/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211208.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 239
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Crawford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
A.P. DEAUVILLE: Rodriguez Files Suit in E.D. New York
ALFI INC: Steppacher Sues Over Continuous Drop of Stock Price
ARCHER DANIELS: Midwest Seeks to Certify First Level Seller Class
ARGENT TRUST: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Extended to Dec. 10
ARTERIORS HOME: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Litovich Appeals Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
BURTON CORPORATION: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Faces Meza Class Suit Sues Over Data Breach
CAREER SYSTEMS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CASA SYSTEMS: Panther Partners Appeals IPO Class Suit Dismissal
CEDAR FAIR: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Sawari Claims
CENTIMARK COPORATION: Lingle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHARLOTTE, NC: Hensley Appeals Ruling in Drivers' Privacy Suit
CHS SERVICES: Underpays Nurse Assistants, Williams Suit Alleges
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Court Grants Motion to Transfer Suits to Cal.
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Phillips Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to N.D. Cal.
CIFERNO CEMENT: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages for Drivers
CURRAULT GENERAC: Zimmer Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Bid Filing
DETROIT EDISON: Nolan Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
DICK'S SPORTING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ortega Alleges
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Reply Due Dec. 24
EDEN CREAMERY: Kamal Asks 9th Cir. to Revive Underfilling Suit
EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVIL GENIUSES: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Kuntz Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: M and M Closers Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Marques Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Nancy Mansour Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: William Mansour Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GENERAL MOTORS: Spindler Sues Over Chevrolet Vehicles' Defect
GOLDMAN SACHS: Unlawfully Use Material Non-Public Info, Felix Says
GRENOUILLE INC: Hassan Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
HOME DEPOT: Moshtagh Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
IDAHO: Perkins Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
KANAWHA COUNTY, WV: Appeals Motion to Strike Ruling in G.T. Suit
KYX LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LANNETT CO: Right to Appeal Granted in Utesch Securities Suit
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Reetz Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 4th Cir.
McDAL GROUP: Faces Rasor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Texas
MED-TRANS CORP: Class Cert. Deadlines Stayed in Bradley Suit
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Beach Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Misled Consumers to Pay Late Fees, Tynes Says
NETFLIX INC: Ruling in Suit over "13 Reasons Why" Under Appeal
NEW YORK: Heidel Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
RANGE RESOURCES: Rupert et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
REALPAGE INC: Time Extension to Serve Expert Disclosures Sought
RHF INVESTMENTS: Ortega Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
RICE DRILLING: J&R Passmore Seeks to Certify Class
SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION: Court Stays Sarmiento Class Action
SOTERIA PROTECTION: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
STATE FARM: Ct. Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to March 31, 2022
SYNEOS HEALTH: Pension Fund Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Filing of Class Cert. Reply Moved to Jan. 14, 2022
TIVITY HEALTH: Time Extension to File Class Cert Reply Brief Sought
TRANSAMERICA RETIREMENT: Plan Participants Sue Over Data Breach
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Appeals Ruling in Discrimination Suit
WESTERN REFINING: Howe Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
WORLDPANTRY.COM INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Ortega Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: Crawford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Crawford, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION,
ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba,
Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB
FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical
Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-03831-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 22,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF during his working career as a plant operator at the Lhoist
North America plant, located in Ocala, Florida.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue,
38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
A.P. DEAUVILLE: Rodriguez Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.P. Deauville, LLC.
The case is styled as Marvin Isaac Fuentes Rodriguez, individually
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A.P.
Deauville, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06713 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
A.P. Deauville -- https://www.apdeauville.com/ -- brings to the
market a collection of high quality body sprays, shower gels, body
washes, bar soaps, shampoos, deodorants and antiperspirants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
ALFI INC: Steppacher Sues Over Continuous Drop of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM C. STEPPACHER, JR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALFI, INC., PAUL ANTONIO
PEREIRA, DENNIS MCINTOSH, JOHN M. COOK, II, PETER BORDES, JIM LEE,
JUSTIN ELKOURI, ALLISON FICKEN, FRANK SMITH, and RICHARD MOWSER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-24232 (S.D. Fla., December 2, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false
and misleading registration statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with Alfi's initial public
offering (IPO) on May 4, 2021 in order to trade Alfi securities at
artificially inflated prices between May 4, 2021 and November 15,
2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Alfi maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the
company and its employees could and did engage in corporate
transactions and other matters without sufficient and appropriate
consultation with or approval by the company's Board of Directors;
(iii) all the foregoing increased the risk of internal and
regulatory investigations into the company and its employees; (iv)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on the company's reputation, financial condition,
and ability to timely file periodic reports with the SEC; and (v)
as a result, the company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Alfi's stock price fell $1.24 per share, or
21.91 percent, to close at $4.42 per share on October 29, 2021. It
continuously dropped at $0.24 per share, or 5.21 percent, to close
at $4.37 per share on November 16, 2021, says the suit.
Alfi, Inc. is a software company, with principal executive offices
located at 429 Lenox Avenue, Suite 547, Miami Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily Komlossy, Esq.
KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 842-2021
Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
- and –
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
ARCHER DANIELS: Midwest Seeks to Certify First Level Seller Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY,
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02212-CSB-EIL
(C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"All First Level Sellers who, after November 1, 2017, and
prior to December 31, 2019 made First Level Sales of
ethanol in the Argo market or pursuant to a First Level
Sales Contract in which the price term is expressly based,
in whole or in part, on a Chicago Benchmark Price, Chicago
OPIS Price, or a Chicago Ethanol Derivatives Price. This
includes price terms which are based on an average, a
mean, or another formula using one or more of the
foregoing prices;"
Excluded from the Class are ADM, its officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates and all
federal governmental entities;
2. appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class;
3. appointing Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class
Counsel, and
4. granting any further relief the Court deems just and
proper.
The Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as ADM, is an
American multinational food processing and commodities trading
corporation founded in 1902 and headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ig4s8a
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis Carter, Esq.
Chris McGrath, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN
JACOBSON LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
E-mail: tcarter@lshllp.com
cmcgrath@lshllp.com
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Andrew Szot, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
aszot@millerlawllc.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen V D'Amore, Esq.
Samantha M. Lerner, Esq.
Reid F. Smith, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Suite 4600
35 W Wacker Dr
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600
E-mail: sdamore@winston.com
slerner@winston.com
rfsmith@winston.com
ARGENT TRUST: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Extended to Dec. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf
of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, and EDWARD C. MILLER,
GETZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ESTATE OF HENRY A. GETZ, and its
beneficiaries and successors, and ESTATE OF VIRGINIA MILLER, and
its beneficiaries and successors, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order on
Defendants' consent motion to reset class certification deadlines
as follows:
-- The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
certification is extended to on or before December 10,
2021.
-- The Plaintiff's reply is due on or before January 7, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving recovery of benefits to employee.
Argent operates as an investment management firm.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 1, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xO5NOy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq.
Barbara A. Smith, Esq.
Jacob B. Simon, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2000
E-mail: jsrussell@bclplaw.com
barbara.smith@bclplaw.com
jacob.simon@bclplaw.com
ARTERIORS HOME: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arteriors Home, L.P.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Arteriors Home, L.P., Case No.
1:21-cv-10291 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Arteriors -- offers eclectic collection of luxury lighting,
furniture and accessories, including artisan lamps, luxury
chandeliers and designer upholstered seating.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Litovich Appeals Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Litovich, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Isabel Litovich, on Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.; BofA SECURITIES, INC.;
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CITIGROUP INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC.; THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., LLC;
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY;
MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC; NATWEST
MARKETS SECURITIES INC.; WELLS FARGO & CO.; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES
LLC; and WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03154, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 1, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
The case involves an alleged conspiracy by the Defendants from at
least August 1, 2006, to the present to unreasonably restrain the
trade of odd-lots of corporate bonds in the secondary market. The
Plaintiff and other similarly situated investors have bought and
sold odd-lots of corporate bonds in the secondary market directly
from the Defendants, who are horizontal competitors. As a result of
the Defendants' conspiracy, the Plaintiff avers that she and the
Class paid more when buying, and received less when selling, their
corporate bonds, suffering antitrust injury under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the allegations plausibly demonstrate
that beginning at least as early as August 1, 2006, the Defendants
agreed to unreasonably restrain competition in the secondary
trading market for odd-lots of corporate bonds in the United
States. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' unreasonable restraint, the Plaintiff and the Class
suffered harm in the form of artificially higher transaction costs
for odd-lot corporate bonds, by way of artificially higher bid-ask
spreads, than they would have paid but for the Defendants'
antitrust violations.
