/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211216.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, December 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 245
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Leak Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Norton Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
ABP CORP: Auguste Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADT LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADVANCE STORES: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Riaz ERISA Suit Claims
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Johnson Says
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Katz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
AMERICAN TELECONFERENCING: Baker Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Bridgewater Class Suit Removed to C.D. Ill.
API INC: Stewart Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Taylor Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
ASCASO GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BERMAN & RABIN: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Rosenberg Says
BEYONDGREEN BIOTECH: Bergus Sues Over False Representation
BLUE CHIP 2000: Ventura Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
BRETT DINOVI: Philbin Sues Over Clinical Associates' Unpaid Wages
BWS INSPECTION: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Sisk Suit Alleges
CAROLINA MOTOR: Bid to Partially Toss Amended Johnson Suit Mooted
CATERING OF PARIS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, McWilliam Says
CHARLOTTE CITY: Durham Hits Illegal Disclosure of Personal Data
CHICAGO, IL: Northern District Court Denies Ciseneroz's Bid for TRO
CLYDINE SAMUEL: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
COUNTRYSIDE CHEVROLET: Bid to Dismiss Breneisen FCRA Suit Denied
DRAFTKINGS INC: Boast Consumer Suit Moved From D.N.M. to N.D. Cal.
E-Z STOP FOOD: Wagaman Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime
EXI INC: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Powell Suit Says
FLINT, MI: Order Denying Bid to Intervene in Water Cases Upheld
FRANK'S PIZZERIA: Faces Sarmiento Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
GARDNER TRUCKING: Leuzinger & Matney-Tate Suits Joined With Castro
GEN WESTGATE: Altamirano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
GENUINE PARTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Franco Suit Claims
GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment in Cazier Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Order on ESI Preservation Dispute Issued in Rodriguez
GRANITE ROCK: Jaquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
HALLMARK AVIATION: Faces Elhassa Suit Over Untimely Wage Payments
IDAHO: District Court Dismisses Bosse v. Dolan, IDOC, et al.
JANJER ENTERPRISES: Cureton Hits Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Credit
JUUL LABS: Carlisle School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Faces Capitol School Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Oswego School Says
JUUL LABS: Waukegan School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
KRAFT HEINZ: Boss Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Products
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK: Stenschke FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
MAPLEVILLE FARMS: $55MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
MCCORMICK TRUCKING: Keator FLSA Class Conditionally Certified
MDL 2677: Claims v. Fanduel in Daily Fantasy Sports Suit Dismissed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Costanza Says
MUKHTAR INC: Underpays Gas Station Clerks, Ali Suit Alleges
MUNICIPAL CREDIT: Case Management Plan & Scheduling Order Entered
MZL HOME: Malancea Suit Stayed Pending Lutfieva Settlement Review
NCB MANAGEMENT: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 1, 2022
NEW DAY HOME: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in McKinsey Class Suit
NGL ENERGY: Ct. Enters Amended Sched Order for Class Cert. Issues
NINE ENERGY: Misclassifies Field Operators, Filer Suit Says
OLD NAVY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Harris Suit Alleges
PATHWAY HEALTH: Abel Class Suit Seeks FLSA Final Certification
PETCO ANIMAL: Knabl Sues Over Store Employees' Unpaid Wages
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick Bid for Class Certification Nixed as Moot
PIZZA ON STONE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Baez Suit Says
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect PII, PHI
PWP TUCSON: MacMillan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
RADEAS LLC: Riner FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
RAINBOW AIR: Loya Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
RANCHO MURIETA: Segismundo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
SEA WORLD: Bendorf Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
SESCO CEMENT: Davila FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Welders
SONTAG & HYMAN: Perl Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letters
SPARC GROUP: Zuniga FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ST TAMMANY PARISH: Ct. Modifies Amended Scheduling Order in Baqer
STEVEN STROM: Court Tosses Gawlik Bid to Certify Class
SUPERIOR KNIFE: Declaratory Judgment Sought in Garfias BIPA Suit
TELIGENT INC: Class Deal in Police Fund Suit Wins Final Approval
TRUEACCORD CORP: Boettger Slams Invasive Collection Robo-Calls
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Settlement Deal in Santiago Wins Initial Nod
USF REDDAWAY: Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
WAL-MART PUERTO RICO: Bid to Certify Class in Kress Suit Denied
WALMART INC: Johnson CHRIA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
WELLS FARGO: Faces Weindling Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
YOUTH SERVICES: Granison Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES: Graham Sues Over Operators' Unpaid OT Wages
ZIMMER BIOMET: Karl Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
*********
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; 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 COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
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.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND 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, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03968-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, actual fraudulent transfer, and
constructive fraudulent transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
ACG, Inc., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., is a global glass
manufacturing company, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in Florham Park, New
Jersey.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
dmo@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Leak Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
--------------------------------------------------
Donnie Leak, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., 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, 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-03880-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 29,
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 in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Norton Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD NORTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; ARIZANT HEALTHCARE, INC.;
GADSDEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, P.A.;
JOSEPH SCOTT RAYBURN, MD; WILLIAM T. CARR, CRNA; NORTHEAST
ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC, PC; and GLENN L. WILSON, MD, Case No.
31-CV-2021-900518, was removed from the Circuit Court of Etowah
County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on December 9, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-01628-CLM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's development of an infection as
a result of his use of 3M's Bair Hugger system. The Plaintiff
asserts claims for product liability and medical negligence against
the Defendants.
3M Company is a technology company headquartered in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.
Arizant Healthcare, Inc. is a manufacturer of medical products,
headquartered in Minnesota.
Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC is a medical center in
Gadsden, Alabama.
Anesthesia Associates, P.A. is a provider of anesthesia and pain
management services based in New Hampshire.
Northeast Orthopedic Clinic, PC is an orthopedic surgery provider
in Gadsden, Alabama. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
Benjamin P. Harmon, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN, & WHITE, LLC
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
E-mail: hprater@lightfootlaw.com
bharmon@lightfootlaw.com
ABP CORP: Auguste Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Sabine Auguste, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABP Corporation and Sue Morelli,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04906 (N.D. Ga., November 30, 2021),
seeks overtime pay at the correct overtime rate, liquidated
damages, all costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this
claim, prejudgment interest and all further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
ABP operates 61 Au Bon Pain store locations in 25 states. Auguste
was employed at the Piedmont Atlanta Hospital Au Bon Pain store
whose primary duties were cashiering, preparing sandwiches,
preparing salads, serving customers, restocking products and
supplies and cleaning work areas and equipment. Auguste claims to
have performed approximately 9 hours of unpaid overtime each week,
for approximately 27 weeks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
Houston, TX 77054
Phone: (832) 778-8182
Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com
- and -
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Tel: (470) 207-1559
Fax: (470) 231.0672
Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com
ADT LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADT LLC. The case is
styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. ADT LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10551 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ADT -- https://www.adt.com/ -- is the most trusted brand in smart
home and business security.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ADVANCE STORES: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Riaz ERISA Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAFI M. RIAZ, BESSIE M. MCADAMS, KEITH O. EDWARDS and PETER H.
DARGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC., THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC., THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE
OF THE ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC. 401(K) PLAN and JOHN DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00619-TTC (W.D. Va., December 8, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they
owed to the Advance Auto Parts, Inc. 401(k) Plan, to Plaintiffs,
and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1)
failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment
options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and
(3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping costs.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan,
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated participants have suffered
losses.
Advance Stores Company, Inc. is a company that retails and
distributes automotive parts and accessories, with a principal
place of business at 5008 Airport Road, Roanoke, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Cleary, Esq.
MICHAEL A. CLEARY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
4519 Brambleton Avenue, Suite 210
Roanoke, VA 24018
E-mail: mclearylaw@gmail.com
- and –
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and –
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Johnson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA LEE GREEN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01645-UNA (D. Del., November 23, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked at Albertsons Companies, Inc. for
approximately ten years as grocery store worker.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an American grocery company founded
and headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Katz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Advisors
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Samuel Katz, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. American Advisors Group, Inc.,
Case No. 0:21-cv-62476-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Advisors Group (AAG) -- https://www.aag.com/ -- is fully
operational and remains dedicated to helping older Americans
maintain their financial and physical well being.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 773-6641
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
AMERICAN TELECONFERENCING: Baker Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American
Teleconferencing Services, Ltd. The case is styled as John Adam
Baker, Other similarly situated individuals v. American
Teleconferencing Services, LTD, Case No. 2021CV357466 (Ga. Super.
Ct., Fulton Cty., Nov. 29, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Account."
American Teleconferencing Services, Ltd., doing business as
Premiere Global Services, Inc. -- https://www.pgi.com/ -- provides
communication solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
191 Peachtree St NE Ste. 4300
Atlanta, GA, 30303-1748
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Bridgewater Class Suit Removed to C.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RICHARD BRIDGEWATER, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. CC 22-LL-0020, was removed from the Knox County
Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial District Court of the State of
Illinois to the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Rock Island Division, on November 23, 2021,
and assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01348-MMM-JEH.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class he purports to represent are persons whose
personally identifiable information was impacted in a criminal
third-party cyberattack that impacted Americold's computer systems.
The complaint asserts three claims for: (1) breach of implied
contract, (2) negligence, and (3) violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Americold Logistics, LLC provides temperature-controlled
warehousing and logistics services. The Company offers truckload
carriers, refrigerated containers, aerosol packaging, warehouse
racking, climate controlled, cold food storage services. AmeriCold
Logistics serves clients the United States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. Cassidy, Esq.
CASSIDY & MUELLER P.C.
416 Main Street, Suite 323
Peoria, IL 61602
Telephone: (309) 676-0591
Facsimile: (309) 676-8036
E-mail: tcassidy@cassidymueller.com
API INC: Stewart Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRETT STEWART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. A.P.I., INC., API CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, API GROUP, INC., and RONALD PRUETT, Case No. GD-21-013598,
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on December 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01788-CB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers at the Shell Cracker
Plant overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
A.P.I., Inc. is a construction firm, with its principal place of
business in Minnesota.
APi Construction Company is a construction firm based in
Minnesota.
APi Group, Inc. is a construction firm, with its principal place of
business in Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Terri Imbarlina Patak, Esq.
Emily E. Town, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 232-0404
Facsimile: (724) 923-4160
E-mail: terri.patak@jacksonlewis.com
emily.town@jacksonlewis.com
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Taylor Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
COREY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similary
situated, Plaintiff v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-04092-SOH (W.D. Ark., November 24,
2021) is a class action brought against the Defendant for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver
from April 2015 to October 2021.
ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel LLC provides laundry, uniform, and
garment services. The Company markets its services to small to
large commercial customers with uniformed personnel throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
April Rheaume, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ASCASO GALLERY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascaso Gallery, Inc.
The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Ascaso Gallery, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10561 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ascaso Gallery -- https://www.ascasogallery.com/ -- presents from
mid-career to established artists from around the world with an
emphasis on contemporary art.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
BERMAN & RABIN: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Rosenberg Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERMAN & RABIN, P.A.; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06812 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's debt collection letter sent to
the Plaintiff regarding her alleged debt to Commerce Bank. The
Defendant's letter contains vague and unclear terminology which
causes confusion to the Plaintiff on how to handle the debt. The
Defendant used the term "pend" rather than a simple term that would
be clear to the least sophisticated consumer. Additionally, the
statement that the verification would be sent at no cost to the
Plaintiff causes further confusion as it is unclear what costs
could be incurred with future communications with the Defendant
regarding the alleged debt.
Berman & Rabin, P.A. is a debt collector based in Overland Park,
Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
1 University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com
BEYONDGREEN BIOTECH: Bergus Sues Over False Representation
----------------------------------------------------------
Basheer Bergus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEYONDGREEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No.
8:21-cv-01954-PA-PLA (C.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2021), is brought on
behalf of purchasers of Defendant's product, beyondGREEN
Compostable Dog Waste Bags (the "Product"), in the United States,
for violation of New York General Business Law, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud, as a result of the Defendant's false
representation that the Product is compostable.
According to the complaint, the Defendant holds itself out as an
environmentally friendly brand. The Product comes in four different
sizes: 45 bags, 90 bags, and 120 bags, and 240 bags. On the front
panel of the packaging of each version of the Product, Defendant
represents that the Product is "Compostable" and "Certified
Compostable." Likewise, on the back panel on the 45-count and
120-count versions of the Product, and on the side panel of the
90-count version of the Product, Defendant represents that the
Product is "certified compostable and will start to decompose
within 3 to 6 months upon disposal in an aerobic or anaerobic
environment."
Problematically for consumers, these claims are false and
misleading. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has stated that
"compostable" claims on dog waste products are "generally untrue."
