRANADOS,
TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAX N. OTANI, Director
of State of Hawai'i, Department of Public Safety, in his official
capacity, Defendant, Civil No. 21-00268 JAO-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge
Jill A. Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
grants:
(1) the parties' Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval;
and
(2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees
and Costs Settlement Agreement.
Background
In the class action, Plaintiffs Chatman, Alvarado, Granados,
Mobley, and Deguair, individually and on behalf of the classes,
challenge the conditions in Hawaii's prisons and jails that have
contributed to multiple COVID-19 outbreaks. They contend that the
Department of Public Safety ("DPS"), headed by Defendant Max Otani,
has mishandled the pandemic and failed to implement its Pandemic
Response Plan in violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
On July 13, 2021, the Court issued an Order (1) Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification and (2)
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order ("PI
Order").
The Court provisionally certified the following classes pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23:
a. Post-Conviction Class: All present and future sentenced
prisoners incarcerated in a Hawai'i prison.
b. Post-Conviction Medical Subclass: Includes all present and
future Post-Conviction Class members whose medical condition
renders them especially vulnerable to COVID-19 as determined by
guidelines promulgated by the CDC.
c. Pretrial Class: All present and future pretrial detainees
incarcerated in a Hawai'i jail.
d. Pretrial Medical Subclass: Includes all present and future
Pretrial Class members whose medical condition renders them
especially vulnerable to COVID-19 as determined by guidelines
promulgated by the CDC.
The Court also granted injunctive relief and ordered the Defendant
"to fully comply with the Response Plan, focusing in particular on"
specific sections.
On July 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Clarify and/or
Modify Preliminary Injunction, followed by a Second Motion to
Modify Preliminary Injunction on Aug. 8, 2021. The Court denied
both motions.
After participating in multiple settlement conferences with
Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield, the parties settled the
case. On Sept. 2, 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement
and General Release.
The Settlement Agreement includes the following key terms:
a. Implementation of the Response Plan, with adaptations
based on CDC guidelines, best practices and recommendations from
the State of Hawai'i Department of Health, and each facility's
physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other
resources and conditions;
b. Establishment of a five-person, independent Agreement
Monitoring Panel (AMP) -- consisting of individuals with knowledge
and expertise in correctional health care and management of
infectious diseases in a correctional setting or in the management
of correctional systems -- that will provide non-binding, informed
guidance and recommendations to aid DPS with the implementation of
the Response Plan and any necessary changes to DPS's COVID-19
response;
c. Implementation of quarantine and isolation, vaccination
and testing, and sanitation procedures;
d. Issuance of a formal directive prohibiting DPS staff from
retaliating against any inmate or staff member for participation in
this lawsuit;
e. Release of all claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs arising from the acts or
omissions alleged in the lawsuit, or acts or omissions that could
have been litigated in the lawsuit;
f. Understanding that the Settlement Agreement is a
compromise to resolve the claims asserted in the action and of the
disputed claims without adjudication of the parties' rights,
claims, or defenses, and does not constitute an admission of
liability or truth of the parties' allegations, claims or
contentions;
g. Dismissal of all claims and pending appeals with
prejudice, following the final approval of the settlement; and
h. Payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the
class counsel.
On Sept. 3, 2021, the parties filed a (1) Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Order Setting Fairness
hearing; and (2) Joint Motion for Order Approving Notice and
Directing Giving Notice to the Class. The Court granted the motions
on Sept. 9, 2021, finding that the Settlement Agreement met the
standard for preliminary approval under FRCP 23(e), and that the
manner and form of the proposed notice was proper.
The parties engaged in settlement discussions regarding attorneys'
fees throughout the month of September. On Oct. 1, 2021, the
parties executed an Attorneys' Fees and Costs Settlement Agreement
and Release.
On Oct. 6, 2021, the Court issued an Order Granting the Parties'
Joint Motion to Request Deadlines for (1) the Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement Agreement and General Release and (2)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In addition to
establishing motions and briefing deadlines, the Court required a
revised notice to be posted in each correctional facility,
informing the class members of the new final fairness hearing date,
the deadline to object to the pending motions (with copies of the
motions made available to the class members), and the deadline to
file a request to appear at the final fairness hearing. On the same
day, the class counsel filed the objections received from class
members.
On Oct. 7, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs Settlement Agreement. On Oct. 8, 2021,
the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval.
Five class members timely filed requests to appear at the hearing.
On Nov. 8, 2021, the Court held a final fairness hearing, at which
it heard the pending motions.
Discussion
The parties ask the Court to grant final approval of the
settlement. The Plaintiffs request $250,540 in attorneys' fees. The
Defendant does not oppose the fee request.
After carefully considering the motions, the Settlement Agreement
and Fee Settlement Agreement, and the applicable law, Judge Otake
grants the motions and approves the settlement. In sum, she finds
no evidence or any suggestion that the settlement is the product of
fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating
parties. Accordingly, she approves the settlement because it is
fair, adequate, and reasonable.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Otake grants (1) the
parties' Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval; and (2) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Settlement Agreement. The requirements of FRCP 23(e) have been
satisfied and the Settlement Agreement and Fee Settlement Agreement
are fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Judge Otake approves $250,540 in attorneys' fees.
The case is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court retains jurisdiction regarding all matters relating to
the administration, consummation, and enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement and Fee Settlement Agreement and for any other necessary
purpose relating to the settlement.
Judge Otake directs the Clerk's Office to enter final judgment and
close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8ckcrfuh from Leagle.com.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Moser Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 14, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH J. MOSER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation;
DONISI JAX, INC., a Florida corporation also known as Nationwide
Health Advisors; HELPING HAND HEALTH GROUP, INC., a Florida
corporation; ANTHONY MARESCA, an individual; and MATTHEW HERMAN, an
individual, Case No. 3:17-cv-01127-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification
on or before January 14, 2022;
-- The Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for
class certification on or before February 28, 2022; and
-- The Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before March 30,
2022.
-- Any motion for class certification will be without oral
argument, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
The Court said, "On November 17, 2021, the parties filed status
reports. The Plaintiff requests that the Court allow supplemental
briefing "solely" on "the application of Bristol-Myers." The
Plaintiff contends that “all of the remaining issued related to
class certification that were previously ruled on should still
apply," because "[t]he Ninth Circuit's ruling did not touch the
Rule 23 class factors in any way."
On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff Kenneth J. Moser filed a Motion for
Class Certification. On August 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order
granting the Motion for Class Certification. The Court declined to
consider Defendant Health Insurance Innovations' ("HII") argument
that the Court "cannot exercise specific jurisdiction over a
non-resident defendant with respect to non-resident class claims"
pursuant to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct.
1773 (2017).
Health Insurance Innovations provides cloud-based software platform
for independent insurance agents and brokers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30TSn7h at no extra charge.[CC]
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA SANCHEZ, PABLO
SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1–10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following Class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
"All individuals who personally delivered newspapers for
Hearst Communications, Inc. solely pursuant to a
contractor home delivery agreement in the State of
California ("Dealers") for any time period from July 27,
2016 through the date of judgment;
2. appointing them as Representatives of the Class;
3. appointing their counsel The Ottinger Firm, P.C. and
Outten & Golden LLP as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek class certification to stop Hearst's unlawful
practices, bring Hearst into compliance with its legal obligations,
and recover wages and other money Hearst owes its employees.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members worked for Hearst to ensure that
Hearst's California customers received their newspapers seven days
a week, 365 days a year.
All Class Members signed form contracts that dictated in detail the
manner and means by which, each day, they must pack, distribute,
deliver, and redeliver (in the case of complaints about the initial
delivery) newspapers.
Hearst is a multimedia conglomerate that owns newspapers,
magazines, websites, television and stations throughout the United
States. Hearst's California headquarters are in San Francisco, and
it operates in and around the Bay Area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oRD2wy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
Theanne Liu, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
tliu@outtengolden.com
- and -
Robert Ottinger, Esq.
THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
535 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 262-0096
Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com
HERTZ CORP: Customers File Class Action Over Alleged Stolen Vehicle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wsmv.com reports that it's an experience on the road that they can
shake off or get out of their heads.
"I got pulled over and I'm talking about they shut a whole lane of
traffic down, had their guns drawn. It was pretty scary actually,"
Cindi Musgraves said.
Cindi and Myles Musgraves were driving through Mount Juliet in
their Hertz rental vehicle in September 2020 when they said they
were stopped and accused of stealing their rental car.
"We even showed them paperwork that we had a rental agreement with
them, and it had never been updated," Myles Musgraves said.
Attorney Francis Malofiy said he's heard this happening not once or
twice, but over 100 times. Malofiy is representing the Musgraves
and over 160 people in a class action lawsuit against Hertz.
"They can't keep track of their inventory. Their computer systems
are broken and they don't do the verification to determine where
their cars are," Malofiy said.
According to the lawsuit, once Hertz realizes it has made a mistake
in its system, the company refuses to withdraw police reports,
leaving the person stuck in the system.
"Rather than locate their inventory and doing the necessary
inventory control, they just simply report the car stolen and shift
the burden from a private corporation to the public," Malofiy
said.
News4 reached out to Hertz for an on-camera interview. The company
declined. Hertz did release the following statement:
"Hertz cares deeply about our customers, and we successfully
provide rental vehicles for tens of millions of travelers each
year. Unfortunately, in the legal matters being discussed, the
attorneys have a track record of making baseless claims that
blatantly misrepresent the facts. The vast majority of these cases
involve renters who were many weeks or even months overdue
returning vehicles and who stopped communicating with us well
beyond the scheduled due date. Situations where vehicles are
reported to the authorities are very rare and happen only after
exhaustive attempts to reach the customer."
It's a statement Myles and Cindi Musgraves disagree with.
"We have a receipt of them actually being paid in full and they
still reported the car stolen. They reported the car stolen after
they sent me a receipt saying they received the car back," Cindi
Musgraves said.
She said her case was eventually dismissed, but for this couple,
the memory will stay etched in their minds.
"They ruined a very good job that I had down there. They ruined my
love for Tennessee, that's for sure, and they just made my life
difficult for a year," Cindi Musgraves said. "I hope Hertz does
what they should do and make it right to everyone this happened
to."
For information on this class action lawsuit, contact Malofiy at
215-500-1000 or complete an online form. [GN]
HOUSTON CASUALTY: Court Recommends Dismissal of R&J Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, R&J ENTERTAINMENT LLC D/B/A/ TRAPPED ESCAPE ROOM, ET
AL., Plaintiffs v. HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-03782 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, recommended that the Court grants the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.
Background
In the case, Plaintiffs R&J and TRAPPED!, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated (collectively "R&J"), are
demanding insurance coverage from Defendant Houston Casualty
Company ("HCC") for the shutdown of their businesses due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
R&J operates escape room businesses in Upland, California; San
Dimas, California; and Las Vegas, Nevada. Over the past year and a
half, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted R&J's
operations. To prevent the spread of the virus, state governments
ordered the widespread shutdown of businesses across the country.
Relevant here, on March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom
issued Executive Order N-33-20, ordering all non-essential
government workers to remain in their homes to prevent the spread
of the virus. A few weeks later, on March 31, 2020, Nevada Governor
Steve Sisolak issued the Emergency Directive 010 Stay at Home
Order, which had the same effect as the California Executive
Order.1 These orders effectively prevented R&J from operating
escape rooms, causing financial losses.
R&J holds an all-risk insurance policy with HCC. Specifically, HCC
issued a Master Policy to the Association for Room Escapes of North
America ("ARENA"), under which the Policy was issued for the period
11/01/2019 to 11/01/2020. R&J obtained the Policy through its
membership with ARENA.
After suffering financial losses as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, R&J sought coverage under the Policy's business income,
extra expense, and civil authority coverage provisions. However,
according to R&J, HCC "has systematically denied and continues to
deny and refuses to provide payment for insurance claims for
coverage for similar losses and expenses by insureds holding
policies" that are substantially similar, if not identical, to the
Policy.
Consequently, in August 2020, R&J filed a purported class action
case against HCC in the Northern District of California, demanding
coverage under the Policy for losses suffered because of COVID-19
related closures. A short time later, upon joint stipulation of the
parties, the case was transferred to the Court. Since then, R&J has
filed a First Amended Complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment
regarding HCC's alleged violation of the Policy's business income,
civil authority, and extra expense coverage provisions.
Analysis
R&J seeks to recover under the Policy's business income, civil
authority, and extra expense coverage provisions. The business
income coverage provision allows recovery only if the insured
alleges facts that plausibly show that the suspension in business
operations was "caused by direct physical loss of or damage to
property at the premises." The civil authority coverage provision
allows recovery only if the insured alleges facts that plausibly
show that a government order prohibited "access to the described
premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property,
other than at the described premises." Similarly, the extra expense
coverage provision allows recovery only if the insured incurred
expenses due to "direct physical loss or damage to property."
HCC maintains that there is no insurance coverage. The crux of
HCC's argument is that R&J's losses were not caused by events or
occurrences which constituted "direct physical loss of or damage to
the property" under the Policy. R&J takes the opposite position
that losses caused by the government closure orders constitute
direct physical loss as defined by the Policy. Thus, the definition
of "direct physical loss of or damage to property" is central to
this dispute.
A. Direct Physical Loss of or Damage to Property
The term "direct physical loss of or damage to property" is not
defined by the Policy. When a policy term is undefined, a court
typically must apply the term's ordinary and generally accepted
meaning. HCC argues that the Court should apply the plain and
ordinary meaning, as has been previously applied in numerous Texas
federal courts. R&J counters this argument in two ways. First, R&J
argues that the plain ordinary meaning of "direct physical loss of
or damage to property" covers its property. Next, R&J argues that
the Court should apply a technical definition because the Insurance
Services Offices, Inc. ("ISO") seemingly understood the term to
include the type of non-physical damages typically caused by
viruses.
In Judge Edison's view, nothing in R&J's live pleading nor the
Policy necessitates a result different from the horde of Texas
federal courts that have already considered this issue. The term
"direct physical loss of or damage to property" as used in the
Policy is not ambiguous because courts throughout Texas have given
it a "definite" and "certain" legal meaning. That meaning requires
that covered property be physically lost or damaged before coverage
can exist. R&J has failed to plead facts adequate to meet this
standard.
B. Contractual Provisions at Issue
1. Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage
To recover under the business income and extra expense coverage
provisions, R&J must allege that its business operations were
suspended and it incurred expenses due to "direct physical loss of
or damage to its property." Judge Edison holds that R&J has not
alleged that its property has been physically lost or damaged, as
required under Texas law. Thus, R&J has not stated a valid claim
for business income or extra expense coverage.
2. Civil Authority Coverage
R&J argues that it has met the policy requirements for coverage
under the civil authority coverage provision because the Complaint
satisfies these elements by alleging (1) that civil authorities
prohibited access to the properties by ordering individuals to stay
at home, preventing access to them by workers and customers and
precluding their commercial use; and (2) that the Closure Orders
were issued in response to the presence of COVID-19 on both the
Plaintiffs' premises and those of nearby properties.
Judge Levy finds that because the orders were preventative -- and
absent allegations of physical damage to adjacent property -- the
complaint does not establish the requisite causal link between
prior property damage and the government's closure order." And,
"absent a direct causal link between a civil order 'prohibiting
access' and some kind of 'physical loss or damage,' there can be no
Civil Authority coverage." Because R&J fails to plead such a causal
relationship, it has not adequately alleged coverage under the
civil authority provision.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Edison holds that HCC's Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should
be granted, and the case dismissed.
The Clerk will provide copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have 14 days from receipt to file
written objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and
General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within
the time period mentioned will bar an aggrieved party from
attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Memorandum &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/pr3xzpm3 from
Leagle.com.
HOWARD BANK: Ct. Extends Time to File Class Cert Response in Brasko
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brasko, et al., v. Howard
Bank, Case No. 1:20-cv-03489 (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A.
Gallagher entered an order extending the time to file
response/reply regarding motion to certify class.
The suit alleges violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act involving consumer credit and kickbacks/unearned fees.
Howard Bank operates a general commercial banking business.[CC]
IDAHO: Veenstra Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ALBERT PETE VEENSTRA III filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALBERT PETE VEENSTRA, III;
KENT ELLIS; and CHARLES SACOLICK, et al., Plaintiffs v. BRAD
LITTLE; JOSH TEWALT; ALBERTO RAMIREZ; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF PARDONS
AND PAROLE, COMMISSION OF PARDONS AND PAROLE; and STATE OF IDAHO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00341-DCN, in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho.
The complaint alleges that the Idaho Department of Correction
(IDOC), the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole (ICPP), and
various state officials have violated the Constitution by failing
to ensure that two prisons -- the Idaho State Correctional
Institution (ISCI) and the Idaho State Correctional Center (ISCC)
-- are adequately staffed. The Plaintiffs assert claims for
injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, contending that
this understaffing violates the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.
The Plaintiffs sought the following injunctive relief to remedy the
allegedly unconstitutional understaffing:
(1) Orders requiring Defendants to ensure that "all IDOC
facilities[,] including probation and parole," have
constitutionally "adequate levels of staffing and parole
officers";
(2) Orders requiring Defendants to "implement treatment
programing, education[,] . . . religious gathering[s]" and
visitation to pre-pandemic levels; and
(3) Orders requiring the ICPP to "have an effective alternative
to incarceration for technical violations, i.e., a parolee who has
not been convicted of a new felony or misdemeaner [sic] offence to
include violent disturbing the peace, or have not alleged to have
absconed [sic] supervision."
When this action was filed, Plaintiff Veenstra was a prisoner in
the custody of the IDOC and was incarcerated at ISCI. However,
Plaintiff Veenstra has since been released on parole.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated
November 3, 2021, dismissing his claims as moot, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915 and 1915A, terminating him as a party to this
action, and denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The appellate case is captioned as Albert Veenstra, III, et al. v.
Brad Little, et al., Case No. 21-35927, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 5, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states appellant Albert
Pete Veenstra III opening brief is due on January 5, 2022.
Plaintiff-Appellant ALBERT PETE VEENSTRA III of Nampa, Idaho
appears pro se.[BN]
INDUS COMPANIES: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Jan. 23, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY NELSON, v. INDUS
COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00982-JLG-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- Class Certification Motion due by: Jan. 23, 2023
-- Joinder of Parties due by: Feb. 25, 2022
-- Motions to Amend due by: Feb. 25, 2022
-- Initial Disclosures due by: Nov. 19, 2021
-- Discovery due by: Dec. 9, 2022
-- Dispositive motions due by: Jan. 23, 2023
-- Mediation Deadline: Sept. 2022
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r0FXWd at no extra charge.[CC]
INFUCARE RX: Case Management & Scheduling Order Amended in Sharfman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D.,
P.A., v. INFUCARE RX LLC and INFUCARE RX PENNSYLVANIA INC., Case
No. 6:21-cv-00525-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Daniel C.
Irick entered an order amending the case management and scheduling
order as follows:
-- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Expert May 6, 2022
Report
-- Disclosure of Defendants' Expert June 3, 2022
Report
-- Discovery Deadline July 3, 2022
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class August 5, 2022
Certification
-- Dispositive Motions and Daubert Sept. 30, 2022
Motions
-- All Other Motions Including Dec. 2, 2022
Motions In Limine
-- Meeting in Person to Prepare Dec. 4, 2022
Joint Final Pretrial Statement
InfuCare Rx Inc provides healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xbAcpP at no extra charge.[CC]
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bid to DIsmiss Rice Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion
to dismiss the purported shareholder class action suit entitled,
Richard Rice, as Trustee of the Richard E. and Melinda Rice
Revocable Family Trust 5/9/90, and Christian Stankevitz v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., is pending.
On November 5, 2020, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.
The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on January 4, 2021.
The Court appointed lead plaintiff in the lawsuit on January 25,
2021, and the lead plaintiff filed a corrected amended complaint on
March 15, 2021, captioned Richard Rice, as Trustee of the Richard
E. and Melinda Rice Revocable Family Trust 5/9/90, and Christian
Stankevitz v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.
The lead plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020.
This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7,
2020, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
Company's New Drug Application for Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or
"OCA") for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH") and the use of Ocaliva in patients with
primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), as well as the Company's
operations, financial performance and prospects.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.
On April 26, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on June 9, 2021, the
Company filed a reply brief.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and
Canada.
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Liu and Fu Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the appeal
made in the purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Hou
Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., is
pending.
On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.
The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.
The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017.
This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20,
2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding
Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well
as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.
On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27,
2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company.
On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. On
September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set
aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended
complaint, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did
not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint.
On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on
January 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appellate brief
challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment, the September 9, 2020
judgment and other orders entered in this action.
On April 23, 2021, the Company filed a brief in response to the
Second Circuit appellate proceeding. On May 14, 2021, the
plaintiffs filed a reply brief.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and
Canada.
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klein Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Iterum Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company is
facing a complaint alleging that it violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned Klein v. Iterum
Therapeutics PLC, et al.
On August 5, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, captioned Klein v. Iterum
Therapeutics PLC, et al., No. 1:21-cv-04181.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 30, 2020 and
July 23, 2021.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly
material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's
submission of a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for marketing approval of sulopenem
etzadroxil/probenecid (oral sulopenem) for the treatment of
uncomplicated urinary tract infections in patients with a quinolone
non-susceptible pathogen and the likelihood of such approval.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.
"The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on November 3, 2021, the Company said.
Iterum Therapeutics plc is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company
dedicated to developing and commercializing sulopenem to be
potentially the first oral branded penem available in the United
States and the first and only oral and intravenous (IV) branded
penem available globally. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
IVERSON MANSELLE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iverson Manselle
Bates Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Iverson Manselle Bates Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09476
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Iverson Manselle Bates Enterprises, LLC is a Tennessee Domestic
Limited-Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Enriquez Suit Dismissal With Prejudice Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., and
ACTAVIS LLC, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-1174-19 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff Matthew Enriquez appeals from an Oct. 10, 2019 order
dismissing his complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).
In December 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action suit against
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Actavis Pharma, Inc., and Actavis LLC. The proposed class was
defined as "all current New Jersey citizens (including natural
persons and entities) who purchased health insurance policies in
New Jersey from 1996 through the present; and all current New
Jersey citizens who paid for any portion of employer-provided
health insurance from 1996 through the present." The complaint
asserted causes of action for: violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-226; public nuisance; unjust
enrichment; negligence; and negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage.
The complaint alleged the Defendants fueled the opioid crisis in
New Jersey, causing insurance companies to pay the costs of opioid
medication and addiction treatment for their insureds, which
increased premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for the Plaintiff and
the other class members. It asserted the Defendants "manufactured,
marketed and sold prescription opioids, and engaged in a deceptive
marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids
to treat chronic pain." It further claimed the Defendants "falsely
minimized the risks of opioids, and overstated their benefits and
generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have
been." The Defendants allegedly represented that opioid addiction
could be treated through use of opioids, misrepresented the signs
of addiction, and suggested tapering or increasing opioid use as a
valid means of treatment. The Plaintiff asserted the "Defendants
knew that their misrepresentations about the risks and benefits of
opioids were not supported by, and sometimes were directly contrary
to, the scientific evidence."
The complaint alleged the Defendants devised a scheme to
misrepresent the risks and benefits of opioids to increase
prescriptions by tapping into the large and lucrative market for
chronic-pain patients. Further, the Defendants disseminated false
and misleading information through: continuing medical education
programs; advertisements targeting medical professionals and the
public; websites; and direct sales and promotional communications
with doctors and chronic-pain patients.
According to the Plaintiff, the "Defendants created, funded,
controlled, and operated third-party organizations that
communicated directly with doctors and chronic-pain patients to
promote opioid use generally without naming specific brands giving
the false appearance that the deceptive messages came from an
independent and objective source." Third-party groups aided the
"Defendants by responding to negative articles, advocating against
regulatory changes that would limit opioid prescriptions, and
conducting outreach to vulnerable patient populations targeted by
the Defendants." The complaint also alleged the Defendants
recruited highly qualified medical professionals to spread
misinformation "about the risks and benefits of opioids and other
pain-treatment options." These individuals "purported to act
independently," thereby "lending legitimacy to the Defendants'
false and misleading claims about opioids."
The Defendants allegedly falsely claimed "opioids produce positive
long-term outcomes in cases of chronic pain," and misrepresented
the risks of competing non-opioid pain-relief products, "so that
doctors and patients would favor opioids for treatment of chronic
pain." The complaint asserted defendants unlawfully targeted
susceptible providers and vulnerable populations.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim. Judge Steven J. Polansky heard oral argument on the
motion. He granted the motion to dismiss. He concluded it was
"highly impracticable" to claim insurance premiums increased due to
opioids because there are a myriad of reasons, independent of the
opioid epidemic, which have an impact on insurance costs. Some
costs may be borne by insurers resulting in lower profits, some may
be paid by employers, and some may be passed on to the purchasers
of health insurance. These costs may also be subject to higher
co-pays, deductibles or limitations of coverage.
Judge Polansky dismissed the Plaintiff's public nuisance count. He
reasoned such claims should be "brought by a governmental entity or
an individual who sustains some special damage over and above that
suffered by the general public" and the complaint failed to meet
either criterion. He also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim,
finding "the Plaintiff can point to no direct benefit received by
any Defendant from the Plaintiff. Rather, A-1174-19 any benefit
Plaintiff conferred was directed to his health insurer. The facts
presented are far too remote to permit a cause of action based upon
unjust enrichment to proceed."
Judge Polansky also concluded the negligence claim was not viable
because the Defendants owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff. He
stated that the nature of the risk to consumers of health insurance
is too far removed from the Defendants' conduct, and any risk too
attenuated, to find as a matter of fairness that a duty should
extend to such outer limits.