On December 15, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
On October 25, 2021, the Court entered an order granting the motion
to dismiss with prejudice. The Clerk's Judgment was also entered on
October 26, 2021 in favor of Bank Of America Corporation, Barclays
Capital Inc., BofA Securities, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC,
Morgan Stanley,, Natwest Markets Securities Inc., The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC,
Wells Fargo Securities LLC against Holdcraft Marital Trust, United
Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry
Employers Tri-state Pension Fund, Frank Hirsch, Isabel Litovich,
Michael V. Cottrell.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Order and Judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Litovich v. Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 21-2905, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 23, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Isabel Litovich, United Food and Commercial
Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-state
Pension Fund, Holdcraft Marital Trust, Michael V. Cottrell, and
Frank Hirsch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
600 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Defendants-Appellees Bank of America Corporation; Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated; BofA Securities, Inc.;
Barclays Capital Inc.; Citigroup Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets
Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC;
JPMorgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Morgan Stanley;
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC; Natwest
Markets Securities Inc.; Wells Fargo & Co.; Wells Fargo Securities,
LLC; and Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC are represented by:
Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 848-4924
- and -
Anthony Antonelli, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 318-6730
- and -
Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-2628
- and -
Herbert Scott Washer, Esq.
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
32 Old Slip
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 701-3435
- and -
John Francis Terzaken, III, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
900 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 636-5858
- and -
Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-3493
- and -
John Playforth, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1 CityCenter
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5635
- and -
Brad S. Karp, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
- and -
Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
- and -
Jayant W. Tambe, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street, 10281
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3604
BURTON CORPORATION: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Burton
Corporation. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Burton
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-10287 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Burton Snowboards -- https://www.burton.com/us/en/home -- is a
private snowboard-manufacturing company that was founded by Jake
Burton Carpenter in 1977. The company specializes in products aimed
at snowboarders, such as snowboards, bindings, boots, outerwear,
and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Faces Meza Class Suit Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG WALLACE and ALONDRA MEZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:21-cv-01970-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 2, 2021) is a class action suit arising out of the recent
targeted cyber-attack against CPK that allowed a third party to
access CPK's computer systems and data (the Cyber-Attack),
resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal
information belonging to tens of thousands of current and former
employees and their family members (the "Data Breach").
As a result of the alleged Cyber-Attack, Plaintiffs and Class
Members suffered ascertainable injury and damages in the form of
the substantial and present risk of fraud and identity theft from
their unlawfully accessed and compromised private and confidential
information (including Social Security numbers), lost value of
their private and confidential information, out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their 18 reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the Cyber-Attack.
Sensitive personal information of Plaintiffs and Class Members --
which had been entrusted to CPK, it officers and agents -- was
compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the
Cyber-Attack. Information compromised in the Cyber-Attack includes
the following: full name and Social Security number (the "Private
Information"), says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information
was accessed and/or removed from the network during the
Cyber-Attack. They also seek remedies including, but not limited
to, compensatory damages, nominal damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements
to CPK's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate
credit monitoring services funded by CPK.
CPK is a global brand serving California cuisine in nearly 200
restaurants worldwide, international cities, and countries and U.S.
territories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher L. Rudd, Esq.
S. Martin Keleti, Esq.
THE RUDD LAW FIRM
4650 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 205
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (310) 633-0705
Facsimile: (310) 359-0258
E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawla.com
s.martin.keleti@gmail.com
- and -
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com
CAREER SYSTEMS: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Career Systems
Development Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Centrial
Williams, Precious Thomas, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Career Systems Development Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00312013-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 2, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Career Systems Development Corporation (CSD) --
https://careersystems.com/ -- has been a leader in the operation of
Job Corps Centers since the inception of the program.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
CASA SYSTEMS: Panther Partners Appeals IPO Class Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panther Partners, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled PANTHER PARTNERS, INC., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JERRY GUO,
WEIDONG CHEN, GARY D. HALL, LUCY XIE, JOE TIBBETS, BILL STYSLINGER,
BRUCE R. EVANS, CASA SYSTEMS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC,
MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., STIFEL,
NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,
RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.,
DANIEL S. MEAD and ABRAHAM PUCHERIL, Defendants, Case No.
654585/2019, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint purports to
be brought on behalf of all purchasers of Casa Systems' common
stock in the Company's Follow-on Offering and generally alleges
that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham Pucheril,
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of the
defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, because
documents related to the Company's Follow-on Offering, including
its registration statement and prospectus, were materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted as
controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of Section
15 of the Securities Act.
On November 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains substantially similar allegations and asserts the same
claims as the initial complaint.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive
relief.
On January 21, 2020, the Defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On October 4, 2021, the court granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order.
The appellate case is captioned as Panther Partners, Inc. v. Casa
Systems, Inc., Jerry Guo, Weidong Chen, Gary D. Hall, Lucy Xie,
Joseph Tibbets, Bill Styslinger, Bruce R. Evans, Daniel S. Mead,
Abraham Pucheril, Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Macquarie Capital
(USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Inc., William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Raymond James & Associates,
Inc., and Northland Securities, Inc., Case No. 2021-04181, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First
Judicial Department, filed on November 9, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PANTHER PARTNERS, INC., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
SAMUEL H. RUDMAN MICHAEL G. CAPECI
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
450 Seventh Avenue 38th Floor
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
llevit@aftlaw.com
CEDAR FAIR: Fails to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks, Sawari Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAH SAWARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CEDAR FAIR MANAGEMENT, INC. and DOES 1 thru
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV391149 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., December 2, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to
provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and
unfair competition.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.
Cedar Fair Management, Inc. is an owner and operator of regional
amusement parks, headquartered in Sandusky, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 9 1436
Telephone: (818) 990-8300
Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
liane@kingsleykingsley.com
- and –
William Zev Abramson, Esq.
ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2513
Telephone: (213) 493-6300
Facsimile: (213) 382-4083
E-mail: Wza@abramsonlabor.com
CENTIMARK COPORATION: Lingle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centimark
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Lingle, on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees v. Centimark Corporation,
a Pennsylvania Corporation, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2021-00311991-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec.
2, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
CentiMark Corporation -- https://www.centimark.com/ -- is a
national roofing contractor company headquartered in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Rodriguez, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS, A PROF. CORP.
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., # 412
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805
Phone: 213-280-8908
CHARLOTTE, NC: Hensley Appeals Ruling in Drivers' Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan S. Hensley, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHNATHAN S. HENSLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF
CHARLOTTE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00482, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has systematically
disclosed the names, addresses, and driver's license numbers of
hundreds of thousands of drivers, either via the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department records division or the
Website. The Defendant has allegedly disclosed those names,
addresses and driver's license numbers without requiring a
permissible purpose under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant published on its Website
and made freely available to all internet users the Plaintiff's
name, address, and driver's license number shown on each DMV-349.
But the Defendant did more than just make the list of names
available. The Defendant, through its contract with PRUS/LexisNexis
and the Website, in fact, disclosed the Plaintiff's name, address
and driver's license number to one or more internet users who
obtained the name to use in targeted direct mail solicitation. The
disclosure(s) were for a purpose not permitted under the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 20, 2021, Judge
Kenneth D. Bell of the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division:
(i) denied without prejudice the City's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint;
(ii) granted the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings;
and
(iii) denied as moot the City's Motion to Strike.
Mr. Hensley and putative class member Heather Nicole Durham now
seek a review of the order entered by Judge Bell. They also file
this appeal to reconsider Court's Order dated October 21, 2021,
denying Plaintiff's amended motion to alter judgment and motion to
intervene.
The appellate case is captioned as Johnathan Hensley v. City of
Charlotte, Case No. 21-2308, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 22, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHNATHAN S. HENSLEY, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated; and HEATHER NICOLE DURHAM are
represented by:
Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
John F. Bloss, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN PLLC
301 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
E-mail: fberry@greensborolaw.com
- and -
Andrew H. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, FAUCHER, PERALDO & BENSON, PLLC
822 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 478-6000
E-mail: dbrown@bbflaw.com
- and -
Robert Peel Holmes, IV, Esq.
J. David Stradley, Esq.
WHITE & STRADLEY, LLP
3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612-0000
Telephone: (919) 844-0400
E-mail: rob@whiteandstradley.com
Defendant-Appellee CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a North Carolina municipal
corporation, is represented by:
Patrick Houghton Flanagan, Esq.
Stephanie Helen Webster, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP
P. O. Box 30787
Charlotte, NC 28230-0000
Telephone: (704) 940-3419
CHS SERVICES: Underpays Nurse Assistants, Williams Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHS SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC
HEALTH SYSTEM OF LONG ISLAND, INC., OUR LADY OF CONSOLATION
GERIATRIC CARE CENTER d/b/a OUR LADY OF CONSOLATION NURSING AND
REHABILITATIVE CARE CENTER, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS # 1–10, PATRICK
M. O'SHAUGHNESSY, and JAMES K. RYAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-06700 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a nurse assistant in New
York from April 17, 2000 until July 1, 2021.