More specifically, dog waste cannot be composted because it can
contain harmful contaminants (e.g., E. Coli). Even in backyard
composting, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cautions that
dog waste can contain harmful parasites, bacteria, viruses, or
pathogens.
The Defendant admits its knowledge of these facts on its website.
Yet, rather than disclaim this fact to consumers on the Product's
packaging, the Defendant offers a different solution. Specifically,
consumers can purchase Defendant's "All-Electric Pet Waste and
Organic Waste Composter," which costs four hundred fifty dollars
($450). In other words, Defendant represents the Product as capable
of being composted, when the Product in fact cannot be composted.
And, if consumers actually want to compost the Product, their only
real option is to pay Defendant nearly $500 for that privilege.
In short, Defendant represents that the Product is "compostable"
and "certified compostable" and charges a price premium for the
Product based on those representations. But those claims are false;
dog waste is too dangerous to compost, and there are few--if
any--facilities in the United States that compost dog waste.
Accordingly, the "certified compostable" claim is false and
misleading because the Product is not capable of being composted,
and consumers would not have purchased the Product—or paid
substantially less for it—had they known the certified
compostable claim was not true, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased several packages of the 240-count version
of the Product from PetSmart.
The Defendant manufactures and sells a number of pet waste products
under the "beyondGREEN" label.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: mroberts@bursor.com
BLUE CHIP 2000: Ventura Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------
Loburdes Ventura, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. BLUE CHIP 2000 COMMERCIAL CLEANING INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43616 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Nov. 29, 2021), is brought under the Private Attorneys'
General Act of 2004 seeking unpaid compensations from the
Defendants.
Thr complaint alleges that the Defendants' violated the Labor Code
based on the Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked at the
minimum wage rate, pay for overtime hours worked at the overtime
rate of pay, failure to pay reporting time pay, provide all legally
required and/or compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period
premium wages; failure to provide all legally required and/or
compliant rest periods and/or pay rest period premium wages;
failure to indemnify employees for employment-related expenditures;
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statements; and failure to
timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
non-exempt employee from 2019 through the present.
BLUE CHIP 2000 COMMERCIAL CLEANING INC. is authorized to do
business within the State of California and is doing business in
the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
whteam@lelawfirm.com
BRETT DINOVI: Philbin Sues Over Clinical Associates' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL PHILBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRETT DINOVI & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-20402 (D.N.J., December 8, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime, unpaid
mandatory trainings, and unpaid compensable travel time in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant for the part-time position
of a clinical associate on December 27, 2019. She accepted the
full-time position on January 21, 2020.
Brett Dinovi & Associates, L.L.C. is a multi-state behavioral group
consulting service company, with its principal place of business
located at 1000 Crawford Place Suites 260, 20 & 200, Mount Laurel,
County of Burlington, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Cedar, Esq.
Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
Shauna L. Friedman, Esq.
WILLIAMS CEDAR, LLC
8 Kings Highway West, Suite B
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 470-9777
Facsimile: (888) 311-4899
E-mail: dcedar@williamscedar.com
gwilliams@williamscedar.com
sfriedman@williamscedar.com
BWS INSPECTION: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Sisk Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SISK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BWS INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00087 (W.D. Tex., December 8, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated welding inspectors overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Sisk worked for the Defendant as a welding inspector from
approximately October 2019 until January 2021.
BWS Inspection Services, LLC is a provider of inspection services
to the oil and gas industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CAROLINA MOTOR: Bid to Partially Toss Amended Johnson Suit Mooted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WES JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAROLINA MOTOR
CLUB, INC., d/b/a AAA CAROLINAS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:21-CV-319-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge David C.
Keesler of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion For Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed
Nov. 2, 2021.
On Nov. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their second "Amended Class
Action Complaint." Judge Keesler directs that the "Defendants'
Motion For Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint" be
denied as moot. He states that it is well settled that a
timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and
that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as
moot.
To the extent the Defendant contends the Second Amended Complaint
is deficient, the Order is without prejudice to the Defendant
filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, if
necessary, after the stay of the matter is lifted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc5yhnj4 from Leagle.com.
CATERING OF PARIS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, McWilliam Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi McWilliam, and the other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. CATERING OF PARIS; YURI ELIE AMSELLEM; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43411 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Nov. 29, 2021), is brought alleging that the Defendants has
violated numerous Labor Code Sections against the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees by failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages.
The complaint alleges that COP did not provide Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to
which they were entitled for all work performed and did not
compensate him and others for all hours worked pursuant to
California Labor Code. Due to the "off the clock" violations and as
a matter of company policy, COP violated Labor Code because it
failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per
day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their
employment. Plaintiff's and others' actual work hours, which
included the "off the clock" work as described above, entitled them
to overtime, however, it was not company policy to keep accurate
track of all hours worked and to pay employees overtime, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for CATERING OF PARIS on November or
December 2019.
CATERING OF PARIS do business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com
CHARLOTTE CITY: Durham Hits Illegal Disclosure of Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Nicole Durham, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. the City of Charlotte,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00638, (W.D. N.C., November 30, 2021)
seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief resulting from
negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment and violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection
Act.
In 2017, Durham met a vehicular accident where she provided the
responding police officer of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department with her driver's license. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Police Department is a component of the City of Charlotte, NC.
Durham alleges that the details of her driver's license was made
available to the public in its records division vis-a-vis Digital
Solutions of the Carolinas, a data provider that obtains and
distributes accident reports and personal information taken from
accident reports to numerous entities for the purpose of marketing,
including chiropractors, body shops, and personal injury attorneys.
In December 2017, at some time on or after December 5, 2017, her
personal data was acquired by The Law Offices of James Scott
Farrin. Farrin then used the harvested personal information,
including her name and address, to send her direct-mail marketing
materials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. David Stradley, Esq.
Robert P. Holmes, IV, Esq.
WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC
3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 844-0400
Email: stradley@whiteandstradley.com
rob@whiteandstradley.com
- and -
John F. Bloss, Esq.
Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 North Elm Street, Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Email: jbloss@greensborolaw.com
fberry@greensborolaw.com
- and -
Andrew H. Brown, Esq.
James R. Faucher, Esq.
BROWN, FAUCHER, PERALDO & BENSON, PLLC
822 N. Elm Street, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 478-6000
Email: drew@greensborolawcenter.com
james@greensborolawcenter.com
CHICAGO, IL: Northern District Court Denies Ciseneroz's Bid for TRO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY CISENEROZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-5818 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon
Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for a temporary restraining order brought under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 65.
Background
On Aug. 25, 2021, the City of Chicago announced a vaccination
policy requiring all City employees to be fully vaccinated against
COVID-19 by Dec. 31, 2021, absent an approved medical or religious
accommodation. By Oct. 15, 2021, City employees were required to
disclose their vaccination status through a confidential, secure
portal maintained on the City's website. The City has provided
evidence in response to the Plaintiffs' motion that the information
uploaded to the portal is treated as a confidential medical record
and is retained by the City's Department of Human Resources in
separate confidential files. These confidential files will only be
shared in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Under the City's policy, employees who were not fully vaccinated by
Oct. 15, 2021, must submit to twice-weekly testing until they are
fully vaccinated. The City's vaccination policy contains a sunset
provision under which the option to submit to bi-weekly testing as
an alternative to the vaccination expires on Dec. 31, 2021.
The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated alleging that the City's vaccine mandate
violates their constitutional rights. In their complaint, the
Plaintiffs specifically allege that the City's vaccine mandate
violates (1) their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to
privacy, (2) their substantive and procedural due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment.
Although the focus of the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary
restraining order ("TRO") was their First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause claim, in their late-filed reply brief, they assert theories
and arguments that were not set forth in their class action
complaint nor in their motion for a temporary restraining order.
The Court thus gave the City an opportunity to file a sur-reply to
address these new arguments. The motion for a TRO is now fully
briefed.
Discussion
A. First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
Judge Coleman starts with the Plaintiffs' Free Exercise Clause
claim turning to the likelihood of success on the merits, which
requires the Plaintiffs show more than a "mere possibility of
success." In their motion, the Plaintiffs maintain that the City is
denying applications for religious exemptions without reviewing the
applications or, in the alternative, that no decisions are being
issued. The City, however, has presented evidence to the contrary,
namely, that as of Nov. 5, 2021, the City has received
approximately 6,300 applications seeking a religious exemption, and
that the vast majority of these requests are still being reviewed
and are under consideration. The City has also set forth evidence
that seven of the 13 named Plaintiffs have submitted religious
exemption requests -- none of which have been denied.
Under this scenario, the Plaintiffs maintain that the City's
vaccination policy violates the Free Exercise Clause because it
forces employees to choose between observing their religious
beliefs and receiving employee benefits. Judge Coleman holds that
the Plaintiffs do not have a likelihood of success on their Free
Exercise claim because the City's vaccination policy is a neutral
policy of general applicability that provides for religious
exemptions.
On its face, the City's vaccination policy is a neutral law of
generally applicability because it equally applies to all City
employees, regardless of religious belief or affiliation. The
policy does not single out any particular religious belief nor does
it restrict practices because of their religious nature. In
addition, any incidental effect in burdening religion is addressed
by the policy's exemption for sincerely held religious beliefs.
Furthermore, the City's vaccine policy has a rational basis due to
the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the
newly-discovered omicron variant, and the need to prevent the
spread of the disease. Hence, the City's measures are rationally
related to that legitimate state interest, especially in light of
the newly-discovered omicron variant.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs' reliance on the Sixth Circuit's decision
in Dahl v. Board of Trs. of Western Michigan Univ., 15 F.4th 728,
732 (6th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) is misplaced because the
plaintiffs in that lawsuit challenged the vaccine policy, as
applied, because they were denied religious exemptions. Also, the
per curiam panel concluded that the policy was under-inclusive in
achieving the university's interest in preventing the spread of
COVID-19 because it only focused on student-athletes and not the
thousands of other students at the university. The City of
Chicago's policy, however, equally applies to all City employees,
most of whom work with the public posing a serious risk to COVID-19
exposure and transmission. Last, the Plaintiffs' brief mention of
the Equal Protection Clause in their reply brief does not change
Judge Coleman's analysis.
Authority to Adopt Vaccine Mandate
Judge Coleman next examines the Plaintiffs' argument made for the
first time in reply that the City, via Mayor Lightfoot, exceeded
its authority in adopting the vaccine mandate. The Plaintiffs'
bare-boned argument is that only the state legislature has the
power to promulgate a vaccine mandate -- a proposition that is not
supported by the legal authority the Plaintiffs cite and is also
belied by article VII, section 6(f) of the Illinois Constitution.
Judge Coleman explains that Chicago is a home rule unit and has
been granted the power "to regulate for the protection of the
public health, safety, morals, and welfare." Also, if the
Plaintiffs are arguing that there is a separation of powers issue
with the mayor adopting a vaccine mandate as opposed to the City
council, their argument is misplaced because "state and local
governments need not follow the pattern of separated powers in the
national Constitution." Further, the City Council voted to keep the
vaccine mandate in place in late October 2021. Thus, the
Plaintiffs' argument concerning the City exceeding its authority is
without merit.
The Plaintiffs also assert for the first time in reply that the
City's vaccine mandate runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause because
Title VII preempts the mandate. Simply put, under the Supremacy
Clause, a local law is preempted by federal law where it is
impossible to comply with both laws.
Judge Coleman holds that the City offers a reasonable religious
accommodation, namely, the exemption for religious beliefs. As
such, the local vaccine mandate does not conflict with Title VII;
therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to make a strong showing that
they will likely succeed on the merits of their claims.
On a final note, Judge Coleman takes judicial notice that on Nov.
1, 2021, Cook County Circuit Judge Raymond W. Mitchell stayed the
Dec. 31, 2021 vaccine deadline in the lawsuit Fraternal Order of
Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, et al v. City of Chicago, 2021 CH
5276. This stay applies to the police unions that filed the state
court lawsuit relating to their collective bargaining agreements.
The stay is in effect until the parties' arbitration proceedings
are complete. Thus, this stay applies to the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit who are members of the represented police unions in the
state case. Last, Judge Coleman notes that since Judge Mitchell's
ruling, COVID-19 cases in Chicago have significantly increased and
the omicron variant was discovered.
Conclusion
Judge Coleman denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary
restraining order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4we9thvr from Leagle.com.
CLYDINE SAMUEL: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Rodriguez, and all others similarly situated v. CLYDINE
SAMUEL, an individual, JESSIE SAMUEL, an individual, and DOES 1 to
50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43388 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Nov. 29, 2021), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Codes by failing to pay the
Plaintiff proper compensations.
The Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay all wages due, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide compensation for actual hours
worked, failure to pay wages due upon termination: waiting time
penalties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to keep accurate payroll records, secretly paying lower
wages, shaving or deleting overtime hours worked, failure to
provide timely notification of any changes of rates, and for unfair
business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of the Defendants.