The Appellate Division's review "is limited to examining the legal
sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint," and
it does do not concern itself with a plaintiff's ability to prove
the allegations.
Having conducted our review pursuant to these principles, the
Appellate Division affirms substantially for the reasons set forth
in Judge Polansky's thorough and well-written opinion. It finds
that the Plaintiff's reliance on James v. Arms Technology, Inc.,
359 N.J.Super. 291 (App. Div. 2003), to support the viability of
his CFA claim based on a fraud on the market theory of causation is
misplaced. The James plaintiffs asserted negligence, product
liability, public nuisance, and unjust enrichments claims; they did
not assert a CFA claim. Moreover, James is inapposite because the
Plaintiff and the putative class are private as opposed to public
entities.
The Plaintiff asserts James supports his public nuisance claim and
his overall theory of causation, which was based on the
hypothetical effects of defendants' conduct on insurance costs and
premiums.
This argument is likewise unavailing, the Appellate Division
opines. It finds that a "special injury has a specific and
well-defined meaning in public nuisance jurisprudence. It must be
an injury different in kind, rather than in degree." The Court held
dismissal of the complaint was proper because it did not establish
"the requisite connection between damages and special injury."
The Plaintiff's complaint, according to the Appellate Division, did
not establish a special injury. The complaint averred prescription
opioids have devastated communities across the country and in the
State of New Jersey and some estimates state that the opioid crisis
is costing governmental entities and private companies as much as
$500 billion per year." Accepting this claim as true, it is evident
the public nuisance claim could not survive dismissal because the
Plaintiff did not assert a different kind of injury but instead the
degree of the injury, namely, the increase in insurance premiums
and costs.
In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Division affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/f5ha5jy5 from Leagle.com.
J. Michael Connolly (Consovoy McCarthy, PLLC) of the Virginia and
District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause
for appellant (Joshua M. Neuman, Tobias L. Millrood and Gabriel C.
Magee (Pogust Millrood, LLC), J. Michael Connolly, William S.
Consovoy (Consovoy McCarthy, PLLC) of the Virginia and District of
Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, Ashley C. Keller (Keller
Lenkner LLC) of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Travis
Lenkner (Keller Lenkner, LLC) of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac
vice, attorneys; Joshua M. Neuman, Tobias L. Millrood , Gabriel C.
Magee, Kyle N. Thompson (Kilcoyne & Nesbitt, LLC), Ashley C.
Keller, Travis Lenkner and William S. Consovoy, on the briefs).
Jonathan P. Schneller -- jschneller@omm.com -- (O'Melveny & Myers
LLP) of the California bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause
for respondents (Jonathan P. Schneller and Calcagni & Kanefsky,
LLP, attorneys for Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, attorneys for Actavis Pharma,
Inc. and Atavis LLC; Eric T. Kanefsky, Walter R. Krzastek, Martin
B. Gandelman, Harvey Bartle, IV, Mark Fiore and Brian M. Ercole, on
the joint brief).
JT RENOVATION: Quito Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Miguel Quito, Jorge Rene Montero, Nelson Ivan Montero Tenezaca,
Mike Montero, Jose Lucas Montero Tenezaca, and Andres Salto,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JT
RENOVATION NEW YORK INC. (D/B/A JT RENOVATION NEW YORK), 786 CORONA
CORP., 108-01 ROOSEVELT AVE CORP., Farroukh Hafeez and JOSE B.
TIGRE, Case No. 1:21-cv-06439 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021), is brought
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants
repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as a plumber, an electrician, an
assistant carpenter, a construction helper, a laborer, a drywall
plasterer, and a carpenter at the Defendants' construction
corporation.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located in Corona, New York under the name "JT Renovation New
York."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
JUPITER, FL: Court Tosses Amended Bid to Certify Class 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 Hon. Judge
Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' amended motion to conditionally certify
action and to authorize notice denied.
2. The individuals who filed Notices of Consent to join in
this action are dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), to recover for alleged unpaid
overtime.
The Plaintiffs are law enforcement personnel currently or form
formerly employed by the Town of Jupiter.
The Plaintiffs first moved for conditional class certification and
for permission to send notice on August 13, 2021.
Judge Middlebrooks says that he denied that motion on October 13,
2021 because Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for
their claim that other employees who desire to join in this action
are similarly situated to them and their proposed class was
acceptably broad. However, my sua sponte review of the record
revealed that Plaintiffs may have obtained factual information
about the opt-ins which may support conditional certification,
Judge Middlebrooks add.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oXE6z5 at no extra charge.[CC]
JUUL LABS: Education Board Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 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-09043 (N.D. Cal., November
22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Illinois 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, the suit alleges.
Board of Education of the City of Chicago is a public school
district with its offices located on West Madison Street in
Chicago, Illinois.
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:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
- and –
Philip C. Federico, Esq.
Brent Ceryes, Esq.
Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO & STATON, P.A.
The Paulton
1211 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 234-1000
E-mail: pfederico@sfspa.com
bceryes@sfspa.com
mlegg@sfspa.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Millington Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLINGTON 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-08975-WHO (N.D. Cal., November 19,
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, the suit alleges.
Millington Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 8664 Dean Drive in Millington, 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: Henry County Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, HENRY COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, 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-09042 (N.D.
Cal., November 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Alabama 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, says the suit.
Henry County School District, Henry County, State of Alabama is a
school district with its offices located at 300 N. Trawick Street,
Abbeville, Alabama.
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:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
KOHL'S CORP: Hennessey Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL HENNESSEY,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. KOHL'S
CORPORATION and KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-01866-DDN (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge David D. Noce entered
an order that:
-- the motion of defendants to deny class certification and to
strike class allegations is sustained.
-- the motion of plaintiff for class certification is denied.
-- the motion of defendants for leave to submit supplemental
authority is denied as moot.
The Court concludes that the appropriate sanction for defendants'
failure to provide the Legal Notices in their initial disclosures
and in subsequent document requests does not include exclusion of
the class action waiver. While the defendants offer no persuasive
justification for their failure to provide the Legal Notices, the
other factors weigh against exclusion. As shown by defendants'
assertion of the class action waiver in this case and previous
cases, the waiver is an important affirmative defense. Plaintiff
cannot claim surprise and prejudice for the late revelation, as
plaintiff's counsel has encountered defendants' class action waiver
in a past case when defendants similarly asserted it as an
affirmative defense.
Additionally, the defendants repeatedly gave plaintiff notice of
the class action waiver through both correspondence between counsel
and defendants' assertion of the affirmative defense in its answer.
Lastly, the late revelation of the class action waiver will not
affect the order and efficiency of future proceedings, as the Court
had not yet certified the class and discovery is ongoing.
Therefore, the Court will not exclude the class action waiver.
The Plaintiff Hennessey has brought this action individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, invoking diversity of
citizenship subject matter jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C.
section 1332. Plaintiff alleges two claims under Missouri state
law: (1) unlawful practices in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 407.020(1)
("MMPA") and (2) unjust enrichment under Missouri common law.
Kohl's markets its merchandise to the public by making false and
misleading price comparisons in connection with the advertisement
and sale of its private brand merchandise that is available "only
at Kohl's" and its exclusive brands that are developed and marketed
through agreements with nationally-recognized brands. The false and
misleading price comparisons appear on price tags affixed to items,
on signs posted in Kohl's retail stores, in print advertisements,
in mailing circulars, and on Kohl's website Kohls.com. The
Plaintiff alleges defendants represent that customers can buy
Kohl's private and exclusive brand products "on sale" at a
substantial discount from its advertised former prices, which
defendants refer to as the "regular" or "original" prices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r3QH6b at no extra charge.[CC]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Toscano Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Jose Toscano, individually and
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS
North America LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01685-JFC (W.D. Pa., Nov. 18,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sandra Duggan, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
KONRAD KLIMCZAK: Court Junks Klich Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK KLICH, ALUMINUM
FABRICATORS CORP., and R. KING WINDOWS CORP., v. KONRAD KLIMCZAK,
ZDZISLAW KLIMCZAK, WOJCIECH KLIMCZAK, and MAREK JAROS, Case No.
1:21-cv-04812-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered
an order dismissing the case and directing the Clerk to enter
judgment accordingly.
The issue in this diversity case is whether plaintiffs may maintain
suit for breach of a confidentiality clause in an agreement that
settled a prior Fair Labor Standards Act case. I hold that they may
not because the confidentiality clause is unenforceable, Judge
Cogan says.
The complaint in the underlying FLSA action alleged that defendants
had a policy and practice of requiring their employees t regularly
work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying overtime
compensation as federal and state law require. It was styled as a
putative collective and class action, but the parties settled the
case before a motion was made to approve the collective action or
for class
certification, Judge Cogan adds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Zfthj2 at no extra charge.[CC]
KONTOGENADA INC: Mata Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Mata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KONTOGENADA, INC. d/b/a NIFOROS CORNER and PANAGIOTIS
DAMOULIANOS and SOFIA DAMOULIANOS, as individuals, Case No.
1:21-cv-06372 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's
employment, under the Federal and the New York Labor Law.
Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 72 hours or more per
week during the Relevant Statutory Period, the Defendants did not
pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL. Furthermore, the Plaintiff worked approximately 12 hours or
more per day, 6 days a week, however, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for
each day worked over 10 hours, a blatant violation of the spread of
hours provisions contained in NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed
to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements
in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as
required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a grill worker and
counter person, while performing other miscellaneous duties.
KONTOGENADA, INC. d/b/a NIFOROS CORNER, is a corporation organized
under the laws of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
KUEHNE + NAGEL: Fells Suit Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Fells, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kuehne + Nagel Inc., Defendant, Case No.
160473/2021, (N.Y. Sup., November 18, 2021), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Kuehne + Nagel allegedly classified Fells as exempt from overtime
provisions and failed to pay her overtime wages as required by law.
Fells performed non-exempt job duties, including setting up
software passwords and access, configuring customer accounts, and
performing first-level "help desk" support for end users. She
claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek
but not compensated at one and one-half time her regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
- and -
Michael D. Lore, Esq.
MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-782-5291
L&L CONTRACTING: Semedo Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUCAS SEMEDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. L&L CONTRACTING, INC. and KIMBERLY J.
LOCKE, Case No. 21STCV33693, was removed from the Massachusetts
Superior Court in and for the County of Norfolk to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 19,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-11877-DJC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful discharge,
breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and violations of Massachusetts General Laws.
L&L Contracting, Inc. is a general contractor in Braintree,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael P. Sams, Esq.
Laura M. Raisty, Esq.
KENNEY & SAMS, P.C.
Reservoir Nine
144 Turnpike Road, Suite 350
Southborough, MA 01772
Telephone: (508) 490-8500
E-mail: mpsams@KSlegal.com
lmraisty@KSlegal.com
LANA ROZENBERG: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lana Rozenberg D.D.S.
P.C. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Lana Rozenberg D.D.S.
P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-09541 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dr. Lana Rozenberg -- https://www.rozenbergdentalnyc.com/ -- is a
top dental specialist in NYC who provides quality and comprehensive
dental care for all ages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
LEDGER SAS: California Court Dismisses Baton Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the lawsuit entitled EDWARD BATON, et al., Plaintiffs v. LEDGER
SAS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02470-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action seeking redress for
harms they allegedly suffered stemming from a data breach exposing
over 270,000 pieces of personally identifiable information,
including customer names, email addresses, postal addresses and
telephone numbers (First Amended Complaint or "FAC").
Background
The Plaintiffs are customers of Defendant Ledger SAS ("Ledger"), a
French company based in Paris that sells hardware wallets to allow
customers to manage cryptocurrency. Ledger sells its hardware
wallets--the Ledger Nano X and Ledger Nano S--through its
e-commerce website, which operates on Defendant Shopify, Inc.'s
platform. The Plaintiffs allege they, and several putative classes,
each bought a Ledger hardware wallet on Ledger's e-commerce
website, through Shopify's platform, between July 2017 and June
2020. When the Plaintiffs made their purchases, they provided their
name, email addresses, telephone numbers and postal addresses.
The Plaintiffs' claims arise of two security incidents involving
data breaches exposing the Plaintiffs' contact information. First,
Plaintiffs allege that between April and June 2020, rogue Shopify,
Inc. employees exported a trove of data, including Ledger's
customer transactional records. Shopify allegedly publicly
announced the theft on Sept. 22, 2020, which involved the data of
approximately 272,000 people. The Plaintiffs allege that Ledger did
not inform them that their data was involved in the Shopify breach
at that time.
Second, the Plaintiffs allege that Ledger publicly announced that
an unauthorized third-party gained access to Ledger's e-commerce
database through an application programming interface key on June
25, 2020, and acquired the email addresses of one million customers
and physical contact information of 9,500 customers. The Plaintiffs
allege that Ledger did not disclose that the attack on Ledger's
website and the theft of Shopify's data were connected, that Ledger
downplayed the scale of the actual attack, and, as a result, the
Plaintiffs and putative class members were subject to phishing
scams, cyber-attacks, and demands for ransom and threats. The
Plaintiffs contend that Ledger knew that its customer list was
highly valuable to hackers, because it was a list of people who
have converted substantial wealth into anonymized crypto-assets
that are transferrable without a trace.
The Plaintiffs allege that despite knowing the high value of its
customer list and the need for confidentiality, Ledger did not
implement security measures to protect its customers by regularly
deleting and/or archiving the customer data to protect that
information from online accessibility. Ledger also failed to
exercise reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing,
safeguarding, deleting, and protecting its customers personal
information that Ledger had in its possession from being
compromised, lost, or stolen, and from being accessed, and misused
by unauthorized persons. Similarly, the Plaintiffs allege Shopify
failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining, retaining,
securing, safeguarding, deleting, and protecting their personal
information in their possession from being compromised, lost, or
stolen, and from being accessed, and misused by unauthorized
persons.
The Plaintiffs are five Ledger customers who reside, respectively,
in California, Georgia, New York, London, United Kingdom and Tel
Aviv, Israel. They purport to represent several classes and
subclasses, ranging from customers internationally to customers in
particular states who suffered particular harms. The Plaintiffs
bring claims for, among others, negligence, negligence per se,
injunctive relief and remedies under California's unfair
competition law, Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act and New
York's General Business Law.
Shopify USA states that it is incorporated in Delaware, has its
principal place of business in Ontario, Canada, and never had a
business relationship with Ledger. Shopify Inc. explains it is a
Canadian corporation that it is not registered to do business in
California and, does not have any employees in California. It
explains that the "rogue" individuals, who were responsible for the
data breach of Shopify, Inc.'s platform, were not employees of
Shopify or any of its affiliated companies, but independent
contractors of a company called TaskUs, who were located in the
Philippines. Ledger explains that it is a French company with no
California or U.S. employees.
Defendant Ledger Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from this
case. Remaining Defendants Shopify USA, Shopify, Inc. and Ledger
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on multiple
grounds, including for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.
Discussion
A. Personal Jurisdiction
Judge Chen notes that there are two categories of personal
jurisdiction: (1) general jurisdiction and (2) specific
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court has general
jurisdiction (and, in the alternative, specific jurisdiction) over
Shopify USA and specific jurisdiction over Shopify, Inc. and
Ledger.
The Court finds that it lacks general jurisdiction (and specific
jurisdiction) over Shopify USA, and lacks specific jurisdiction
over Shopify, Inc., and Ledger.
The Plaintiffs' observation that Shopify USA's place of business at
the time of the data breach was in California does not establish
the Court's general jurisdiction over Shopify USA, Judge Chen
opines. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that at the time this case
was filed, in April 2021, Spotify USA's principal place of business
was in Ottawa, Canada--not San Francisco, California.
B. Specific Jurisdiction
Specific jurisdiction exists in tort type cases where: (1) the
defendant "purposefully directed" its activities towards
California; (2) the plaintiff's claims "arise out of" those
forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is
"reasonable." See Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1142
(9th Cir. 2017). The purposeful direction test applies where, as
here, the Plaintiffs assert primarily tort or statutory claims,
Judge Chen explains.
The Court finds that it lacks specific jurisdiction over Shopify,
Inc., and Shopify USA.
Because the Plaintiffs fail to show (1) that the Shopify, Inc.
"purposefully directed" their activities towards California, and
(2) that their claims "arise out of" Shopify's forum-related
activities demonstrate, the Court concludes that it lacks specific
jurisdiction over Shopify Inc (and, correspondingly, over Shopify
USA). Accordingly, the Shopify Defendants are dismissed from the
action.
The Court also finds that it lacks specific jurisdiction over
Ledger.
Judge Chen opines that Ledger did not purposefully direct its
activities towards California, Ledger did not expressly aim
activity at California, and Ledger did not cause harm in California
that it knew was likely to be suffered there.
Thus, because the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the second and third
prongs of the purposeful direction test--that Ledger expressly
aimed an intentional act at California and that intentional act
caused harm that Ledger knew was likely to be suffered in the forum
state--the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that Ledger purposefully
directed its activities in California to give rise to the Court's
specific jurisdiction over Ledger.
Thus, because the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden to
demonstrate that Ledger "purposefully directed" its activity at
California, and that Plaintiffs' claims "arise out of" Ledger's
California-related activities, the Court concludes that it lacks
specific jurisdiction over Ledger. Thus, Defendant Ledger is
dismissed from this action.
C. Jurisdictional Discovery
Having concluded that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
any of the three Defendants in the case, the Court turns to the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
The decision of whether to grant jurisdictional discovery is
typically within the discretion of the district court, Judge Chen
notes, citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d
406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977).
The Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery articulates
six issues pertaining to the Shopify Defendants and three issues
pertaining to Ledger that they would seek to investigate. The Court
need not grant jurisdictional discovery, however, where the
Plaintiffs' requests are "purely speculative allegations of
attenuated jurisdictional contacts" (Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d
852, 860 (9th Cir. 2011)). Moreover, where a defendant has already
provided evidence establishing that personal jurisdiction does not
exist, jurisdictional discovery is unwarranted, Judge Chen states,
citing Frank Valli & The Four Seasons v. EMI, Music Publ'g Ltd.,
No. CV 17-7831-MWF (JCx), 2018 WL 6136818, *8 (C.D. Cal. May 22,
2018).
Judge Chen opines that the Plaintiffs' requested discovery is not
based on any prima facie evidence that the undisputed evidence
presented by the Defendants are false or inaccurate.
Accordingly, the Court concludes jurisdictional discovery is based
on speculation and is, therefore, unwarranted. The Court denies the
Plaintiffs' request.
In light of the Court's finding that jurisdictional discovery is
unwarranted, the Court concludes that it would be futile for the
Plaintiffs to attempt to amend their complaint to assert personal
jurisdiction over any of the three Defendants.
Conclusion
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants Shopify USA,
Shopify, Inc., and Ledger. Accordingly, the Court grants each
Defendant's respective motion to dismiss.
The Court, further, concludes that jurisdictional discovery is
unwarranted and, thus, denies the Plaintiffs' request for
jurisdictional discovery. For the reasons explained in this Order,
the Court finds that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to attempt to assert personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants. Thus, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 55, 56, and 58. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ayphhvk3 from Leagle.com.
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: McDonough Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL P. McDONOUGH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC and TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00375-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his motion for class certification.
This action arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA") in their attempts to collect
a time-barred debt from the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on February 10, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging that the Defendants violated the provisions of the
FDCPA banning false, deceptive, or misleading collection conduct.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify Plaintiff Class defined as follows:
"the two hundred and four (204) consumers in the State of
Pennsylvania who received a collection letter issued by
Leopold on behalf of Trinity, similar to that sent by Leopold
to Plaintiff which: (i) falsely advised that Trinity could
commence a foreclosure action on a time-barred debt; (ii)
falsely advised the consumer to send requests for validation
to Trinity, rather than to Leopold; (iii) failed to provide a
clear an accurate statement of the consumer's validation
rights; (iv) failed to clearly and accurately state the
amount of the debt allegedly owed; (v) failed to clearly and
accurately state what "other charges" may be included in the
demand for payment; and (vi) failed to clearly and accurately
provide the address to which written disputes are to be sent
by the consumer.
The Plaintiff also seeks to certify a subclass of:
consumers who actually made payment to either Trinity or
Leopold in reliance on the false representation in the
collection letter(s) indicating that Trinity could lawfully
commence a foreclosure action when, in fact, such action was
time-barred.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) statutory
damage class.
Leopold is a debt collector that regularly collects debts on behalf
of third-party creditors.
Trinity is a debt collector in that it is in the business of
purchasing debts owed to others which are in default, and
collecting on such debts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32fVFCy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
SANDERS LAW GROUP
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 282-7878
E-mail: csanders@sanderslaw.group
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Bid to Set Class Cert Briefing Sched Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIPRIANO CORREA, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES INC., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00946-RM-NYW (D. Colo.), the parties file a stipulated
Motion to set the schedule for briefing on Plaintiffs' class
certification motion as follows:
-- The parties accordingly agree that the deadline for
Defendants to file their oppositions to class
certification and submit any expert reports is extended to
January 14, 2022 and the Plaintiffs' deadline to file
their reply in support of class certification and any
expert rebuttal reports is extended to February 14, 2022;
-- On November 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Class Certification;
-- The Defendants' opposition to class certification is due
November 22, 2021 and Plaintiffs' reply in support of
class certification is due December 6, 2021; and
-- The parties agree that an extension of time to file class
certification opposition and reply briefs is needed to
permit additional discovery pertaining to class
certification, including depositions of the Plaintiffs and
potential preparation of expert reports, and absent an
extension the parties will be unable to adequately conduct
class certification discovery and brief class
certification.
A copy of the Parties' stipulated motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rhrPZ9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Liberty, the Individual Defendants, and the
Riverstone Defendants, are:
Lee F. Johnston, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
1050 17 th Street, Suite 1800
Denver, CO 80265
Telephone: (303) 382-6200
Facsimile: (303) 382-6210
E-mail: lee.johnston@haynesboone.com
- and -
R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
Daniel H. Gold, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
2828 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 271-5777
E-mail: thad.behrens@shearman.com
dan.gold@shearman.com
- and -
Matthew A. McGee, Esq.
Benjamin G. Goodman, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 651-5000
Facsimile: (214) 651-5940
E-mail: matt.mcgee@haynesboone.com
benjamin.goodman@haynesboone.com
The Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants, are:
William Leone, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3050
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 801-2750
E-mail: william.leone@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Brian S. Weinstein, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4972
Facsimile: (212) 701-5972
E-mail: brian.weinstein@davispolk.com
The Attorney for the Plaintiffs, are:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Yu Shi, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
yshi@rosenlegal.com
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Nath Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Kishore Nath, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lightspeed Commerce Inc., Dax Dasilva, And
Brandon Blair Nussey, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06365, (E.D. N.Y.,
November 16, 2021), seeks to recover damages caused by violations
of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Lightspeed provides commerce enabling Software as a Service
platform for small and midsize businesses, retailers, restaurants,
and golf course operators in Canada, the United States, Germany,
Australia, and internationally.
Nath alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that Lightspeed
overstated its customer count, gross transaction volume and
increase in average revenue per user while concealing its declining
organic growth and business deterioration, and overstating the
benefits and value of its various acquisitions and its financial
position and prospects.
On this news, Lightspeed's stock price fell $13.73 per share, or
12.2%, to close at $98.77 per share on September 29, 2021.
Nath acquired Lightspeed securities and lost upon the revelation of
the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Lightspeed
Commerce Inc. f/k/a Lightspeed POS Inc. ("Lightspeed" or "the
Company") (NYSE: LSPD) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
11, 2020 and September 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
are encouraged to contact the firm before January 18, 2022.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Lightspeed overstated its customer count,
gross transaction volume (GTV), and increase in Average Revenue Per
User (ARPU), among other metrics. The Company misrepresented the
strength of its business while concealing its declining organic
growth. The Company overstated the benefits of its multiple
acquisitions. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Lightspeed, investors
suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses. [GN]
LOUIE'S SEAFOOD: New York Court Affirms Dismissal of Brown Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIE'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, LLC, ET AL., Appellants v.
JEFFREY BROWN, ET AL., Respondents, 2018-03166, Index No. 5532/15
(N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York, Second Department, affirmed the order of the Supreme
Court, Nassau County, entered Sept. 12, 2016, granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for aiding and
abetting fraud, the Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme
Court, Nassau County (Antonio I. Brandveen, J.), entered Sept. 12,
2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon renewal and
reargument, vacated a prior determination in an order of the same
court dated Jan. 5, 2016, denying the Defendants' prior motion
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, and
thereupon granted the Defendants' prior motion.
Plaintiffs Martin Picone and Michael Guinnane are the owners of
Plaintiff Louie's Seafood Restaurant, which operates a restaurant
in Nassau County. Defendants Jeffrey Brown and Lenard Leeds are
attorneys and partners in Defendant Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
In 2012, the Defendants commenced a class action lawsuit against
the Plaintiffs on behalf of former employees of the Plaintiffs,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages (hereinafter the class
action lawsuit). The parties in the class action lawsuit settled
the action with a settlement agreement.
In 2013, the Defendants commenced an action against the Plaintiffs
and others on behalf of a former employee of the Plaintiffs,
alleging that she was sexually harassed and retaliated against
(discrimination lawsuit). That action was voluntarily discontinued
with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs commenced the instant action against the Defendants
seeking damages for aiding and abetting fraud, violation of
Judiciary Law Section 487, breach of contract, and fraud in the
inducement. The causes of action to recover damages for aiding and
abetting fraud and violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 were
predicated on allegations that, in the discrimination lawsuit, the
Plaintiff to that action had fabricated and disclosed during
discovery certain diary entries, and that the Defendants were aware
of the fabrication and substantially assisted to advance the
commission of fraud. The causes of action to recover damages for
breach of contract and fraud in the inducement were predicated on
allegations that, in the class action lawsuit, the Defendants
breached the settlement agreement by failing to hold the settlement
proceeds in escrow until the Court approved the settlement
agreement and fraudulently induced the Plaintiffs into entering the
settlement agreement by misrepresenting that they were not
representing any other employee or former employee of the
Plaintiffs in connection with an employment-related issue against
them.
The Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss
the aiding and abetting fraud causes of action and the cause of
action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 on the
ground, among others, that the Defendants were protected by the
Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and to dismiss the breach of contract
and fraud in the inducement causes of action on the ground that the
complaint failed to state those causes of action.
The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Defendants moved for leave
to renew and reargue the motion. In an order entered Sept. 12,
2016, the court, inter alia, upon renewal and reargument, granted
the Defendants' prior motion and directed dismissal of the
complaint. The Plaintiffs appeal.
The Appellate Division states that on a motion to dismiss a cause
of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), the court must accept the facts
as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the
benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only
whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal
theory. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects the right under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution to petition the
government for governmental action, including through litigation
and activity incidental to litigation. There is a 'sham' exception
to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine which applies in 'situations in
which persons use the governmental process -- as opposed to the
outcome of that process -- as an anticompetitive weapon.' There is
also a "'corruption' exception, which applies only where a party
has stepped beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy and engages in
conduct alleged to be criminal, not just deceptive or unethical."
The Appellate Division holds that in the case, the Supreme Court
properly concluded that the causes of action alleging that the
Defendants aided and abetted fraud and violated Judiciary Law
Section 487 were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The
Noerr-Pennington doctrine applied to these causes of action insofar
as they were based upon litigation and activities that were
incidental to litigation, and the pertinent allegations did not fit
within either the "sham" or the "corruption" exceptions to the
Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
To state a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent
inducement, there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material
present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce
that party to act on it, resulting in injury. The plaintiff must
also establish that she or he reasonably relied upon the alleged
misrepresentation. Where a cause of action is based upon
misrepresentation or fraud, "the circumstances constituting the
wrong will be stated in detail." In the case, the allegations in
the complaint failed to sufficiently allege justifiable reliance,
and therefore failed to state a cause of action for fraudulent
inducement.
The Plaintiffs have abandoned their breach of contract cause of
action as pleaded in the complaint by failing to address those
allegations in opposition to the motion to dismiss and the motion
for leave to renew and reargue, and in their brief on appeal.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division holds that the Defendants'
motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint was
properly granted. The parties' remaining contentions need not be
reached in light of the Appellate Division's determination.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vb44hyjm from Leagle.com.
The Scher Law Firm, LLP, in Carle Place, New York (Austin Graff of
counsel), for the Appellants.
Rivkin Radler LLP, in Uniondale, New York (Cheryl F. Korman --
cheryl.korman@rivkin.com -- and Janice J. DiGennaro --
janice.digennaro@rivkin.com -- of counsel), for the Respondents.
M&G 60TH STREET: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Somar Nava Guzman, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. M&G 60TH STREET LLC (D/B/A PICCOLA CUCINA
UPTOWN), PHILIP GUARDIONE, and MONICA MONFASANI, Case No.
1:21-cv-09577 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021), is brought for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation
for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff Nava and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at the Defendants'
restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mediterranean seafood
restaurant, located in New York Vity under the name "Piccola Cucina
Uptown."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represnetd by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MARSHALL HOTELS: Ct. Enters Class Cert. Deadlines in Link Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Link, v. Marshall Hotels &
Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00805 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order regarding the class
certification deadlines and schedules as follows:
-- the Plaintiff expert disclosure March 4, 2022
is due by:
-- the Defendants expert disclosures May 4, 2022
are due by:
-- rebuttal expert disclosure May 23, 2022
is due by:
-- all discovery (including merit, July 11, 2022
class action, documentary,
non-expert and expert depositions)
shall be completed by:
-- class certification motion Aug. 12, 2022
shall be filed by:
-- dispositive motions shall Sept. 12, 2022
be filed by:
Marshall is a hospitality management company.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
MATSON MONEY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 30, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN ZIMMERMAN, MOYA
NEVILLE, DINO D'ADDARIO, JAY DESAI, TAMMY WOJCIK, JANA HEATON and
WESLEY BERKEY individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MATSON MONEY, INC., CHRISTOPHER W. BURNS, INVESTUS
ADVISERS LLC d/b/a DYNAMIC MONEY LLC, INVESTUS FINANCIAL LLC, and
PEER CONNECT LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04409-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge William M. Ray, II entered an order that Plainitiffs'
deadline to file their motion for class certification is extended
to April 30, 2022.
Matson Money is a multi-generational Registered Investment Advisor
(RIA) company founded in 1991 by Mark Matson.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30Vr2ls at no extra charge.[CC]
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend class action suits in Colorado and in Canada
alleging violation of the federal securities laws.
On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging,
among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were
deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking
monetary damages.
On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of
management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or
misleading during the class period.
On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2021, the court in
the Colorado Action certified a class consisting of investors who
purchased or acquired Maxar stock between May 9, 2018 and October
30, 2018, inclusive.
Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada
issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v.
Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management
claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and
seeking monetary damages.
On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder
resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit
captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management
and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's
auditor, KPMG LLP.
On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 lawsuit was
discontinued. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's
statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading
during the class period and claims damages of $700 million.
On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for
leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action
as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending.
Maxar said, "The Company believes that these cases are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them."
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy
v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070.
On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et
al., No. I9CV35070 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain
members of management and the board of directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2,
2017 Registration Statement and Prospectus ("Offering Materials")
filed in anticipation of its October 5, 2017 merger with
DigitalGlobe, Inc. (the "DigitalGlobe Merger").
On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the same set of
defendants as set forth in his original complaint.
The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual
allegations as the Colorado Action.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements
regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those
related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or
misleading when made.
On January 24, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss.
On August 20, 2021, the court certified a class consisting of
investors who acquired Maxar stock in exchange for DigitalGlobe
stock pursuant to the Offering Materials issued in connection with
the DigitalGlobe Merger.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it.
Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.
MDL 1917: DPPs Seek Class Status w/ Regards to Irico Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class for damages pursuant to
FRCP 23(b)(3) with respect to the Irico Defendants:
"All persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and
November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the
United States from any Defendant or any subsidiary or
affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator or any subsidiary
or affiliate thereof;"
Excluded from the class are defendants, their parent
companies, subsidiaries or affiliates, any co-
conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or
justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action; and
2. appointing Saveri & Saveri, Inc. as Class Counsel pursuant
to FRCP 23(g).
The Cathode Ray Tube (“CRT”) litigation involves one of the
most well-documented global price-fixing conspiracies in history.
It has been the subject of numerous enforcement proceedings by
domestic and foreign competition authorities.
The Irico Defendants are the sole remaining defendants in this
litigation. They improperly and unilaterally ceased participation
in the case after their motion to dismiss was denied in 2010,
reappearing over seven years later only after DPPs filed a motion
for default judgment.
In so doing, in addition to stymying the general progress of the
litigation against them, the Irico Defendants also avoided the
Court's first order certifying a DPP class, necessitating this
motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CIZGfs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Interim Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
Matthew D. Heaphy, Esq.
Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: rick@saveri.com
grushing@saveri.com
mheaphy@saveri.com
sarah@saveri.com
MDL 2670: Prelim. Approval of COSI Defendants' Class Deals Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No.: 15md2670 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied without prejudice the Class Plaintiffs' requests to
reconsider their motions for preliminary approval of their
respective settlements with Defendants Chicken of the Sea and Thai
Union Group.
This case comes before the Court on the Class Plaintiffs' requests
to reconsider their motions for preliminary approval of their
respective settlements with Defendants Chicken of the Sea and Thai
Union Group ("the COSI Defendants"). The motions came on for
hearing on Nov. 9, 2021. John Roberti appeared on behalf of the
COSI Defendants, Betsy Manifold appeared on behalf of the End Payer
Plaintiff ("EPP") Class, Michael Lehmann appeared for the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff ("DPP") Class, Blaine Finley appeared for the
Commercial Food Preparers ("CFP") Class, and Belinda Lee appeared
for Defendants StarKist Co. and Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd. ("the
StarKist Defendants").
The DPP Settlement
In order to obtain preliminary approval, the parties must
demonstrate that the class action meets the requirements of Rule
23. DPPs did not address how the proposed settlement class
satisfies the requirements of these Rules. At oral argument, DPP
Counsel explained they were relying on Judge Sammartino's class
certification order to make the necessary showing, but that order
was vacated by the Ninth Circuit, and remains on appeal.
In light thereof, Judge Sabraw holds that the DPPs' reliance on
Judge Sammartino's order is insufficient to meet their burden for
preliminary approval. The DPPs also fail to adequately explain the
claims process in contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2)(C)(ii), which prevents the Court from determining whether
the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The settlement currently provides that any remainder in the
Settlement Amount will be distributed to the Class Members, "or in
the Settlement Class Counsel's reasonable judgment, be made the
subject of an application to the Court by the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs for cy pres distribution." In order for the Class
Members to make informed decisions about whether to object to the
settlement, they need to know the identity of any entity that would
potentially receive any cy pres funds.
Judge Sabraw finds that the parties have failed to identify that
entity in either the Settlement Agreement or the Class Notice. The
parties have also failed to set out the amounts of fees and costs
recently awarded by the arbitrator so that the Class Members may
make an informed decision about whether to object to that aspect of
the Settlement.
The EPP Settlement
Like the DPP Settlement, Judge Sabraw holds that the EPP Settlement
does not sufficiently explain the claims process, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(C)(ii). Although the
Settlement Agreement refers to a Fee and Expense Award to be
deducted from the Distribution Fund, EPP Counsel represented at
oral argument that the only funds to be deducted from the
Distribution Fund were past expenses or costs, not attorneys fees.
EPP Counsel also represented in her brief and at oral argument that
there would be a cap on the amount of costs, with $4.5 million
being identified as the cap in the brief, and $5 million being
identified as the cap during oral argument. Notably, the Settlement
Agreement does not identify a cap on costs in any amount.
To the extent the parties have reached agreement on these issues,
Judge Sabraw states that they should be clarified in the Settlement
Agreement itself. Furthermore, the amount of past costs should be a
hard figure, and that figure should be set out in the Class Notice
so Class Members can make informed decisions about filing
objections. The parties should also clarify whether EPP Counsel is
waiving its right to collect any attorneys fees from the COSI
Defendants, or if they intend to seek attorneys fees outside of the
Settlement. If it is the latter, that information should also be
included in the Class Notice, and any additional agreements between
the parties to that effect must be disclosed in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(3).
EPP Counsel also represented at oral argument that she had agreed
with the counsel for the StarKist Defendants on revisions to the
Class Notice.
The CFP Settlement
Like the DPP Settlement and the EPP Settlement, the CFP Settlement
does not sufficiently explain the claims process, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(C)(ii), Judge Sabraw
holds. To the extent CFP Counsel is requesting an award of past
expenses and costs only similar to EPP Counsel, those hard figures
should be set out in the Class Notice so the Class Members can make
informed decisions about filing objections.
As explained during oral argument, Judge Sabraw invites the counsel
to meet and confer on the issues she identified and any other
concerns raised by the Court during the hearing. If the counsel are
able to resolve these issues and renegotiate their respective
settlements, and wish to submit renewed motions for preliminary
approval of those settlements, they should submit those motions by
Dec. 1, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3mn635zs from Leagle.com.
MEDRANO USA: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Juan Pablo Garcia Vasquez, Balter Hernan Reyes Jacinto, Wilfredo
Lopes Vasquez, Cesar Joel Vasquez, Yordy Romero Toledo Reyes,
Hermoso Toledo, Adolfo Toledo Cordoba, Gernan Juveny Vasquez Picon,
Limber Javier Reyes Jacinto, Yeisson Toledo Garcia, Cristian Miguel
Angel Balcarcel Reyes and Kevin Waldemar Arrioza Xol, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Medrano
USA, Inc. and Jonathan Diaz,, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00975
(W.D. Mich., November 17, 2021), seeks damages, back pay,
restitution, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, civil
penalties, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and any and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Medrano has multiple locations at which it operates including in
Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri. Jonathan Diaz is the
General Manager of its Michigan location where Plaintiffs work.
Plaintiffs claim that they were denied the mandated overtime
premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
600 28th St. SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Tel: (616) 257-6807
Email: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
MEREDITH CORPORATION: McKinney Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sharon McKinney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
1-21-cv-1615, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa on Nov. 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00360-RGE-SBJ to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- is an American
media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa that owns magazines,
television stations, websites, and radio stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
MICHIGAN: Karacson Civil Rights Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses without
prejudice the lawsuit titled STEVE ELLIS KARACSON, Plaintiff v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WAYNE COUNTY
JAIL, PARNALL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DAVID SHAVER, ST. LOUIS
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and MICHAEL HATHAWAY, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-12101 (E.D. Mich.).
Plaintiff Karacson, a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and an application to
proceed without prepaying the fees and costs for this action. The
complaint alleges violations of Karacson's rights under the Sixth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
I.
Mr. Karacson has sued state and county entities and individuals.
The State Defendants are the State of Michigan, the MDOC, the
Parnall Correctional Facility (where Karacson currently resides),
and the St. Louis Correctional Facility. Karacson also appears to
be suing David Shaver, the warden at Parnall. The County Defendants
are the Wayne County Jail and Wayne County Circuit Judge Michael
Hathaway.
As against the MDOC, Parnall Correctional, and St. Louis
Correctional (and possibly others), Karacson alleges that during
the COVID-19 pandemic, prison guards at the St. Louis Correctional
Facility refused to wear masks and said that they hoped to catch
COVID so that they could get some time off. According to Karacson,
the entire compound caught COVID. He was sent to the emergency room
and then to the Duane Waters Hospital where he allegedly received
no further medical attention. From there, he was sent to the
Parnall Correctional Facility. Days later, his personal property
arrived, but his legal work and food were missing. He wrote
grievances to resolve the matter, but he was unsuccessful. He
claims that the staff knew he was very ill and yet they left him to
die in his bunk.
Mr. Karacson also alleges that he was sent to the hospital on
"12-12-18" and remained there for 11 days. But the date may be a
typo as in the very next sentence Karacson pleads, "I have memory
recall issues and I have covid lung."
In an unrelated claim, Karacson alleges that while he was confined
at the Wayne County Jail, the voice recognition system on the pay
phones did not work. Because of this, other inmates were able to
use his phone privileges. In addition, there was no place to
securely store his belongings. Karacson says that "between the
phone and store," over $500 was stolen from him.
In still another unrelated claim, Karacson alleges that Judge
Michael Hathaway denied him counsel at trial. This claim apparently
arose during Karacson's state criminal trial. He seeks a new trial
in his state criminal case.
II.
A preliminary issue is Karacson's application for leave to proceed
without prepaying the fees or costs for this action. He alleges
that he earns no wages, has no money in a checking or savings
account, and owns nothing of value. Given his apparent indigence,
the Court will allow him to proceed without prepaying the fees and
costs for this action.
Ultimately, however, Karacson must pay the full filing fee for this
action, Judge Michelson states, citing 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(b)(1).
The initial partial filing fee in this case is $47.00. The Court
orders the MDOC to (1) withdraw this amount from Karacson's prison
trust fund account when funds exist and to forward that amount to
the Clerk of this Court. In subsequent months, or from time to
time, the MDOC will forward to the Clerk payments consisting of
twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to
Karacson's account until Karacson has paid the entire filing fee of
$350.00. The Court will notify the MDOC when Karacson has paid the
entire filing fee.
III.
The Court is required to screen new complaints filed by prisoners
and to dismiss any complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact
(Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
IV.
A.
As noted, Karacson has sued the State of Michigan, the MDOC, two
MDOC prisons, and the Wayne County Jail. The Eleventh Amendment
bars suits against a state or one of its agencies or departments
unless the state has consented to suit.
Eleventh Amendment immunity bars all suits, whether for injunctive,
declaratory or monetary relief, against the state and its
departments, by citizens of another state, foreigners or its own
citizens. Therefore, the State of Michigan and the MDOC are immune
from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed from this
lawsuit, Judge Michelson holds.
Likewise, a state prison facility is not a person or legal entity
capable of being sued under Section 1983. Accordingly, the Parnall
Correctional Facility, the St. Louis Correctional Facility, and the
Wayne County Jail are dismissed from this action.
B.
The remaining Defendants are two individuals: David Shaver, the
warden at the Parnall Correctional Facility, and Michael Hathaway,
a judge or former judge for Michigan's Third Judicial Circuit
Court. Karacson alleges that Judge Hathaway deprived him of counsel
during his state criminal trial.
Judge Michelson notes that judges generally speaking have broad
immunity from being sued, citing Norfleet v. Renner, 924 F.3d 317,
319 (6th Cir. 2019). This immunity extends to actions for
injunctive relief.
Whether to appoint counsel in a criminal case is a judicial
function, Karacson has not shown that the Wayne County Circuit
Court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case in which Judge
Hathaway was presiding. Therefore, Judge Hathaway is immune from
suit, Judge Michelson holds.
That leaves Defendant Shaver. To the extent that Karacson has sued
Shaver in his official capacity for money damages, that claim is
not viable: an official acting in his official capacity is not a
"person" under Section 1983, Judge Michelson explains.
Additionally, Karacson has not pled what Shaver did to violate his
constitutional rights. Karacson has not alleged that Shaver was
directly involved in the alleged indifference to his medical needs
or the loss of his personal property while he was in state
custody.
Because Karacson's allegations do not allow the Court to draw the
reasonable inference that Shaver is liable for the misconduct
alleged in the complaint, Shaver is dismissed from this lawsuit.
V.
As the Court will dismiss Karacson's complaint without prejudice to
refiling, the Court makes two points about Karacson's current
filings.
Upon review of the Court's electronic filing system, it appears
that on Sept. 1, 2021, Karacson sent a single mailing to the
Clerk's Office, and the Clerk's Office thought Karacson had
intended to file three cases. The end result was that one of
Karacson's cases is this one before Judge Michelson (Case No.
21-12101). Another case is now pending before Judge Thomas
Ludington (Case No. 21-12102). And a third case is a habeas corpus
case pending before Judge Robert Cleland (Case No. 21-12103).
Unsurprisingly given the single mailing, these three cases overlap.
As noted, in this case, Karacson has alleged that Judge Hathaway
denied him counsel during his state criminal trial. That claim
belongs in the habeas corpus case before Judge Cleland. And warden
Shaver, even though dismissed from this case for failure to state a
claim, is the proper respondent in the habeas corpus case before
Judge Cleland.
Further, in the case before Judge Ludington, Karacson pursues a
class action related to COVID-19 but has also attached an entire
brief relating to trial errors (quite possibly the brief that
Karacson used on direct appeal in his criminal trial). All of this
is a bit of a mess, Judge Michelson notes.
And that brings the Court to its second point. Karacson has alleged
claims arising out of events that occurred during his state court
trial, at the Wayne County Jail, at Parnell Correctional, and at
St. Louis Correctional. And that does not even include a possible
claim about hospitalization on "12-12-18." Yet, litigants are not
permitted to file a single complaint that contains unrelated
claims.
Here, for example, there is no relation between problems with the
voice recognition system at the Wayne County Jail and COVID-19 at
Parnell Correctional. Those claims (and others) do not belong in
one suit. And a civil rights complaint and habeas petition need to
be separate filings, Judge Michelson says.
Should Karacson refile any of his claims (against the proper
defendants) he must limit each complaint to claims arising out of a
single event or series of closely related events, Judge Michelson
rules. Further, Karacson must use a separate mailing envelope for
each case initiated and include the proper case number.
VI.
In sum, Karacson's allegations lack an arguable basis in law and
fail to state a plausible claim for which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the complaint is summarily
dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A. It is further ordered that an appeal from the Order
would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Nov. 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/frtukr62 from
Leagle.com.
MILLIMAN INC: Healy's Bid to Compel Doc Production Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiff's motion to compel in the lawsuit entitled JAMES
HEALY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MILLIMAN, INC., dba INTELLISCRIPT, Defendant, Case No.
C20-1473-JCC (W.D. Wash.).
The Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents
responsive to its Request for Production ("RFP") No. 66, which
seeks "all IRIX data for applicants during the class period which
fall within the group of 13% of data matches that are not matched
based on the applicant's social security number."
Among other objections, the Defendant asserts that the request is
unduly burdensome, explaining that, based on how the Defendant
stores its data, it would need to sort through 43 million reports
prepared during the relevant period, rather than just the reports
that the Plaintiff seeks discovery on. Moreover, as the Defendant
further explains, the 13% of records sought by the Plaintiff refer
only to matches for a single data source. Absent sampling, a fully
responsive production to RFP No. 66 would actually entail the
production of at least 38 million reports.
Judge Coughenour notes that parties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is (1) relevant to any party's claim
or defense, and (2) proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the Rule 26(b)(1) factors. Discovery, however, has
ultimate and necessary boundaries.
Accordingly, the Court must limit discovery if it determines that
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues
at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues.
The Court agrees that production responsive to RFP No. 66 is
necessary to provide the Plaintiff the discovery it needs to
support its class allegations. However, the production sought is
unduly burdensome and not proportional to the Plaintiff's
pre-certification needs. The Court, therefore, endorses the
sampling approach suggested by the Defendant in its supplemental
briefing but finds that a larger sample size is required.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in
part and denied in part. By no later than Dec. 10, 2021, the
Defendant is ordered to produce the requested data for the 23
fields identified by the Plaintiff for one million randomly
selected reports, without reference to any particular match type,
i.e., not limited to those reports lacking social security number
and/or birth date matching. Relatedly, the Defendant must also
produce the methodology it uses to select the sampled report data,
to ensure the selection is, in fact, truly random.
The Court declines to award attorney fees, as the Defendant's
position was substantially justified.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/54uwwenj from Leagle.com.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Ct. OKs Settlement Class in McMorrow
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK MCMORROW, et al.,
v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-02327-BAS-JLB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, a
Settlement Class defined as:
"all persons who, between November 16, 2013, and November
17, 2021 (the "Class Period"), purchased in the United
States, for household use and not for resale or
distribution, any of the Class Products which include
Mondelez's belVita Crunchy Biscuits, Soft Baked Biscuits,
Bites, and Sandwiches Breakfast products (the "Class
Products");
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Patrick McMorrow, Marco Ohlin,
and Melody DiGregorio as Class Representatives;
3. appointing Fitzgerald Joseph LLP as Class Counsel.
4. approving Postlethwaite & Netterville ("P&N") to act as
Class Administrator; and
5. authorizing P&N to establish the Qualified Settlement
Fund.
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage and snack food company based in Chicago, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kXVoL6 at no extra charge.[CC]
NATERA INC: Copley Slams Hidden Charges in Prenatal Tests
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Copley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Natera, Inc., Defendant, Case 21-cv-08941
(N.D. Cal., November 18, 2021) seeks damages, preliminary and
permanent equitable relief, declaratory and other equitable relief,
awarding attorneys' fees and costs and expert fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses expended in litigating this
action and such further relief for violation of the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act.
Natera is a diagnostic company that provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. It offers several genetic
testing panels called Panorama, Horizon, Vistara and Spectrum.
Natera operates laboratories in Austin, Texas and San Carlos,
California.
In 2019, when Copley was pregnant with her second child, her
physician advised her to do the Natera Panorama (TM) Non-Invasive
Prenatal Testing panel due to her age. The Natera test was run
through her insurance.
Copley claims that Defendant charged her $8,000 on her Explanation
of Benefits statement for Connecticare, $3,900 for Pathology
services and $4,100 for Laboratory services in connection with the
Panorama panel. Connecticare denied the claim entirely,
transferring potentially the entire charge onto Copley.
Copely alleges Natera of concealing the price of their genetic
test, balance billing patients after recovering a portion from
third-party payors, misleading patients about their out-of-pocket
costs for a Natera genetic test, and making false statements
regarding Natera's Price Transparency Program. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
A. Chowning Poppler, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
Email: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
kmoody@bermantabacco.com
cpoppler@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 759-4600
Fax: (212) 486-2093
Email: pavery@wolfpopper.com
rplosky@wolfpopper.com
NATIONAL SPINE: Ct. Enters 2nd Amended Case Mng't & Sched Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A.,
a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN
CENTERS LLC, SPINE CENTER OF FL, LLC and PAIN MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Case No. e
2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mac. McCoy
entered a second amended case management and scheduling order as
follows:
Deadline Date
-- Disclosure of any Expert Report
Defendant: Jan. 4, 2022
Rebuttal: Jan. 28, 2022
-- Discovery and Motions to Feb. 16, 2022
Compel Discovery
-- Mediation Feb. 17, 2022
-- Motions for Class Certification March 18, 2022
(if applicable)
-- Respond in opposition to a April 15, 2022
motion for class certification
-- Dispositive and Daubert Motions May 2, 2022
-- Final Pretrial Meeting July 25, 2022
-- Motions in Limine Aug. 10, 2022
-- Joint Final Pretrial Statement, Aug. 10, 2022
Proposed Jury Instructions and
Verdict Form, and Trial Briefs
(if applicable)
-- Final Pretrial Conference Aug. 26, 2022
-- Monthly Trial Term Sept. 1, 2022
National Spine provides health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30Pyyho at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Kovich Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI KOVICH, Individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, v. NATIONWIDE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and
CODY MCCONNELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00518 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge
Robert C. Chambers entered an order granting the parties' joint
motion to extend briefing schedules, as follows:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class December 10, 2021
certification due:
-- Nationwide's opposition to class January 10, 2022
certification due:
-- Plaintiff's reply in support of January 24, 2022
class certification due:
-- Deadline for filing dispositive December 10, 2021
motions:
-- Deadline for filing responses January 10, 2022
to dispositive motions:
-- Deadline for filing replies in January 24, 2022
support of dispositive motions:
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cB7s08 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent K. Kesner, Esq.