CHS Services, Inc. is a network of continuing care facilities in
the state of New York.
Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. is a network of
continuing care facilities in the state of New York.
Our Lady of Consolation Geriatric Care Center, doing business as
Our Lady of Consolation Nursing and Rehabilitative Care Center, is
a care facility with a principal place of business located at 111
Beach Drive, West Islip, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Court Grants Motion to Transfer Suits to Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuits styled RANDY PHILLIPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION IV, ATIEVA, INC. d/b/a LUCID MOTORS,
MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY FARAGIN, and PETER RAWLINSON, Case No.
1:21-cv-00539-ACA; GREGORY J. SLABAUGH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION
IV, ATIEVA, INC. d/b/a LUCID MOTORS, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY FARAGIN,
and PETER RAWLINSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01243-ACA; and AREC D.
SIMERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION IV, ATIEVA, INC. d/b/a LUCID
MOTORS, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY FARAGIN, and PETER RAWLINSON, Case No.
1:21-cv-01355-ACA, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted the Plaintiffs' motion to transfer
these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-09314-DMR to the consolidated proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing
materially false and misleading statements about Churchill
Capital's business, operations, and financial affairs with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in order to trade Churchill
Capital securities at artificially inflated prices.
Churchill Capital Corporation IV is a special purpose acquisition
company, with its executive offices located at 640 Fifth Avenue,
12th Floor, New York, New York.
Atieva, Inc., doing business as Lucid Motors, is an American
automotive company specializing in electric cars, headquartered in
Newark, California. [BN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Phillips Suit Moved From N.D. Ala. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RANDY PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION IV,
ATIEVA, INC. d/b/a LUCID MOTORS, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY FARAGIN, and
PETER RAWLINSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-00539, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 2, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09323-AGT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing
materially false and misleading statements about Churchill
Capital's business, operations, and financial affairs with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in order to trade Churchill
Capital securities at artificially inflated prices between January
11, 2021 and February 22, 2021.
Churchill Capital Corporation IV is a special purpose acquisition
company, with its executive offices located at 640 Fifth Avenue,
12th Floor, New York, New York.
Atieva, Inc., doing business as Lucid Motors, is an American
automotive company specializing in electric cars, headquartered in
Newark, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee D. Winston, Esq.
Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
WINSTON COOKS, LLC
505 20th Street North, Suite 815
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 482-5174
Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
rcooks@winstoncooks.com
- and –
Robert L. Beeman, II, Esq.
BEEMAN LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 253
Helena, AL 35080
Telephone: (205) 422-9015
Facsimile: (800) 693-5150
E-mail: rlbsportsmgnt12@att.net
CIFERNO CEMENT: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIFERNO CEMENT CONTRACTING, LLC and JOHN
CIFERNO, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01754-DSC (W.D. Pa., December
2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers
appropriate minimum wages for all hours worked for pre-trip load
and post-trip inspections in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Wage Payment and
Collection Law, breach of contract, and quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver.
Ciferno Cement Contracting, LLC is a trucking company, with its
principal place of business located at 236 Finley Road Belle
Vernon, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
Kyle H. Steenland, Esq.
J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
The Rubicon Building
201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Telephone: (412) 545-3015
Facsimile: (412) 540-3399
E-mail: jward@jpward.com
CURRAULT GENERAC: Zimmer Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Bid Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN ZIMMER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated within the State of
Louisiana, v. CURRAULT GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01659-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his unopposed motion for enlargement of the
time frame for filing class Certification, and order that the time
frame required by Local Rule 23.1(B) be enlarged until June 1,
2022, for the filing of his motion for class certification.
Generac manufactures the widest range of power products in the
marketplace including portable, residential, commercial and
industrial generators.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/333M2rj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff are:
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Barry W. Sartin Jr., Esq.
HMS LAW FIRM
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 590
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 356-0110
Facsimile: (504) 356-0106
- and -
David W. Ardoin, Esq.
Matthew D. Ory, Esq.
AMO TRIAL LAWYERS
114 Laura Drive, Suite D
Thibodaux, LA 70301
Telephone: (985) 446-3333
Facsimile: (985) 446-3300
DETROIT EDISON: Nolan Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie D. Nolan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The
Detroit Edison Company, et. al., Case No. 2:18-cv-13359-DML-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class under either or both Rules,
as the Court deems appropriate:
"All Detroit Edison Company (DTE) employees who were
vested in their pension benefit when they separated from
DTE and (i) in 2002, elected to transfer from DTE's
Traditional Plan to DTE's Cash Balance Plan, and (ii)
would receive a larger pension if Nolan prevails under
Count I or Count II;"
2. appointing her as the representative for the Class; and
3. appointing Hertz Schram PC as counsel for the Class.
In 2002, DTE sponsored the DTE Energy Company Retirement Plan, as
amended, restated and renamed effective December 31, 2001 ("Plan").
The Plan contained two formulas for computing Participants'
pensions -- one for benefits accruing under the Traditional Plan
("TP"), and the other for benefits accruing under the Cash Balance
Plan ("CBP").
On October 26, 2018, Nolan filed a three-count putative Class
Action Complaint against Defendants. The Defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss, which this Court granted. On March 23, 2021, the Sixth
Circuit affirmed only this Court's dismissal of Count III and,
therefore, Counts I and II remain.
Count I is premised on Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) section 502(a)(1)(B) which authorizes suits by
participants or beneficiaries for benefits due under the terms of
the plan. 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(1)(B). Count I alleges that the
Defendants breached the terms of the Plan, specifically payment of
the A+B Benefit promised under sections 2.01 and 6.01(a) of the
Plan.
Count II alleges that the Guide violated ERISA section 102.
The Defendants include DTE Energy Corporate Services LLC, an
Affiliated Company of the Detroit Edison Company; DTE Energy
Company Retirement Plan; DTE Energy Benefit Plan Administration
Committee; Janet Posler, as Designated Representative for DTE
Energy Benefit Plan Administration Committee; Qualified Plan
Appeals Committee [Michael S. Cooper, Renee Moran, Jerome Hooper].
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EAl87W at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eva T. Cantarella, Esq.
Bradley J. Schram, Esq.
Robert P. Geller, Esq.
Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
Hertz Schram PC
1760 S. Telegraph Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (248) 335-5000
E-mail: ecantarella@hertzschram.com
bschram@hertzschram.com
rgeller@hertzschram.com
pstamler@hertzschram.com
DICK'S SPORTING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Ortega Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ORTEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10285
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021), alleges that the Defendant failed to
design its website to be fully accessible to the Plaintiff and
other blind persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
uses screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
The Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact business on
Defendant's website, fieldandstreamshop.com/. The reasons Plaintiff
visited the Website were to, inter alia: (i) purchase products,
goods, and/or services. Plaintiff was unable to successfully do the
following things because the Website was not compliant with the
current ADA accessibility standards.
The Website allegedly contained/contains specific issues both at
the time Plaintiff browsed it and as of the date of the filing of
the complaint: (i) The screen reader skips over certain text on the
page; (ii) The screen reader fails to read the link found on the
promotional images; (iii) The screen reader fails to include the
color option link when reading the item description; and (iv) The
screen reader fails to describe the images.
The issues Plaintiff experienced are still found on the Website and
Plaintiff still intends on purchasing a product from the Website in
the future, but currently cannot.
Since Defendant's Website is/was not equally accessible to the
Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired consumers as it
is/was to standard consumers, the Website violates the ADA, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is an online hunting merchandise company that owns
and operates the website fieldandstreamshop.com/ offering products
that Defendant delivers throughout the United States, including New
York State. The Defendant offers its Website to the public so that,
inter alia, the general public can transact business on it. The
goods and services offered by Defendant's Website include, but are
not limited to: fishing tools, hunting clothes, and other related
items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave. Suite 1E5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Telephone: (516) 918-9347
E-mail: jprubinesq@gmail.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Reply Due Dec. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J. et al., v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, et al.,Case No. 1:18-cv-01901 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Emmet G. Sullivan entered an order on motion for extension of time
to file response/reply.
The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification by no later than December 24, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act.[CC]
EDEN CREAMERY: Kamal Asks 9th Cir. to Revive Underfilling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Youssif Kamal, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled YOUSSIF KAMAL, GILLIAN
NEELY, RICHARD LICHTEN, SUSAN COX, NICK TOVAR, MICHELE KINMAN,
ASHLEY PETEFISH, and TERRI BROWN, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDEN CREAMERY, LLC,
dba HALO TOP CREAMERY; and JUSTIN T. WOOLVERTON, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV-1298 TWR (AGS), in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Youssif Kamal and Gillian Neely on June 15, 2018, filed the
putative class action against Defendant Eden Creamery on behalf of
"all persons who purchased one or more pint-containers of Halo Top
ice cream and who received less than a full pint," asserting claims
for breach of implied contract and violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq.; California's False Advertising Law,
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq.; and
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code
Sections 1770(a)(5), (7), (9). The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleged
that Eden Creamery underfilled its "pints" of Halo Top ice cream.