CLYDINE SAMUEL doing business in the county of Los Angeles State of
California under the fictitious business name of Dean's Group
Home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Balesh, Esq.
BALESH LAW GROUP, PC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213)480-0418
Facsimile: (213)226-4653
COUNTRYSIDE CHEVROLET: Bid to Dismiss Breneisen FCRA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin denied Countryside's motion to dismiss the
case, KELLY M. BRENEISEN and DANIEL BRENEISEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTRYSIDE
CHEVROLET/BUICK/GMC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-412 (E.D.
Wis.).
Background
Kelly M. Breneisen and Daniel Breneisen filed the individual and
class action alleging that Countryside violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by obtaining credit reports without a permissible
purpose. The Breneisens were in the market for a car in 2018. That
June, they visited Countryside's dealership to inspect and test
drive a vehicle. The Breneisens met with a salesperson and informed
the individual that they were interested in purchasing a 2018
Chevrolet Malibu. They explained they were not interested in
financing and would be paying for the vehicle in cash. The
Breneisens explicitly instructed the salesperson not to conduct a
credit check because they would be paying in cash.
After a test drive, the Breneisens and the salesperson agreed on a
purchase price. The salesperson then asked the Breneisens for their
social security numbers to "complete" the purchase. The Breneisens
reiterated that they were not interested in financing and would be
paying for the vehicle in cash. The salesperson assured the
Breneisens that he would not run a credit check, repeating that the
social security numbers were merely needed to "complete" the
purchase. The Breneisens reluctantly gave the salesperson the
information.
The salesperson stepped away momentarily and returned with the
owner of Countryside. The Breneisens informed the owner that they
were ready to complete the purchase and would return with a
cashier's check. The owner noted that the dealership charged a fee
for cashier's checks. The Breneisens refused to purchase the
vehicle if they were assessed a fee for paying with a cashier's
check. The owner stated that the Breneisens could only avoid the
fee if they paid in cash. After a lengthy discussion, the
Breneisens decided not to purchase the vehicle and left the
dealership. They never returned and did not purchase a vehicle from
Countryside.
On July 18, 2018, Kelly and Daniel both received a letter from
Countryside stating that the dealership had accessed their Experian
and TransUnion credit reports on June 30, 2018, because they
"inquired about doing business with Countryside Auto Group."
Shortly thereafter, Countryside's salesperson called Kelly to
follow up on the Chevrolet Malibu. Kelly questioned the salesperson
about the credit reports. The salesperson responded that pulling
credit reports on potential customers was "standard procedure" at
Countryside.
The complaint alleges that Countryside misrepresented to Experian
and TransUnion that the Breneisens were applying for financing.
Countryside's credit inquiries are considered "hard inquiries" and
have caused the Breneisens's credit scores to decrease. Some
lenders have considered the Breneisens high-risk consumers because
of the hard inquiries. The Breneisens have suffered from anxiety,
distress, and mental anguish because of Countryside's conduct.
The Breneisens originally filed an action against Countryside in
the Northern District of Illinois on April 24, 2020. The district
court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of personal
jurisdiction and permitted the Breneisens to file an amended
complaint by March 29, 2021. Instead of filing an amended complaint
in the Northern District of Illinois, the Breneisens commenced the
instant action in the district on March 31, 2021
Discussion
A. Statute of Limitations
Countryside seeks to dismiss the Breneisens' action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking, according to Countryside, because the
action is time-barred. However, "the expiration of the statute of
limitations is an affirmative defense that does not affect a
court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Adelman finds that the interests in vindicating the
Breneisens's FCRA rights outweigh the interests embodied in the
statute of limitations. She says, Countryside does not claim that
they are unfairly surprised or otherwise prejudiced by the instant
action. Nor could it; the Breneisens timely filed an identical FCRA
action in the Northern District of Illinois. True, the Breneisens
erred in choosing that district as the forum for their suit, but
there is no indication of bad faith or a lack of diligence on their
part. Instead, they were armed with at least one district court
case that they reasonably believed supported their theory of
personal jurisdiction.
The district court rejected their reliance on Rogers v. Smith
Volkswagen, Ltd., 2020 WL 1676400 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2020), but it
did not find the argument frivolous. Furthermore, the Breneisens
asked the district court to transfer the action to this district.
The district court declined to do so because the request was made
in the reply brief, not, as Countryside suggests, because the
Breneisens's choice of forum was blatantly improper. But here
again, the Breneisens's actions do not indicate a lack of
diligence, for a district court can transfer a case under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1631 "even if not asked to do so by either party." Finally,
the Breneisens did not sleep on their rights. They filed the
instant action sixteen days after the Northern District of
Illinois' dismissal order.
Under these circumstances, Judge Adelman finds that the statue of
limitations for the instant action was tolled while the Breneisens
pursued their claim in the Northern District of Illinois.
Therefore, based on the allegations of the complaint, the
Breneisens's claim is not indisputably time-barred.
B. Permissible Purpose
Countryside also asserts that the Breneisens failed to state a
claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(f). That provision makes it
unlawful to obtain a consumer report for a purpose that is not
authorized by FCRA. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(f). As relevant in the
case, a person may obtain a consumer report if they have "a
legitimate business need for the information in connection with a
business transaction that is initiated by the consumer."
Judge Adelman finds that Countryside's preferred inference from the
allegations is that it obtained the Breneisens's credit reports to
check their creditworthiness when presented with a cashier's check.
At this stage of litigation, however, it is the Breneisens who are
entitled to favorable inferences.
It is reasonable to infer that Countryside obtained the credit
reports after the Breneisens refused to pay with a cashier's check
and decided not to purchase the vehicle. Thus, when it obtained the
credit reports, Countryside knew the Breneisens did not intend to
purchase the vehicle, let alone pay for it with financing or a
cashier's check. Countryside then had no reason to check the
Breneisens's creditworthiness. The dealership's subsequent
communications with the Breneisens further support this inference;
neither the letter nor the phone conversation mentions the
cashier's check.
Therefore, as alleged, Judge Adelman holds that it is plausible
that Countryside did not have a legitimate business need for the
credit reports. She says, that is sufficient to state a claim under
15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(f).
Order
For these reasons, Judge Adelman denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/n6jh9tcc from Leagle.com.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Boast Consumer Suit Moved From D.N.M. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEAH BOAST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DRAFTKINGS, INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-01129, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on December 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09482-CRB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the New Mexico
Statutes Annotated and various criminal laws by allegedly operating
an illegal online sports betting business.
DraftKings, Inc. is an American daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting operator, with its principal place of business in
Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Williams, Esq.
BELL, HUGHES & COLEMAN, PC
610 7th St. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 242-7979
Facsimile: (866) 782-8820
E-mail: bwilliams@898-bell.com
- and –
James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 996-0869
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
- and –
W. Lewis Garrison, JR., Esq.
Christopher Hood, Esq.
Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 First Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
chood@hgdlawfirm.com
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
E-Z STOP FOOD: Wagaman Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA WAGAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. E-Z STOP FOOD MARTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00398 (E.D. Tenn., November 24, 2021) seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that E-Z Mart knowingly and deliberately
misclassified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as exempt
employees not entitled to overtime compensation. Plaintiff Wagaman
allegedly did not receive overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Ms. Wagaman was employed as a store manager by E-Z Stop in
Maryville, Tennessee from approximately April 2019 until August
2021.
E-Z Stop Food Marts, Inc. owns and operates convenience stores. The
Company sells gasoline, groceries, and other merchandise through
its convenience stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryce W. McKenzie, Esq.
DELIUS & MCKENZIE, PLLC
124 Court Avenue
Sevierville, TN 37862
Telephone: (865) 428-8780
Facsimile: (865) 428-5254
E-mail: bryce@deliusmckenzie.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
EXI INC: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Powell Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Powell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXI, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06273 (N.D. Ill., November 22, 2021) is a civil action
brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendant's failure to pay all due and owing overtime wages to
Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members.
Mr. Powell was employed by the Defendant from 2016 to 2021 as a
technician, installing lighting fixtures.
EXI Inc. installs and maintains commercial interior and exterior
LED lights.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
FLINT, MI: Order Denying Bid to Intervene in Water Cases Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. LUKE WAID, Parent and Next
Friend of S.R., a minor, et al., Plaintiffs, ELNORA CARTHAN; RHONDA
KELSO, individually and as next friend of K.E.K., a minor child;
DARRELL DAVIS; BARBARA DAVIS; MICHAEL SNYDER; DAVID MUNOZ; TIANTHA
WILLIAMS, individually and as next friend of T.W., a minor child;
FRANCES GILCREAST; ANGELO'S CONEY ISLAND PALACE, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, DORIS COLLINS; ROBIN PLEASANT; JASON
PHINISSEE; LEE McDONALD; CONLEY COLLISION, INC., Proposed
Intervenors Plaintiffs-Appellants v. RICHARD DALE SNYDER, former
Governor; et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-1164 (6th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of the Collins Plaintiffs' motion to intervene.
Background
The Flint Water Crisis and its revelations concerning the unsafe
levels of lead in the Flint, Michigan water supply sparked both
federal and state litigation. After years of coordination among the
federal and state court cases and negotiation among the parties,
class Plaintiffs and co-liaison counsel for the Individual
Plaintiffs in these coordinated cases reached a $641.25 million
partial settlement agreement with certain Defendants, which was
presented to the court in the Waid case in November 2020.
The Plaintiffs in a state court lawsuit separate from the
coordinated cases -- Doris Collins, Robin Pleasant, Jason Phinisee,
Lee McDonald, and Conley Collision, Inc. (the "Collins Plaintiffs")
-- moved to intervene in this federal lawsuit with the goal of
objecting to the proposed settlement and creating a new settlement
subclass. The Collins Plaintiffs argued that they have a
substantial interest in the litigation because the release in the
Settlement Agreement would prohibit them from pursuing their unjust
enrichment claim. The motion to intervene also raised objections to
the processes and the contents of the proposed Settlement
Agreement, including that: the "unjust enrichment customers" were
not adequately represented in the settlement negotiations;
approving the Settlement Agreement's release of unjust enrichment
claims would violate due process; and no part of the Settlement
Agreement provided a refund for the contaminated water paid for by
its recipients.
The district court denied the motion, reasoning that intervention
was unnecessary because the proposed Settlement Agreement includes
a process "by which individuals can either choose to participate in
the settlement or continue to pursue their claims" and that the
Collins Plaintiffs already had the right to object to the
Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(e)(5).
The Collins Plaintiffs appealed.
Analysis
The Collins Plaintiffs sought only permissive intervention and made
no argument that they are entitled to intervene as a matter of
right. Rule 24(b) allows for permissive intervention if the
district court, acting in its discretion, concludes that a
potential intervenor's timely motion shows that the individual "has
a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact" and whose intervention will not "unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication or the original parties'
rights."
The Sixth Circuit opines that the district court was reasonable in
denying the Collins Plaintiffs' motion to intervene. In their
appeal, the Collins Plaintiffs simply reiterate their merits
arguments about the proposed Settlement Agreement, and do not point
to any abuse of discretion. They fail to address the district
court's explanation of their rights to object to or opt-out of the
settlement, either of which is available to them in accordance with
the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and Rule 23(e)(5).
The Collins Plaintiffs need not intervene to put their objections
before the district court.
Order
For the reasons it discussed, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's denial of the motion to intervene.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9dws92 from Leagle.com.
FRANK'S PIZZERIA: Faces Sarmiento Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SARMIENTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANK'S PIZZERIA INC., d/b/a
FRANK'S PIZZERIA, and LINDA COLOMBO, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-06813 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours
premium, and noncompliant wage statements in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial cook at
Frank's Pizzeria from 1984 through November 28, 2021.
Frank's Pizzeria, Inc. is an Italian restaurant owner and operator,
with its principal place of business located at 14 Main Street,
Port Washington, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
GARDNER TRUCKING: Leuzinger & Matney-Tate Suits Joined With Castro
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MARCELINO CASTRO, Plaintiff v. GARDNER TRUCKING,
INC., Defendant. KASPER LEUZINGER, Plaintiff v. GARDNER TRUCKING,
INC., ET AL., Defendants. WILLIAM MATNEY-TATE, Plaintiff v. GARDNER
TRUCKING, INC., ET AL., Defendants. MICHAEL ALLEN JENSEN, Plaintiff
v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 4:20-CV-5473-YGR,
4:21-CV-4952-YGR, 4:21-CV-7474-YGR, 4:21-CV-7741-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an Order:
(1) denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss under the
first-to-file rule and/or to transfer; and
(2) granting the Plaintiff's motion to consolidate the action
with Castro v. Gardner Trucking, Inc., No. 20-CV-5473-YGR.