Ernest G. Hentschel, II, Esq.
KESNER & KESNER, PLLC
P. O. Box 2587
Charleston, WV 25329
E-mail: bkesner@kesnerlaw.com
ehentschel@kesnerlaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Berthold, Jr., Esq.
Robert V. Berthold, III, Esq.
Berthold Law Firm, PLLC
P.O. Box 3508
Charleston, WV 25335
E-mail: rvb@bertholdlaw.com
rvb3@bertholdlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Marc E. Williams, Esq.
J.L. Brydie, Esq.
Shaina D. Massie, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
949 Third Avenue, Suite 200
Huntington, WV 25701
E-mail: marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com
jl.brydie@nelsonmullins.com
shaina.massie@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
Jennifer A. L. Battle, Esq.
Carpenter Lipps and Leland LLP
280 Plaza, Suite 1300
280 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com
battle@carpenterlipps.com
NCAA: Patelis Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Patelis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-02237, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 16,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-06104 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NEW JERSEY: C.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.P., individually and on
behalf of F.P., aminor child, et al., and on behalf of ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ANGELICA
ALLEN-McMILLAN, Acting Commissioner of Education, in her official
capacity, Case No. 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-MJS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiffs include D.O. individually and on behalf of M.O., a
minor child; S.B.C., individually on behalf of C.C., a minor child;
A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child; John and
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of their minor child, James
Doe; Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of their minor
child, C.H.S.; J.M. and E.M. on behalf of their minor children,
C.M. and E.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; Roberta
Roe, on behalf of her minor child Robin Roe; E.P., individually and
on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P.
The New Jersey Department of Education administers state and
federal aid programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and
non-public elementary and secondary school children in the state of
New Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CLPZwD
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Rue, Esq.
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES LLC
40 South Fullerton Avenue, Ste. 29
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (862) 283-3155
E-mail: john@johnruelaw.com
- and -
Thomas J. O'Leary, Esq.
Hector Daniel Ruiz, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
- and -
Catherine Merino Reisman, Esq.
Judith A. Gran, Esq.
REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP
19 Chestnut Street
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
- and -
Denise Lanchantin Dwyer, Esq.
Law Office of Denise Lanchantin Dwyer LLC
Duxbury Court
Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
707 Alexander Road, Suite 208
Princeton, NJ 08540
- and -
David R. Giles, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. GILES
34 Rynda Road
South Orange, NJ 07079
- and -
Jeffrey I. Wasserman, Esq.
WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC
1200 Route 22 East, Suite 2000, No. 2238
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
- and -
Robert Thurston, Esq.
THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC
100 Springdale Road A3, PMB 287
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
The Attorneys for Defendants, New Jersey Department of Education
and Angelica Allen McMillan, are:
Kerry Soranno, Esq.
David Kalisky, Esq.
Colin Klika, Esq.
Erin Herlihy, Esq.
Carolyn Labin, Esq.
DIVISION OF LAW
EDUCATION/HIGHER EDUCATION SECTION
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112
Trenton, NJ 08625-0112
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Searches by NSW Police
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft at lawyersweekly.com.au reports that festival-goers
who were unlawfully searched by NSW Police could be entitled to
"substantial" compensation as part of a monumental class action
case.
Hundreds of Splendour in the Grass patrons who attended the Byron
Bay music festival in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are believed to
have been wrongfully searched by NSW Police, a new class action has
alleged.
The class action, currently being investigated by Redfern Legal
Centre and Slater and Gordon Lawyers, could mean that those
affected could win tens of thousands of dollars in compensation
each in court.
Redfern Legal Centre's principal solicitor Alexis Goodstone said
unlawful searches by NSW Police were a systemic problem that
urgently needed to be addressed.
"A class action is a legal means for a group of people to come
together to call out an unlawful and damaging practice in a way
that is easy to participate in because it is largely anonymous and
risk-free," she said.
"This ground-breaking class action will seek redress for the many
people subjected to invasive and traumatic searches. We also hope
this test case will pave the way for a series of cases focusing on
other locations or music festivals, and importantly, help stop
unlawful police searches in NSW."
Some festival-goers searched by police - including people aged
under 18 - were allegedly directed to lift or remove items of
clothing, strip naked and squat and cough, or lift their genitals
so officers could visually inspect body cavities.
Chad Helman attended Splendour in the Grass in 2016 and told Triple
J's Hack that police searched his shoes and pockets before taking
him to a separate building to be strip-searched.
"I didn't actually have to take my shirt off at all, it was just
straight 'Take your pants off, turn around, bend over, and open
up'," he said.
"It felt like an invasion of my privacy, like my dignity was just
gone for that moment in time, and I actually felt quite vulnerable.
At no point in time was I given any rights or asked if I had
consent to what they were doing."
This news follows the release of reports last year from the NSW Law
Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) that detailed widespread
unlawful search practices by NSW Police. Slater and Gordon senior
associate Dr Ebony Birchall said that the report revealed a lack of
training for police - and that this class action was a chance for
important steps around law reform to be taken.
"An unlawful police search is classified by law as an assault and
gives rise to compensation. We believe that hundreds of people who
were searched by police at Splendour may have been subject to
unlawful searches and therefore may be entitled to compensation,"
she said.
"We haven't seen a class action in relation to unlawful strip
searches in Australia ... so we think this is a really unique and
important way to clarify strip search law, and to highlight this
issue, and importantly, to get compensation for people who have
been impacted by these unlawful searches."
The Women in Law Awards is the benchmark for excellence,
recognising the empowering women influencing the Australian legal
profession, celebrating the female leaders, role models and future
champions of the industry. Register for the waitlist today for the
opportunity to attend this remarkable awards ceremony and network
with top legal professionals and fellow peers.
Visit womeninlaw.com.au [GN]
NEW YORK: Time to File Response Extended to Dec. 13
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Inzinga et al v. The New
York State Department of Labor, et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-06344
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mark W. Pedersen entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to file Response/Reply to
Dec. 13, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights Act.
The New York State Department of Labor is the department of the New
York state government that enforces labor law and administers
unemployment benefits. The mission of the New York State Department
of Labor is to protect workers, assist the unemployed and connect
job seekers to jobs, according to its website.[CC]
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785.
Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.
The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On October 9,
2018, these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation
in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation"). On January 23, 2019, the Court in
the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.
The MDL Litigation is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before
the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint
added additional defendants and allegations.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8,
2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020.
The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation. The Court has
not yet set a trial date.
Nexstar and Tribune deny the allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.
NICK'S MANAGEMENT: Naranjo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aydee Naranjo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. NICK'S MANAGEMENT, INC., NICK'S CLUBS, INC., f/k/a
ADVENTURE PLUS ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a PT'S MEN'S CLUB, and NICK
MEHMETI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02883-B (N.D. Tex., Nov. 17, 2021), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have misclassified their
exotic dancers as independent contractors rather than employees,
have failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 a week, and have required dancers to
pay fees and tip-outs, which constitute unlawful kick-backs under
the FLSA. There were several dozen exotic dancers working at PT's
on any given night. The Plaintiff and other exotic dancers working
at PT's were required to work at least four eight-hour shifts per
week, including an early weekday shift. As a result, Plaintiff and
other exotic dancers often worked 40 or more hours a week. The
Plaintiff and other exotic dancers were compensated solely through
tips collected directly from customers. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff and other exotic dancers any wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at the Defendants' club
between June 2020 and May 2021.
Nick's Clubs, Inc., f/k/a Adventure Plus Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
PT's Men's Club is an establishment where live topless, semi-nude
or nude dance entertainment is presented to adult members of the
general public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: 817-479-9229
Fax: 817-887-1878
Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
Email: mthomson@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
NYC MEDICAL: Lawrence Ordered to Make Changes to Class Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEYLEE LAWRENCE, COURTNEY BRACCIA, BRIA WARNER, and
WENDY ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a Goals
Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, and SERGEY VOSKIN, M.D. Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-8649-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order directing the Plaintiffs:
(i) to correct the typographical and formatting issues in
their proposed revised class and collective notice
identified by the Defendants; and
(ii) to make the certain changes to the proposed collective
action notice.
Judge Woods has reviewed the Plaintiffs' proposed revised class and
collective notices, and the Defendants' letter in opposition. He
directed the Plaintiffs to correct the typographical and formatting
issues identified in the Defendants letter.
The Plaintiffs are directed to make the following changes to the
proposed class action notice:
a. Remove Judge Woods' name from Section 4.
b. Replace "The Court will decide this issue at a later
date." with "This will be decided at a later date." in Section 4.
The Plaintiffs are directed to make the following changes to the
proposed collective action notice:
a. Add page numbers to the collective action notice.
b. Remove counsel's contact information from the top of the
form.
c. Add in a given workweek to the end of the final sentence
in the regarding section.
d. Add in a work week after in excess of 40 in the second
paragraph of the introduction.
e. Replace Settlement Administrator with Claims
Administrator in Section III.
f. Add the word retaining prior to counsel of your own
choosing and expense in Section III.
g. Remove the email and telephone contact information for
Plaintiffs' counsel in Section III.
h. Remove the final sentence of Section III.
i. Replace CONSENT FORM with Consent Form to be consistent
with the notice's definition of the defined term.
j. Replace has retained jurisdiction with retains
jurisdiction in Section IV.
k. Add with Defendants after you may be required to provide
information and documentation in Section IV.
The Plaintiffs are directed to remove the final two paragraphs of
the Consent Form. They are further directed to alter the Consent
Form to allow prospective plaintiffs to select whether they choose
to be represented by the Plaintiffs' counsel, or whether they
choose to be represented by the counsel of their own choosing. The
Plaintiffs are directed to alter Section III of the collective
action notice to reflect that the Consent Form allows prospective
plaintiffs to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the
Plaintiffs' counsel or separate counsel, rather than requiring
prospective plaintiffs to submit a separate form if they wish to
join the lawsuit with counsel of their choosing. The collective
action notice should inform prospective plaintiffs that if they
choose to be represented by an attorney of their own choosing, the
attorney should promptly file a notice of appearance on their
behalf.
The parties are directed to modify and submit the proposed class
and collective action notice forms no later than Nov. 17, 2021. In
addition, the parties are directed to submit via email
(WoodsNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) a clean copy of the proposed
notices in Word format as well as a version showing track changes
from the proposed notices filed on Oct. 21, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3v5kdpw2 from Leagle.com.
NYC SMILE DESIGN: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYC Smile Design
Dentistry P.C. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. NYC Smile
Design Dentistry P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-09542 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NYC Smile Design Dentistry -- https://www.nycsmiledesign.com/ -- is
a cosmetic dentist in New York City offering a full range of
general, restorative, and cosmetic dental treatments .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Bid to Certify Class Stricken w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Box Elder Kids, LLC et
al., v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02352 (D. Colo), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered
an order: striking Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class without
prejudice to refiling an Amended Motion which complies in all
respects with the Local Rules of this Court as well as the
undersigned's Revised Practice Standards.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an American company engaged in
hydrocarbon exploration in the United States, the Middle East, and
Colombia as well as petrochemical manufacturing in the United
States, Canada, and Chile.[CC]
OCEAN DETAILING: Morgan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Morgan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc. and Russell C.
Grande, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-14443 (S.D. Fla., November 16,
2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate an auto detailing company where Morgan worked as
a piece rate/commission paid car detailer. He claims to have worked
more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving the proper
overtime pay for all their overtime hours worked. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
ON24 INC: Kuznicki Law Reminds of January 3, 2022 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of ON24, Inc. (NYSE: ONTF), if they purchased
the Company's shares issued in connection with its February 2021
initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). Shareholders have until
January 3, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the
securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-ontf/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC 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. [GN]
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Russum Case Pending Resolution in Maney
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael James Russum, v.
Kate Brown, Colette Peters, Kevin Jackson, Supt. TRCI Blewitt, Rob
Persson, Supt. OSP B. Kelly, Case No. 6:21-cv-00836-SB (D. Or.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order for a stay of the
Russum case pending resolution of the motion for class
certification in Maney.
The Defendants move to stay this case pending the resolution of the
motion for class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00570 ("Maney").
This motion relates to the ongoing Covid-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay
of most federal cases that could fit within the putative classes of
plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class
certification in Maney.
The Defendants says that a brief stay in this matter is appropriate
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in Maney.
The plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, alleging that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to plaintiffs' health by failing to
adequately protect them from heightened exposure to Covid-19 by,
among other things, implementation and enforcement of mask
requirements, proper sanitization and disinfection, and
implementation and enforcement of proper quarantines and social
distancing.
The Maney plaintiffs assert class action allegations under FRCPs
23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and, in the alternative, 23(c)(4).
The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative
classes:
(1) a damages class that is composed of individuals that have
been housed in ODOC facilities on or after February 1,
2020 and have tested positive or otherwise have been
diagnosed with Covid-19; and
(2) a wrongful death class consisting of the estates of
adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities continuously since
February 1, 2020 who died on or after March 8, 2020 and
for whom Covid-19 caused or contributed to their death.
The Motion to Certify seeks to certify a damages class and a
wrongful death class. Like the plaintiffs in Maney, Plaintiff is
incarcerated at ODOC.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CQXgLZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Tracy Ickes White, esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 947-4700
Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
OREGON: Snider, et al. Seek to Extend Time for Class Cert. Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY SNIDER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an agency
of the State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00510-MK (D. Or.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time
in which the parties are to complete discovery and move for class
certification.
The Plaintiff requests a 90 day extension. The current deadline is
set as November 15, 2021. Plaintiff moves the court to extend the
deadline to March 24, 2022.
The Plaintiffs include SCOTT FRAZIER; DARREL CARLSON; HECTOR
CARRASCO MONTIEL; ROCKY ROBISON; BOBBY SWEARINGEN; JERRY ANDERSON;
ESTEBAN VALLEJO; JUSTIN DENNEY; LELAND NICHOLSON; JOSHUA WILLIS;
JOSEPH LOOMIS; MARCUS HATRIDGE; and TREVOR TROLLOPE.
The Defendants include COLETTE PETERS, MIKE GOWER, TROY BOWSER,
TYLER BLEWETT; SUE WASHBURN; MARK NOOTH; NAIMA CHAMBERS-SMITH;
THERESA SWART; SPYDER CHAPMAN; STEVEN BOSTON; HEATHER CHRISTIAN;
ABRAHAM CAMPOS; PATRICK MCDONOUGH; GEORGE EDDY; RENE ROBERTS; ADAM
ARCHER; PHALINE MAYS; DAVID LINDHOLM; JASON DUCHEK; WILLIAM POWELL;
JOSE ARGUELLO; VICTOR PITNER; STEVEN HONG; BRYAN SUNDQUIST; STEVEN
RANSOM; THOMAS OLDS; HAROLD CANNON; JAMY BARTELL; and JEFFREY
BATEMAN.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FF0Sm2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Snyder, Esq.
Carl Post, Esq.
John Burgess, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER
1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 241-3617
Facsimile: (503) 241-2249
E-mail: dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
OWLET INC: Schall Law Reminds of January 18, 2022 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Owlet, Inc.
("Owlet" or "the Company") (NYSE: OWLT) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 31,
2021 and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 18, 2022.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Owlet was likely to be required to obtain
a marketing authorization for its smart sock product since the FDA
had concluded it is a medical device. The Company was likely to
cease distribution of the product until the required authorization
was obtained. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Owlet, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
PANELLA TRUCKING: Herrera-Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panella Trucking,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Herrera-Martinez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panella Trucking,
LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010609
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 17, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Panella Trucking -- https://www.panellatrucking.com/ -- is one of
the largest agriculture carriers in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
PARAMED INC: Leave to File Opinion Evidence Denied in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino at canadianlawyermag.com reports that an Ontario
court has denied leave to file opinion evidence on a partial
summary judgment motion, which the operator requested of a clinic
facing a class action because its sterilization practices allegedly
fell short of the applicable standards.
In Kellesis v. Paramed Inc., 2021 ONSC 6842, a July 2018 inspection
of a clinic operated by the defendant, a health care services
provider, found that the defendant's sterilization practices failed
to meet infection prevention standards and presented a risk of
communicable disease transmission. The defendant was required to
notify its clinic patients from 2008 and 2018 of this risk of
infection.
In September 2018, the plaintiff, who was one of the patients,
brought a negligence action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992,
S.O. 1992, c.6., alleging that the defendant breached a duty of
care owed to her and caused the proposed class members to suffer
loss including the invasion of bodily integrity, the inconvenience
of testing, fear for their health, severe mental or emotional
distress, psychological trauma and nervous shock.
In September 2020, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
certified the class action and designated the plaintiff as the
representative of the class, which had infected persons and
uninfected persons as subclasses.
In advance of summary judgment motions that both parties intended
to file, the court endorsed the parties' proposed timetable for the
proceedings. Last July, the court granted the plaintiff's summary
judgment motion, with findings relating to the duty of care, the
applicable standard of care and the way the defendant breached the
standard of care.
The defendant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims
of the uninfected persons subclass based on a psychiatrist's expert
opinion that found, upon reviewing the representative plaintiff's
affidavits and cross-examination, no signs that the plaintiff had
suffered a mental disorder associated with clinically significant
distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.
In the present matter, the representative plaintiff, who refused to
cross-examine the psychiatrist, asked the court not to grant leave
to admit this opinion evidence. She contended that the filing of
such evidence could cause her non-compensable prejudice if admitted
and violated r. 39.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990,
Reg 194, as well as the court-ordered timetable.
The Superior Court dismissed the defendant's motion for leave to
file the psychiatrist's opinion on its partial summary judgment
motion. First, the court ruled that the opinion evidence was
relevant to the defendant's argument that the representative
plaintiff, as an uninfected class member, had no mental health
injury compensable under the law.
Second, the court had doubts whether it could characterize the
opinion evidence as responding to a matter raised in the
cross-examination. The court held that the defendant had improperly
split its case, a problem which could have been somewhat mitigated
if the defendant had raised its intention to use the opinion during
the timetabling discussion or through an attempt to seek leave to
amend the timetable. The court also agreed with the plaintiff's
submission that the defendant had the opportunity to acquire expert
evidence before the cross-examination.
Third, on the issue of non-compensable prejudice, the court
accepted that, while the plaintiff had the chance to cross-examine
the psychiatrist, it was unreasonable to expect her to be ready to
do so and to file responding evidence without prior notice and
without having much time left. The court also accepted that the
parties expected the rule against case-splitting to apply, given
that they both agreed to the timetable.
Fourth, the court said that the defendant failed to provide a
reasonable or adequate explanation for failing to include the
opinion evidence before the cross-examination. The defendant also
failed to notify the plaintiff, consider the opinion evidence
during the discussion for the timetable, and seek leave to amend
the timetable. The court, balancing the circumstances, disagreed
that the need for a just and timely resolution of the issue means
granting leave for the defendant to file the opinion. [GN]
PAUL KEMPER: Court Junks Shaw Class Action with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRANCE J. SHAW, v. PAUL
S. KEMPER, JASON WELLS, STEPHANIE ONEIL, LIEUTENANT
CRUZ, JOHN/JANE DOE 1-21, LEAH M. ZENI, EMILY DAVIDSON, and CINDY
ODONNELL, Case No. 21-CV-622-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J. P.
Stadtmueller entered an order:
1. dismissing the case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C.
sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) because the
complaint fails to state a claim; and
2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel
and motion to certify class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3phpQBt at no extra charge.[CC]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: CHERS Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE,
INC., JOHN FOLEY, WILLIAM LYNCH, and JILL WOODWORTH, Case No.
1:21-cv-09582 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021), is brought on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Peloton's common stock between December 9, 2020 and November 4,
2021, inclusive; alleging against Peloton and certain of the
Company's senior executives, and arising under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
a result of the Defendants wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous declines in the market value of the Company's shares.
For most of 2020 and 2021, as the COVID-19 pandemic and related
stay-at-home orders and business closures largely kept individuals
out of the gym, the demand for in-home exercise options increased
dramatically. Against that backdrop, in the months leading up to
the Class Period, Peloton experienced unprecedented demand for its
products and services. Throughout the Class Period, investors were
highly focused on whether Peloton's growth would decline once
vaccines were approved, businesses reopened, and individuals could
return to exercising at the gym.
The Defendants repeatedly, falsely assured investors that Peloton's
recent success was not primarily due to COVID-related increased
demand, but rather that the Company's growth and financial results
were sustainable and would continue post-COVID. Defendants also
represented to investors during the Class Period that investments
in the Company's supply chain, including increasing the number of
bikes and treadmills produced and reducing the average time it
takes to deliver products to customers, were sound investments that
would enable Peloton to align supply and demand for its products.
Accordingly, the Defendants represented that the rising inventory
levels reported in the Company's periodic financial reports filed
with the SEC during the Class Period reflected outstanding demand,
including orders that had not yet been filled, rather than excess
supply that outpaced waning demand.
The Defendants' Class Period representations that Peloton would
continue to succeed and grow post-COVID, were false. In truth,
Peloton's Class Period financial results were primarily driven by
COVID-related increases in demand for at-home exercise options. As
gyms have reopened and other outside-the-home exercise options have
become more available due to COVID vaccinations being more
widespread and other COVID-related restrictions abating, demand for
Peloton's equipment and subscription services have declined
substantially. Moreover, rather than matching supply and demand,
Peloton had a massive growth in inventory that far exceeded
customer demand. Further, the Company has admitted that it suffered
from a material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting during the Class Period, specifically concerning
inventory levels. In light of that material weakness, the Company
could not accurately report its inventory levels, and had no sound
basis to represent to investors that supply and demand were
aligned.
The truth began to emerge on August 26, 2021, after the market
closed, when Peloton disclosed, one day in advance of its
announcement of the Company's financial results for its fiscal year
2021, that "in the course of our fiscal 2021 audit process, a
material weakness was identified in our internal controls over
financial reporting with respect to identification and valuation of
inventory." In the Company's Annual Report for its fiscal year
2021, filed with the SEC on Form10-K on August 27, it further
disclosed that "this material weakness arose because our controls
were not effectively designed, documented and maintained to verify
that our physical inventory counts were correctly counted and
communicated for reporting in our financial statements." As a
result of these disclosures, the price of Peloton common stock
declined by $9.75 per share, or 8.5%, from a closing price of
$114.09 per share on August 26, 2021 to a closing price of $104.34
per share on August 27, 2021.
At the same time, however, Peloton made false, reassuring
statements to investors, including issuing guidance of $5.4 billion
of total revenue for fiscal year 2022 (beginning September 1,
2021), representing 34% year-over-year growth. Discussing that
guidance, Defendant Woodworth claimed that "we are entering fiscal
2022 with a normalized backlog for our Bike portfolio and guidance
reflects our expectation of continued strong demand." Then, on
November 4, 2021, after the market closed, Peloton shocked
investors when it disclosed that it had revised its full-year
revenue guidance down to a range of $4.4 to $4.8 billion dollars
due to declining demand as its customers were increasingly free to
exercise outside the home. And regarding inventory, Peloton
disclosed that inventory totaled $1.27 billion, a 35% increase over
the prior quarter, 91% of which were "finished products" that the
Company still held. As a result of these disclosures, the price of
Peloton common stock declined by $30.42 per share, or 35%, from a
closing price of $86.06 per share on November 4, 2021 to $55.64 per
share on November 5, 2021, erasing $8.1 billion in shareholder
value. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous declines in the market value of the Company's
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a benefit pension plan based in Hialeah, Florida,
that provides pension services and benefits to employees, retirees,
and beneficiaries of the City of Hialeah; who purchased Peloton
common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.
Peloton is a fitness-equipment and media company, whose main
products are internet-connected stationary bicycles and treadmills
that enable monthly subscribers to remotely participate in classes
via streaming media.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
Fax: (212) 554-1444
Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33315
Phone: (954) 916-1202
Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
PENTAIR WATER: Court Enters Final Judgment in Munoz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered Final Judgment in the case, MAGBIS
E. LOPEZ MUNOZ, individually, on a representative basis, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENTAIR WATER
POOL AND SPA, JS-6 INC.; PENTAIR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02310 JAK (SKx)
(C.D. Cal.).
The Parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as
represented in the Settlement Agreement that was filed previously.
A hearing on the motion for final approval was then conducted, and
it was granted with certain modifications in the Final Approval
Order.
Judgment is entered whereby the Plaintiffs and the Class Members,
except those who excluded themselves from the Settlement, will take
from the Defendants only as expressly set forth in the Class Action
Settlement, as approved in the Final Approval Order.
The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the
action, the Plaintiffs, the Class Members and the Defendants, as to
the following:
a. Supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction
and interpretation of the Settlement, the Preliminary Approval
Order, the plan of allocation, the Final Approval Order and the
Judgment; and
b. Supervising distribution of amounts to be paid under the
terms of the Final Approval Order.
The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its
own costs and attorney's fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 12, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/s7whubu8 from Leagle.com.
PERVINE FOODS: Seljak Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pervine Foods, LLC.
The case is styled as Cade Seljak, Jacob Bernardi, Nancy Taylor, on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Pervine
Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09561 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Pervine Foods, LLC -- https://fitcrunch.com/ -- produces
nutritional food products. The Company provides protein-baked bars,
brownie, powder, and other related products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Mark Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste. 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (347) 668-8445
Email: mbreit@milberg.com
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get $115M in Fees in EpiPen Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson at Reuters reports that a federal judge on
Wednesday signed off on Pfizer Inc's $345 million settlement
resolving claims by consumers who say they overpaid for the
emergency allergy treatment EpiPen, and awarded plaintiffs' firms
including Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Keller Rohrback $115
million in fees. [GN]
PLAID INC: Settlement Deal in Cottle Suit Wins Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES COTTLE, et al., v.