After Eden Creamery filed a Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(1) on Sept. 6, 2018, adding Plaintiffs Richard
Lichten, Susan Cox, Nick Tovar, Michele Kinman, Ashley Petefish,
and Terri Brown and Defendant Justin T. Woolverton. The Plaintiffs
dropped their breach of implied contract claim and added claims for
common law fraud and violation of state consumer law claims under
the laws of Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, and
New York. Again, the Plaintiffs' theory of liability was that "Halo
Top routinely underfills its pint containers of ice cream."
On Nov. 12, 2018, the Defendants again moved to dismiss. On June
26, 2019, the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant largely denied the
Defendants' motion. On July 19, 2019, the Defendants filed an
Answer.
On Oct. 8, 2019, the Parties filed their Joint Discovery Plan, in
which the Defendants disclosed that Eden Creamery had been "sold to
Wells Enterprises, Inc. in September 2019."
On June 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the First
Amended Complaint to add Wells as a Defendant as "successor in
interest" to Halo Top and to add "substantial factual allegations
supporting liability for all the Defendants" and a theory of fraud
by omission of material facts.
On Dec. 8, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to Amend the First Amended Complaint.
On Feb. 24, 2021, the Defendants filed an opposition. They contend
that the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is "an inappropriate
end-run around the Court's prior decisions" and that "the Court
should permit the Plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss the case only
if the dismissal is with prejudice" because the "Defendants have
incurred $2 million in fees and costs, and the Plaintiffs were on
the verge of an order denying class certification."
On March 24, 2021, the Court conducted oral argument. On March 25,
2021, the Court issued an Order directing further evidence and
briefing related to the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.
On October 21, 2021, Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order
dismissing (1) Plaintiff's Individual Claims with Prejudice, and
(2) Class Claims Without Prejudice with each Party to bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order entered by Judge
Robinson.
The appellate case is captioned as Youssif Kamal, et al. v. Eden
Creamery, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-56260, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 19,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Teri Brown, Susan Cox, Youssif Kamal, Michele
Kinman, Richard Lichten, Gillian Neely, Ashley Petefish and Nick
Tovar Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 26, 2021;
-- Appellants Teri Brown, Susan Cox, Youssif Kamal, Michele
Kinman, Richard Lichten, Gillian Neely, Ashley Petefish and Nick
Tovar opening brief is due on February 28, 2022;
-- Appellees Eden Creamery, LLC and Justin T. Woolverton
answering brief is due on March 30, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant YOUSSIF KAMAL, GILLIAN NEELY, RICHARD LICHTEN,
SUSAN COX, NICK TOVAR, MICHELE KINMAN, ASHLEY PETEFISH, and TERI
BROWN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Andrew Joseph Brown, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 501- 6550
E-mail: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com
Defendants-Appellees EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, DBA Halo Top Creamery; and
JUSTIN T. WOOLVERTON are represented by:
Keri Elizabeth Borders, Esq.
Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
Daniel David Queen, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
350 S Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-5143
EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empower Retirement,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Empower
Retirement, LLC, Great-West Financial Retirement Plan Services LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10281 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Empower Retirement -- https://www.empower-retirement.com/ -- is a
retirement plan recordkeeping financial holding company based in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.[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
EVIL GENIUSES: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Evil Geniuses
(EG) LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Evil Geniuses (EG) LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10273 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Evil Geniuses (EG) -- https://evilgeniuses.gg/ -- is an American
esports organization based in Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Kuntz Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Martin Kuntz, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder
Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No. 1:21-cv-24213-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: M and M Closers Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as M and M Closers
LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24210-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Marques Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Neville Marques,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24172-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Nancy Mansour Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Nancy Mansour,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24169-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: William Mansour Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as William Mansour,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24171-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Spindler Sues Over Chevrolet Vehicles' Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG SPINDLER and MAKESHA SATTERWHITE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-09311-JSC (N.D. Cal., December 2, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, and unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business
practices.
The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacture,
marketing, and distribution of 2016 through 2019 Chevrolet Malibu,
2016 through 2019 Chevrolet Volt, 2018 through 2019 Chevrolet
Traverse, and 2019 Chevrolet Blazer vehicles with shifter defect.
The Class vehicles contain a defect in which the vehicles fail to
detect that the driver has placed the car in "Park" and thus
prevents the vehicle driver from shutting off and locking the
vehicle. Instead, the Class vehicles display a "Shift to Park"
error message on the instrument cluster even though the gear shift
is already in "Park." As a result of the defect, the Plaintiffs and
Class members are unable to shut off their vehicles and, to avoid
battery discharge, are forced to resort to try to trick their
vehicles to detect that the shift lever is in fact in "Park." The
alleged defect prevents the vehicle from shifting into gear,
leaving the driver stranded.
General Motors LLC is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and –
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 100
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Unlawfully Use Material Non-Public Info, Felix Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA FELIX, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. and MORGAN STANLEY, Case No.
1:21-cv-10286 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021) is securities class action
brought on behalf of all those investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired IQIYI shares contemporaneously with Defendants' unlawful
trades from March 22, 2021 through and including March 29, 2021
(the "Class Period"), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The class action arises from the alleged unlawful use of material
non-public information by Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, who collectively avoided billions in losses by selling
shares of IQIYI Inc. ("IQIYI" or the "Company"), a leading online
discount retailer for brands in China, to Plaintiff and other
unsuspecting and unwitting public shareholders, after
confidentiality learning that Archegos Capital Management
("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under management,
failed (or was likely to fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it
to fully liquidate its position in the Company.
According to the lawsuit, The Defendants sold a large number of
IQIYI shares during the week of March 22, 2021 while in possession
of material, non-public information. According to subsequent media
reports, Defendants unloaded large block trades consisting of
shares of Archegos' doomed bets, including billions worth of IQIYI
securities, late Thursday, March 25, 2021, before the Archegos
story reached the public, sending IQIYI's stock into a complete
tailspin.
As a result of these sales, Defendants avoided billions in losses
combined. The Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing,
that they were prohibited from trading based on this confidential
market-moving information, but traded anyway, disposing to
Plaintiff and other members of the Class their IQIYI stock before
the news about Archegos was announced and IQIYI's shares
plummeted.
As a result, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged from
Defendants' violations of U.S. securities laws, added the suit.
Plaintiff Felix acquired IQIYI American Depository Receipts (ADRs)
during the Class Period and was damaged when the Inside Information
1 was publicly disclosed at the end of the Class Period, and the
price of IQIYI ADRs declined as a result. Plaintiff is a resident
of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Goldman Sachs is a global financial services institution. Goldman
Sachs served as one of Archegos' prime brokers, helping it make
trades and lending it capital in the form of margin lending.
Morgan Stanley is a global financial services institution. Morgan
Stanley served as one of Archegos' prime brokers, helping it make
trades and lending it capital in the form of margin lending. Morgan
Stanley is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and maintains
its headquarters at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036.
Archegos, a family office investment fund, was founded and run by
Sung Kook (a.k.a. Bill) Hwang ("Hwang"), a former portfolio manager
of Tiger Asia Management, a hedge fund he also founded.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
Jonathan M. Zimmerman, 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
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
- and -
David W. Hall, Esq.
Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
Arun Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
azohrabian@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
- and -
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park E, Suite 404
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1604
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
GRENOUILLE INC: Hassan Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHEB HASSAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, v. LA GRENOUILLE, INC. and PHILIPPE MASSON, Case No.
1:21-cv-10262 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021) alleges, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to recover
from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid
tip credit, unpaid spread of hours premium, compensation for late
payment of wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all non-exempt employees (including servers, waiters, bussers,
food runners, sommeliers, baristas, food preparers, cooks,
bartenders, barbacks, maitre d's, hosts, cooks, back of house
staff, and front of house staff among others) employed by
Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing
of the Complaint in this case (FLSA Collective Plaintiffs).
According to the complaint, throughout the Plaintiff's employment,
the Defendants paid Plaintiff below the New York State minimum
wage. Also, throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants,
Defendants allegedly paid the Plaintiff at an improper overtime
rate due to an improper tip credit. Specifically, in 2016, the
Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of seven dollars and fifty cents
($7.50) per hour, for all hours worked up to 40 hours per
week.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
HOME DEPOT: Moshtagh Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Steve Moshtagh filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled STEVE MOSHTAGH, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT
U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01205-RSM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action seeks to recover unpaid regular wages, unpaid overtime
wages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, and to
obtain injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff seeks to redress Home Depot's unlawful employment
policies and practices of (1) failing to provide part-time hourly
employees statutorily required meal and rest breaks; (2) failing to
compensate hourly employees for mandatory work done before and
after their scheduled shifts; and (3) making unlawful payroll
deductions to fund The Homer Fund, a Home Depot-run charity.