Judge Rogers held a hearing on the motions on Nov. 30, 2021.
For the avoidance of doubt, Leuzinger v. Gardner Trucking, Inc., et
al., No. 21-CV-4952-YGR, and Matney-Tate v. Gardner Trucking, Inc.,
et al., No. 21-CV-7474-YGR, are consolidated with the Castro action
and administratively closed. The Castro action will be deemed the
Lead Case in which all papers will be filed therein.
Judge Rogers set a case management conference for Jan. 10, 2022, at
9:00 a.m. Five business days prior, the parties are directed to
file an updated case management statement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9aessc from Leagle.com.
GEN WESTGATE: Altamirano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Panuncio Altamirano, and the other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. GEN WESTGATE, LP; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case
No. 21STCV434Q6 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 29, 2021),
is brought alleging that the Defendants has violated numerous Labor
Code Sections against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant did not provide Plaintiff
and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum
wages to which they were entitled for all work performed and did
not compensate him and others for all hours worked pursuant to
California Labor Code. Additionally, Defendant violated Labor Code
Section 351 by taking some of the tips meant for employees and also
deducting the tips from servers' and others' earned wages.
Defendant also deducted the credit card fee from servers' and
others' tips and did not timely provide the credit card and even
cash tips to servers and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees. Due to the "off the clock" violations and as a matter of
company policy, Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to
pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12
hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their
employment. Plaintiff's and others' actual work hours, which
included the "off the clock" work as described above, entitled them
to overtime, however, it was not company policy to keep accurate
track of all hours worked and to pay employees overtime, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for Defendant on or around February
2017.
GEN WESTGATE, LP do business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
Email: hm@messrelianlaw.com
GENUINE PARTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Franco Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA FRANCO, Plaintiff v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV43234 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 23, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the California Labor Code by failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees minimum
wages and overtime as well as meal/rest break premiums.
The Plaintiff started working for GPC approximately three years ago
and is still currently employed at GPC. Her latest position is that
of assistant manager.
Genuine Parts Company is an American service organization engaged
in the distribution of automotive replacement parts, industrial
replacement parts, office products and electrical/electronic
materials. GPC serves numerous customers from more than 2,600
operations around the world, and has approximately 48,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment in Cazier Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAZIER, et al. v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY; and vice
versa, A21A1346, A21A1347 (Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Georgia, Fourth Division, entered an order:
a. affirming the order granting summary judgment to Georgia
Power; and
b. dismissing as moot Georgia Power's cross-appeal concerning
the certification of the class.
Introduction
The lawsuit is the third appearance of the matter before the Court.
In 2011, Plaintiff Amy Cazier and others filed a putative class
action against Georgia Power Co. for its allegedly improper
collection of sales tax generated by a franchise fee charged to
customers of municipalities. After lengthy proceedings, including
two prior appeals to the Court, the Supreme Court of Georgia asked
the trial court to consider a remand to the Georgia Public Service
Commission (PSC) for that body's determination as to whether
Georgia Power had properly charged its customers in this respect --
Georgia Power Co v. Cazier, 303 Ga. 820, 826(2) (815 S.E.2d 922)
(2018) ("Cazier III").
After the trial court sent the case to the PSC, the regulatory
agency determined that the relevant terms "usage revenue" and
"total revenue" had the same meaning and that Georgia Power had
properly implemented its schedule to recover its municipal
franchise fee ("MFF"). The trial court then adopted the PSC's
determination, certified the class, and granted summary judgment to
Georgia Power.
In Case No. A21A1346, the Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred
when it granted summary judgment to Georgia Power. In the
cross-appeal, Case No. A21A1347, Georgia Power argues that the
class should not have been certified.
Background
In 2007, the PSC revised its fee schedule guidelines for, among
other rates, an MFF cost recovery charge, mandating different
charges for customers within and without municipal boundaries.
Because the MFF covers some of Georgia Power's expenses incurred by
purchasing access and right-of-way easements from municipalities,
the PSC found that municipal customers should bear a greater
percentage of the cost recovery charge. Specifically, the PSC's
January 2007 order provided that through a process of gradual
implementation to be completed by 2009, Georgia Power would collect
2% of its "usage revenue entirely by inclusion of MFF amounts in
its rate base," as well as "that portion of franchise fees
representing 2% of usage revenue exclusively from its customers
located within the municipality to which such franchise fees are
paid."
On Dec. 31, 2007, the PSC issued a second order finding that
Georgia Power's proposed rates detailed in the January 2007 order
were "fair, just and reasonable." One of the rates proposed by
Georgia Power included a MFF "calculated on total revenues and
charged to each customer on the basis of the customer's
contribution to total revenues" at the PSC-approved rate. After
revisions to other tariffs required new compliance filings, Georgia
Power filed a revised fee schedule, including a MFF charge,
collected by applying the "rates to the total revenues of each
bill." In March 2008, the PSC issued a third order concluding that
Georgia Power's proposed tariff schedule was "designed to collect
the proper level of revenue and properly allocate the collection of
revenue in compliance with" the December 2007 order. Georgia Power
submitted compliance filings to the PSC again in 2010 and 2013, and
while rate percentages changed slightly in both cases, the relevant
language concerning MFF calculation based on "total revenues"
remained the same.
The Plaintiffs are Georgia Power customers whose monthly bills
featured an itemized list of charges, including a nuclear
construction cost recovery fee ("NCCRF") and the MFF. In their
original suit, filed in 2011, the Plaintiffs alleged that Georgia
Power improperly collected sales taxes on top of those fees, and
that Georgia Power improperly calculated the MFF by including cost
recovery items like the NCCRF as well as an environmental
compliance cost recovery fee ("ECCR") in the revenue sum to which
the MFF percentage was applied ("Cazier I").
Georgia Power moved to dismiss, claiming in part that the
consumers' only remedy was set forth in OCGA Section 48-2-35, which
prescribes the procedure by which a taxpayer can claim a refund of
taxes improperly collected. The trial court denied the motion but
authorized an interlocutory appeal.
The Court of Appeals' first opinion on the matter, it concluded
that OCGA Section 48-2-35 did not authorize a cause of action for
refund directly from the dealer, and that the trial court erred
both when it authorized a direct claim against Georgia Power for
improper collection of sales taxes and when it denied Georgia
Power's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first two claims. It also
concluded, however, that the Plaintiffs' third claim (that Georgia
Power improperly calculated the MFF) did not infringe on the PSC's
exclusive authority to establish utility rates, and it therefore
affirmed the trial court's denial of Georgia Power's motion to
dismiss this count.
On remand from our ruling in Cazier I, plaintiffs amended their
complaint to add a claim for improper MFF calculation under OCGA
Section 46-2-90, which authorizes claims against entities subject
to PSC jurisdiction ("Cazier II"). After Georgia Power moved for
summary judgment, the trial court accepted Georgia Power's
contention that the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies, denied class certification, and dismissed
the entire action.
In Cazier II, the Court of Appeals held that under Georgia's
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the Plaintiffs were required
to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit only
if they were "'aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case'"
or had an "'objection to any order or decision' of the relevant
agency." Because the Plaintiffs did not claim to be aggrieved by or
object to any action or order by the PSC, the Court of Appeals
concluded, the exhaustion doctrine did not preclude their claim
against Georgia Power for its alleged improper calculation of the
MFF, and it therefore vacated the trial court's ruling and remanded
for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and, in Cazier III,
affirmed the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Plaintiffs were
not precluded from bringing suit against Georgia Power because the
merits of the claim were not within the PSC's exclusive
jurisdiction. The Court noted, however, that the regulatory
agency's exclusive rate making power might be infringed if the
trial court were to "misconstrue" the PSC's orders in the case. The
Court thus remanded the case to the trial court using the doctrine
of "primary jurisdiction," under which a trial court may, in its
discretion, consult an administrative body for its opinion on any
issue within that body's special competence. It encouraged the
trial court to consider whether the revenue terms it deemed
ambiguous should be referred to the PSC for technical clarification
or simply interpreted by the court itself as a question of law.
On remand from Cazier III, the trial court applied the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction and sought a determination from the PSC as to
the meaning of the ratemaking terms "revenue," "usage revenue," and
"total revenue." The trial court also conditionally certified the
class but noted that, as then defined, it included every member of
the Fulton County trial court.
After hearing argument, the PSC issued a written determination that
Georgia Power had properly calculated the MFF when it applied the
charge as a percentage of total revenue from each customer's bill.
Noting that Georgia Power's rates are approved by the PSC to
recover all "usage" from customers, the PSC found that it would be
unreasonable to exclude cost recovery items from the MFF
calculation, especially when considering the minimum monthly bill,
which included the NCCRF and other similar charges, even if a
customer had no kilowatt-hour usage for that month. The PSC
observed that nuclear construction costs and environmental
compliance costs had previously been included in Georgia Power's
total consumption rate charge but had become itemized for consumer
clarity in 2007, and noted that it had approved Georgia Power's
compliance filings, which had applied the MFF to the total revenue
from each bill (including revenue from cost recovery items) in
2007, 2010, and 2013. The PSC concluded that its orders employed
"usage revenue" and "total revenue" interchangeably, such that
Georgia Power properly applied the MFF by calculating the charge
based on a percentage of each consumer's total charge.
On the case's return to the trial court, the Plaintiffs moved to
certify the class with a revised definition that excluded Georgia
Power customers who were also members of the judiciary. After a
hearing, the trial court considered the numerosity, commonality,
typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority prerequisites
for a class action, found that the Plaintiffs carried each of these
burdens, and certified the class. The court then concluded that the
PSC's determination that Georgia Power's collection practices were
valid was not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous, and
granted Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment on this basis.
The cross-appeals followed.
Discussion
A. Case No. A21A1346
The Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred when it (a)
referred the legal question of the meaning of the terms "revenue,"
"total revenue," and "usage revenue" to the PSC, and (b) granted
summary judgment to Georgia Power on the basis of the PSC's
determination.
The law applicable to the Court of Appeals' review of the PSC's
ratemaking power is well-established. The PSC, rather than any
other agency of the executive branch, has authority to regulate
public utilities. It was created for a special purpose with special
competence to deal with special matters including the establishment
of rates for public utilities. The commission will have exclusive
power to determine what are just and reasonable rates and charges
to be made by any corporation subject to its jurisdiction.
Prescribing rates for future application is an exercise of
quasi-legislative functions by an administrative body.
The Court of Appeals finds that the Plaintiffs would have it
construe the parties' disputed terms ourselves, and criticize the
trial court for abdicating this legal function. The Plaintiffs
assert that the trial court erred when it referred the matter to
the PSC and when, on remand from that agency, it granted summary
judgment to Georgia Power.
The Court of Appeals holds that the PSC's use of two different
terms -- "usage revenue" and "total revenue" -- to describe the
basis for calculating the sales tax generated on the MFF raised a
question, properly referred to that agency, as to whether the two
categories described by those apparently different terms were the
same. The trial court thus did not abuse its discretion when it
invoked the primary jurisdiction of the PSC for an initial
determination as to whether these terms' difference was merely
apparent rather than real or substantial. See Delta Traffic
Service.
The Court of Appeals further holds that the trial court also did
not abuse its discretion when it accepted the PSC's determination
that Georgia Power's calculation of the MFF was reasonable. The PSC
determined that its orders employed "usage revenue" and "total
revenue" interchangeably, such that Georgia Power properly applied
the MFF by calculating the charge based on a percentage of each
consumer's total charge.
Because the PSC's determinations were supported by substantial
evidence and were neither arbitrary nor capricious, the PSC did not
abuse its exclusive ratemaking authority when it made them.
Likewise, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an
error of law when, having concluded that Georgia Power's rate was
reasonable, it granted summary judgment to Georgia Power on that
basis.
B. Case No. A21A1347
In light of its conclusion that the trial court did not err when it
granted summary judgment to Georgia Power, the Court of Appeals
accepts Georgia Power's concession that the cross-appeal concerning
the certification of the class is moot.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment in Case No. A21A1346 and
dismissed as moot the appeal in Case No. A21A1347.
Dillard, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd98t57u from Leagle.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Order on ESI Preservation Dispute Issued in Rodriguez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Alex G. Tse of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued a discovery order on electronically
stored information preservation dispute.
Numerous mobile apps use Google's Firebase software; and when
people use these apps, their usage data is transmitted to Google.
The Plaintiffs in the proposed class action used Firebase --
powered apps but also turned off a particular Google
data-collection feature on their phones or on Google's website.
Because they turned this feature off, they assert that Google
didn't have consent to collect their app usage data, but did so
anyway.