PLAID INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of a
class action settlement as follows:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed Settlement Class
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the purposes of
settlement:
"all natural persons who reside in the United States and
who own or owned one or more Financial Accounts at the
time such persons resided in the United States from
January 1, 2013 to the date preliminary approval of the
settlement is granted;"
2. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement as fair,
adequate, and reasonable 10 pursuant to Rule 23(e).
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Caroline Anderson, James Cottle,
Rachel Curtis, David Evans, Logan Mitchell, Alexis Mullen,
Jordan Sacks, Frederick Schoeneman, Gabriel Sotelo,
Jeffrey Umali, and Nicholas Yeomelakis as Class
Representatives;
4. appointing Christopher Cormier, Burns Charest LLP; Shawn
Kennedy, HerreraKennedy LLP; and Rachel Geman, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as Class Counsel.
5. appointing Angeion Group, LLC as the Administrator; and
6. setting the following deadlines as follows:
-- Deadline to substantially complete January 28, 2022
notice plan
-- Deadline for Class Members to March 4, 2022
submit objections/requests
for exclusion
-- Deadline for Class Members April 28, 2022
to submit claim forms
-- Deadline for Class Counsel March 18, 2022
to file a list of exclusions
-- Deadline for Parties to March 21, 2022
respond to objections
-- Deadline for Class Counsel January 28, 2022
to file motion for final
approval
-- Final approval hearing May 12, 2022
This action consists of five separately-filed putative class
actions in which named plaintiffs allege that Plaid uses consumers'
banking login credentials to harvest and sell detailed financial
data without their consent. The court consolidated the matters in
July 2020.
Plaid is a tech startup in the financial technology or "fintech"
industry. It provides bank "linking" and verification services for
fintech apps that consumers use to send and receive money from
their financial accounts, such as Venmo, Coinbase, Cash App, and
Stripe.
The Plaintiffs are Caroline Anderson, James Cottle, Rachel Curtis,
David Evans, Logan Mitchell, Alexis Mullen, Jordan
Sacks, Frederick Schoeneman, Gabriel Sotelo, Jeffrey Umali, and
Nicholas Yeomelakis. They are consumers in five states and the
District of Columbia who linked their bank accounts to fintech apps
using Plaid's software.
The Plaintiffs allege that in connection with the linking and
verification process, Plaid misled them and violated their privacy
and the privacy of the putative class members by obtaining data
from their financial accounts without authorization and by
obtaining their bank login information through its user interface,
known as "Plaid Link."
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdvhBp at no extra charge.[CC]
POINT PARK: Ct. Enters Case Management Order in Figueroa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL FIGUEROA, KAHLIL
CABBLE, TY'ANTHONY SCOTT, RYAN PETTY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. POINT PARK UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-01484-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
entered a case management order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) shall
be made by December 13, 2021.
-- Amendments to the pleadings and joinder of additional
parties will be completed by December 27, 2021.
-- The ADR process will be completed no later than January 21,
2022.
-- A telephone status conference is scheduled for February 1,
2022 at 2:00 PM.
-- Counsel are to call into the conference by dialing 888-363-
4749 and entering the access code 6019141.
-- If asked for a security code, use to bypass. The parties
shall complete class certification discovery by April 21,
2022.
-- A status/settlement conference will be held on April 29,
2022 at 2:00 PM.
-- Trial counsel shall attend and the parties shall be
available by telephone.
Point Park University is a private university in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CPstz8 at no extra charge.[CC]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Body Sprays Contain Benzene, Lopez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LOPEZ, ERIK VELASQUES and FRANK ORTEGA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00723-MRB
(S.D. Ohio, November 19, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligent failure
to warn, and violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California's False Advertising Law, the California's
Unfair Competition Law, and the Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
and marketing of Old Spice-branded antiperspirant, deodorant, and
body sprays without disclosing that they contain high levels of
benzene, a known human carcinogen. The Defendant knew or should
have known of the dangerous and carcinogenic effects of benzene and
should have known that it was producing products that contained
benzene. Nevertheless, the Defendant produced, distributed, and
sold the contaminated sprays. As a result of the Defendant's
misrepresentation, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been
harmed. They would not have purchased and used the contaminated
sprays had they know they were unsafe and have, therefore, not
received the benefit of their bargain, says the suit.
The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
3208 Clinton Avenue
One Clinton Place
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 815-9500
E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com
- and –
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Drake Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DRAKE, v. THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00279-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6).
Having resolved Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds it
appropriate to address Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery. On
November 8, 2021, the Defendant filed its Motion for a limited stay
to discovery pending the resolution of its Motion to Dismiss. As
the Motion to Dismiss has now been resolved, the relief requested
by Defendant in its Motion to Stay is now moot. Accordingly, the
Motion for Stay, says Judge Dugan.
The Plaintiff is an Illinois resident who alleges that he purchased
Defendant's "Crest Gum & Enamel Repair" toothpaste in Illinois and
that the toothpaste contained false and misleading
representations.
The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of Illinois consumers on
February 1, 2021 in the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois,
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for unfair business
practices and deceptive advertising in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of
"all persons in the state of Illinois who purchased one or
more of the Class Products in Illinois during the Class
Period." The Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory
damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney's
fees."
The Defendant removed the action to this Court on March 12, 2021.
The Court enjoys diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(d)(2)(A) as Defendant is a resident of Ohio, and the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of costs
and interest.
The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in
1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30Ni21X at no extra charge.[CC]
QUANTUM HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 25, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snider v. Quantum Health,
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02296 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order extending the time for class
certification motion to Feb. 25, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Quantum Health operates as a healthcare navigation company.[CC]
RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL: Lima Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL LIMA AND JAVIER
GRACE, v. RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00598-TFM-N (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order extending the current December 1, 2021 deadline to
amend the pleadings and to move for conditional certification by
two weeks to December 15, 2021.
The parties in this FLSA case are in the process of discovery. The
current deadline to amend the pleadings and to move for conditional
certification under the FLSA is December 1, 2021 (extended from
November 1, 2021).
The parties have diligently pursued discovery, including serving
written discovery requests, exchanging documents, and scheduling
depositions for the next two weeks. However, given the Thanksgiving
holiday, the parties need additional time to allow for deposition
transcripts to be returned prior to the current December 1
deadline.
The Plaintiffs anticipate that a two-week extension of the current
deadline to amend the pleadings and to move for conditional
certification will allow them to complete the needed discovery and
obtain all information necessary to file the appropriate pleadings
with the Court.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CAoWo3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JACKSON AND JACKSON
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 414-7467
Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
mjackson@jackson-law.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Carter H. Dukes, Esq.
Wes Stevenson, Esq.
SCOTT DUKES & GEISLER, PC
211 Twenty-Second Street North
Birmingham, AL
E-mail: CDukes@scottdukeslaw.com
WStevenson@scottdukeslaw.com
RAZVAN POP: Uselmann Suit Seeks to Certify Owner-Operator Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRELA USELMANN, D/B/A
SAPPHIRE TRUCKING, INC., GABRIEL BICLEA, D/B/A MB TRUCKING, INC.,
ION GUTU, D/B/A GPA TRUCKING, INC., and DUMITRU MARIUS RENDENCIUC,
D/B/A DMR EXPRESS, INC., v. RAZVAN POP, MARIA POP,
R.S.P. EXPRESS, INC., NA TRUCK REPAIR, LLC and JOHN DOE CORPORATION
ONE and JOHN DOE CORPORATION TWO, Case No. 2:19-cv-13652-GAD-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting their motion for class certification;
2. certify a Class, under Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2),
consisting of the following:
"All owner-operators who contracted with Defendants from
January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2020;"
3. appointing them as class representatives;
4. appointing Bruce A. Miller and his law firm, Miller Cohen,
P.L.C., as class counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs, the proposed class, are owner-operators who
transported freight on behalf of Defendant RSP Express Inc.
("RSP"). RSP had contracts with each of the Plaintiffs and their
businesses.
R.S.P. Express Inc. provides transportation services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCD6AU
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce A. Miller, Esq.
Keith D. Flynn, Esq.
MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335
Detroit, MI 48202
Telephone: (313) 964-4454
Facsimile: (313) 964-4490
E-mail: brucemiller@milercohen.com
kflynn@millercohen.com
- and -
Melvin Butch Hollowell, Esq.
Angela L. Baldwin, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: mbh@millerlawpc.com
alb@millerlawpc.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant are:
Ray Carey, Esq.
GASIOREK, MORGAN, GRECO,
McCAULEY & KOTZIAN, P.C.
30500 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 425
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Telephone: (248) 865-0001
E-mail: Rcarey@gmgmklaw.com
REALOGY GROUP: Appeal in Whitlach Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the appeal in
Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century
21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus
County), is pending.
Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century
21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus
County).
This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M.
The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate, as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee's
independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could
potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century
21 in California.
In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").
Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims
without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil
penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA
claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as
defined by PAGA. As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all
non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved
employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys' fees.
Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.
In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege
that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real
estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates
and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to
pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed
to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to
provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from
wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for
business related expenses, resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code.
The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on
August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended complaint, was granted by
the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave
to replead. In January 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of the Court's order granting the demurrer and filed its brief in
support of the appeal on June 28, 2021.
On October 28, 2021, Century 21 and Century 21 M&M filed their
appellate brief in opposition to plaintiff's appeal.
Realogy said, "This case raises various previously unlitigated
claims and the PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and
operating uncertainties."
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate.
The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company
was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New
Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate
Holdings LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bauman Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Bauman, Bauman and
Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings
Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF
Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts), is pending.
This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020, wherein
the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those
at issue in the Moehrl, Sitzer and Rubenstein matters, but rather
than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR,
this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules
of a multiple listing service that is owned by realtors, including
in part by one of Realogy's company-owned brokerages.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the
defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as
well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The Company (together with the other companies named in the
complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in March 2021
and, on April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to
which the defendants replied on May 17, 2021.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Leeder Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in Leeder v. The National Association of Realtors
(NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH
Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies,
Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division), is
pending.
In this putative class action filed on January 25, 2021, the
plaintiff takes issue with certain NAR policies, including those
related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and
Sitzer matters as well as those at issue in the 2020 settlement
between the DOJ and NAR, but claims the alleged conspiracy has
harmed buyers (instead of sellers).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent
injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same
or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the
action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The Company (together with the other companies named in the
complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 20,
2021 and, on June 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed his opposition to
which the defendants replied on July 6, 2021.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery in Sitzer Putative Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Sitzer and
Winger v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy
Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings,
Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
and amended on June 21, 2019 against NAR, the Company, Homeservices
of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams
Realty, Inc.
The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks
the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation.
The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief
sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of
action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, or MMPA.
On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to
transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the
motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and
the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor
defendants).
In September 2019, the DOJ filed a statement of interest and
appearances for this matter for the same purpose stated in the
Moehrl matter. In July 2020, the DOJ requested the Company provide
it with all materials produced for Sitzer, with such request
related to and preceding the subsequent civil lawsuit filed and
related settlement agreement between the DOJ and NAR in November
2020.
In July 2021, the DOJ filed a notice of withdrawal of consent to
its November 2020 proposed settlement with NAR and submitted an
additional request to the Company for any supplemental materials
produced in Sitzer.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 24,
2021 and on June 30, 2021, filed a second amended complaint
limiting the class definition to home sellers who used a listing
broker affiliated with one of the defendants, among other things.
Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Moehrl Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic,
Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy
Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC,
The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams
Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois).
This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl
complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl
and Sawbill litigation reported in our Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants,
and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions to dismiss
filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR
and the Company (along with the other defendants named in the prior
Moehrl complaint).
In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.
The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their
respective franchisees to comply with NAR's policies and Code of
Ethics.
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to
otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. In
October 2019, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a statement
of interest for this matter, in their words "to correct the
inaccurate portrayal, by defendant The National Association of
Realtors ('NAR'), of a 2008 consent decree between the United
States and NAR."
A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an
interim basis by the Court in May 2020.
In October 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss
filed in August 2019 by each of NAR and the Company (together with
the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint).
Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing.
Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Pietoso Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled PIETOSO, INC. d/b/a CAFE NAPOLI, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES,
INC. & ALLIED SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF
BRIDGETON, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-CV-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.).
Background
Plaintiff Pietoso operates Cafe Napoli, a restaurant in Clayton,
Missouri. On April 26, 2011, Pietoso executed a Customer Service
Agreement with Allied for waste removal from the restaurant. The
Service Agreement established a basic-service rate of $323 per
month for trash pickup four times per week. The Service Agreement
also included a "Rate Adjustment" provision, which provided that
Allied could increase this rate at any time for five enumerated
reasons ("Unilateral Reason") or for any other reason, but in that
case only with Pietoso's consent ("Optional Reason").
Between April 2011 and August 2018, the basic-service rate charged
to Pietoso incrementally increased from $323 per month to $870.25
per month. The Defendants never explicitly indicated whether the
increases were for a Unilateral Reason or Optional Reason; the
"Total Amount Due" on the invoices simply went up. In early 2019,
after Pietoso complained about yet another rate increase, the
Defendants offered to reduce the monthly charge to $280, below the
initial price set in 2011. Suspecting that the Defendants had been
improperly raising the price without obtaining their customers'
consent, Pietoso terminated the Service Agreement and commenced
this putative nationwide class action.
The Defendants moved to dismiss Pietoso's First Amended Complaint
primarily on the grounds that Pietoso's acceptance and payment of
those optional price increases for eight years undeniably evidence
its consent to the increasing service fees.
The Court, Judge Ronnie White presiding, agreed, holding that
Pietoso's continued payments belie its claim that it was unaware of
the increases or that it did not consent to the increases.
Pietoso appealed, and the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded,
finding it cannot conclude at this stage that Pietoso's invoice
payments manifested its consent to paying Optional Reason
increases, Pietoso, Inc. v. Republic Servs., Inc., 4 F.4th 620, 624
(8th Cir. 2021). Pietoso has now filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") which includes these counts: Count I: Breach of Contract,
Count II: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and
Count III: Fraud in the Inducement.
Pietoso has also made class action allegations. The Defendants seek
to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice.
Claims Against Republic
Pietoso and Allied entered the Service Agreement in April 2011.
Allied merged into Republic in December 2008 and operates as a
subsidiary or affiliate of Republic. The Defendants argue that
Pietoso lacks any contractual relationship with Republic and
accordingly has no plausible claim for relief against Republic.
Pietoso responds that Republic may have assumed Allied's
liabilities via the merger and, alternatively, Pietoso can pierce
Republic's corporate veil because Allied "appears to be a shell
company."
District Judge John A. Ross notes that under Missouri law, there is
a presumption of corporate separateness, and courts do not lightly
disregard the corporate form to hold a parent company liable for
the torts of a subsidiary, citing Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics USA,
Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d 1105, 1109 (E.D. Mo. 2007).
Pietoso has alleged that Republic completely controls and dominates
Allied's performance in connection with the Service Agreement and
Republic merely operates and controls Allied as a shell company.
When Pietoso complained about the increased basic-service rate in
2019, it negotiated with and received a revised quote from Republic
representatives.
Under these circumstances, and at this early stage of litigation,
the Court finds that Pietoso has plausibly alleged alter ego
liability against Republic. Determining whether Republic may be
held liable under an alter ego theory requires a fact-intensive
inquiry that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage in
this case.
Because Pietoso has plausibly alleged the necessary elements of an
alter ego claim, the Court will not dismiss Republic from the
action.
Statute of Limitations
The Defendants contend that the Court must dismiss Pietoso's
contract claims predating March 2014 because they are time-barred
by Missouri's five-year statute of limitations, MO. REV. STAT.
Section 516.120(1). Pietoso responds that, pursuant to Missouri's
tolling statute, MO. REV. STAT. Section 516.100, its cause of
action did not begin running until damages became capable of
ascertainment and Pietoso suffered its last item of damage.
Judge Ross holds that Pietoso's complaint does not necessarily
establish application of the statute of limitations to bar claims
relating to the Defendants' conduct prior to March 2014. Under
Missouri law, the statute of limitations does not begin to run
"when the wrong is done or the technical breach of contract or duty
occurs, but when the damage resulting therefrom is sustained and is
capable of ascertainment."
Accepting Pietoso's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable
inference in its favor, Judge Ross finds that it is plausible that
Pietoso's injuries were not capable of ascertainment until 2019
when Pietoso suspected that the Defendants were baking Optional
Reason price adjustments into the Total Amount Due on each invoice.
Furthermore, Pietoso has reasonably claimed that it did not suffer
its "last item" of damage under MO. REV. STAT. Section 516.100
until the final invoice from the Defendants in 2019.
Accordingly, Pietoso's claims concerning the Defendants' conduct
prior to March 2014 do not necessarily fail as a matter of law.
Count I -- Breach of Contract
Under Missouri law, a breach of contract claim has four elements:
(1) the existence and terms of a contract; (2) that plaintiff
performed or tendered performance pursuant to the contract; (3)
breach of the contract by the defendant; and (4) damages suffered
by the plaintiff (WireCo WorldGroup, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.
Co., 897 F.3d 987, 994 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Keveney v. Mo. Mil.
Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Mo. banc 2010)).
The core question on the breach of contract claim is whether
Pietoso consented to Optional Reason price increases by continuing
to pay the invoiced price. If Pietoso did not consent-by-conduct,
the Defendants appear to have breached the Service Agreement by
imposing the Optional Reason price increases without obtaining
consent.
Judge Ross notes that the language cited by the Defendants cannot
overcome the Eighth Circuit's firm guidance. The Republic website
includes the following section titled "Rate Increases": "Throughout
the course of providing your service, Republic Services may
increase your rates for service. Rate increases are necessitated
over time to keep up with increasing costs of operations and to
ensure Republic Services is maintaining an acceptable operating
margin and/or an acceptable rate of return on its investment in the
services provided. Republic Services reserves the right to
determine in its sole discretion the amount of all rate
increases."
In these circumstances, and despite the language on Republic's
website, Pietoso's breach of contract claim continues to present
fact-intensive questions concerning the issue of consent-by-conduct
inappropriate for resolution at this early stage of litigation,
Judge Ross holds.
Count II -- Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
The Defendants argue that Count II, alleging breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, must be dismissed because the
Service Agreement expressly governs questions of Pietoso's consent
and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot give
rise to obligations not otherwise contained in the plain language
of a contract. Pietoso responds that it can plead Count II in the
alternative and the Defendants have formatted their invoices to
deceive customers into paying optional charges which do not have to
be paid.
Pietoso alleges the Defendants violated the duty of good faith and
fair dealing by exercising their discretion to format invoices so
as to undermine Pietoso's ability to reject Optional Reason price
increases. Although the Service Agreement does not expressly
require the Defendants to inform Pietoso that an increase is
optional, the Defendants are nevertheless required to make
discretionary decisions in good faith.
Because Pietoso has plausibly alleged that the Defendants exercised
their discretion in bad faith so as to deprive Pietoso of its
contractual rights, the motion to dismiss will be denied as to
Count II, Judge Ross rules.
Count III -- Fraud in the Inducement
In Count III, Pietoso alleges that the Defendants fraudulently
induced it into consenting to Optional Reason price increases.
Pietoso specifically pleads this claim as an "additional or
alternative cause of action" to its other claims. The Defendants
seek dismissal on the grounds that Pietoso's fraudulent inducement
claim lacks merit and fails to meet the pleading requirements under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
The Defendants ask the Court to apply the heightened pleading
standards of Rule 9(b) to dismiss Pietoso's fraudulent inducement
claim. Finally, the Defendants argue that Pietoso's claims sound in
contract. As indicated, however, Pietoso has explicitly pled Count
III as an "additional or alternative" claim. A factfinder could
determine, for example, that Pietoso consented to the Optional
Reason price increases by its conduct but was fraudulently induced
into providing such consent.
Regardless, the Court also finds that Pietoso may bring claims for
both breach of the Service Agreement and fraudulent inducement into
modifying the Service Agreement because they may constitute
violations of distinct duties. Therefore, the motion to dismiss
will be denied as to Count III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Court concludes that Pietoso has
adequately pled its claims against both Defendants.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yu5fmrtv from
Leagle.com.
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 19-cv-02863 (WMW/KMM)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Resideo Technologies, Inc. ("Resideo"
or the "Company") during the period from October 15, 2018 through
November 6, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby ("Settlement
Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs
The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli Dividend & Income Trust,
Gabelli Focused Growth and Income Fund f/k/a The Gabelli Focus Five
Fund, The Gabelli Multimedia Trust Inc., The Gabelli Value 25 Fund
Inc., GAMCO International SICAV, GAMCO Asset Management Inc., Naya
1740 Fund Ltd., Naya Coldwater Fund Ltd., Naya Master Fund LP and
Nayawood LP, and additional plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System, on behalf of themselves and all members of
the proposed Settlement Class, and defendants Resideo, Michael G.
Nefkens, Joseph D. Ragan III and Niccolo de Masi (collectively,
"Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of
$55,000,000 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright,
either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on January
27, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7A of the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Warren E. Burger
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street,
Saint Paul, MN 55101 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine
whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with
prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated August 17, 2021; (iii) approve the proposed Plan
of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement
(the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv)
approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely,
without providing another notice. You do NOT need to participate at
the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website for the Settlement,
www.ResideoTechnologiesSettlement.com [GN]
RICOH IMAGING: Bondick Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ricoh Imaging
Americas Corporation. The case is styled as Joe Bondick,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06132 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 16, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation -- https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/
-- distributes photographic equipment and supplies. The Company
offers cameras, lenses, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
RINCONCITO ROSY: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea C. Ruiz and other similarly situated individuals v.
RINCONCITO ROSY CORP, ROSALINA J. AMAYA, BUENAVENTURA MORENO,
Individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-24029-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 16,
2021), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid minimum,
overtime wages, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, and she was paid
for some overtime hours at the rate of $8.45. The Defendants failed
to calculate Plaintiff's overtime rate based on the full-minimum
wage rate, and they failed to pay the Plaintiff for every overtime
hour worked. The Plaintiff clocked in and out and the Defendants
were able to track the hours worked by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless,
the Plaintiff did not have access to check her total number of
hours worked within a week. Therefore, the Defendants willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-half her regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess
of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a waitress.
RINCONCITO ROSY is a Cuban café/restaurant opened 7 days a
week.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ROBERT A. SIEGEL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert A. Siegel
Auction Galleries, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09585
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries -- https://siegelauctions.com/
-- is the world's leading auctioneer of U.S. And Worldwide stamps,
and comprehensive source of philatelic information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ROBERT SIMON: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Simon Fine
Art, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Robert Simon
Fine Art, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09586 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Robert Simon Fine Art -- https://www.robertsimon.com/ --
specializes in European works of the Renaissance and Baroque
periods—generally from 1300 to 1800.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Moore TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cooper Moore, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-06117-JD, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on Nov. 17, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01571-TLF to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N 34TH ST., STE. 300
SEATTLE, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 319-5450
Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
murray@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1229 TYLER ST NE STE 205
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 594-5933
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Sophia Marie Rios, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
401 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 489-0300
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: srios@bm.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Kenneth E Payson, Esq.
Lauren Burdette Rainwater
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
920 FIFTH AVE, STE 3300
SEATTLE, WA 98104-1610
Phone: (206) 622-3150
Fax: (206) 757-7700
Email: kenpayson@dwt.com
laurenrainwater@dwt.com
- and -
Kelly Michelle Gorton, Esq.
Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 276-6584
Fax: (415) 276-6599
Email: kellygorton@dwt.com
sanjaynangia@dwt.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Court Dismissed Stock Trading Conspiracy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Dailey at businessinsider.com reports that a federal court
in Miami dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday brought by retail investors
alleging Citadel Securities and Robinhood conspired to halt
meme-stock trading in January.
The court said the evidence of a conspiracy between market-maker
Citadel Securities, trading app Robinhood, and others, to cause
shares of meme stocks like GameStop to decline on January 28 was
not sufficient.
In September, the retail investors suing the companies submitted
new evidence in their complaint that revealed conversations between
Citadel Securities and Robinhood in the days leading up to the
trading halt.
"High level employees of Citadel Securities and Robinhood had
numerous communications with each other that indicate that Citadel
applied pressure on Robinhood," the lawsuit said.
But those conversations did not convince the District Court of
Southern Florida.
"Admittedly, these emails may be somewhat suspicious given the
participants and their timing," Chief US District Judge Cecilia
Altonaga wrote. "But are a few vague and ambiguous emails between
two firms in an otherwise lawful, ongoing business relationship
enough to 'nudge [Plaintiffs'] claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible[?]' The Court thinks not."
In an emailed statement, a Citadel Securities spokesperson said,
"We are pleased that the court agreed that there is no basis for
the plaintiffs' conspiracy theories and summarily dismissed the
case."
Several lawyers representing retail investors did not immediately
respond to Insider's request for comment. Retail investors have
until December 20 to file a final amended complaint.
When the conversations were revealed in September, the hashtag
#CitadelScandal trended on Twitter amid renewed outrage from retail
traders. Citadel Securities fired back on Twitter saying retail
traders concocted an "absurd" story.
"Internet conspiracies and Twitter mobs try to ignore the facts,
but the fact is that Citadel Securities was the pre-eminent market
maker to the retail brokerage community in January 2021," the
company wrote.