Moshtagh worked at the Home Depot store in Bothell, Washington,
from approximately February 2016 to the present.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated May 13,
2021, granting in part Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, and Court's Order dated October 18, 2021, dismissing with
prejudice Plaintiff's remaining claim for failure to provide rest
breaks, and derivative claim for double damages for willful
withholding.
The appellate case is captioned as Steve Moshtagh v. Home Depot
USA, Inc., Case No. 21-35964, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 19, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Steve Moshtagh Mediation Questionnaire was due on
November 26, 2021;
-- Appellant Steve Moshtagh opening brief is due on January 24,
2022;
-- Appellee Home Depot USA, Inc. answering brief is due on
February 24, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant STEVE MOSHTAGH, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, is represented by:
Henry Brudney, Esq.
Rachel Emens, Esq.
Jason Andrew Rittereiser, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS, LLP
600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 866-7629
E-mail: hbrudney@hkm.com
remens@hkm.com
jrittereiser@hkm.com
- and -
Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD W. HEYRICH PLLC
2025 First Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 838-2504
E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com
Defendant-Appellee HOME DEPOT USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:
John S. Devlin, III, Esq.
D. Michael Reilly, Esq.
LANE POWELL, PC
1420 5th Avenue, P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Telephone: (206) 223-7000
E-mail: devlinj@lanepowell.com
reillym@lanepowell.com
- and -
Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
IDAHO: Perkins Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Daniel Perkins filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Albert Pete Veenstra, III, Kent
Ellis, Charles Lynn Sacolick, Allen Brandt, Tony Garren, Hunter
Smith, Weston Allen, Ruben Garzia, Shane Striker, William Canite,
Joshae Patterson, Erineo Garza, Jose Cuevas, Hans Kruger, James
Elkins, Frank Alesi, Matthew Smith, Steve Brown, Jason Homburg,
Mario Garcia, Christopher Pielstick, Clarence Meeks, Alex Watanabe,
David Hoots, Ryan Hale, Kim Firouzbakhah, Nathak Knutson, Acencion
Hernandez, Christopher Ostergar, Daniel Perkins, Dennis Reed,
Tyrell McKnight, and all those similarly situated under the care,
custody and control of the IDOC or the Idaho Department of
Probation and Parole v. Brad Little, as Governor of the State of
Idaho, in official Capacity; Idaho State Board of Correction
Members, in their official capacities; Director IDOC Josh Tewalt,
in his official capacity; Alberto Ramirez, in His Official
Capacity; Idaho Dept. of Probation and Parole; Commission of Pardon
and Parole; State of Idaho; Case No. 1:21-cv-00341-DCN, in the U.S.
District Court for the District for Idaho, Boise.
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 seek 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."
Mr. Perkins now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated October
20, 2021, dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs' unexhausted
claims for failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Perkins, et al. v. Brad
Little, et al., Case No. 21-35966, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 22, 2021.
The Appellant's opening brief is due January 18, 2022.
The Appellant appears pro se.[BN]
KANAWHA COUNTY, WV: Appeals Motion to Strike Ruling in G.T. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY OF KANAWHA filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled G.T., by
his parents Michelle and Jamie T. On behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals, et al., v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE COUNTY OF KANAWHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Charleston.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 27, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Irene C. Berber entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
motion to strike;
2. denying the Defendant's motion to strike Dr. Elliot's
supplemental declaration and supplemental report;
3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
4. certifying a class of:
"All Kanawha County Schools students with disabilities who
need behavior supports and have experienced disciplinary
removals from any classroom;" and
5. appointing the Plaintiffs, including Lydia C. Milnes,
Blaire L. Malkin, Lori Waller, Robin Hulshizer, Kirstin
Scheffler, Karen Klass, Jaime Zucker, Ira A. Burnim, Lewis
Bossing, and Shira Wakschlag, together with their
respective firms and organizations, as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs, G.T., K.M., and The Arc of West Virginia assert
that Kanawha County Schools (KCS) does not provide adequate
behavioral supports to students with disabilities who require such
supports to succeed in the classroom. G.T. and K.M. are elementary
school students in Kanawha County with Individualized Education
Plans (IEPs).
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation Act, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and of the West Virginia Human
Rights Act.
The Defendant now files an interlocutory appeal/petition for
permissive appeal to review the order entered by Judge Berber,
denying the Defendant's motion to strike.
The appellate case is captioned as The Board of Education of the
County of Kanawha v. G.T., Case No. 21-2286, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Nov. 16,
2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY OF
KANAWHA is represented by:
John Mark Adkins, Esq.
William M. Lorensen, Esq.
Gabriele Wohl, Esq.
BOWLES RICE, LLP
600 Quarrier Street
Charleston, WV 23501
Telephone: (304) 347-1100
- and -
Richard Scott Boothby, Esq.
BOWLES RICE, LLP
501 Avery Street, P. O. Box 49
Parkersburg, WV 26102-0048
Telephone: (304) 420-5535
Plaintiffs-Respondents G.T., by his parents Michelle and Jamie T.
On behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, et
al., are represented by:
Kirstin Scheffler Do, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 876-7700
- and -
Lori May Waller, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS OF WEST VIRGINIA
1207 Quarrier Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-0847
KYX LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KYX LLC. The case is
styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KYX LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10288 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kyx LLC is located in Encino, California and is part of the
Computer Systems Design and Related Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Phone: (917) 957-0978
Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com
LANNETT CO: Right to Appeal Granted in Utesch Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN UTESCH, et al., Plaintiffs v. LANNETT
COMPANY, INC., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN, MARTIN P. GALVAN, Defendants,
Case No. 2-16-cv-05932 (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants on August 26,
2021, sought a review of the Court's order granting class
certification. On November 8, 2021, the Court entered an order
granting Defendants' petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(f).
In this proposed securities fraud class action against Defendants
Lannett, Bedrosian (Lannett's former CEO) and Galvan (its former
CFO), Lead Plaintiff University of Puerto Rico Retirement System
("UPRRS") and Plaintiffs Ironworkers Locals 40, 361, and 417 Union
Security Funds assert securities fraud claims under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
Defendants, and claims against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
During the presented class period -- July 15, 2014, to Oct. 31,
2017 -- the Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Lannett's common
stock at prices that were artificially inflated because of the
Defendants' false and misleading statements concerning the pricing
of generic drugs and investigations into price-fixing in the
generic drug market.
The Plaintiffs allege that anticompetitive conduct among Lannett's
competitors caused price increases for five generic drugs, which
together accounted for most of Lannett's total annual sales from
2013 to 2016. Lannett publicly disclosed that it received a
subpoena and interrogatories from the Connecticut Attorney General
in connection with an investigation of anti-competitive conduct in
the generic drug industry at the start of the class period in July
2014, and grand jury subpoenas in connection with a federal
investigation in November and December 2014. However, says the
Plaintiffs, even as it began to be revealed during the Class Period
that several of Lannett's competitors were implicated in illegal
price-fixing and anti-competitive conduct, the Defendants assured
investors that Lannett's past financial results were the product of
competitive market forces; and, that the Company's pricing strategy
and future results would not be impacted by regulatory scrutiny of
anticompetitive conduct in the industry, or the threat of being
implicated in any price-fixing or anticompetitive scheme.
The appellate case is captioned as University of Puerto Rico
Retirement System, et al. v. Lannett Co Inc., et al., Case No.
21-3150, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on November 23, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners LANNETT CO INC., ARTHUR BEDROSIAN, and
MARTIN P. GALVAN are represented by:
Carrie J. Bodner, Esq.
Daniel Cellucci, Esq.
Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Byron Pacheco, Esq.
Jordan D. Peterson, Esq.
Matthew Solum, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Ian M. Comisky, Esq.
Nathan Huddell, Esq.
Matthew D. Lee, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 299-2795
Plaintiffs-Appellees UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT SYSTEM
and IRONWORKERS LOCALS 40, 361 AND 417 UNION SECURITY FUNDS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
are represented by:
Ian D. Berg, Esq.
Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 764-2580
- and -
Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
1201 Ocean Avenue
Sea Bright, NJ 07760
- and -
Todd L. Kammerman, Esq.
Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
Mitchell M. Twersky, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
- and -
David M. Promisloff, Esq.
PROMISLOFF LAW
100 North 22nd Street, Unit 105
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 259-5156
- and -
Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq.
POMERANTZ
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Reetz Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Reetz filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled BENJAMIN REETZ, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES,
INC.; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC; AND AON
HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC. Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:18-CV-00075-KDB-DCK, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina at Statesville.