Currently at issue is a dispute that centers on the fact that
Google, every 56 days, is deleting the usage data it collects from
Firebase-powered apps. The Plaintiffs assert that Google is
destroying relevant electronically stored information (ESI), and
they seek a court order that would require Google to stop regularly
deleting this data, at least until the parties can agree on a
preservation plan. Google, meanwhile, insists that its retention
policy is reasonable because the costs of preserving more than 56
days' worth of this data greatly exceed the benefits.
Having considered the evidence, Judge Tse agrees with Google. He
finds that Google collects an immense amount of data from
Firebase-powered apps. Each day, the company's app measurement logs
record, on average, 135 billion entries from Firebase-powered apps,
with those entries occupying over 27 petabytes of storage space
(one petabyte is equivalent to one million gigabytes). "Using
public storage cost figures," Google estimates that "storing two
years' worth of such data would cost $3 million, and three years
would cost $6 million," sizeable sums that would be above and
beyond ordinary litigation costs.
On the other end of the scale, the Plaintiffs haven't persuasively
explained why they need more than 56 days' worth of the data in
question. They explain that they seek the data "in connection with
their class certification motion and for the parties' experts, to
quantify the number of illegal interceptions and Google's unjust
enrichment." But they don't suggest that they intend to, or have
the means to, sift through and count 27 petabytes of data per day.
Instead some form of statistical sampling will likely be necessary,
and the Plaintiffs haven't explained why they can't conduct such a
sampling using the data Google regularly saves, or using the named
Plaintiffs' data (which Google has offered to save and produce) as
opposed to all of the proposed class members' data (which is what
the Plaintiffs seek).
To pin down the number of times Google has intercepted the
Plaintiffs' data, and the amount by which Google has profited from
that data, the Plaintiffs may also depose Google and its employees
and propound written discovery requests. These methods, plus some
form of statistical sampling, would be, as Google correctly puts
it, "more direct and far less burdensome than filling a warehouse
with massive server cabinets full of anonymous individuals' data."
Rule 37, as Google notes, "does not call for perfection" in
preserving ESI; it calls for "reasonableness." And whether
preservation is reasonable "depends on whether what was done -- or
not done -- was proportional to the case." Judge Tse finds that the
Plaintiffs haven't persuaded him that Google's current retention
policy for the app usage data in question is unreasonable. This
isn't to say that the data is irrelevant, or that Google doesn't
need to retain and turn over a subset of it. But he won't require
Google to start saving petabytes of data per day, indefinitely,
without a more compelling showing of need.
Related to the ESI dispute just addressed, the Plaintiffs make two
other requests. First, they seek a court order that would require
Google to identify "any relevant data sources" related to Google's
collection and use of the proposed class members' app usage data.
Second, they seek a court order that would require Google to
negotiate an ESI preservation plan.
On the current record, neither request will be granted, Judge Tse
holds. As to the first, court intervention would be premature. The
Plaintiffs must first utilize all discovery tools at their
disposal, including Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, to attempt to
identify the data sources they seek. It doesn't appear that they
have done so to date, and until they do the Court won't intervene.
As to the second request, the parties have already stipulated to
certain ground rules for ESI discovery, and it seems that what the
Plaintiffs want now is an ESI preservation plan that would require
Google to preserve more than 56 days' worth of app usage data for
all putative class members. Judge Tse won't require Google to
negotiate such a preservation plan for the reasons he stated.
The parties must continue to cooperate in good faith to preserve
and share relevant ESI. But Judge Tse won't require Google to
modify its current ESI retention policy. Hence, the Plaintiffs'
requests for relief are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Discovery Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5h25bkpd from Leagle.com.
GRANITE ROCK: Jaquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARNOLD JAQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GRANITE ROCK COMPANY and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV387540, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09505 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely
wages, failure to provide compliant wage statements, unfair
competition, and wrongful termination.
Granite Rock Company is a construction company based in California.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
Brian S. Fong, Esq.
Sami Hasan, Esq.
Luis F. Arias, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
bfong@sheppardmullin.com
shasan@sheppardmullin.com
larias@sheppardmullin.com
HALLMARK AVIATION: Faces Elhassa Suit Over Untimely Wage Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALMA ELHASSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALLMARK AVIATION SERVICES, L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09768 (S.D.N.Y., November 23, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's untimely wage payments and failure to properly
provide weekly wage statements for Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees in violation of New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Hallmark as customer service agent at
John F. Kennedy Airport from July 2019 through March 2021, and
November 7, 2021 until the present.
Hallmark Aviation Services LP provides ground handling services.
The Company offers load and flight control, crew administration,
check-in and ticketing, centralized baggage, and training services.
Hallmark Aviation Services operates in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
IDAHO: District Court Dismisses Bosse v. Dolan, IDOC, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL E. BOSSE, Plaintiff v. MRS. JAQLYNN DOLAN,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00176-DCN (D. Idaho), Judge David C.
Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed
all other claims against the Defendants, and terminated all other
Defendants as parties to the action.
The Plaintiff brings suit against Mrs. Dolan, R.N., who is the
former interstate medical director of the Idaho Department of
Correction (IDOC); Mrs. Starr, who is the director of interstate
contracts for the IDOC; Timothy Higgins, who is the former
interstate prison contract monitor for the IDOC; Monte Hansen, who
replaced Higgins in that position; Corizon, the prison medical
provider; and the IDOC.
The Plaintiff alleges that, when he was transported among prisons
in Idaho, Texas, and Arizona, the inhumane conditions of the
transport journeys caused him injuries. He sues the Defendants for
permitting inhumane transport conditions to exist. However, he was
ordered to bring his conditions of confinement claims in Case No.
1:cv-21-00118-SAB, Bosse v. Hansen, et al. Judge Nye holds that
they cannot be heard in the case.
The Plaintiff also alleges that he went untreated for various
medical conditions after his transport(s), including a bleeding,
infected ear; knee and wrist problems; black out spells; and
glaucoma. Judge Nye says the Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed
on these claims.
The Plaintiff also sues for failure to provide him with proper
medical care for his glaucoma condition once he was transferred
back to an Idaho facility. Judge Nye finds it unclear whether
Defendant Dolan had authority over prisoner medical care in the
Idaho facilities. The Plaintiff may proceed, but he will have to
show personal participation in his current medical care; otherwise,
he can amend his pleadings at a later date to include the person or
persons who have denied him medical care in the Idaho facilities
(provided that he exhausted these claims before he first attempted
to bring them in the action).
The Plaintiff cannot proceed against Defendant Corizon, the
prison's contracted private medical provider. Judge Nye finds that
the Plaintiff has provided insufficient allegations to state a
claim against Corizon. Without specific factual allegations about
(1) what the Corizon policies were; (2) what the Corizon policy
makers actually did, and (3) how the policies caused the medical
providers to provide inadequate care, the Plaintiff has not stated
a claim. He may amend within the amendment deadline if he discovers
additional facts supporting such a claim.
Nor can the Plaintiff proceed against the IDOC. Judge Nye holds
that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from
entertaining a suit brought by a citizen against a state, absent a
waiver of sovereign immunity, citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1,
16-18 (1890). The Supreme Court has consistently applied the
Eleventh Amendment's jurisdictional bar to states and state
entities "regardless of the nature of the relief sought." The
proper way to obtain injunctive relief (an order to do or refrain
from doing something) is to sue state government officials in their
official capacity. The Plaintiff may amend, if appropriate.
The Plaintiff also asks to convert his lawsuit into a class action.
The trial court has broad discretion whether to certify a case as a
class action. Judge Nye has reviewed the class certification issue
and has determined that class certification is not necessary or
appropriate in the case at this time, based on the factors set
forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). He will
reconsider the decision at a later date if a class action appears
appropriate.
The Plaintiff may proceed as outlined. The Order does not guarantee
that any of the Plaintiff's claims will be successful; he merely
finds that one or more is colorable, meaning that the claims will
not be summarily dismissed at this stage. The Order is not intended
to be a final or a comprehensive analysis of the Plaintiff's
claims, but it is only a determination that one or more of his
claims is plausible and should proceed to the next stage of
litigation.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Nye granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Review of Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff may proceed against
Defendant Dolan on Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
claims regarding failure to provide proper medical care for the
injuries received during transport when he arrived at the new
facilities, and failure to provide treatment for his glaucoma
condition at the Idaho facility.
Judge Nye dismissed all other claims against the Defendants, and
terminated all other Defendants as parties to the action. If the
Plaintiff later discovers facts sufficient to support a claim that
has been dismissed, he may move to amend the complaint to assert
such claims, except all conditions of confinement claims (including
inhumane transportation claims) must be brought in his other
action.
The Defendant will be allowed to waive service of summons by
executing, or having counsel execute, the Waiver of Service of
Summons as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and returning it to the
Court within 30 days. If it chooses to return the Waiver of Service
of Summons, the answer or pre-answer motion will be due in
accordance with Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the Clerk of
Court will forward a copy of the Amended Complaint, a copy of the
Order, and a Waiver of Service of Summons to the following counsel:
Kevin West and Dylan Eaton, Parsons Behle & Latimer, 800 W. Main
Street, Suite 1300, Boise, Idaho, 83702, on behalf of Mrs. Jaqlynn
Dolan.
Should any entity determine that the individuals for whom counsel
for the entity was served with a waiver are not, in fact, its
employees or former employees, or that its attorney will not be
appearing for the entity or for particular former employees, it
should file a notice within the CM/ECF system, with a copy mailed
to the Plaintiff, indicating which individuals for whom service
will not be waived.
If the Plaintiff receives a notice from the Defendant indicating
that service will not be waived for an entity or certain
individuals, the Plaintiff will have an additional 90 days from the
date of such notice to file a notice of physical service addresses
of the remaining Defendants, or claims against them will be
dismissed without prejudice without further notice.
The parties must follow the deadlines and guidelines in the
Standard Disclosure and Discovery Order for Pro Se Prisoner Civil
Rights Cases, issued with the Order. Any amended pleadings must be
submitted, along with a motion to amend, within 150 days after
entry of the Order.
Dispositive motions must be filed no later than 300 days after
entry of the Order. Each party must ensure that all documents filed
with the Court are simultaneously served upon the opposing party
(through counsel if the party has counsel) by first-class mail or
via the CM/ECF system, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5. Each party must sign and attach a proper mailing certificate to
each document filed with the court, showing the manner of service,
date of service, address of service, and name of person upon whom
service was made.
The Court will not consider ex parte requests unless a motion may
be heard ex parte according to the rules and the motion is clearly
identified as requesting an ex parte order, pursuant to Local Rule
of Civil Practice before the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho 7.2.
All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court
make a ruling or take an action of any kind must be in the form of
a pleading or motion, with an appropriate caption designating the
name of the pleading or motion, served on all parties to the
litigation, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7, 10 and
11, and Local Rules of Civil Practice before the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho 5.1 and 7.1. The Court
will not consider requests made in the form of letters.
No party may have more than three pending motions before the Court
at one time, and no party may file a motion on a particular subject
matter if that party has another motion on the same subject matter
currently pending before the Court. Motions submitted in violation
of this Order may be stricken, summarily denied, or returned to the
moving party unfiled.
The Plaintiff must notify the Court immediately if his address
changes. Failure to do so may be cause for dismissal of the case
without further notice.
The pleadings from Case No. 1:21-cv-00118-DCN that the Plaintiff
has attached to his Amended Complaint are struck, as are various
access-to-courts grievances and other documents unrelated to the
claims in the action. The Court will not entertain conditions of
confinement or access to courts claims in the case; the Plaintiff
is free to pursue unrelated claims in separate lawsuits.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Successive Review
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye24jhjx from
Leagle.com.
JANJER ENTERPRISES: Cureton Hits Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Credit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IREONA CURETON, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. JANJER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03019-JMC (D. Md., November 24, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant maintains a company-wide
policy and practice which required Plaintiff and other servers to
spend more than 20% of their work time performing non-tip producing
side work with a sub-minimum hourly wage for time spent.
The Defendant's company-wide policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other servers to perform work without receiving
wages, such as attending mandatory meetings, over-claiming tips,
and performing off-the-clock work, resulted in a failure to satisfy
its minimum wage obligations to Plaintiff and the collective action
members, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at its IHOP
restaurant located in Detroit, Michigan from April 2019 until
August 2019.
Janjer Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates as a restaurant. The
Company serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
Telephone: (269) 324-3000
Facsimile: (269) 324-3010
E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St., NE Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
JUUL LABS: Carlisle School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLISLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09538 (N.D. Cal., December 9, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Texas Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Carlisle Independent School District is a public school district
with its offices located on 8960 FM 13 in Henderson, Texas.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard N. Laminack, Esq.
Thomas W. Pirtle, Esq.
Buffy K. Martines, Esq.
Susan Earnest, Esq.