In addition to lawsuits brought by aggrieved retail investors, the
January trading halt prompted a report from the US Securities and
Exchange Commission as well as Congressional hearings in which
Robinhood Chief Executive Officer Vlad Tenev and Citadel Securities
CEO Ken Griffin testified. Robinhood also made changes to its
platform, adding round-the-clock phone support and nixing a popular
confetti feature. [GN]
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Must File Response by Dec. 2
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Branning v. Romeo's Pizza,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for extension of time until Dec. 2, 2021 to file
response/reply to Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and,
Motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional
Certification.
The suit alleges violation of the FLSA.[CC]
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert. Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN,
v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY),
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:21-cv-00743-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Parties stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the
Court, that the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class
certification will be stayed until a date to be determined at the
Parties' FRCP 26(f) conference and any Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference that follows.
The Plaintiff Johnson filed her Complaint on June 7, 2021. On
November 1, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. Co-Defendant Russell Investments Trust Company filed a
Notice of Consent to Motion to Transfer Venue. The Parties have
stipulated to a stay of certain existing deadlines for a period of
30 days after the Court's decision on the Royal Caribbean
Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue.
A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Nov. 17, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xa5QE1 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, P.S.
401 Union Street, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Ben Bauer, Esq
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-256-3200
Facsimile: 612-338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
krichter@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
The Defendant Russell Investments Trust Company is represented by:
Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
Karl J. Ege, Esq.
icola C. Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
E-mail: kege@perkinscoie.com
nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
Robert C. Hora, Esq.
Vanessa Gonzalez-Ahmed, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5688
E-mail: smurphy@milbank.com
rhora@milbank.com
vgonzalez-ahmed@milbank.com
mortiz@milbank.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Investment Committee, are:
Jeffrey G. Maxwell, Esq.
BARLOW COUGHRAN MORALES &
JOSEPHSON, P.S.
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 910
Seattle WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 674-5212
E-mali: jeffreym@bcmjlaw.com
- and -
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
Samuel I. Levin, Esq.
Nathaniel W. Ingraham, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
admitted pro hac vice
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-6615
E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
slevin@groom.com
ningraham@groom.com
RYSE LLC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ryse LLC. The case is
styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Ryse LLC doing business as:
Ryse, Case No. 1:21-cv-09482 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ryse LLC is located in Pullman, WA, United States and is part of
the Other Crop Farming Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SATURN FASTENERS: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SATURN FASTENERS INC., JOSE SANCHEZ, and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV42937 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California's Public
Policy, the California's Government Code, the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, the California Labor Code, and the California's
Business and Professions Code including wrongful termination,
disability discrimination, harassment, failure to engage in
interactive process, failure to reasonably accommodate disability,
failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, unlawful
retaliation, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation,
waiting time penalties, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a machine operator/lead
supervisor from September 2012 until his termination on July 10,
2019.
Saturn Fasteners Inc. is a bolt manufacturer based in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN VOGEL
572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 796-7470
SECURE LENDING: $1,113 in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Hand TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM K. HAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SECURE LENDING INCORPORATED, SECTION
"R" (3), Civil Action No. 20-607 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Dana
M. Douglas of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Fix Attorneys' Fees.
Background
The Plaintiff brought the litigation as a class action asserting
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227. On Oct. 23, 2020, the Plaintiff sent interrogatories
and requests for production of documents to Defendant SLI. The
Plaintiff granted SLI several extensions of time to provide
responses, but SLI ultimately failed to timely respond.
On Feb. 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which was
set for hearing on Feb. 24, 2021. The motion to compel requested
that the Court: (1) orders SLI to respond to the Plaintiff's
initial discovery, (2) deems waived any objections to the
Plaintiff's discovery requests that SLI may assert, and (3) awards
the Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees incurred in bringing the
motion.
On Feb. 16, 2021, SLI filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion
to compel and submitted responses to the Plaintiff's
interrogatories, lodging numerous objections. It also produced an
audio recording.
On Feb. 24, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
compel and his request for attorney's fees. The order reserved the
right of the Plaintiff to file the appropriate motion with
supporting documentation to recover the costs and fees incurred in
the filing of its motion to compel within 15 days.
On March 11, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Fix
Attorneys' Fees.
Discussion
i. Reasonable Hourly Rates
The Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney's fees for two attorneys,
Derek Bast and Sean Wagner. Mr. Bast is an associate attorney with
six years of experience, and the hourly rate charged for his
services is listed as $275. Mr. Wagner is a partner with nine years
of experience and the hourly rate charged for his services is
listed as $325.
Reviewing the case law in the district, Judge Douglas finds that
$275 per hour for Mr. Bast is unreasonable. She finds $185 per hour
to be reasonable considering Mr. Bast's education, experience, and
prevailing rates in the community. Furthermore, Judge Douglas finds
that the rate for Mr. Wagner should be reduced. With 9 years of
experience, she finds Mr. Wagner's rate of $325 per hour to be
unreasonable. She finds $225 per hour is a reasonable rate in the
district.
ii. Reasonable Hours Expended
Mr. Hand contends that his counsel provided a total of 29.3 hours
of legal services in conjunction with "preparing and pursuing its
Motion to Compel," which equates to $8,507.52 in attorneys' fees.
He contends, however, that in the exercise of billing judgment
counsel excluded time spent by paralegals and local counsel from
the request.
While she agrees that some level of billing judgment was exercised,
Judge Douglas finds that the request still contains several
lingering entries from Feb. 19, 2020, through Feb. 22, 2020, with
no indication of why additional time was necessary for each task on
subsequent day. Therefore, she finds that the 29.3 hours submitted
in connection with the filing of the underlying motion to compel is
not reasonable. Upon review of the motion itself, Judge Douglas
notes that it is a standard, non-complex motion. She agrees with
Defendant SLI that courts in the circuit have found that such tasks
should reasonably take significantly less time.
Mr. Bast also seeks fees for 4.8 hours of time spent in the
drafting, preparing, and filing of the instant motion to set fees.
Courts in this district have found that 1.5 hours is a reasonable
amount of time to draft and file a motion to fix attorneys' fees.
Judge Douglas finds that a downward adjustment is necessary and,
therefore, awards 4.8 hours in connection with the underlying
motion to compel, reply memorandum and the instant motion to fix
attorneys' fees for Mr. Bast. She will award an additional hour for
reviewing Mr. Bast's work on the motion to compel and reply
memorandum.
iii. Adjustment of the Lodestar
After the lodestar is determined, the Court may then adjust the
lodestar upward or downward depending on the 12 factors set forth
in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th
Cir. 1974). However, "the Supreme Court has limited greatly the use
of the second, third, eighth, and ninth factors for enhancement
purposes, and accordingly, the Fifth Circuit has held that
enhancements based upon these factors are only appropriate in rare
cases supported by specific evidence in the record and detailed
findings by the courts." Finally, to the extent that any Johnson
factors are subsumed in the lodestar, they should not be
reconsidered when determining whether an adjustment to the lodestar
is required. Judge Douglas has carefully evaluated the Johnson
factors and finds an adjustment of the lodestar is not warranted.
iv. Total
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Douglas finds that the lodestar
is:
Derek Bast (4.8) $185/hour = $ 888
Sean Wagner (1) $225/hour = $ 225
Total Lodestar $1,113
Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, Judge Douglas granted
the Motion to Fix Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiff William K. Hand is
awarded reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,113.
Defendant SLI will satisfy its obligation to the Plaintiff no later
than 21 days from the issuance of the Order or by Dec. 1, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/7dtuvvkz from Leagle.com.
SHARP MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Imson Hits Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Imson on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Defendant, Case No.
37-2021-00047190, Cal. Super., November 5, 2021), seeks unpaid
overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, and failure
to maintain time-keeping records.
The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, as well as reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.
Imson worked at Sharp as a non-exempt worker. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Launa Adolph, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
SHUN LEE PALACE: Seeks Time Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wang et al. v. Shun Lee
Palace Restaurant, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00840-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants seek an approximate one-month extension
of time (until December 29, 2021) from the current deadline, for
them to oppose Troy Law's motion for class certification.
This is Defendants' first request for an extension of time to
oppose the class certification motion. Additional time is needed
given the Thanksgiving holiday, previously scheduled time-off, and
to meet with various witnesses whose primary language is Chinese
(necessitating extra time fortranslation), the Defendants' counsel
says.
Troy Law does not consent to Defendants' request and has provided
Defendants with no explanation regarding their refusal to consent.
Defendants note that Troy Law has previously refused to consent to
extension requests sought by Defendants, including: (1) on August
31, 2021 when Defendants sought an extension of time to respond to
Troy Law's purported charging liens, (2) on July 1, 2021 when
Defendants sought a stay of discovery while Defendants' motion to
dismiss was pending; and (3) on February 6, 2020 when Defendants
sought a one week extension of time to respond to the consolidated
amended complaint (due to Mr. Freedberg being in a car accident and
taking time to recuperate), the counsel adds.
A copy of the the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32jHfRT at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022.3298
Telephone: (212) 583-2685
Facsimile: (212) 954-5011
E-mail: efreedberg@littler.com
SNOW & ICE: Bernal Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Bernal, Jose Jaramillo and Victor Munoz, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Snow & Ice Management
Services, Inc., Kamila A Lenart, Krysztof Lenart and Does 1-2, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05963 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 6, 2021) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, for failure to pay at
least the minimum wage for all hours worked and for failure to pay
final pay for time worked and for failing to pay, despite repeated
requests by Plaintiffs, accumulated vacation and PTO after
terminating the employment relationship.
During the course of the Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendant,
the Plaintiffs performed snow and ice removal work for the
Defendants, but were not paid for varying amounts of time they
worked. By not paying the Plaintiffs for all hours worked the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage for all
time worked violated the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover unpaid wages for up to three years prior to the filing of
this suit because the Defendants' willful failure to pay the
minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 hours per week was a
willful violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
The Snow & Ice Management Services, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 420-6784
SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS: Harding Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN HARDING,
PATRICIA GIRAMMA, RONALD WELCH and LISA HARBOUR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS
GROUP, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP,
INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF SOUTHCOAST HOSPITALS GROUP and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-12216-LTS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs submit an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement agreement entered into with the Defendants,
preliminary certification of settlement class, approval of class
notice, approval of plan of allocation, and scheduling of a
fairness hearing.
Southcoast Hospitals provides health care services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Nov. 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CMEe9g
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, 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
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Flores FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID FLORES, JR. and MATTHEW SIRMON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN RESPONSE
SERVICES, INC., BELFOR USA GROUP, INC., ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, and
XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2021-004092, was removed from the
14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu, State of
Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana on November 19, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04021 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
Louisiana law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Federal
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
Southern Response Services, Inc. is an employment agency in
Satsuma, Alabama.
BELFOR USA Group, Inc. is a provider of property restoration and
disaster recovery services, headquartered in Birmingham, Michigan.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven F. Griffith, JR., Esq.
Christine M. White, Esq.
Matthew C. Juneau, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 566-5200
Facsimile: (504) 636-4000
STABLE ROAD: Class Certification Schedule OK'd in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Stable Road Acquisition Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-05744-JFW-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order granting lead
plaintiff's motion regarding class certification schedule:
On November 1, 2021, Lead Plaintiff Hartmut Haenisch filed a Motion
Regarding Class Certification Schedule. No Opposition was filed.
The hearing calendared for November 29, 2021 is hereby vacated and
the matter taken off calendar.
A copy of the Court's order Civil Minutes – General dated Nov.
22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3DXPHEE at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Must Submit Amended Case Management Report by Dec. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ritchie v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 8:21-cv-01515 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order
directing the parties to submit an amended case management report
on or before December 3, 2021 which includes deadlines for class
certification discovery, expert disclosures and motions and
merits-based discovery, expert disclosures, and motions, pretrial
and trial deadlines.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
State Farm Insurance is a group of insurance companies throughout
the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.[CC]
STEPHANIE GOTTLIEB: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephanie Gottlieb
LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Stephanie Gottlieb LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09493-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stephanie Gottlieb -- https://stephaniegottlieb.com/ -- is an
engagement ring/custom jewelry concierge service and fashion
jewelry website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
STONE PARK: Faces Suit Over Alleged Improper Ticket Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk reports that a new class action lawsuit has accused
Stone Park of illegally using red light cameras to reap big bucks
from motorists who unwittingly pay $100 each when they receive
tickets for stopping just beyond the white line before completing a
right turn on red.
On Nov. 16, attorneys Richard F. Linden, of the firm of Lipman &
Linden; Robert Fioretti, of Roth Fioretti; and Peter Bustamante,
all of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against the
village of Stone Park, demanding Stone Park refund the money it
collected from motorists who paid allegedly improper tickets issued
by the village's red light cameras.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Michael Tock,
identified only as a resident of Cook County. According to the
complaint, Tock received a ticket in September, accusing him of
illegally turning right on red, at the intersection of Mannheim
Road and Lake Street in the village, located near O'Hare
International Airport in Chicago's near west suburbs.
However, in the complaint, Tock asserts a photo taken by the red
light camera at the intersection shows he had come to a complete
stop before entering the intersection, as allowed by law.
When Tock contested the ticket, it was immediately dismissed, the
complaint said.
While he was spared from paying the $100 fine this time, Tock said
he was still greatly inconvenienced by having to spend time and
money to contest the allegedly improper traffic citation in the
first place.
And Tock and his lawyers said they believe there are likely at
least hundreds of others who have similarly been either
inconvenienced by such improper tickets, or who have unwittingly
paid $100 fines to the village, when they should not have even been
ticketed in the first place.
The complaint notes state law specifically forbids counties, cities
and villages from using such automated traffic law enforcement
systems to ticket motorists who come to a complete stop before
entering the intersection, when turning right on red, even if they
stop "at a point past a stop line or crosswalk," unless pedestrians
are present.
According to the complaint, Stone Park routinely has dismissed such
tickets issued to motorists, if they contest their fines, as Tock
did.
However, the complaint said, they believe "in the vast majority of
instances," people who receive the tickets choose simply to pay the
$100 fine, rather than invest the time, effort and money needed to
contest them.
The plaintiffs are seeking to expand the case to include anyone who
has received such red light camera tickets from Stone Park.
The plaintiffs are seeking court orders requiring Stone Park to
change the process under which it reviews its red light camera
violations, to end its alleged practice of sending out such
improper tickets.
The plaintiffs are further seeking a court order requiring Stone
Park to refund all fines, penalties and interest paid by anyone who
received a red light camera ticket in Stone Park, accusing them of
illegal right turns on red, when their vehicle had actually come to
a complete stop just over a white stop line or crosswalk. They are
also demanding Stone Park pay their attorney fees.
The complaint does not estimate how much money may be at stake in
this case. [GN]
SUNSHINE RESTAURANT: Beasley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Beasley, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. SUNSHINE RESTAURANT MERGER SUB, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company, and JAEGER KARL, individually, Case No.
CACE-21-020696 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 17,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages to all servers who worked in the State of Florida and were
not paid at least the full minimum wage for all hours worked.
According to the complaint, the Defendants utilized the tip credit
and paid Plaintiff and the class members under the applicable
tipped minimum wage. The Plaintiff and the class members were
required to dedicate a substantial amount of time to non-sever
duties while working for Defendants. These duties included hostess
duties, as well as completing "to go" orders. The Defendants
required its servers to participate these duties. The Plaintiff and
the class members were still paid pursuant to the tip-credit method
while performing these duties. The Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and the class members with proper notice that it would
pay the Plaintiff and the class members pursuant to a tip credit
method. Hence, the Defendants violated the terms of the tip credit
and Florida Constitution's provision on mm1mum wages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a server for the Defendants from December
2019 through present.
The Defendants are in the business of providing food and drinks to
the general public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward W. Wimp, Esq.
Anthony Hall, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Phone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
Email: ewimp@theleachfirm.com
ahall@theleachfirm.com
TACTOPSUSA LLC: Faces Herrera FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TACTOPSUSA LLC and FRANCK PALA, Defendants,
Case No. 0:21-cv-62386 (S.D. Fla., November 22, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of oral
employment contract, and unjust enrichment.
Mr. Herrera was employed by the Defendants as a security guard in
Florida from October 12, 2020 until his termination on December 5,
2020.
Tactopsusa LLC is a drywall and demolition business based in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
Telephone: (954) 862-2217
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Eichinger Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOANN EICHINGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY and DOES 1 thru
50, inclusive, Case No. 21C-0336, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Kings to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on November 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01681-NONE-HBK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages and/or overtime, failure to
provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, and unfair
business practices.
Tractor Supply Company is an American retail chain company
headquartered in Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
Nancy Sotomayor, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 688-9500
Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
E-mail: sarah.kroll-rosenbaum@akerman.com
nancy.sotomayor@akerman.com
TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Daniels Seeks Time Extension to File Reply
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL DANIELS and LETICIA
ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly
situated, v. TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS AND CARTAGE, LLC, et al., Case
No. 4:20-cv-00869-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order extending time to file their reply suggestions in
support of their Motion for Class Certification.
This is an employment discrimination case arising under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e et seq.
and 42 U.S.C. section 1981.
On September 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order of January
8, 2021, the deadline for Defendants to file their memorandum in
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion was October 22, 2021.
On October 19, 2021, the Defendants filed a consent motion to
extend their deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion to October
27, 2021.
On October 20, 2021, the Court granted said motion, and Defendants
filed their suggestions in opposition to Plaintiffs' brief on
October 27, 2021.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DEuvDo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq.
M. Katherine Paulus, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
5821 NW 72 nd Street
Kansas City, MO 64151
Telephone: (816) 581-4040
Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
E-mail: m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas E. Rice, Esq.
David M. Eisenberg
John L. Kellogg
Teresa E. Hurla
Nicholas S. Ruble
BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE LLC
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64108
E-mail: rice@bscr-law.com
eisenberg@bscr-law.com
jkellogg@bscr-law.com
thurla@bscr-law.com
nruble@bscr-law.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Osorio Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Martha Osorio, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems
Inc., John Does 1-5, Case No. 2:21-cv-19812-WJM-CLW (D.N.J., Nov.
6, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- provides
receivables collection and management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (646) 459-7971
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Kudatsky Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KUDATSKY, on behalf
of himself, and on behalf of those similarly-situated, v. TYLER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-07647-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting final approval
of the class settlement, attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
awards.
The Court said, "Class counsel shall receive $20,000.00 as
reimbursement for litigation expenses, to be paid promptly from the
settlement fund. As for attorneys' fees, defendant shall wire
transfer fifty percent of the total $787,500.00 as of the effective
date as defined in the settlement. The remaining 50% shall be paid
when defendants certify that all funds have been properly
distributed and the file can be completely closed."
In this wage-and-hour class action, the defendant technology
company allegedly misclassified employees, depriving them of
overtime and other wages.
Tyler, based in Plano, Texas, is a provider of software to the
United States public sector.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30K3MXw at no extra charge.[CC]
UBS FINANCIAL: California Court Issues Show Cause Order in Hsu Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRU K. HSU, Plaintiff v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. C 11-02076 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William
Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be
deemed a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order.
Background
In the putative class action, which a prior order dismissed in
August 2011, pro se Plaintiff Hsu once again moves for relief.
Plaintiff Hsu entered into a wrap agreement with Defendant UBS for
investment and advisory services. Hsu brought the action under the
Investment Advisors Act, alleging that the Defendant provided
services "in its capacity as an investment advisor," but that a
"hedge clause" in his agreement with defendant impermissibly
required Hsu to waive certain rights under the Act.
An August 2011 order dismissed Hsu's first amended complaint for
failure to state a claim. Although the dismissal order permitted
Hsu an opportunity to propose a second amended complaint, Hsu did
not amend and judgment was eventually entered in favor of
defendant. Shortly thereafter, Hsu appealed. During the appeal
process, Hsu terminated counsel and has since proceeded pro se. In
February 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal for
failure to state a claim, and later denied an en banc hearing. The
Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in October
2013.
In January 2014, Hsu moved to set aside the judgment pursuant to
FRCP 60(b)(6) and FRCP 60(d)(3). The motion was denied by a March
2014 order. In May 2017, the court of appeals denied an en banc
rehearing, and noted that no further filings will be entertained in
this closed case. The Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing
in December 2017.
In February 2018, Hsu again moved to set aside the judgment
pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(4). The Defendant, in turn, moved to have
Hsu declared a vexatious litigant. An April 2018 order denied both
motions, finding that Hsu had failed to establish that relief from
judgment was warranted and that the record failed to demonstrate
that Hsu was a vexatious litigant. The order, however, warned Hsu
that he would soon be declared a vexatious litigant if he continues
with unmeritorious litigation.
In January 2019, Hsu moved for reconsideration of the April 2018
order, and to "transfer jurisdiction" and to disqualify the
undersigned judge. The Defendant again moved to declare Hsu a
vexatious litigant. A March 2019 order denied both motions, but
also sent a final warning: Should Hsu file any new filings that are
duplicative of matters that have already been definitively resolved
in this case, he would be declared a vexatious litigantIn October
2019, the court of appeals denied Hsu's motion for reconsideration,
and again noted that no further filings will be entertained in the
closed case. In April 2020, the Supreme Court denied a petition for
writ of certiorari.
In August 2020, Hsu moved for a writ to certify a class and appoint
class counsel under the All Writs Act. A September 2020 order
denied the motion. An order filed on the same day entered judgment
in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. Hsu moved for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his
motion for writ. A November 2020 order denied the motion.
Plaintiff Hsu now files a motion under FRCP 54(b). The Defendant,
if served, has not filed any opposition.
Analysis
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
Similar to many of the Plaintiff's previous motions, the essence of
the current motion is that the Defendant falsified documents
submitted in connection with its motion to dismiss, and that the
2011 dismissal order relied on falsified materials and improperly
failed to convert the Defendant's FRCP 12(b)(6) motion into a
motion for summary judgment.
Judge Alsup states that FRCP 54(b) provides that a district court
may enter final judgment on individual claims in multiple claim
actions upon an express determination that there is no just reason
for delay. Hsu's FRCP 54(b) motion, however, requests the Court to
revise its earlier rulings and to certify a class. The motion is
incomprehensible and is not cognizable as an FRCP 54(b) motion.
Even if brought properly under FRCP 54(b), the motion would still
fail because final judgment has been entered in the case. Because
the motion merely repeats arguments previously rejected by the
Court and fails to show that it has any merit under FRCP 54(b), the
motion is denied.
2. Order to Show Cause
When a litigant's filings are numerous and frivolous, districts
courts have the inherent power under 28 U.S.C. Section 1651(a) to
declare him or her a vexatious litigant and enter a pre-filing
order requiring that future complaints be subject to an initial
review before they are filed. The court of appeals has cautioned
that "such pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that should
rarely be used" because of the danger of "treading on a litigant's
due process right of access to the courts." Nevertheless, such
pre-filing orders are sometimes appropriate because "flagrant abuse
of the judicial process enables one person to preempt the use of
judicial time that properly could be used to consider the
meritorious claims of other litigants."
In the case, the Defendant twice before moved for a pre-filing
order. Despite rejecting both motions, the Court did warn Hsu,
repetitively, about the risk of declaring him a vexatious litigant.
Hsu, however, continues to file new motions with duplicative and
repetitive arguments that have been rejected before. These filings
are frivolous as well as indecipherable and incomprehensible and
have unnecessarily consumed judicial time and resources.
The Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why he should not be deemed
a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order. Responses, if
any, to the Order to show cause was due Nov. 24, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
A hearing will be held in person in Courtroom 12 on the 19th floor
of 450 Golden Gare Avenue, in San Francisco, California 94102, on
Nov. 29, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bxrnbxrx from Leagle.com.
UMB BANK NA: Island Farms Seek Payment for Grain Harvest
--------------------------------------------------------
Island Farms, LLC, Porter Planting Company Partnership and Wyatt
Farm Partnership, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UMB Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00721, (S.D. Miss., November 8, 2021), seeks available
damages, including -- but not limited to -- compensatory, punitive
and exemplary, forfeiture of all money received by Defendants,
directly or indirectly, restitution, for themselves and the Class,
of all illegally obtained or ill-gotten funds and gains received by
the Defendants, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, court costs, investigative costs, expert-witness
fees, deposition fees and any other expenses or damages which this
court deems proper.
Plaintiffs own and operate farms in the Mississippi Delta that
grows corn, soybeans and other agricultural products.
UMB Bank, N.A. is a national banking association in Kansas City,
Missouri with particular expertise in agricultural finance.
Plaintiffs delivered grain to Express Grain Terminals, a grain
elevator propped up by UMB Bank, N.A. Per UMB's instructions,
Express Grain was to fill its silos with grain during the fall
harvest where Plaintiffs would transfer title to the grain
warehouse in anticipation of prompt payment. Express Grain turned
out to be insolvent and when the inevitable default occurred, the
farmers went unpaid, and UMB effectively seized the grain leaving
Plaintiffs unpaid, the complaint relates. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Email: donbarrettpa@gmail.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Monica Miller, Esq.
Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
monica@cuneolaw.com
jkelly@cuneolaw.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Revised Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 17, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA VIZCARRA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02777-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
pursuant to the agreement of the Parties, as follows:
-- The Plaintiff will serve her revised class certification
expert report on Defendant on February 18, 2022;
-- Defendant will serve its expert report(s) on May 18, 2022;
and
-- The Plaintiff shall file her revised motion for class
certification on June 17, 2022.
Unilever manufactures personal care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HG2NbS at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
granade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher A. Nedeau, Esq.
THE NEDEAU LAW FIRM
750 Battery Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 516-4010
E-mail: cnedeau@nedeaulaw.net
- and -
August T. Horvath, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
1301 Ave. of the Americas, 25th floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 927-5544
E-mail: AHorvath@FoleyHoag.com
UNILEVER US: Delcid Slams Benzene in Antiperspirant
---------------------------------------------------
Otto Delcid and Luz Roman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Unilever United States, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09569, (S.D. N.Y., November 18, 2021)
seeks statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
and injunctive relief resulting from breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment and for
violation of New York General Business Law.