The lawsuit seeks to recover losses, disgorge profits that Hewitt
received on account of its fiduciary breaches, and obtain equitable
relief and other appropriate relief as provided by Sections 409 and
502 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, Lowe's imprudently selected and
retained Hewitt Growth Fund for the Lowe's 401(k) Retirement Plan,
in consultation with Hewitt (which served as the Plans fiduciary
investment consultant), despite the fact that (1) the Hewitt Growth
Fund was a new and largely untested fund at the time it was added
to the Plan; (2) the Hewitt Growth Fund was underperforming its
benchmark at the time it was added to the Plan and continued to
underperform after it was added to the Plan; and (3) the Hewitt
Growth Fund was not utilized by fiduciaries of any similarly- sized
plans and was generally unpopular in the marketplace. To make
matters worse, the Defendants placed over $1 billion of the Plan's
assets into this new, underperforming, and unpopular fund, and
disturbed participants' investment choices by transferring assets
from eight existing funds in the Plan (which were generally
performing well) and putting them in the Hewitt Growth Fund, which
replaced these existing funds in the Plan's investment lineup.
Prior to this $1 billion investment by the Plan, the Hewitt Growth
Fund had struggled to attract capital from other investors and had
only $350 million in total assets, such that the Plan's investment
resulted in a four-fold increase in the size of this fund. The
lawsuit also alleges Hewitt had a conflict of interest in
recommending this proprietary fund for the Plan, and improperly did
so to further its own financial interests instead of the interests
of the Plan's participants. Lowe's should have recognized this
conflict of interest, and should have recognized (as other 401(k)
plan fiduciaries did) that the Hewitt Growth Fund was inappropriate
for the Plan. By causing the Plan to include and retain this fund,
the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Section 404 of
ERISA and caused the Plan to suffer millions of dollars in
investment losses.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 29, 2021, Judge
Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, Statesville Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, Administrative Expenses, and
Class Representative Service Award.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Bell.
The appellate case is captioned as Benjamin Reetz v. Lowe's
Companies, Inc., Case No. 21-2267, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 10, 2021.
Plaintiff-Appellant BENJAMIN REETZ, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Lowes 401(k) Plan, is represented by:
Felix Hill Allen, IV, Esq.
THARRINGTON SMITH LLP
P. O. Box 1151
Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
Telephone: (919) 821-4711
- and -
Patricia C. Dana, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Paul Joseph Lukas, Esq.
Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
Chloe A. Raimey, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Defendants-Appellees LOWE'S COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE OF LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and AON HEWITT INVESTMENT
CONSULTING, INC. are represented by:
Sean Abouchedid, Esq.
Lars Calvin Golumbic, Esq.
Justin Michael Holmes, Esq.
Stephen Pennartz, Esq.
Andrew Salek-Raham, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5811
Telephone: (202) 861-6605
- and -
William J. Delany, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
- and -
Mark A. Nebrig, Esq.
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC
100 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-4003
Telephone: (704) 331-3602
- and -
Michael George Adams, Esq.
PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP
Bank of America Tower
620 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 335-9062
- and -
Laura Shriver Aronsson, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Kopczynski, Esq.
Edward Moss, Esq.
William D. Pollak, Esq.
Stuart Michael Sarnoff, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-4611
Telephone: (212) 728-5841
- and -
Shannon Barrett, Esq.
Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
Deanna Marie Rice, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-4001
Telephone: (202) 383-5308
- and -
M. Randall Oppenheimer, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 246-6722
McDAL GROUP: Faces Rasor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
MARC D. RASOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE McDAL GROUP, LLC and MATTHEW R. MORTON,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00952-ALM (E.D. Tex., December 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately 2019 until present.
The McDal Group, LLC is an owner and operator of multiple Jimmy
John's franchises throughout Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
MED-TRANS CORP: Class Cert. Deadlines Stayed in Bradley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bradley v. Med-Trans
Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02679 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri
A. Lydon entered an order staying the deadlines in the Second
Amended Scheduling Order, from December 17, 2021 forward, inclusive
of the deadline for completion of discovery and filing and serving
of records custodian affidavits, pending the court's ruling on the
motion for class certification.
The parties will have 14 days after issuance of the court's order
on certification to submit a proposed Third Amended Scheduling
Order for the remainder of the case, says Judge Lydon.
The nature of suit staes Contract -- Diversity-Declaratory
Judgment.
Med-Trans specializes in custom air transport solutions for the
medical industry.[CC]
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Beach Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julie Beach, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-01497, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa on Dec. 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00376-RGE-SBJ to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- was an
American media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa that owned
magazines, television stations, websites, and radio stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cecily Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
1200 Fifth Ave. Ste. 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Fax: (206) 682-2992
- and -
Kim D Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Fax: (206) 682-2992
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Misled Consumers to Pay Late Fees, Tynes Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLYDE W. TYNES, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR.
COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-at-01134 (E.D. Cal., December 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant negligently, knowingly,
or willfully sent misleading statements to the Plaintiff and Class
members, indicating, inter alia, that they could be subject to
foreclosure if they failed to cure the delinquencies and late fees
that accrued during the covered period or during their forbearance
plans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
(CARES) Act by making a lump sum payment on their regular due
dates. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members paid these illegal fees.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, is a
provider of residential and commercial mortgage services,
headquartered in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd. A. Walburg, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com
- and –
James L. Kauffman, Esq.
Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
llederer@baileyglasser.com com
- and –
Timothy Granitz, Esq.
MAHANY LAW
8112 W Bluemound Road, Suite 101
Milwaukee, WI 53213
Telephone: (414) 258-2375
E-mail: tgranitz@mahanylaw.com
NETFLIX INC: Ruling in Suit over "13 Reasons Why" Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Isabella "Bella", et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled The Estate of B.H,
John Herndon, J.H., a minor, T.H., a minor, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. NETFLIX, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-06561-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs lost their family
member, B.H., to suicide on April 28, 2017. More than four years
later, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to hold Netflix
responsible for her death because it disseminated an acclaimed,
award-winning fictional television series, "13 Reasons Why." Based
on the New York Times bestselling young adult novel, "13 Reasons
Why" grappled with the issue of teen suicide and depicted a lead
character taking her own life. The Plaintiffs have suffered an
unimaginable loss. But this lawsuit is fundamentally misguided.
Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint after Netflix moved to
dismiss the original complaint on the ground that the First
Amendment and numerous state law grounds bar each of Plaintiffs'
claims. The FAC's new allegations fail to remedy any of the prior
complaint's incurable defects. Nor does the FAC offer any new
theory for relief. Rather than rehabilitate Plaintiffs' fatally
flawed suit, the FAC confirms the futility of any further leave to
amend, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs allege that B.H. watched "13 Reasons Why" and later
"experienced emotional and psychological distress and harm."
Decedent's estate, her father (John Herndon), and her two brothers
(J.H. and T.H.), brought this putative class action against
Netflix. Decedent's estate and her father assert two survival
claims for strict liability and negligence while her brothers
assert a claim for wrongful death.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 13, 2021, the
lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of Forsyth County to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Aug. 25, 2021.
The appellate case is captioned as The Estate of Isabella "Bella,"
et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 21-80118, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 23,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners THE ESTATE OF ISABELLA "BELLA" HERNDON; JOHN
HERNDON; J.H., a minor; and T.H., a minor, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, are represented by:
Andrew Grimm, Esq.
DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
15287 Pepperwood Drive
Omaha, NE 68154
Telephone: (531) 210-2381
E-mail: andrew@digitaljusticefoundation.org
- and -
Ryan Andrew Hamilton, Esq.
HAMILTON LAW LLC
5125 S. Durango, Suite C
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Telephone: (702) 818-1818
E-mail: ryan@hamlegal.com
- and -
Gregory William Keenan, Esq.
DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
81 Stewart Street
Floral Park, NY 11001
Telephone: (516) 633-2633
E-mail: gregory@digitaljusticefoundation.org
- and -
Rory Lawrence Stevens, Esq.
4303 SW Cambridge Street
Seattle, WA 98136
Telephone: (206) 850-4444
Defendant-Respondent NETFLIX, INC. is represented by:
Blanca Young, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4019
E-mail: blanca.young@mto.com
NEW YORK: Heidel Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andrew Heidel, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANDREW HEIDEL, R. ANDREW
HEIDEL, INC. d/b/a THE WAY STATION, FRANKLIN ORTEGA, PO
ITALIANISSIMO INC., JOHN MEROLLA and NYMS PRODUCTIONS, INC. d/b/a
MURDERED BY THE MOB, individually and on behalf of classes of all
others similarly situated v. KATHY HOCHUL, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK
STATE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BILL DE
BLASIO, MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, and THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 20-cv-10462, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
According to the complaint, Defendants State of New York and the
City of New York began to issue and enforce a series of executive
orders in March 2020 that were intended to limit the spread of the
COVID-19 virus. Among other things, the orders had the effect of
prohibiting indoor dining in New York City bars and restaurants.