LAMINACK, PIRTLE & MARTINES
5020 Montrose Blvd., 9th Floor
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 292-2750
Facsimile: (713) 292-2755
E-mail: rickl@lpm-triallaw.com
tomp@lpm-triallaw.com
buffym@lpm-triallaw.com
susane@lpm-triallaw.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Capitol School Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS
PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-09541 (N.D. Cal., December 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Delaware Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Capital School District is a school district with its offices
located on 198 Commerce Way, Dover, Delaware.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, Esq.
Conor M. Kelly, Esq.
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
- and –
Philip C. Federico, Esq.
Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO & STATON, P.A.
The Paulton
1211 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
E-mail: pfederico@sfspa.com
- and –
Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq.
BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT LLC
1413 Savannah Rd, Suite 1
Lewes, DE 19958
E-mail: chase@bmbde.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, Oswego School Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSWEGO COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 308, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09478 (N.D. Cal., December
8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Illinois Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Oswego Community Unit School District 308 is a public school
district with its offices located on Route 71 in Oswego, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Waukegan School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
WAUKEGAN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT #60, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.,
ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES,
ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09521 (N.D. Cal., December 9, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Illinois Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Waukegan Community Unit School District #60 is a public school
district with its offices located on North Sheridan Road in
Waukegan, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Boss Sues Over Mislabeled Drink Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Boss, Linda Gunnett and Peggy Tatum, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. The Kraft Heinz Company and Kraft Heinz Foods Company
(LLC) Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06380 (N.D. Ill., November 30,
2021), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of various
states' consumer protection, unfair competition, and false
advertising statutes, and for common-law breach of warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by omission.
Kraft Heinz manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes "water enhancer" water-flavoring products packaged
under the trade name, "MiO." These Products are labeled as if they
contain solely natural flavors.
Plaintiffs dispute Kraft Heinz's claim that its products contain
solely natural flavors because they contain artificial ingredients.
[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Elliot, Esq.
ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, PC
2028 3rd Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 468-4865
Email: davidelliot@elliotfirm.com
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK: Stenschke FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICK STENSCHKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LUFTHANSA TECHNIK NORTH AMERICA
HOLDING CORP., Case No. 21-2-14907-0, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington in and for the King County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
December 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01646 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide lawful rest and
meal breaks, and refusal to reimburse work-related travel
expenses.
Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp. is a provider of
aircraft maintenance, repair, overhaul and modification services,
headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William H. Walsh, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 340-1000
E-mail: wwalsh@cozen.com
MAPLEVILLE FARMS: $55MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
granted the Appointed Counsel's motion for an interim fee award,
reimbursement of litigation expenses, and incentive awards to the
five named class representatives.
Introduction
In the lawsuit alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the chicken
industry against more than 20 Defendants, the Court appointed
interim counsel to represent a putative class of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs (the "DPPs" and their "Appointed Counsel"). It approved
settlements the Appointed Counsel negotiated with six defendant
corporate families, totaling $169,601,600, while the case continues
to proceed against the remaining Defendants.
Background
Without the benefit of a prior government investigation to guide
them, the Appointed Counsel filed the first complaint in the case
in September 2016. Since then, the Court has appointed counsel for
two additional classes and more than 100 entities have opted out of
the classes to file their own direct actions. The more than 20
defendants are represented by some of the most prominent law firms
in the country.
The Appointed Counsel successfully defended the case against a
significant motion to dismiss. They have shepherded the case
through extensive discovery, as is recounted in the declaration
supporting their motion, and is reflected in the more than 5,000
docket entries that make up the case, including 16 scheduling
orders. The Appointed Counsel have briefed numerous motions,
including a motion for class certification that is currently
pending.
The Appointed Counsel have been assisted by 20 other firms. The
Appointed Counsel and the assisting firms have submitted their
hours for the Court's review on a quarterly basis. Their collective
lodestar is 100,608.25 hours representing $50,928,159.75 in fees.
The Appointed Counsel seek a fee award of one-third of the
settlement total of $169,601,600, or $56,533,866.70. They also seek
payment of $4.5 million of the $5,104,566.48 in litigation expenses
they have incurred. And they seek a $25,000 incentive award for
each of the five named plaintiffs.
Discussion
A. Actual Agreements
The Appointed Counsel in the case do not have a fee agreement with
the named Plaintiffs other than that they would take a percentage
of any award. No other actual agreements have been presented to the
Court.
B. Risk of Non-Payment & Caliber of Class Counsel's Performance
The Appointed Counsel have devoted thousands of hours to the case.
Their performance to date has been exemplary. The road to some of
the settlements was eventually smoothed by later criminal
indictments. But the Appointed Counsel's work appears to have
prompted the government investigations that led to those
indictments, rather than the reverse. A substantial award is
warranted here as a proper incentive for high quality counsel to
take on complex cases, requiring a massive investment of time and
money, with such a high risk of non-payment.
C. Fee Awards in Comparable Cases
To the extent that courts in other circuits have awarded
percentages smaller than what Appointed Counsel seek in the case,
Judge Durkin finds those awards relatively unpersuasive. Most
persuasive are the large number of antitrust cases in the circuit
that have awarded one-third of the common fund as attorney's fees.
The fact that fee awards in antitrust cases in the circuit are
almost always one-third is a strong indication that this should be
considered the "market rate." There is simply little to no
precedent recommending anything other than an award of 33%. With
the only real evidence of the "market rate" being one-third, that
is what the Court will award.
D. Expenses
The Appointed Counsel seek $4.5 million out of $5,104,566.48 in
expenses. The Appointed Counsel "informed the class" that they
would not seek to recover the full amount of their expenses at this
time. The request for $4.5 million in expenses is granted. Judge
Durkin holds however that expenses should be deducted from the
common fund before the fee award percentage is applied. Therefore,
the Appointed Counsel will be paid fees of one-third of the
settlement fund minus $4.5 million in expenses.
E. Named Plaintiff Incentive Awards
Empirical evidence shows that incentive awards are now paid in most
class suits and average between $10-$15,000 per class
representative," Judge Durkin opines. The Appointed Counsel cite
one antitrust case from the district which awarded $15,000 to named
plaintiffs from a $90 million settlement -- In re Potash Antitrust
Litig., No. 1:08-cv-06910 (ECF No. 589) (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2013).
Without specific hour total indicating a higher award is
appropriate, and without evidence that the role of class
representative imposed anything other than a professional (as
opposed to a personal) burden, Judge Durkin will not ignore what
appears to be a customary maximum of a $15,000 incentive award.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Appointed Counsel's motion is granted as follows:
(1) expenses are awarded in the amount of $4.5 million; (2)
incentive awards in the amount of $15,000 are awarded to each of
the five class representatives; and (3) fees are awarded in the
amount of $55,008,866.67, which is one third of the settlement fund
after deducting the expenses and incentive awards.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3t45ctsp from
Leagle.com.
MCCORMICK TRUCKING: Keator FLSA Class Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARRIE KEATOR,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. MCCORMICK TRUCKING, INC., TRACIE MCCORMICK, INC.,
ACTION TRAILER SERVICES, INC., ROBERT MCCORMICK, and TRACIE
MCCORMICK, Case No. 3:21-cv-00605 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion and stipulation for conditional class certification
and notice to putative collective action members:
1. conditionally certifying following class of individuals in
accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All current and former dispatchers, schedulers,
transportation specialists and breakdown coordinators who
work or have worked for Defendants in Tennessee at any
time during the three years preceding the filing of the
Complaint through judgment;"
2. approving the Notice and Consent Forms for distribution to
potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and shall be used to opt into
this action; and
3. directing Defendants, within 21 days of the date this
Order, to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel
spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing
address, e-mail address, telephone number, dates of
employment, job title(s) and location of employment for
each current or former employee in the conditionally
certified class ("Class List");
Mccormick Trucking provides transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oO2zYt at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2677: Claims v. Fanduel in Daily Fantasy Sports Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: DAILY FANTASY SPORTS LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: All Cases, MDL No. 16-02677-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge
George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice the claims of the
Arbitration Plaintiffs asserted in the First Amended Master Class
Action Complaint against FanDuel and the FanDuel Payment Processor
Defendants.
On Nov. 27, 2019, the Court entered an order compelling all the
Plaintiffs in the action asserting claims against FanDuel, Inc. and
FanDuel Deposits, LLC (together, "FanDuel") and/or Paysafecard.com
USA Inc. and Vantiv, Inc. (together, "FanDuel Payment Processor
Defendants") -- with the exception of the Plaintiffs bringing
claims as family members of FanDuel users, and three Individual
Plaintiffs who validly opted out of arbitration with FanDuel (Peter
Johnson, Brackie Bryant, and Aissa Khirani) -- to binding
individual arbitration in accordance with FanDuel's Terms of Use
(the Plaintiffs subject to the Order referred to as the
"Arbitration Plaintiffs").
As stated in the parties' Joint Status Report dated Nov. 29, 2021,
there are no pending arbitrations arising out of the Order that
could return to the Court for further proceedings, and accordingly
no need for the action to remain open with respect to the
Arbitration Plaintiffs.
Judge O'Toole dismissed with prejudice the claims of the
Arbitration Plaintiffs asserted in the First Amended Master Class
Action Complaint against FanDuel and the FanDuel Payment Processor
Defendants. Such dismissal is without prejudice to any person
subject to the Order asserting a claim in individual arbitration
according to the terms of the applicable contract with FanDuel and
as otherwise provided by law.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwmt4ntn from Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Costanza Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DELVINA COSTANZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.
and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 615462/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., December 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.
The case arises from Defendant Midland Credit Management's debt
collection letter sent to the Plaintiff concerning her alleged debt
to Synchrony Bank. The Defendant's letter failed to provide
accurate information which led to the Plaintiff to believe that she
could no longer be sued for the debt alleged by the Defendant. The
Plaintiff did not pay this debt as it seemed to be time-barred. Had
the Defendant's letter provided accurate information, the Plaintiff
would have been provided enough information to make an informed
decision of whether to pay this debt first amongst an array of
other debt obligations, says the suit.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector based in New
York.
Midland Funding, LLC is a debt collector based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: TSaland@SteinSaksLegal.com
MUKHTAR INC: Underpays Gas Station Clerks, Ali Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MIRZA HYDER ALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYED ATIF UDDIN, SYED KHASHIF UDDIN,
MUKHTAR, INC., and AK EXPRESS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-04013 (S.D. Tex., December 9, 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.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a gas station clerk in
Texas.
Mukhtar, Inc. is an operator of gas stations located in Katy,
Texas.
AK Express, Inc. is an operator of gas stations located in Katy,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
430 W. Bell Street
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (713) 898-0982
E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com
MUNICIPAL CREDIT: Case Management Plan & Scheduling Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSA THOMPSON, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. MUNICIPAL CREDIT
UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-07600-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis
J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as
follows:
-- All parties do not consent to conducting all further
proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge,
including motions and trial. Any motion to amend or to join
additional parties shall be filed no later than Jan. 7,
2022.
-- Fact Discovery is due by Sept. 30, 2022.
-- Depositions shall be completed by Sept. 30, 2022.
-- Expert Discovery is due by Nov. 14, 2022.
-- Deposition is due by Nov. 14, 2022.
-- Discovery is due by Nov. 14, 2022.
-- Status Conference is set for Nov. 17, 2022 at 11:00 AM.
Municipal Credit is a state chartered credit union headquartered in
New York City, regulated under the authority of the National Credit
Union Administration.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GFHjdD at no extra charge.[CC]
MZL HOME: Malancea Suit Stayed Pending Lutfieva Settlement Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York stayed the case, VIORICA MALANCEA, Plaintiff
v. MZL HOME CARE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-00732
(CBA)(TAM)(E.D.N.Y.), pending the outcome of the state court review
of the fairness of the Lutfieva settlement.
Plaintiff Malancea objects to the Report and Recommendation issued
by Chief United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak granting a
stay in the action. The underlying suit is a purported collective
and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The current motion relates to Malancea's renewed motion to certify
a FLSA collective action, filed on Dec. 20, 2019. On Jan. 29, 2020,
MZL notified the Court that similar claims against it had been
settled in a state court action, Lutfieva v. MZL Home Care Agency,
LLC, No. 159740/2017 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). On Feb. 12, 2020, MZL
requested that this action be stayed while the state court parties
seek final approval of the settlement. Judge Amon referred the
motion for a stay to Magistrate Judge Pollak on Feb. 26, 2020.
Magistrate Judge Pollak issued her Report and Recommendation on
Nov. 10, 2020.
In that Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Pollak
recommended granting a stay pending the final approval of the
related state court settlement and denying Malancea's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action without prejudice.
On Dec. 8, 2020, Malancea filed objections to Magistrate Judge
Pollak's Report and Recommendation, primarily taking issue with
Magistrate Judge Pollak's decision to abstain under Colorado River
Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).