Unilever manufactures "Brut," an antiperspirant. Plaintiffs allege
that Brut contain benzene, a carcinogenic chemical impurity that
has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-Mail: swestcot@bursor.com
UNITED PARCEL: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Rizvanovic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-01278-JLT (E.D), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston
entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. Discovery Deadlines:
-- Non-Expert (Class Issues): June 30, 2023
-- Mid-Discovery Status Conference: April 27, 2022
2. Class Certification Motion Deadlines:
-- Filing: Aug. 17, 2022
-- Opposition: Oct. 17, 2022
-- Reply brief: Nov. 17, 2022
-- Hearing: Jan. 23, 2023
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping and receiving
and supply chain management company founded in 1907.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r5gxH5 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan 31, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSNY SORTO-VASQUEZ KIDD,
et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II
entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to extend
Deadline to file motion for class certification to January 31,
2022.
The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oPhKPX at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Stay of Kent v. Vilsack Pending Miller Ruling Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN KENT, et al., Plaintiffs v. THOMAS J. VILSAK, in
his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-540-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois denied the motion to stay pending a resolution of
related class action filed by Defendants Thomas J. Vilsak and Zach
Ducheneaux.
The related class action is titled Miller v. Vilsack, 4:21-cv-595
(N.D. Tex.) ("Miller litigation").
Background
I. Kent's Case
The Plaintiffs are challenging Section 1005 of the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021. Section 1005 provides debt relief to "socially
disadvantaged farmer[s] or rancher[s] as of Jan. 1, 2021." The
Plaintiffs bring the case to eliminate Section 1005's race-based
preferences "because Section 1005 excludes them from the loan
assistance program because of their race."
To challenge Section 1005, the Plaintiffs bring two claims against
the Defendants: Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution (Count I) and Violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA") (Count II).
On July 14, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay All
Proceedings Pending A Resolution of the Miller litigation. They
note that the Plaintiffs are members of the two classes certified
by the court in Miller under Rule 23(b)(2), and the "Defendants
will be bound by any relief granted to the classes with respect to
the Plaintiffs should their equal protection claim prevail." The
Defendants contend that, "continued adjudication of the Plaintiffs'
claims in the Court, separate from the class to which they belong,
would be unnecessarily duplicative and risk inconsistent results."
The Plaintiffs continue by arguing that a stay "would not prejudice
the Plaintiffs, who will be bound by and benefit from any judgment
applicable to the classes, and in the meantime already have 'the
protection' given by the injunctions entered by the Miller court
and other courts." According to the Defendants, "a stay would also
preserve judicial resources and prevent hardship to the Defendants,
who would otherwise be required to continue defending against
duplicative claims in separate courts, many of which are being
brought by these Plaintiffs' counsel."
On July 14, 2021, the Defendants also filed a Motion for
Administrative Stay of Answer Deadline. They respectfully requested
that the Court enters an administrative stay to suspend the
parties' upcoming deadlines pending resolution of the Defendants'
stay motion. On July 19, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants'
Motion for Administrative Stay of Answer Deadline.
II. Miller Litigation
In April 2021, Sid Miller filed a complaint in the Northern
District of Texas. The original Miller complaint challenged
additional federal statutes that limit government aid to socially
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. By July 1, 2021, District Judge
Reed O'Connor certified two classes and granted a preliminary
injunction against Section 1005. The Plaintiffs in the instant
case, along with plaintiffs with cases pending in a dozen
jurisdictions, are part of the certified class in the Miller
litigation.
It was not until Sept. 22, 2021, that the Plaintiffs in the Miller
litigation amended their complaint and narrowed their claims to
challenge only Section 1005. Briefing on the summary judgment
motions will be completed by April 2022.
Discussion
I. First-to-File Rule
Judge Rosenstengel holds that the first-to-file rule does not apply
because the case is not duplicative of the Miller litigation. To be
duplicative, cases must have "no significant difference between the
claims, parties, and available relief." In the case, the claims are
different. In Miller, the plaintiffs are alleging the Department of
Agriculture's racial exclusions violate the Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs allege a
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (Count I) and
a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Count II).
Besides the difference in claims, the plaintiffs in the Miller
litigation are not naming the Administrator of the FSA as a
defendant. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs note that the "FSA
is the entity that provided their loans and possesses the relevant
paperwork, the Plaintiffs believe that FSA and its officers could
prove to be a valuable source of factual information." It is a
significant difference in the cases as counsel in Miller, according
to the Plaintiffs, does not believe that factual discovery is
necessary.
Further, the plaintiffs in the Miller litigation are not seeking
nominal damages. This is also significant because a change in the
Section 1005 program may moot the Miller litigation, while nominal
damages may prevent mootness in the instant case. Accordingly,
Judge Rosenstengel will not apply the first-to-file rule.
II. Merits of Motion to Stay
Seven district courts have granted the Department of Justice
("DOJ") stays pending a resolution of the Miller litigation --
Faust v. Vilsack, 2021 WL 4295769 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 23, 2021); Joyner
v. Vilsack, 2021 WL 3699869 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2021); Dunlap v.
Vilsack, 2021 WL 4955037 (D. Or. Sept. 21, 2021); Carpenter v.
Vilsack, 0:21-CV-103 (D. Wyo. Aug. 16, 2021); McKinney v. Vilsack,
2:21-00212 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2021); Nuest v. Vilsack,
0:21-cv-01572 (D. Minn. Aug 24, 2021); Tiegs v. Vilsack,
3:21-cv-00147 (D.N.D., Sept. 7, 2021).
Four other district courts, including Judge Rosenstengel, have yet
to rule or have denied the DOJ's motions for stay pending
resolution of the Miller litigation -- Holman v. Vilsack, 2021 WL
3354169 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2021) (denying stay, but later
reconsidering its decision and staying discovery and all other
deadlines while the court considers the Government's motion to
dismiss the two additional claims in that case that are not at
issue in the class action); Wynn v. Vilsack, 3:21-CV-514 (M.D. Fla.
July 27, 2021) (denying the Government's motion for an
administrative stay pending resolution of the Government's stay
motion, and noting that "this case remains active and the parties
are expected to proceed as previously directed"); Rogers v.
Vilsack, 1:21-cv-1779 (D. Colo.) (not yet ruling on motion to
stay).
A. Unduly Prejudice or Tactically Disadvantage to the Non-Moving
Party
A deeper analysis of the Miller litigation reveals that staying the
case any longer will unduly prejudice and tactically disadvantage
the Plaintiffs, Judge Rosenstengel finds. She also notes that the
Plaintiffs will continue to be delayed if the Court stays the case
pending the Miller litigation. or these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel
finds that the Plaintiffs will be unduly prejudiced if she stays
the case any longer.
B. Simplifying the Issues in Question
The Defendants do not address whether a stay will simplify the
issues in question. Rather, they argue that "if the plaintiff class
succeeds in its equal protection challenge to Section 1005 in
Miller but the Plaintiffs lose their claim here (or vice versa),
the Defendants would be subject to conflicting judgments concerning
the constitutionality of Section 1005 and, importantly, their
obligations toward these Plaintiffs."
Judge Rosenstengel holds that this argument is not persuasive
because four courts have granted preliminary relief against Section
1005, citing Wynn, 2021 WL 2580678 (preliminary injunction); Faust,
2021 WL 2409729 (temporary restraining order); Holman, 2021 WL
2877915; and Miller, 4:21-cv-00595 (N.D. Tex. July 1, 2021). These
judgments are not conflicting; instead, they appear to be
consistent with one another.
C. Reducing the Burden of Litigation on the Parties and on the
Court
The Defendants continue noting that "staying the case pending
resolution of the class challenge to Section 1005 in Miller would
promote judicial efficiency by avoiding this risk of such
contradictory outcomes." The Plaintiffs have the better argument,
Judge Rosenstengel finds. She says, the Plaintiffs note that
"rather than simplify the issues or streamline trial, a stay would
simply outsource the litigation to the Northern District of Texas."
"As a result, a stay would prevent the question of Section 1005's
constitutionality from percolating among the federal courts."
Not only have the Defendants failed to explain how a ruling in
Miller would reduce the burden of litigation on the Court, but also
while the Court is waiting on the Miller litigation to be resolved,
a change in the Section 1005 program may moot the Miller
litigation. This would not reduce the burden on the Court because
the Plaintiffs' case would not be moot as they seek nominal
damages.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel denies the Motion to Stay.
The Defendants' answer is due on or before Dec. 8, 2021. A
telephonic status conference will be set by separate Order to
discuss the parties' discovery needs and the possibility of an
expedited scheduling order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 10, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kvcf5pvr from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Court Enters Final Judgment in A.B. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment
in the lawsuit titled A.B., C.D., E.F., G.H., I.J., K.L., and M.N.
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and JAMES
MASON HEAPS, M.D., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK (Ex)
(C.D. Cal.).
The parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the
litigation, subject to the approval of the Court under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e). The matter came before the Court on the
Plaintiffs' motion for final settlement approval on July 12, 2021.
At that time, the Court granted the motion to approve the
Settlement and appoint the Hon. Irma Gonzalez (ret.) as Special
Master. The Court now enters the final judgment, effective as of
July 13, 2021.
The Court, after carefully considering the motion and the
Settlement together with all exhibits and attachments thereto, the
record in the matter, and the briefs and arguments of counsel, and
good cause appearing, has determined: (a) the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved; (b) the
Settlement Class will be certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (c) the Notice to
the Class was directed in a reasonable and sufficient manner; (d)
jurisdiction is reserved and continued with respect to the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation
expenses, and service awards; (e) jurisdiction is reserved and
continued with respect to implementation and enforcement of the
terms of the Settlement; (f) the Plaintiffs are appointed Class
Representatives; (g) the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, and Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP are appointed as Class
Counsel; and (h) Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez (ret.) is appointed as
Special Master.
Order and Judgment
The Court rules that it has jurisdiction over the litigation, the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and Settlement Class Members, and any
party to any agreement that is part of or related to the
Settlement. Venue is proper in the Court.
All capitalized terms will have the same meaning ascribed to them
in the Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court finds the Settlement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class. Rule 23(e)(2)(A) is satisfied because the
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have vigorously represented the Class.
Rule 23(e)(2)(B) is satisfied because the Settlement was negotiated
at arm's length by informed counsel acting in the best interests of
their respective clients, under the close supervision of an
experienced mediator.
Rule 23(e)(2)(C) is satisfied because the $73 million in relief
provided for the Class is adequate considering the costs, risks,
and delay of trial and appeal. The three-tiered settlement claims
process allowing for claimant choice is an efficient, accessible,
safe, and private way to optimize payments to Class Members. The
Equitable Relief Measures ensure meaningful institutional change
will be implemented at UCLA to avoid sexual misconduct in the
patient care context. The Defendants will pay separately Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and litigation costs, as well as all
Settlement administration and claims processing costs and fees,
without any reduction of Class Member recoveries. There are no
undisclosed side agreements.
Rule 23(e)(2)(D) is satisfied as the Settlement treats Class
Members equitably by presenting them with the same choices within
the three-tiered structure. The experienced three-person Panel,
including the Special Master, OB/GYN, and forensic psychiatrist,
will evaluate claims and allocate awards to Tier 2 and Tier 3
Claimants.
The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following
Class:
All female patients of Dr. James Heaps who were seen for
treatment by Dr. Heaps (1) at UCLA Medical Center (currently
known as Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center) from January 1,
1986 to June 28, 2018, (2) at UCLA's student health center
(currently known as Arthur Ashe Student Health and Wellness
Center) from January 1, 1983 to June 30, 2010, or (3) at Dr.
Heaps's medical offices at 100 UCLA Medical Plaza from
February 1, 2014 to June 28, 2018.
The Court concludes, for purposes of the Settlement only, that the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3)
are satisfied for the Settlement Class. In support of this
conclusion, the Court finds that the number of Settlement Class
Members is too numerous for their joinder to be practicable. The
Settlement Class consists of approximately 5,500 individuals, whose
identities are ascertainable through UCLA's records or through
self-identification.
The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs are
adequate class representatives, whose interests in this matter are
aligned with those of the other Settlement Class Members.
Additionally, proposed Class Counsel--the law firms of Girard Sharp
LLP, Gibbs Law Group LLP, and Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP--are
experienced in prosecuting class actions involving similar claims
and have committed the necessary resources to represent the
Settlement Class.
A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient
resolution of this litigation.
In making all the foregoing findings, the Court has exercised its
discretion in certifying a Settlement Class.
The Court finds that notice was given in accordance with the
Preliminary Approval Order, and that the form and content of that
Notice, and the procedures for disseminating notice, satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(e) and due process and constitute the best
notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court further finds
that the notification requirements of the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, have been met.
Adequate notice of the proceedings was given to Settlement Class
Members, with a full opportunity to participate in the fairness
hearing or request exclusion. Therefore, it is hereby determined
that all Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Approval
Order and Judgment.
The Court grants final approval of the Settlement and directs the
parties, Special Master, Panel, and Settlement Administrator to
implement the Settlement according to its terms and conditions.
The litigation is dismissed with prejudice, and the Released Claims
and Releasing Defendants' Claims are released as set forth in the
Settlement.
The Final Approval Order will have no force or effect on the
persons who have validly excluded themselves from the Class. The
persons identified in Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of
Jennifer M. Keough (filed separately under seal at Dkt. 45-2)
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class as of the Objection
and Opt-Out Deadline.
Neither the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed
pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement, is or may be
deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, (a)
the validity of any Released Claim, (b) any wrongdoing or liability
of Defendant or any other Released Party, or (c) any fault or
omission of Defendant or any other Released Party in any proceeding
in any court, administrative agency, arbitral forum, or other
tribunal.
Neither the Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards, nor any
order entered by this Court thereon, will in any way disturb or
affect this Judgment, and all such matters will be treated as
separate from this Judgment.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court reserves
and continues jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service
awards. Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses will not exceed $8,760,000. All
attorneys' fees and expense will be paid separately by Regents, in
addition to and without reduction of the Settlement Fund. Any
service awards the Court approves will be paid from the Settlement
Fund.
The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and service awards will be posted on the
Settlement website as soon as it is filed. Settlement Class Members
will have the opportunity to object to the motion.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court reserves
and continues jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and
enforcement of the terms of the Settlement, Claims Process,
distribution of Claim Awards, and all other matters related to the
administration, consummation, and interpretation of the Settlement
and/or this Final Approval Order and Judgment, including any orders
necessary to effectuate the final approval of the Settlement and
its implementation.
No Settlement Class Member or any other person will have any claim
against the Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, any person designated by
Class Counsel, the Special Master, the Panel, or the Settlement
Administrator arising from or relating to the Settlement or
actions, determinations or distributions made substantially in
accordance with the Settlement or Orders of the Court.
If any Party fails to fulfill its obligations under the Settlement,
the Court retains authority to vacate the provisions of this
Judgment releasing, relinquishing, discharging, and barring and
enjoining the prosecution of the Released Claims against the
Released Parties and to reinstate the Released Claims.
If the Settlement does not become effective, this Judgment will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance
with the Settlement and will be vacated and, in such event, all
orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith will
be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with
the Settlement.
The Court appoints as Class Representatives: Plaintiffs A.B., C.D.,
E.F., G.H., I.J., K.L., and M.N.
The Court appoints the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP, Gibbs Law
Group LLP, and Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP as Class Counsel. Class
Counsel will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the
Equitable Relief under the Settlement. Class Counsel will have no
role or responsibility in regard to (i) advocating for Settlement
Class Members before the Special Master, or (ii) determining
individual Settlement Class Members' claims or awards.
The Court appoints Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez (Ret.) as Special Master
to perform the duties consented to by the Parties under the
Settlement. This appointment is fair in light of her experience
evaluating claims of this nature and Regents' agreement to pay her
separately and apart from the Settlement Fund.
As the Settlement dictates, the Special Master will perform certain
duties with all reasonable diligence, including lead the Panel in
adjudicating and determining Claim Awards for Tier 2 and Tier 3
Claims; and retain and supervise, or consult, any psychologists,
psychiatrists, or other experts, trained specialists, or
administrative personnel to conduct interviews and evaluate Claim
Forms.
The Special Master's determination of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claim
Awards will be final.
The Special Master may communicate ex parte with the Court or with
the Parties or their counsel for any purpose relating to the duties
described herein. Within 28 days of completion of the Claims
Process, the Special Master will cause to be filed a Report on
Claims Process via ECF, which will fulfill her duty to serve her
order(s) on the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
53(e).
The Special Master and her team will be compensated at their
reasonable and customary rates. Regents will pay these claims
processing costs and fees separately and apart from the Settlement
Fund. The Court's continuing jurisdiction encompasses any matters
relating to the compensation of the Special Master and her team.
The Court finds no grounds for disqualification under 28 U.S.C.
Section 455.
For the reasons set forth, effective as of July 13, 2021, the Court
grants the Plaintiffs' motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment
dated Nov. 8, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/f9r6z5x8
from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Jane Doe Appeals Denial of Bid for Relief
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Movants JANE LS DOE, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled A.B. et al. v. The
Regents of the University of California et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-09555-RGK-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of former patients of Dr.
James Heaps, an OB/GYN who routinely acted inappropriately with his
patients, including by engaging in excessive and inappropriate
touching and commentary beyond medical necessity. Although he saw
patients in varying capacities at UCLA medical facilities starting
in 1983, and although patients repeatedly reported this alarming
behavior, UCLA allegedly did not prevent him from seeing patients
until 2018. The Plaintiffs filed suit against UCLA and Heaps, and
reviewed thousands of pages of documents in discovery.
According to the complaint, Heaps saw patients at UCLA health
facilities in varying capacities throughout his tenure, including
as a consulting physician at the UCLA Medical Center, as a treating
doctor at UCLA's student health center, and as a full-time employee
of UCLA Health. His reputation for disturbing behavior was known by
the late 1980s, and documented patient reports detailing his
conduct surfaced as early as 1999. UCLA rehired Heaps fulltime in
2014 and did not begin formally investigating his behavior until
late 2017. Not until June of 2018 did UCLA stop Heaps from seeing
patients.
In May 2020, the parties spent two days in mediation with Ken
Feinberg and Camille Biros, who have helped resolve several
high-profile sexual abuse cases. That mediation culminated in an
agreement in principle to resolve the litigation. After preparing
and executing settlement documents, including obtaining approval
from the UC Board of Regents, Plaintiffs filed this case and
presented the settlement to the Court.
On January 8, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Specifically, the Court (a) provisionally certified for
settlement purposes the class Plaintiffs seek to represent; (b)
provisionally found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable;
and (c) approved the settlement's notice plan. The Settlement
Administrator issued notice on February 5, 2021, and class members'
deadline to opt out or object passed on May 6, 2021.
On July 9, 2021, Jane LS Doe, Jane FR Doe, Jane SV Doe, Jane NE
Doe, Jane NN Doe, Jane CB Doe filed notice of motion and motion for
relief from the Court's order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),
and 6(b) regarding Order on Motion for Settlement.
On October 3, 2021, Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying
the motion for relief.
The Movants are taking an appeal from this ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as A. B., et al. v. Regents of the
University of California, et al., Case No. 21-56221, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 5,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Jane CB Doe, Jane FR Doe, Jane LS Doe, Jane NE
Doe, Jane NN Doe and Jane SV Doe Mediation Questionnaire was due on
November 12, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by December 6, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on January 5, 2022;
-- Appellants Jane CB Doe, Jane FR Doe, Jane LS Doe, Jane NE
Doe, Jane NN Doe and Jane SV Doe opening brief is due on February
14, 2022;
-- Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., James Mason Heaps, I.
J., K. L., M. N. and Regents of the University of California
answering brief is due on March 14, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Movants-Appellants JANE LS DOE, JANE FR DOE, JANE SV DOE, JANE NE
DOE, JANE NN DOE, and JANE CB DOE are represented by:
Taylor W. Boren, Esq.
MANLY STEWART AND FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
Plaintiffs-Appellees A. B., C. D., E. F., G. H., I. J., K. L., and
M. N., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Trevor Tan, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
- and -
Julie Erickson, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE, LLP
44 Tehama Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 635-0631
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Amanda Karl, Esq.
Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Defendants-Appellees REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and
JAMES MASON HEAPS are represented by:
Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Esq.
Matthew Allan Hoffman, Esq.
Debra Wong Yang, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7822
- and -
Tracy Green, Esq.
GREEN & ASSOCIATES
801 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 233-2260
- and -
Marc Smith, Esq.
KRANE & SMITH
16255 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 382-4000
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Bid Continue Class Cert Hearing Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brianna Arredondo v.
University of La Verne, Case No. 2:20-cv-07665-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order denying the
Defendant University of La Verne ex parte application to continue
the January 3, 2022 class certification hearing and to continue
associated deadlines.
Since Defendant has not shown an inability to comply with existing
deadlines, Defendant has not shown good cause.
The Court denies the application, the Court says.
The University of La Verne is a private university in La Verne,
California.
A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated Nov. 17, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HGY5dO at no
extra charge.[CC]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Class Suit vs Subsidiary Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Upstart Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that a class action
against the company's subsidiary is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas for violation of the usury law.
In June 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
online lender Marlette Funding LLC in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, alleging that the company, doing
business as Best Egg, was the true lender of usurious loans, with a
rate of interest far in excess of the 6% rate permitted to be
charged in Pennsylvania by unlicensed non-banks, originated through
a partnership with Cross River Bank (Case No. GD-21-007229).
"There is an ongoing risk that government agencies and private
plaintiffs will seek to challenge these types of relationships,"
the Company said.
Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and
credit unions to provide consumer loans using non-traditional
variables, such as education and employment, to predict
creditworthiness.
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Usury-Related Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Upstart Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the court dismissed
the cases captioned Petersen, et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC, et
al; and Cohen, et al. v. Capital One Funding, LLC et al. where it
alleged that the Company violated New York's civil usury. The
plaintiffs in both Cohen and Petersen dropped their appeals of the
decision to the second circuit.
in June 2019 private plaintiffs filed class action complaints
against multiple traditional credit card securitization programs,
including, Petersen, et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC, et al.,
(No. 1:19-cv-00741-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019)) and Cohen, et
al. v. Capital One Funding, LLC et al., (No. 19-03479 (E.D.N.Y.
June 12, 2019)).
In Petersen, the plaintiffs sought class action status against
certain defendants affiliated with a national bank that have acted
as special purpose entities in securitization transactions
sponsored by the bank.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' acquisition, collection
and enforcement of the bank's credit card receivables violated New
York's civil usury law and that, as in Madden, the defendants, as
non-bank entities, are not entitled to the benefit of federal
preemption of state usury law.
The complaint sought a judgment declaring the receivables
unenforceable, monetary damages and other legal and equitable
remedies, such as disgorgement of all sums paid in excess of the
usury limit.
Cohen was a materially similar claim against a separate national
bank.
On January 22, 2020, the magistrate judge in Petersen issued a
report and recommendation responding to the defendants' motion to
dismiss.
The magistrate recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted as
to both of the plaintiffs' claims (usury and unjust enrichment).
On September 21, 2020, the District Court accepted the magistrate's
recommendation and dismissed all claims.
The District Court found that the usury claims were expressly
preempted by the National Bank Act and referenced the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency's ("OCC") recent rulemaking that
"[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [the National Bank
Act] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other
transfer of the loan."
Among other things, the Court deferred to the "OCC's reasoned
judgment that enforcing New York's usury laws against the Chase
defendants would significantly interfere with [the bank's] exercise
of its [National Bank Act] powers."
The Cohen case was dismissed on September 29, 2020.
"The plaintiffs in both Cohen and Petersen filed, but ultimately
dropped, their appeals of the decision to the second circuit," the
Company said.
Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and
credit unions to provide consumer loans using non-traditional
variables, such as education and employment, to predict
creditworthiness.
WAL-MART: Parties Seek 60-Day Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER NELSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. (D.
Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
time for the Defendant to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional and Collective Class Action Certification and for
the related Reply deadline.
The Defendant needs additional time to access relevant information
to prepare its Opposition and is unable to do so given internal
Company resource constraints around the holidays.
The current deadline for filing Defendant's Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional and Collective Class Action
Certification is November 22, 2021 with a Reply deadline of
December 8, 2021.
The Defendant is requesting a 60 day extension of these deadlines,
to which Plaintiff sees no objection. Accordingly, the new deadline
for filing the Opposition would be January 21, 2022 and Plaintiff's
Reply would be due February 11, 2022.
Accordingly, the new deadline for filing the Motion for Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 23 Class Certification would be March 4, 2022,
responses would be due April 4, 2022 and replies would be due April
18, 2022.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oQJ14J at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
Dana B. Salmonson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS
NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1500
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 369-6800
Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
E-mail: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
dana.salmonson@ogletreedeakins.com
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in VLL Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOODOO LEATHERWORKS, LLC,
v. WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC., and WASTE CONNECTIONS OF COLORADO,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02005-RMR-KMT (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Kathleen M. Tafoya entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Discovery due by: Aug. 30, 2022
-- Dispositive Motions due by: Sept. 30, 2022
-- Plaintiff shall file its Sept. 30, 2022
motion and brief in support
of its motion for class
certification no later than
-- Defendants shall file their Oct. 21, 2022
opposition to class
certification by:
-- Plaintiff shall file its Nov. 4, 2022
reply brief in support of
class certification by:
-- A Status Conference set for: Dec. 12, 2022 09:30 AM
A hearing on class certification may be scheduled by the Court
should it deem one helpful to the resolution of the issues raised
in the certification briefing.