The Plaintiffs are three New York City small businesses and their
owners. The Complaint does not expressly allege the type of
business each conducts, but they appear to have operated bars
and/or restaurants. The Plaintiffs assert that their businesses
were "destroyed or largely wiped out" as a result of the
restrictions put in place by the City and the State. They seek
money damages but no equitable or injunctive relief. Plaintiffs
also purport to bring claims on behalf of a putative class that, in
addition to bars and restaurants, would include movie theaters,
shopping malls and gyms.
The Plaintiffs' claims against the City and Mayor Bill de Blasio
are brought pursuant to section 1983, and assert that the
restrictions:
-- effected a categorical regulatory taking of Plaintiffs'
property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the New York Constitution,
-- violated the substantive due process guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment; and
-- subjected plaintiffs to arbitrary and irrational
classifications in violation of the Equal Protection guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment and the New York Constitution.
As to the State of New York and Governor Kathy Hochul, the
Complaint asserts only a Takings claim under the Fifth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs do not bring this claim under section 1983 and urge
that they need not do so because the Fifth Amendment's Takings
clause is "self-executing."
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated October 21 and October 22, 2021, granting Defendants' motions
to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Heidel v. Cuomo, Case No.
21-2860, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on November 18, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Andrew Heidel; R. Andrew Heidel Inc., DBA The
Way Station; Franklin Ortega; PO Italianissimo Inc.; John Merolla;
NYMS Productions, Inc., Individually and on behalf of classes of
all others similarly situated, DBA Murdered by the Mob, are
represented by:
John Balestriere, Esq.
BALESTRIERE FARIELLO
225 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 324-5401
E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com
Defendants-Appellees Governor of New York State, in her oficial
capacity; The State of New York; Bill de Blasio; The City of New
York; Kathy Hochul; and Mayor of New York City, In his Official
Capacity, are represented by:
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Georgia Mary Pestana, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2400
RANGE RESOURCES: Rupert et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES A. RUPERT, WILLIAM
E. AND KAREN A. TRAVIS, AND BRYAN MARTIN individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. RANGE RESOURCES -- APPALACHIA,
LLC; and RANGE RESOURCES CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281-PLD (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a putative class as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
class action;
2. appointing as the Class Representatives for the certified
Class; and
3. appointing Attorneys George A. Barton, Stacy A. Burrows,
and William H. Knestrick as Class Counsel for the
certified Class.
The Plaintiffs' contend that their motion to certify a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3) defined Class on their claims for breach of contract
against Range should be granted.
Range Resources was founded in 1999. The company's line of business
includes performing geophysical, geological, and other exploration
services for oil and gas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I9ntZP
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
George A. Barton, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6253
E-masil: stacy@bartonburrows.com
- and -
William H. Knestrick, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD ATTORNEYS, LLC
8 East Pine Ave.
Washington, PA 15301
Telephone: (724) 705-7082
E-mail: william@neighborhoodattys.com
REALPAGE INC: Time Extension to Serve Expert Disclosures Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HOVANKY AND NIGEL
JACKSON, v. REALPAGE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00586-JAG (E.D. Va.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
to serve opposing expert disclosures relating to class
certification from the current Court-ordered deadline of December
1, 2021 until January 21, 2022.
RealPage is a leading global provider of software and data
analytics to the real estate industry.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EkUjEW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7570
Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. St. George, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 697-1254
Facsimile: (804) 698-6013
E-mail: timothy.st.george@troutman.com
RHF INVESTMENTS: Ortega Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RHF INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-10292 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
centuryfurniture.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (i)
the screen reader fails to read the link found on the promotional
images; (ii) the screen reader fails to describe the images; (iii)
the screen reader skips over certain text on the page; (iv) the
screen reader fails to read the "cart" link; and (v) the screen
reader abruptly stops functioning in the middle of a sentence or
speech.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
RHF Investments, Inc. is an online furniture retail company, doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave. Suite 1E5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Telephone: (516) 918-9347
E-mail: jprubinesq@gmail.com
RICE DRILLING: J&R Passmore Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al.,
v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class:
"All persons or entities who own oil and natural gas mineral
interests in Belmont County, Ohio that entered into or who
are parties or beneficiaries of oil and gas leases entered
into with one or more of the Defendants named herein; in
which leases the Lessor retained all rights to the formations
and the hydrocarbon products contained in the formations
below the base of the Utica Shale formation; where one or
more of Defendants Rice, Gulfport, XTO, and Ascent have
drilled and fractured their well(s) below the base of the
Utica Shale formation; and where one or more of the
Defendants Rice, Gulfport, XTO, and Ascent are producing oil,
natural gas, or other hydrocarbons from formations below the
base of the Utica Shale formation without agreement from the
Lessor."
The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint J&R Passmore, LLC,
Bruce Schuster, Jennifer Schuster, Ryan Feiock, Cheryl Feiock,
Brent Butler, and Doreen Butler as class representatives, and
Attorneys Craig Wilson, Brian Warner, Robert Russell, and John
McCuskey as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs' and putative class members' lease language
uniformly reserves to the lessor all the oil and gas below the base
of the Utica Shale. Despite this clear reservation, the Defendants
have unlawfully drilled every well below the base of the Utica
Shale into and are producing oil and gas from the Point Pleasant
Formation, which necessarily results in the pertinent law and facts
being common and typical as to each putative class member, the
lawsuit says.
Rice Drilling was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing oil and gas services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xLwbbW
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig J. Wilson, Esq.
C.J. WILSON LAW, LLC
P.O. Box 2879
Westerville, OH 43086
Telephone: (614) 723-9050
E-mail: craig@cjwilsonlaw.com
- and -
Brian J. Warner, Esq.
J. Robert Russell, Esq.
John F. McCuskey, Esq.
SHUMAN MCCUSKEY SLICER PLLC
300 Wedgewood Drive, Suite 110
Morgantown, WV 26505
Telephone: (304) 291-2702
Facsimile: (304) 291-2840
E-mail: bwarner@shumanlaw.com
rrussell@shumanlaw.com
jmccuskey@shumanlaw.com
SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION: Court Stays Sarmiento Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JHON SARMIENTO,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 0:20-cv-61249-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas entered an order on parties' amended stipulation of
dismissal without prejudice and tolling agreement as follows:
1. This case is stayed; the Parties shall file a status
report every 60 days from the date of this Order.
2. The Clerk is directed to administratively close this case
and deny as moot the pending motion to deny class
certification.
In the Amended Stipulation, the parties indicate that no settlement
has been reached regarding the claims asserted in this Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) action. The parties state that if they reach a
settlement, they will re-file the case to seek the Court's approval
of the settlement. The parties also state that to the extent
settlement discussions do not reach a settlement, Plaintiff will
refile the case. Therefore, it appears that in either scenario the
case will need to be re-filed. As such, the Court finds it more
appropriate to stay the action and administratively close the
case.
Schear Construction LLC founded in 2011. The Company's line of
business includes providing residential construction services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQQwgg at no extra charge.[CC]
SOTERIA PROTECTION: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOTERIA PROTECTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04946-WMR (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for retaliation in violation of Title 29 of
the U.S. Code and its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
security guard from approximately July 15, 2021 to August 19,
2021.
Soteria Protection, LLC is a provider of security guard services
located in Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
V. Severin Roberts, Esq.
BARRETT & FARAHANY
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 214-0120
Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
STATE FARM: Ct. Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to March 31, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN CROSS, in her
capacity as executrix of the estate of Zona Jones and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01047-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion to extend the deadline to move for class certification.
The Plaintiff shall have up to, and including, March 31, 2022, to
move for class certification, says Judge Hickey.
The current deadline to move for class certification is December 2,
2021. However, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is still pending, and
the parties have yet to engage in discovery. The Plaintiff,
therefore, requests that the deadline to move for class
certification be extended by four months. The Defendants have
informed the Court that it does not oppose this Motion, Judge
Hickey adds.
State Farm Insurance is a group of insurance companies throughout
the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DgZWT9 at no extra charge.[CC]
SYNEOS HEALTH: Pension Fund Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled EGLE
VAITKUVIENE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR MacDONALD,
GREGORY S. RUSH, MICHAEL A. BELL, ROBERT BRECKON, DAVID F.
BURGSTAHLER, LINDA S. HARTY, RICHARD N. KENDER; WILLIAM E.
KLITGAARD; KENNETH F. MEYERS, MATTHEW E. MONAGHAN, DAVID Y. NORTON,
AND ERIC P. PACQUES, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-29-FL, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina at Raleigh.