Malancea further objected that Magistrate Judge Pollak's Report and
Recommendation "appears to have been drafted without appreciation
of the complex facts and law that come into play when a defendant
company attempts a collusive reverse auction settlement." She
argues that Lutfieva's counsel colluded with the Defendants in
order to negotiate a settlement agreement that provides minimal
compensation to the prospective class.
Judge Amon has thoroughly reviewed Magistrate Judge Pollak's Report
and Recommendation as well as the Plaintiff's objections, and she
finds those objections to be without merit. She holds that contrary
to the Plaintiff's argument, Magistrate Judge Pollak did appreciate
"the complex facts and law" related to a "collusive reverse auction
settlement," and she ably demonstrated why the evidence here does
not evince a collusive reverse auction settlement. Moreover, an
independent review of the state court docket in Lutfieva reveals
that Lutfieva's counsel faithfully prosecuted their case through
discovery and belies Malancea's argument that "Lutfieva's counsel
barely conducted any discovery prior to entering settlement mode."
In addition, Malancea objects that "repeatedly in the R&R"
Magistrate Judge Pollak refers to "claims in Lutfieva's proposed
amended complaint as if that complaint were operative" and that
"Lutfieva forgot to add" Wage Theft Prevention Act claims to its
amended complaint or settlement agreement. But, Judge Amon finds
that Malancea's focus on the "proposed amended complaint"
misunderstands the "parallelism" inquiry required under Colorado
River. When analyzing whether the two cases are parallel for the
purposes of abstention under Colorado River, the relevant inquiry
is whether "there is a substantial likelihood that the state
litigation will dispose of all claims presented in the federal
case." Magistrate Judge Pollak's finding of parallelism was not
premised on an overlap of claims between Malancea's amended
complaint and Lutfieva's, but instead on the overlap between
Malancea's amended complaint and the preliminary settlement
agreement.
Finally, Malancea objects that Magistrate Judge Pollak "disregarded
the presumption to retain federal jurisdiction" in finding that a
stay under Colorado River is appropriate. This is not the case
either, Judge Amon points out. She says, Magistrate Judge Pollak
correctly noted that Colorado River abstention applies where
federal and state court proceedings are "parallel" and where
"exceptional circumstances" justify abstention -- the "'potential
for conflict' between a state and parallel federal action alone is
not enough to justify abstention."
As a result, Judge Amon adopts Magistrate Judge Pollak's
recommendation to stay the case pending the outcome of the state
court review of the fairness of the Lutfieva settlement. She also
adopts Magistrate Judge Pollak's recommendation to deny Malancea's
renewed motion for certification of a collective class, without
prejudice to renew if the state court rejects the proposed
settlement.
Magistrate Judge Pollak also recommended that Judge Amon denies the
motion to judicially estop the Defendants from asserting arguments
based on the Lutfieva case, and that she quashes the subpoenas and
grant a protective order in light of the stay. Malancea does not
specifically challenge these rulings in her objections to the R&R.
Although Malancea makes the general statement that Magistrate Judge
Pollak improperly resolved "the Other Several Motions," where a
party "makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply
reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the R&R only
for clear error."
Judge Amon has reviewed the record, and finding no clear error in
Magistrate Judge Pollak's recommendations on these motions, she
denies the motion for judicial estoppel and grants the motion to
quash the subpoenas and grants a protective order considering the
stay, without prejudice to renew the subpoenas should the state
court reject the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8m6w2x from Leagle.com.
NCB MANAGEMENT: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 1, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandler v. NCB Management
Services Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03587 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge James R. Cho entered an order on motion for extension of time
to complete discovery as follows:
-- If applicable, motion for Rule 23 March 1, 2022
class certification (Rule 23 motion)
shall be served by:
-- Opposition to Rule 23 motion shall March 15, 2022
be served by:
-- Reply to Rule 23 motion shall March 22, 2022
be served by:
NCB Management provides business process outsourcing services.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.[CC]
NEW DAY HOME: Ct. Enters Scheduling Order in McKinsey Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GWENDOLYN MCKINSEY v. NEW
DAY HOME CARE, INC., CREATIVE LIVING COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, CLEMENT
POWNALL, GRACE POWNALL, Case No. 3:21-cv-01284-VAB (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order that:
-- the Plaintiff may file motions to amend the pleadings until
December 15, 2021.
-- Initial disclosures shall be due by December 17, 2021.
-- The parties shall provide opposing counsel with a damage
analysis by June 3, 2022, or within thirty (30) days after
receipt of all documents and information sufficient
to support a damage claim, whichever is later.
-- Discovery on liability, special defenses, and class
certification shall be completed by July 1, 2022.
-- Any summary judgment motion against Plaintiff shall be
filed by August 12, 2022, or 30 days after the discovery
deadline, whichever is later.
-- Plaintiff may file a motion for conditional certification
of the FLSA collective claims until August 12, 2022, or
30 days after the discovery deadline, whichever is
later.
-- Plaintiff may file a motion for class certification or
collective-action certification until August 12, 2022, or
30 days after the discovery deadline, whichever is
later. Defendants may file any opposition by September 9,
2022. Any reply shall be filed by October 7, 2022.
-- The Court will host a status conference fifteen (15) days
after it rules on any motion for class certification or
collective-action certification. At this status conference,
the Court will set a deadline for a second phase of
discovery, if one is necessary, with respect to the merits
of the claims.
-- The parties will designate all trial experts and provide
opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any
issues on which they bear the burden of proof by a date
not later than two (2) months before the deadline for
completing all discovery.
-- The parties will designate all trial experts and provide
opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any
issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof by
a date not later than one month before the deadline for
completing all discovery.
-- The Joint Trial Memorandum shall be due within 30 days
after the Court rules on the last dispositive motion filed
in the case. If dispositive motions are not filed, the
Joint Trial Memorandum shall be filed within 60 days after
completion of all discovery.
-- Trial ready date will be 30 days after the Joint Trial
Memorandum is filed.
New Day Home is a home health agency in Worth, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m4dr2W at no extra charge.[CC]
NGL ENERGY: Ct. Enters Amended Sched Order for Class Cert. Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gary R. Underwood,
Successor Trustee for the James L. Price Revocable Living Trust, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. NGL Energy
Partners LP, Case No. 4:21-cv-00135-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Claire V. Eagan entered amended scheduling order for class
certification issues:
Event Scheduled Deadlines
-- Documents previously produced April 13, 2022
by parties shall be deemed
authenticated except as to
those objected to:
-- Class Certification Motion May 13, 2022
filed with all supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures
-- Class Certification Response July 13, 2022
filed with all supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures
-- Class Certification Reply August 12, 2022
filed with any rebuttal
evidence, including rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any
-- Class Certification Discovery August 12, 2022
Cutoff
-- Parties are encouraged to August 26, 2022
complete all merits discovery
by this date as well Class
Certification Hearing
NGL Energy is a diversified midstream MLP that provides multiple
services to producers and end-users, including transportation,
storage, blending and marketing of crude oil, NGLs, refined
products/renewables, and water solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DOaxoT at no extra charge.[CC]
NINE ENERGY: Misclassifies Field Operators, Filer Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Filer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nine Energy Service, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-01114-PRW (W.D. Okla., November 23, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's conduct of misclassifying Plaintiff as exempt from
the Fair Labor Standards Act and failing to pay time and one-half
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during
each seven-day workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field operator from
January 15, 2018 until July 15, 2019.
Nine Energy Service, Inc. provides oil-field services. The Company
offers on-shore completion and production services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
OLD NAVY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Harris Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JONELLE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLD NAVY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-09946 (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2021) seeks to recover
underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for
Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees pursuant to
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Old Navy as an hourly sales
representative from 2018 through approximately January 2021.
Old Navy, LLC was founded in 1994. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of clothing, furnishings, and accessories
for men, women, and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
PATHWAY HEALTH: Abel Class Suit Seeks FLSA Final Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Abel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, v. Pathway Health Services,
Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-01307-PAM-LIB (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting her motion for class action
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and for Final Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Certification.
Pathway Health is a professional management and consulting
organization serving clients in the long-term care and post-acute
care industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DNuTi4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: srey@nka.com
kkienzle@nka.com
PETCO ANIMAL: Knabl Sues Over Store Employees' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY KNABL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC. and PETCO ANIMAL
SUPPLIES STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09698
(S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure
to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff for all hours worked due
to their common unlawful policies of deterring workers from
recording time worked in excess of their scheduled hours, and
altering workers' time records to reduce the number of hours for
which they are paid, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
store employee from approximately December 2017 to May 2021.
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. owns and operates pet stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
Zijian "Coco" Guan, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick Bid for Class Certification Nixed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS REMICK, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Berle M. Schiller, entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs-Petitioners' motion for class certification as moot in
view of Plaintiffs-Petitioners' first amended class action
complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oO4356 at no extra charge.[CC]
PIZZA ON STONE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Baez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO BAEZ and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. PIZZA ON STONE LLC d/b/a
ADRIENNE'S PIZZA BAR, PETER POULAKAKOS, FRANK CASANO, and NICK
ANGELIS Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09714 (S.D.N.Y., November 22,
2021) is brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendants
unpaid wages, including overtime compensation due to time-shaving,
unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Mr. Baez was hired to work as a cook for the Defendants' restaurant
from May 2006 to March 2020.
Pizza on Stone LLC, d/b/a Adrienne's Pizza Bar, is a pizza
restaurant in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect PII, PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
K.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-09563 (C.D. Cal., December 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, and
violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, the California Consumer Records Act, and the Unfair
Competition Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the highly
sensitive personal information of its patients, including those who
visited Planned Parenthood for reproductive or sexual health
services. Between approximately October 9, 2021, and October 17,
2021, an unauthorized party or parties accessed the Defendant's
computer network, installed ransomware, and exfiltrated patient
files. The Defendant failed to implement adequate data security
systems despite being previously hacked, in both 2015 and 2020.
Further, although the Defendant learned of this hack on October 17,
2021, it did not notify patients of the attack until November 30,
2021. As a result of the Defendant's alleged data security
failures, the Plaintiff and Class members confront a significant
threat of identity theft and other harm.
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles is a provider of reproductive health
care and sexual health services based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon Grille, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
PWP TUCSON: MacMillan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald MacMillan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PWP Tucson, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00474-LCK (D. Ariz., November 22, 2021) is a collective
action against the Defendant for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and minimum wage
provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
Mr. MacMillan was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately July of 2021 until October of
2021.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a
result of Defendant's alleged policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and others similarly situated sufficient minimum wages
under the FLSA, and the A.R.S. within the applicable statutory
limitations period.
PWP Tucson, LLC owns and operates Papa John's franchises in Pima
County, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
RADEAS LLC: Riner FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATELIND RINER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RADEAS LLC, Case No. 21 CVS 14979, was
removed from the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
on December 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00178-D to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices
Act, and the public policy of North Carolina.
Radeas LLC is a medical laboratory in North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Beth A. Stanfield, Esq.
Rachel M. Blunk, Esq.
Laura K. Greene, Esq.
FORREST FIRM, P.C.
105 Grace Street, Suite 101
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: (910) 408-3260
E-mail: beth.stanfield@forrestfirm.com
Rachel.blunk@forrestfirm.com
Katie.greene@forrestfirm.com
RAINBOW AIR: Loya Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR LOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW AIR CONDITIONING, INC. and JOSE R.
GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 139990863 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud.
Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., December 8, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and for retaliation under Florida Statutes.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from February 8, 2021 until his termination in October of 2021.
Rainbow Air Conditioning, Inc. is an air conditioning and heating
services company in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
RANCHO MURIETA: Segismundo Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA SEGISMUNDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RANCHO MURIETA COUNTRY CLUB and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00308730, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on December 9, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-01166 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to accurately pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to provide wages when due,
failure to provide gratuities, and constructive discharge and other
adverse employment actions.
Rancho Murieta Country Club is a country club in Rancho Murieta,
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara A. Cotter, Esq.
Alexis Gabrielson, Esq.
Anahit Davtyan, Esq.
COOK BROWN, LLP
2407 J Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95816
Telephone: (916) 442-3100
Facsimile: (916) 442-4227
E-mail: bcotter@cookbrown.com
agabrielson@cookbrown.com
adavtyan@cookbrown.com
SEA WORLD: Bendorf Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THERESA BENDORF, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SEA WORLD LLC, doing business as
SEAWORLD SAN DIEGO or AQUATICA SAN DIEGO; SEAWORLD PARKS &
ENTERTAINMENT, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00036521, 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 9, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02061-AJB-LL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay vested vacation and paid time off
wages upon termination, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to recall laid-off employees, and unlawful
business acts and practices.
Sea World LLC, doing business as SeaWorld San Diego or Aquatica San
Diego, is an owner and operator of a theme park in San Diego,
California.