The parties shall be prepared to discuss the setting of a final
pretrial conference.
Waste Connections is a North American integrated waste services
company that provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services, primarily of solid waste.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l6041D at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
2421 2 nd Avenue North, Suite 1
Birmingham AL 35203
E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com
nick@pricearmstrong.com
- and -
Jason E. Ochs, Esq.
OCHS LAW FIRM
PO Box 10944
Jackson WY 83002
The Defendants are represented by:
Terence M. Ridley, Esq.
Michael Kaufmann, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
Denver CO 80203
E-mail: tridley@spencerfane.com
mkaufmann@spencerfane.com
- and -
Eric L. Klein, Esq.
Nessa Horewitch Coppinger, Esq.
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
1900 N Street, NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: ncoppinger@bdlaw.com
eklein@bdlaw.com
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Ictech-Bendeck's Bids to Exclude Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain testimony
of Dr. Karen Vetrano and Dr. John Kind in the lawsuit captioned
ELIAS JORGE "GEORGE" ICTECH-BENDECK, Plaintiff v. WASTE CONNECTIONS
BAYOU, INC., ET AL., Section: "E" (5), Defendants. FREDERICK
ADDISON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. LOUISIANA REGIONAL LANDFILL COMPANY,
ET AL., Defendants. Applies to: All Cases, Case Nos. 18-7889,
18-8071, 18-8218, 18-9312, 19-11133, 19-14512 (E.D. La.).
The Defendants in all cases jointly filed a motion in limine to
exclude certain expert testimony by Dr. Jaana Pietari and Nestor
Soler. The Plaintiffs in all cases jointly filed an opposition. The
Defendants in all cases have jointly filed a reply.
The Plaintiffs in all cases filed a motion in limine to exclude
certain expert testimonies by Dr. Tarek Abichou and Dr. Paolo
Zannetti; Barry Kline and Gale Hoffnagle; and Jeffrey Marshall. The
Defendants in all cases jointly filed an opposition. The Plaintiffs
in all cases jointly filed a reply.
The Plaintiffs in all cases filed a motion in limine to exclude
certain expert testimonies by Dr. Karen Vetrano and Dr. John Kind;
Matthew Stutz; and Dr. Mark Yocke. The Defendants in all cases
jointly filed an opposition.
The Plaintiffs in all cases filed a motion in limine to exclude
certain expert testimony based on data compiled by SCS Engineers.
The Defendants in all cases jointly filed an opposition. The
Plaintiffs in all cases jointly filed a reply.
Background
The case concerns the operation of the Jefferson Parish Landfill
(the "Landfill") and the resulting odors the Plaintiffs allege were
emitted in 2017 and 2018. The Plaintiffs, who are Jefferson Parish
residents, filed several class action and individual lawsuits in
2018 that were consolidated into these cases. The Plaintiffs sue
Jefferson Parish, which owns and contracts with others to operate
the Landfill; Aptim Corporation, which manages the gas and leachate
collection systems of the Landfill; and three entities that operate
the Landfill: Louisiana Regional Landfill Company (formerly known
as IESI LA Landfill Corporation); Waste Connections Bayou, Inc.
(f/k/a Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc.); and Waste
Connections US, Inc.
In their complaints, the Plaintiffs allege odors from the Landfill
have unreasonably interfered with their use and enjoyment of
immovable property in violation of Louisiana law.
Law and Analysis
For the most part, the parties' objections go to the weight of the
experts' testimony.
The Court notes with respect to Dr. Vetrano and Dr. Kind that their
testimony is in part intended to rebut that of the Plaintiffs'
expert, Dr. Susan Schiffman, concerning the physiological effects
caused by exposure to odors from the Landfill. However, the Court
has limited Dr. Schiffman to testimony regarding the psychological
effects of exposure to odors on humans and certain related
symptoms.
District Judge Susie Morgan opines that to the extent Dr. Vetrano
and Dr. Kind's testimony relates to topics on which the Court has
prevented Dr. Schiffman from opining, Dr. Vetrano and Dr. Kind's
testimony is irrelevant and excluded. Additionally, to the extent
Dr. Vetrano and Dr. Kind's testimony is cumulative of each other
and Dr. Pamela Dalton's criticisms of Dr. Schiffman's opinions, Dr.
Vetrano and Dr. Kind's testimony is excluded.
The Court also notes that, in their motion to exclude data compiled
by SCS Engineers, the Plaintiffs argue the data should be excluded
for failure to supplement disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37. Several of Defendants' experts rely on the SCS data.
However, at the pre-trial conference, the Plaintiffs admitted they
received the SCS data in the May 2020 production of documents and
were provided the relevant Bates numbers for these documents in a
list of the documents reviewed by the representative of Waste
Connections Bayou, Inc. and Waster Connections US, Inc. in advance
of his Nov. 20, 2020 deposition.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were informed the Defendants' experts
were relying on the SCS data when expert reports were exchanged in
March and April 2021. The Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to
request relief from the Court to address any disclosure issues. In
fact, the Plaintiffs requested a status conference in August 2021
regarding other data that the Defendants disclosed late. At that
time, the Court allowed the Plaintiffs' experts to provide
supplemental reports. No mention was made at that time of the SCS
data.
In determining whether evidence should be excluded, a court
generally considers: (1) the importance of the evidence; (2) the
prejudice to the opposing party of including the evidence; (3) the
possibility of curing such prejudice by granting a continuance; and
(4) the explanation for the party's failure to disclose.
Because the Plaintiffs actually received the SCS data in 2020 and
knew the Defendants' experts were relying on it in March and April
of 2021, the prejudice to the Plaintiffs does not justify exclusion
of the SCS data in light of the importance of the data to the
Defendants, Judge Morgan holds.
Conclusion
Judge Morgan ruled that all of the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
certain testimony of Dr. Karen Vetrano and Dr. John Kind is granted
in part, to the extent the Court excludes testimony related to
topics on which the Court has prevented Dr. Susan Schiffman from
opining and to the extent testimony is cumulative.
All of the Defendants' motion in limine to exclude certain expert
testimony by Dr. Jaana Pietari and Dr. Nestor Soler is denied.
All of the Plaintiffs' motions in limine to exclude certain expert
testimony by Dr. Tarek Abichou and Dr. Paolo Zannetti, Barry Kline
and Gale Hoffnagle, Jeffrey Marshall, Matthew Stutz, Dr. Mark
Yocke, and that testimony based on data compiled by SCS Engineers
are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Nov. 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/pcfbjwdm from
Leagle.com.
WATER WORKS GROUP: Pool Installers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erick Escobar Hernandez and Santos Orellana, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Water Works
Group, Inc., Gary Ramis and Lawrence Ramis, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-06376, (E.D. N.Y., November 17, 2021), seeks to recover
damages for violations of New York State labor laws and the Fair
Labor Standards Act, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as pool installers, pool
builders and pool cleaners. They claim to have worked in excess of
40 hours per week without overtime premium, spread-of-hours
premium, and denied accurate wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Price-Fixing Related Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Chemical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend multiple purported class action suits related
to alleged price-fixing of caustic soda.
The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed
since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.
The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.
The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin),
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation
d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective
named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of
either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in
the U.S. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and
injunctive relief.
The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct purchaser
lawsuits was denied and the cases have proceeded to discovery.
Beginning in October 2020, similar class action proceedings were
also filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec as well as
before the Federal Court.
These proceedings seek the certification or authorization of a
class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased
caustic soda (including, in one of the cases, those who merely
purchased products containing caustic soda) from October 1, 2015
through the present or such date deemed appropriate by the court.
Westlake said, "At this time, the Company is not able to estimate
the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's
consolidated financial statements either in the current period or
in future periods."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction.
WP COMPANY: Court Finally Certifies Settlement Class in Jordan
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH JORDAN, v. WP
COMPANY LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-05218-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick entered an order granting final approval to
settlement and judgment:
1. finally certifying Settlement Class on behalf of all
Persons who, from July 29, 2016, to and through April 1,
2021, enrolled in any of Defendant's digital subscription
offerings using a California billing address and who,
during that time period, were charged and paid one or more
automatic renewal fee(s) in connection with such
subscription;"
Excluded from this definition are the Released Parties;
Settlement Class Members who exclude themselves from the
Settlement shall no longer thereafter be Settlement Class
Members and shall not be bound by the Settlement Agreement
and shall not be eligible to make a claim for any benefit
under the terms of this Settlement Agreement;
2. appointing Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;
3. designating Plaintiff Deborah Jordan as the Class
Representative; and
4. appoinitng JND Legal Administration to continue to serve
as the Claims Administrator as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.
WP Company LLC was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes the publishing and printing of periodicals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CSS8He at no extra charge.[CC]
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Provides Update on Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: WRAP) (the "Company"), a global
leader in innovative public safety technologies and services, today
announced that, on November 15, 2021, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
filed on behalf of a putative class of shareholders in In re Wrap
Technologies, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case No.
20-8760-DMG (the "Action"). The lead plaintiff has been granted
leave to file a second amended complaint by December 6, 2021.
About WRAP
WRAP Technologies (Nasdaq: WRAP) is a global leader in innovative
public safety technologies and services. WRAP develops creative
solutions to complex issues and empowers public safety officials to
protect and serve their communities through its portfolio of
advanced technology and training solutions.
WRAP's BolaWrap(R) Remote Restraint device is a patented, hand-held
pre-escalation and apprehension tool that discharges a Kevlar(R)
tether to temporarily restrain uncooperative suspects and persons
in crisis from a distance. Through its many field uses and growing
adoption by agencies across the globe, BolaWrap is proving to be an
effective tool to help law enforcement safely detain persons
without injury or the need to use higher levels of force.
Wrap Reality, the Company's virtual reality training system, is a
fully immersive training simulator and comprehensive public safety
training platform providing first responders with the discipline
and practice in methods of de-escalation, conflict resolution, and
use-of-force to better perform in the field.
WRAP's headquarters are in Tempe, Arizona. For more information,
please visit wrap.com. [GN]
XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Class Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the appeal on the
order of of dismissal in the putative class action suit entitled,
Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., is pending.
On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its
current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and
omissions in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local
272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the "Pension Funds")
filed a consolidated class action complaint. Defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019.
On November 4, 2019, the Court dismissed the consolidated class
action complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended
complaint.
The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint against the company and a
current executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020.
On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first amended
consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and closed the
case.
On April 29, 2021, the Pension Funds filed a notice of appeal, and
the appellate process is ongoing.
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
XPO LOGISTICS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the settlement
final approval hearing in Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and
Arrellano v. XPO Port Services, Inc., are scheduled for January 10,
2022.
Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are
defendants in class action litigations brought by independent
contract carriers in California who contracted with these
subsidiaries.
In these cases, the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.
In two related cases pending in Federal District Court in Los
Angeles, Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO
Port Services, Inc., the Court has certified classes beginning in
April 2016 and March 2013, respectively.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants exercised an impermissible degree
of control over plaintiffs' operations through the terms of the
parties' contracts and defendants' policies, including enforcement
of requirements imposed on motor carriers by state and federal law.
The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims that, should the contract carriers be determined to
be employees, they would be entitled to reimbursement for unpaid
wages and/or minimum wage, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest
periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers'
business expenses (including fuel and insurance related costs),
Labor Code penalties under California's Private Attorneys General
Act, and attorneys' fees and costs associated with bringing the
action.
Defendants mounted a vigorous defense on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, including as to whether the plaintiffs met the applicable
test for the threshold issue of employment classification. Trial in
both cases was scheduled to begin September 7, 2021.
In August 2021, the parties held a mediation at which a tentative
settlement was reached in both actions. Subject to the Court's
approval, the company had agreed to pay the plaintiff class in the
Alvarez case a total of $20 million, which includes all attorneys'
fees and other costs.
The company had agreed to pay the plaintiff class in the Arrellano
case a total of $9.5 million, which includes all attorneys' fees
and other costs.
The company accrued the full amount of both settlements in the
third quarter of 2021.
Under the terms of both settlement agreements, the company do not
have to reclassify its contractors as employees and the plaintiff
classes have agreed to release the company from all liability from
the inception of each respective class period through December 31,
2021.
All parties involved have agreed to dismiss all claims and
counterclaims with prejudice, and the settlement agreements do not
contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by
any of the parties.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlements on
October 8, 2021, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for
January 10, 2022.
XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.
YALLA GROUP: Xu and Li Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs in Crass Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
appoints Peifa Xu and Yongjun Li as lead plaintiffs and Pomerantz
LLP as lead counsel in the putative securities class action lawsuit
titled JEFFREY CRASS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. YALLA GROUP LIMITED and TAO YANG,
Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 6854 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.).
On Aug. 13, 2021, Plaintiff Jeffrey Crass filed the action under
the federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of Yalla
securities. Crass claimed, inter alia, that, in connection with the
Company's initial public stock offering ("IPO"), Yalla and its
chairman and chief executive officer Tao Yang had made false and
misleading statements, and omitted material facts, which tended to
conceal that Yalla's user metrics, reported revenues, and cash
balance were substantially lower than publicly represented.
Mr. Crass alleged that, as a result, he and the putative class had
bought Yalla securities at a premium. He further alleges that, when
a report published by Swan Street Research was released and
revealed that Yalla's finances and user metrics had been inflated,
Yalla's share value dropped substantially, harming him and the
putative class.
After Mr. Crass filed suit, five movants--ultimately not including
Crass--sought appointment as lead plaintiff. Pending now are two
motions for such appointment and for appointment of lead counsel.
One is a joint motion from Peifa Xu and Yongjun Li ("Li")
(together, the "Xu Group"); the other is from Gang Wang . The Xu
Group represents that both individually and together, its two
members had the largest financial interest of the movants and
contends that they are adequate and typical to represent the
putative class, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires.
Wang does not contend that he had the largest interest, but he
argues that the Xu Group is inadequate and atypical. The other
movants have filed notices of withdrawal or indicating that they do
not oppose the pending motions.
Background
Yalla is a holding company organized under the laws of the Cayman
Islands and headquartered in the United Arab Emirates. It produces
a voice-centric social networking and entertainment platform that
operates mainly in the Middle East and Northern Africa region
("MENA"). On Sept. 30, 2020, Yalla undertook an IPO. The IPO
consisted of an offering of $18.6 million American Depositary
Shares ("ADS"), each representing one Class A ordinary share, at
$7.50 per ADS. Yalla's common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "YALA."
The Plaintiffs here challenge two related sets of allegedly false
and/or misleading statements by Yalla--first, that its user base
was as large as it represented; and second, that, based on that
inflated user base, its finances were strong and it had prospects
for strong financial growth. Such statements were allegedly
repeated in documents submitted to the SEC and in earnings calls
throughout the class period.
The Complaint alleges that each of the statements were false and
misleading because the company overstated its user metrics and
revenue. The Complaint alleges that the stock price fell after the
truth emerged by way of several research reports. On Aug. 10, 2021,
the price of Yalla ADS fell nearly 18.9%, closing at $10.99, down
from its previous close price of $13.55.
On Aug. 13, 2021, Crass filed a Complaint, and published a notice
of this action on Business Wire. The Complaint brings claims on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Yalla ADS between Sept. 30, 2020, and Aug. 9,
2021, and who were damaged thereby.
Motions for Appointment of a Lead Plaintiff
On Oct. 12, 2021, the deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff, five persons or groups moved to be appointed. These were
Steve Hu and Yechen Dong.
On Aug. 13, 2021, the Court issued an order directing that
responses to the motions for appointment lead plaintiff were due on
October 27, 2021. On Oct. 26, 2021, Hu and Dong filed a notice of
non-opposition to the competing motions for such appointment, and
was followed by similar notices, on Oct. 26 and 27, 2021, from
Monett.
Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead
counsel in putative class actions brought under the securities laws
are governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The
PSLRA directs the Court to appoint as lead plaintiff the party or
parties most capable of adequately representing the interests of
class members.
As the Xu Group and Wang are the only movants, who continue to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of their chosen
counsel as lead co-counsel, the Court will consider only these two
motions.
In determining which plaintiff has the largest financial stake in
the litigation, courts in this Circuit have traditionally applied a
four-factor test, first set forth in Lax v. First Merchants
Acceptance Corp., No. 97 Civ. 2715 (DHC), 1997 WL 461036, at *5
(N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 1997). These Lax factors include: (1) the total
number of shares purchased during the class period; (2) the net
shares purchased during the class period (in other words, the
difference between the number of shares purchased and the number of
shares sold during the class period); (3) the net funds expended
during the class period (in other words, the difference between the
amount spent to purchase shares and the amount received for the
sale of shares during the class period); and (4) the approximate
losses suffered.
District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer notes that the Xu Group
represents that its two members suffered a combined $376,911 in
losses, comprising $198,657 by Li and $178,253 by Xu. No other
individual or entity, including Wang, the only remaining movant,
has represented it has a greater financial interest in the relief
sought by the class. The Xu Group asserts, and Wang does not
dispute, that Wang suffered a loss of $109,801, below both those of
Li and Xu.
To ascertain whether a lead plaintiff group is appropriate, courts
generally consider three factors: (1) the size of the group; (2)
the relationship between the parties; and (3) any evidence that the
group was formed in bad faith (Peters v. Jinkosolar Holding Co.,
No. 11 Civ. 7133 (JPO), 2012 WL 946875, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19,
2012)).
By those standards, the Xu Group is qualified for appointment,
Judge Engelmayer holds. First, the group is relatively small and,
therefore, presumptively cohesive. Second, the two filed a lead
plaintiff motion together, and have demonstrated their ability to
work cooperatively. Third, there is no indication that the group
was formed in bad faith.
In sum, all considerations favor the Xu Group, the group of
individuals with, by far, the largest losses, Judge Engelmayer
holds.
Requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
The PSLRA's final requirement is that the proposed lead plaintiffs
satisfy Rule 23's requirements for class certification: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy. At this early stage of
litigation, however, only the last two factors--typicality and
adequacy--are pertinent.
Movant Wang contests Xu's typicality because Xu also engaged in
extensive and unique options trading. But Xu's losses as claimed
stem from the same alleged misstatements and omissions as the other
movants, and there is no indication that the theory on which he
will rely to remedy his losses will differ from any other
plaintiff, Judge Engelmayer finds. Wang has not alleged that Li,
who has the highest losses of any movant, is in any way atypical
from the class.
Movant Wang also takes issue with the Xu Group's mechanism for
resolving disputes among Xu and Li, which provides that in the
event of a disagreement, a majority vote will be taken in which
Xu's and Li's votes are proportionate to the losses they incurred
during the class period. Effectively, Li, who suffered the largest
loss, would be the deciding vote in a dispute. But contrary to
Wang's assertion, this voting procedure is consistent with the
PSLRA's presumption that the movant with the largest financial
interest will control the litigation, as Li is the plaintiff with
the largest financial loss of all lead plaintiff movants.
Finally, Wang challenges the Xu Group's adequacy on the ground that
their PSLRA certifications were not properly sworn under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1746(1), which requires inclusion of that
language when executed outside the United States.
Judge Engelmayer opines that this defect is not significant or
substantive, and, indeed, has since been cured: On Nov. 3, 2021,
the Court received the Xu Group's revised PSLRA certifications,
this time containing the properly worded oath.
Because the group consisting of Xu and Li satisfies all PSLRA
requirements as of this early stage, the Court appoints them
co-lead plaintiffs.
Appointing Lead Counsel
The most adequate plaintiff may retain counsel to represent the
class, subject to the Court's approval.
The Xu Group has selected the law firm of Pomerantz LLP as lead
counsel. Having reviewed the firm's submissions as to its pertinent
background and experience, including its experience litigating
securities class actions, the Court finds the firm qualified to
serve as lead counsel.
Accordingly, the Court appoints Pomerantz as lead counsel.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out in the Order, the Court grants the Xu
Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs, and appoints
Pomerantz as lead counsel.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions pending at docket entries 13, 16, 19, 21, 27, and 39.
The Court directs the parties to meet and confer and to file a
joint letter setting out an efficient proposed schedule for next
steps in this case, including proposed dates for the filing of (1)
a consolidated amended complaint and (2) the Defendants' response.
If the Defendants anticipate that their response will take the form
of a motion to dismiss, the parties will include proposed dates for
the opposition and reply briefs, as well.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5dbh5dzc from Leagle.com.
ZILLOW GROUP: Liable to Stock Price Decline, Silverberg Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SILVERBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., RICHARD
BARTON, ALLEN PARKER, and JEREMY WACKSMAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01567 (W.D. Wash., November 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission about Zillow Group's business, operations, and prospects
in order to trade Zillow securities at artificially inflated prices
between February 10, 2021 and November 2, 2021. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) despite
operational improvements, the company experienced significant
unpredictability in forecasting home prices for its Zillow Offers
business; (ii) such unpredictability, as well as labor and supply
shortages, led to a backlog of inventory; (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the company was reasonably likely to wind-down its
Zillow Offers business, which would have a material adverse impact
on its financial results; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, Zillow's Class A share price allegedly fell
$8.84, or 9.4 percent, to close at $85.46 per share on October 18,
2021, and Zillow's Class C share price fell $8.97, or 9.4 percent,
to close at $86.00 per share on October 18, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume. On November 3, 2021, Zillow's Class A share
price fell $19.62, or 23 percent, to close at $65.86 per share and
Zillow's Class C share price fell $21.73, or 25 percent, to close
at $65.47 per share, damaging investors.
Zillow Group, Inc. is a real estate company, headquartered in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98155
Telephone: (206) 621-6566
E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com
- and –
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Shaye Fuchs, Esq.
37 Arrowhead Lane
Lawrence, NY 11559
Telephone: (516) 509-8755
E-mail: sfuchsesq@aol.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers of Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: Z, ZG) securities between
February 10, 2021 and November 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until January 18, 2022 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in Barua v. Zillow Group, Inc., No. 21-cv-01551 (W.D.
Wash.). Commenced on November 16, 2021, the Zillow class action
lawsuit charges Zillow and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Zillow class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Zillow class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than January 18, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Zillow is a real estate company that purports to
offer customers "an on-demand experience for selling, buying,
renting or financing with transparency." Zillow's "Zillow Offers"
business "buys and sells homes directly in dozens of markets across
the country, allowing sellers control over their timeline."
The Zillow class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) despite operational improvements, Zillow
experienced significant unpredictability in forecasting home prices
for its Zillow Offers business; (ii) such unpredictability, as well
as labor and supply shortages, led to a backlog of inventory; (iii)
as a result, Zillow was reasonably likely to wind down its Zillow
Offers business, which would have a material adverse impact on its
financial results; and (iv) consequently, defendants' positive
statements about Zillow's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 18, 2021, Zillow announced that Zillow Offers suspended
signing of new contracts through 2021 and would focus on its
current inventory, citing a "backlog in renovations and operational
capacity restraints." Zillow claimed that "[p]ausing new contracts
will enable us to focus on sellers already under contract with us
and our current home inventory." On this news, Zillow's Class A and
Class B share prices fell by more than 9%.
Then, on November 2, 2021, Zillow announced that it would wind-down
Zillow Offers because "the unpredictability in forecasting home
prices far exceeds what we anticipated and continuing to scale
Zillow Offers would result in too much earnings and balance-sheet
volatility." As a result, third quarter 2021 financial results
included "a write-down of inventory of approximately $304 million
within the Homes segment as a result of purchasing homes in Q3 at
higher prices than the company's current estimates of future
selling prices." Moreover, the "company further expects an
additional $240 million to $265 million of losses to be recognized
in Q4 primarily on homes it expects to purchase in Q4." The
"wind-down is expected to take several quarters and will include a
reduction of Zillow's workforce by approximately 25%." On this
news, Zillow's Class A share price fell by an additional 23% and
Class C share price fell by an additional 25%, further damaging
investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Zillow
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Zillow class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Zillow class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Zillow class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Zillow class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]
ZIPRECRUITER INC: Settlement Reached with Former Employee
---------------------------------------------------------
Ziprecruiter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the parties in a
putative class suit have agreed to settle the lawsuit for an
immaterial amount filed by a former employee alleging that the
company violated Fair Credit Reporting Act and it owed compensation
to employees.
In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in the Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act as well as owed certain compensation to employees.
In January 2020, the former employee filed a related representative
action in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the Private Attorney
General Act alleging similar claims regarding compensation owed to
employees.
In January 2021, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which was granted in
part and denied in part.
"At the date these condensed consolidated financial statements were
issued, the parties had agreed to settle the lawsuit for an
immaterial amount and accordingly, the Company recorded a liability
within accrued expenses as of September 30, 2021," the Company
said.
ZipRecruiter, Inc. is a two-sided marketplace for work. The company
generates substantially all of its revenue from fees paid by
employers to post jobs and access other features in its
marketplace. The company is based in Santa Monica, California.
ZOOSK INC: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN FLORES-MENDEZ, an
individual and AMBER COLLINS, an individual, and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals, v. ZOOSK, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-04929-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order adjusting the class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class
certification, which is currently set on December 8, 2021,
shall be extended by 45 days to January 24, 2022;
-- The deadline for Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, which is currently set on
December 29, 2021, shall be extended to February 28, 2022;
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply to Defendant's
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
which is currently set on January 12, 2021, shall be
extended to March 14, 2022;
-- The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be on March 28, 2022 or such later date as the
Court's calendar may accommodate.
Zoosk is an online dating service available in 25 languages and in
more than 80 countries.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Z58G0C at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Douglas Harlan Meal, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, LLP
222 Berkeley Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116-3740
Telephone: (617) 880-1801
E-mail: dmeal@orrick.com
- and -
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL P.C.
433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-4818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
mike@crosnerlegal.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N Franklin St., 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@forthepeople.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***