Plaintiff Egle Vaitkuviene commenced this action on Jan. 25, 2018,
alleging Defendant Syneos, and its officers Defendants Alistair
MacDonald and Gregory S. Rush, violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and applicable regulations by
making fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to investors in
connection with a merger between Defendant Syneos and inVentiv
Health, Inc.
On May 29, 2018, the Court appointed San Antonio Fire & Police
Pension Fund and the El Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiffs and approved the Lead Plaintiffs' selection of
counsel. The Lead plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint
on July 30, 2018, asserting claims for: 1) violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 against defendants Syneos, MacDonald, Rush, and
Michael A. Bell, the CEO of inVentiv prior to the merger, ("count
one"); 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, predicated on the alleged Section 10(b) violations,
against Defendants MacDonald, Rush, and Bell ("count two"); 3)
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9
against Defendants Syneos, MacDonald, Rush, Bell, as well as
Defendant Syneos's board of directors, including Robert Breckon,
David F. Burgstahler, Linda S. Harty, Richard N. Kender, William E.
Klitgaard, Kenneth F. Meyers, Matthew E. Monaghan, David Y. Norton,
and Eric P. Paques ("count three"); and 4) control person liability
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, predicated on alleged
Section 14(a) violations, against Defendants Syneos, MacDonald,
Rush, Bell, Breckon, Burgstahler, Harty, Kender, Klitgaard,
Monaghan, Norton, and Eric P. Paques ("count four").
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 17, 2021,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), United States
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank entered an order and memorandum
and recommendation ("M&R"), granting in part and denying in part
the motion to strike, and recommending that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss be denied. The Defendants filed objections, and the Lead
Plaintiffs responded thereto.
On October 21, 2021, in accordance with the court's order entered
above, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order.
The appellate case is captioned as SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE
PENSION FUND; EL PASO FIREMEN & POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs-Appellants and EGLE VAITKUVIENE Plaintiff v. SYNEOS
HEALTH INC.; ALISTAIR MACDONALD; GREGORY S. RUSH; MICHAEL A. BELL;
ROBERT BRECKON; DAVID F. BURGSTAHLER; LINDA S. HARTY; RICHARD N.
KENDER; WILLIAM E. KLITGAARD; KENNETH F. MEYERS; MATTHEW E.
MONAGHAN; DAVID Y. NORTON; ERIC P. PAQUES, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 21-2309, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on November 22, 2021.[BN]
TD AMERITRADE: Filing of Class Cert. Reply Moved to Jan. 14, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an order granting motion to
extend as follows:
-- The Defendants shall respond to the Renewed Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative,
and Appointment of Class Counsel by January 14, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act involving
Other Statutes -- Securities/Commodities/Exchange.
TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.[CC]
TIVITY HEALTH: Time Extension to File Class Cert Reply Brief Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his
motion to amend schedule for completing briefing on his Motion for
Class Certification and modifying the Initial Joint Case Management
Order such that his class certification reply brief shall be filed
60 days after the substantial completion of document production, by
May 31, 2022.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3omFsEp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Sara B. Polychron, Esq.
Caroline M. Robert, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
spolychron@rgrdlaw.com
crobert@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN
& GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Michael E. Heffernan, Esq.
ALLOTTA FARLEY CO., L.P.A.
2222 Centennial Road
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 535-0075
Facsimile: (419) 535-1935
E-mail: mheffernan@allottafarley.com
TRANSAMERICA RETIREMENT: Plan Participants Sue Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GIANNINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRANSAMERICA RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
7:21-cv-10282-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2021) is a class action for
damages with respect to Transamerica Retirement, for its failure to
exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding their
client's sensitive information—including names, addresses, Social
Security Numbers, and retirement fund contribution amounts,
collectively known as personally identifiable information ("PII" or
"Private Information").
This class action is brought on behalf of individual retirement
fund plan participants who used Transamerica's services and had
their sensitive PII accessed by unauthorized parties because of a
lapse in network security in or around June of 2021 (the "Data
Breach").
The alleged Data Breach affected retirement plan beneficiaries who
use Transamerica's services in multiple states. Transamerica
reported to Plaintiff that information compromised in the Data
Breach included his PII.
The Plaintiff was not notified until October 8, 2021, nearly four
months after his information was first accessed. The Plaintiff has
experienced a number of harms as a result of the Data Breach
incident since Transamerica's systems were accessed, including the
misuse of his identifying information for fraudulent purchases.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and other class members
will continue to experience various types of misuse of their PII in
the coming years, including but not limited to unauthorized credit
card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, and other
fraudulent use of their financial information, says the suit.
Plaintiff Giannini is a resident of Sacramento, California, and
brings this action in his individual capacity and on behalf of all
others similarly situated. Mr. Giannini's retirement account
through his former employer has been administrated by Transamerica
since February of 2019. In maintaining his information, Defendant
expressly and impliedly promised to safeguard Plaintiff Giannini's
PII. Defendant, however, did not take proper care of Mr. Giannini's
PII, leading to its exposure as a direct result of Defendant's
inadequate security measures, added the suit.
Transamerica Retirement is a retirement plan administration company
which operates nationally, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Appeals Ruling in Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Sambrano, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled DAVID SAMBRANO, DAVID CASTILLO, KIMBERLY
HAMILTON, DEBRA JENNEFER THAL JONAS, GENISE KINCANNON, and SETH
TURNBOUGH, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-01074-P, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action seeks to remedy United's pattern of discrimination against
employees who requested religious or medical accommodations from
United's mandate that its employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
According to the complaint, rather than complying with its
obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, United responded by informing the
requesting employees that they would be effectively terminated.
The Defendant's alleged actions have left the Plaintiffs with the
impossible choice of either taking the COVID-19 vaccine, at the
expense of their religious beliefs and their health, or losing
their livelihoods. In doing so, United has violated Title VII and
the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process and provide
reasonable accommodations, and also by retaliating against
employees who engaged in protected activity, the suit says.
On November 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs sought provisional class
certification to eliminate any doubt as to the Court's authority to
issue preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the entire class.
Plaintiffs are United Airlines employees who requested religious
and medical accommodations from United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
United responded by offering only the false accommodation of
indefinite unpaid leave. In doing so, United allegedly violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
In an Opinion and Order dated November 8, 2021, the Court dismissed
with prejudice Plaintiff Seth Turnbough's claims and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs now
seek a review of this decision. They also asked the district court
to reconsider an Order dated November 19, 2021, denying their
motion for limited reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned as Sambrano v. United Airlines,
Case No. 21-11159, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on November 22, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants David Sambrano, David Castillo, Kimberly
Hamilton, Debra Jennefer Thal Jonas, and Genise Kincannon, Seth
Turnbough, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Mark R. Paoletta, Esq.
SCHAERR JAFFE, L.L.P.
1717 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 787-1060
E-mail: mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com
- and -
Robert C. Wiegand, Esq.
STEWART WIEGAND & OWENS, P.C.
325 N. Saint Paul Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 899-9801
E-mail: bob.wiegand@swolegal.com
Defendant-Appellee United Airlines, Incorporated is represented
by:
Russell Daniel Cawyer, Esq.
KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, L.L.P.
201 Main Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-2500
E-mail: russell.cawyer@kellyhart.com
- and -
Alexander Virgil Maugeri, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281-1047
Telephone: (212) 326-3880
E-mail: amaugeri@jonesday.com
- and -
Donald James Munro, Esq.
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 879-3922
E-mail: dmunro@jonesday.com
- and -
Esteban Shardonofsky, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P.
700 Milam Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-2300
E-mail: sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com
WESTERN REFINING: Howe Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES HOWE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00043153-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 2, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02030-L-JLB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages earned, including overtime
and minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide rest periods; failure to pay timely wages; waiting time
penalties; failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and unfair competition.
Western Refining Retail, LLC is a company that refines crude oil
and markets petroleum products, with its principal place of
business in Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
L. Lisa Sandoval, Esq.
CALL & JENSEN
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 717-3000
Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
E-mail: jtrotter@calljensen.com
lsandoval@calljensen.com
WORLDPANTRY.COM INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Ortega Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDPANTRY.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-10294 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
traditionalmedicinals.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
the screen reader skips over certain text on the page; (b) the
screen reader fails to read the link found on the promotional
images; (c) the screen reader reads the "sub-menu" tab even when
the item is not selected; (d) the screen reader fails to read
advertisement pop up links. The website then requires the use of
the cursor to close the advertisement; (e) the screen reader fails
to describe the images; and (f) the screen reader abruptly stops
functioning in the middle of a sentence or speech.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Worldpantry.com, Inc. is an online herbal retail company, doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. Rubin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave. Suite 1E5
Lake Success, NY 11042
Telephone: (516) 918-9347
E-mail: jprubinesq@gmail.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 ***