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment is an American theme park and
entertainment company headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
SESCO CEMENT: Davila FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Welders
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIANO DAVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SESCO CEMENT, CORP., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00342 (S.D. Tex., December 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated welders overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mr. Davila was hired by the Defendant as an hourly welder from
approximately April 2020 until January 2021.
Sesco Cement, Corp. is a cement manufacturer and construction
project company, headquartered in Houston, Harris County, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SONTAG & HYMAN: Perl Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PERL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONTAG & HYMAN P.C. and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06814 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.
The case arises from the debt collection letters that the Plaintiff
received from the Defendants concerning his alleged debt to Crown
Realty. The Defendants' notices did not conform to Section 1692g of
FDCPA because though the correspondence does provide some of the
necessary information to the Plaintiff as required, it is
completely overshadowed by additional statements. As the
correspondence contained additional documents that were
specifically labeled as a "Notice," it is clear that they give the
impression that the Plaintiff must comply with the same, thus
frustrating the Plaintiff's ability to properly and knowingly
dispute the amount alleged.
Sontag & Hyman P.C. is a debt collector based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@SteinSaksLegal.com
SPARC GROUP: Zuniga FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SPARC GROUP LLC d/b/a AEROPOSTALE,
Case No. CACE-21-020242, was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on December 9,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-62479 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful telephonic
sales calls without prior express written consent in violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
SPARC Group LLC, doing business as Aeropostale, is a retailer of
apparel and accessories, with its principal place of business in
Lyndhurst, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Josh Migdal, Esq.
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
yaniv@markmigdal.com
eservice@markmigdal.com
ST TAMMANY PARISH: Ct. Modifies Amended Scheduling Order in Baqer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER, ET AL., v. ST
TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00980-WBV-DPC
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Wendy B. Vitter entered an order
modifying Court's Amended Scheduling Order:
1. continuing the February 7, 2022 trial date and January 13,
2022 Pre-Trial Conference date, set forth in the Court's
Amended Scheduling Order; and
2. continuing the remaining deadlines set forth in the
Court's Amended Scheduling Order without date, and will be
re-set after the Court issues a ruling on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gy5V85 at no extra charge.[CC]
STEVEN STROM: Court Tosses Gawlik Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jan M. Gawlik v. Steven
Strom, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00743 (D. Con.), the Hon. Judge
Sarah Merriam entered an order denying motion to certify a
"nationwide class" of:
""incarcerated disabled individuals" who seek to proceed in
forma pauperis in civil actions filed in federal court"."
The Court said, ""A party seeking class certification bears the
burden of demonstrating that the class satisfies the prerequisites
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation." Reese v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC , 202
F.R.D. 83, 90 (D. Conn. 2001). The Plaintiff has not met that
burden. The question presented in this case is not the ability of
disabled inmates to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court. It
is, instead, the question of whether certain state actors
retaliated against plaintiff, as an individual, for contesting
their efforts to seek reimbursement from his Social Security
benefits for the costs of his incarceration."
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
SUPERIOR KNIFE: Declaratory Judgment Sought in Garfias BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY of AMERICA and HANOVER INSURANCE
COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERIOR KNIFE, LLC and FABIO GARFIAS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06586 (N.D. Ill., December 9, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment.
In this class action, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they
have no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Superior Knife under
Citizens' Commercial Lines Policies in connection with the
underlying putative class action suit captioned, Fabio Garfias v.
Superior, Case No. 21 CH 03660, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. Defendant Superior Knife has requested coverage
from Citizens and Hanover for the Garfias lawsuit. Mr. Garfias
alleged that the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses
employees' biometric data in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
Citizens Insurance Company of America is an insurance company, with
its principal place of business in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Hanover Insurance Company is an insurance firm, with its principal
place of business in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Superior Knife, LLC is a supplier of commercial and food service
equipment, with its principal place of business in Elk Grove
Village, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Goldwater, Esq.
Kelly Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 345-1718
E-mail: Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com
Kelly.Ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
TELIGENT INC: Class Deal in Police Fund Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION FUND AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. TELIGENT, INC. and JASON GRENFELGARDNER, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03354-VM (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves
the motion of Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System, on behalf of itself and the Class, for final approval of
the proposed class action Settlement and approval of the proposed
Plan of Allocation for proceeds of the Settlement.
Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Judge Marrero finds and concludes that due and
adequate notice was directed to Persons who are Class Members who
could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them of the
Plan of Allocation and their right to object thereto, and a full
and fair opportunity was accorded to Persons who are Class Members
to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation. There were no
objections to the Plan of Allocation.
Judge Marrero finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, set
forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, provides a fair, reasonable, and equitable basis upon which
to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund among eligible
Class Members.
Judge Marrero finds that the Plan of Allocation is, in all
respects, fair and reasonable to the Class, and approves the Plan
of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Judgment & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4da6zehr from Leagle.com.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Boettger Slams Invasive Collection Robo-Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Boettger, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trueaccord Corp. and LVNV Funding
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01370, (E.D. Wis., November 30,
2021), seeks injunction, actual, statutory and treble damages,
attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit and such
further and other relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Wisconsin Consumer Act.
LVNV Funding and Trueaccord are debt collectors who were assigned
to collect a Synchrony Bank obligation owed by Boettger that went
default. In June 2021, she started receiving collection calls from
TrueAccord in an attempt to collect the subject debt. She then
requested that TrueAccord cease its collection calls yet TrueAccord
continued to place collection calls using an artificial or
prerecorded voice without her consent. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Settlement Deal in Santiago Wins Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUGUSTINO SANTIAGO, LILLY
LEYVA, GUILLERMO CREAMER, and MARIA ACEITUNO, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan, v.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Case No. 1:20-cv-21784-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
parties' class action settlement, as follows:
1. Settlement Class Findings and Certification:
Solely for the purposes of the Settlement, the Court finds
that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(1) of the
Federal Rules Civil Procedure have been met as to the
Settlement Class, and hereby certifies the Settlement
Class, which is defined as:
The University of Miami Settlement Class:
"All persons who participated in the University of Miami
Retirement Savings Plan, the Defined Contribution
Retirement Plan for Faculty of the University of Miami,
the University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan II, the
UHealth Retirement Savings Plan III, and/or the University
of Miami Supplemental Retirement Annuity Program at any
time from May 1, 2014 through August 31, 2021 (the
"Settlement Class Period"), including any Beneficiary of a
deceased person who participated in any of the Plans at
any time during the Settlement Class Period, and any
Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified
Domestic Relations Order who participated in any of the
Plans at any time during the Settlement Class Period."
Excluded from this Settlement Class are any individuals
who were members of the Plans' fiduciary committees during
the Settlement Class Period.
2. Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel:
The Court appoints the named Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives to represent the Settlement Class, and the
law firms Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., McKay Law, LLC, and
Justice For Justice, LLC, as Class Counsel.
3. Preliminary Findings Regarding Proposed Settlement:
The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement is
sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant
sending notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class
Members.
4. Final Fairness Hearing:
A hearing is scheduled in Court Room 11-1 of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, located at 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida
33128, before United District Court Judge Darrin P.
Gayles, at 10:00 A.M. on April 5, 2022 (the "Final
Fairness Hearing"), to determine, among other issues:
5. Establishment of Qualified Settlement Fund:
A common fund is agreed to by the Settling Parties in the
Settlement Agreement and is hereby established and shall be known
as the Santiago v. University of Miami ERISA Litigation Settlement
Fund (the "Settlement Fund"). The Settlement Fund shall be a
"qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of Treasury
Regulations section 1.468- 1(a) promulgated under section 468B of
the Internal Revenue Code.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31S3OgE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher J. Boran, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS, BOCKIUS LLP
110 N Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
E-mail: christopher.boran@morganlewis.com
USF REDDAWAY: Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. USF REDDAWAY INC., YRC WORLDWIDE,
INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-606-2021-7734, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
December 9, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02270-TLN-DB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to accurately pay overtime wages; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to
pay the minimum wage; failure to pay all wages owed at termination;
failure to timely pay all wages due; failure to furnish an
accurate, itemized wage statement upon payment of wages; failure to
keep complete and accurate payroll records; failure to reimburse
for all necessary business-related expenses; and unfair business
practices.
USF Reddaway Inc. is an American less than truckload trucking
company based in Tualatin, Oregon.
YRC Worldwide, Inc. is a transport company headquartered in
Overland Park, Kansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
Pankit J. Doshi, Esq.
Saniya Ahmed, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
415 Mission St., Suite 5600
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (628) 218-3800
Facsimile: (628) 877-0107
E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com
pdoshi@mwe.com
sahmed@mwe.com
WAL-MART PUERTO RICO: Bid to Certify Class in Kress Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRESS STORES OF PUERTO RICO, INC., ANTONIO BAYON and
ELBA CASIANO d/b/a TIENDA JUNELBA, J. PICA Y CIA, INC. d/b/a CAPRI,
J.M.J. APPLIANCES CORP., VALIJA GITANA, INC., and HUMBERTO VIDAL,
INC., Plaintiffs v. WAL-MART PUERTO RICO, INC., COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, WALGREEN OF PUERTO RICO, INC., PUERTO RICO CVS
PHARMACY, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-01464-WGY (D.P.R.),
Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico denied the Local Merchants' motion to certify
class.
Introduction
Plaintiffs Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. and other Puerto Rican
merchants (collectively, the "Local Merchants") filed the action in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, alleging
unfair competition against Defendants Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc.,
Costco Wholesale Corporation, Walgreen of Puerto Rico, Inc., and
Puerto Rico CVS Pharmacy, LLC (collectively, the "Megastores").
Following the Megastores' removal to the Court, the Local Merchants
moved to remand, arguing that the "Home State Exception" and the
"Local Controversy Exception" to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA") strip the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The
Court denied the motion, ruling that none of the CAFA exceptions
apply.
On June 24, 2021, the Local Merchants filed a motion to certify a
class comprised of "local merchants who refrained from operating
and/or from selling items that were not of first necessity or
nonessential in nature, as required by the Executive Orders." On
Nov. 4, 2021, Judge Young held oral argument on the Local
Merchants' motion to certify. When arguments concluded, he denied
the Local Merchants' motion to certify. The Memorandum of Decision
explains his reasoning.
Procedural History
On Aug. 6, 2020, the Local Merchants, by themselves and on behalf
of a putative class, filed a complaint against the Megastores in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. On Aug.
19, 2020, the Local Merchants amended their complaint.
On Sept. 8, 2020, Defendant Costco removed the case to the Court,
and moved to sever. In response, the Local Merchants moved to
remand. On Dec. 2, 2020, the Megastores moved to dismiss. The
parties have fully briefed both motions. On April 22, 2021, the
Court denied the Local Merchants' motion to remand and took the
motion to dismiss under advisement. On May 3, 2021, the Court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Megastores' motion to dismiss.
On June 24, 2021, the Local Merchants filed a motion to certify a
class. On July 8, 2021, the Megastores submitted a response in
opposition to the motion to certify.
A plaintiff who seeks to certify a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), must demonstrate that (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Once
subsection 23(a)'s prerequisites are satisfied, the plaintiff must
then demonstrate that the proposed class action fits into one of
the three categories set forth under Rule 23(b) to be maintained.
The Local Merchants argue that their class falls under subsection
(b)(1) and (3) or that, "prosecuting separate actions" would create
risk of "inconsistent or varying adjudications" and "questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members."
The first question before the Court at the Nov. 4, 2021 hearing,
therefore, was whether the Local Merchants have sufficiently
established each and every prerequisite set forth by Rule 23(a).
Judge Young answered this question in the negative because the
Local Merchants failed to establish that there is a question of law
or fact common to all members. Accordingly, he ruled that the Local
Merchants have failed to establish a proper class under subsection
23(a).
The second question was whether the Local Merchants could satisfy
CAFA's definition of class action by filing it under a state
statute that is "similar" to subsection 23(a). The applicable state
law rule in Puerto Rico is Rule 20.1 of the Puerto Rico Rules of
Civil Procedure, which has language identical to the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a). While this law is "substantially" similar
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), the Local Merchants not
only failed to "plainly invoke" the state rule in their complaint,
but also did not meet the requirements of the state law rule for
the same reasons they failed to meet the requirements of 23(a).
Thus, the Local Merchants' motion to certify is denied.
Analysis
Judge Young initially discusses the absence of common questions of
fact and then discusses the dearth of common questions of law.
First, there are not common questions of fact among the class
members. The different putative class members are distinguishable
by the wide range of services and merchandise being offered which
include sprinklers, auto parts, liquor, toys, painting services,
legal services, restaurants, and dry cleaners. It follows that each
putative member could not have been harmed by the allegedly
prohibited sales of each Megastore because, among other reasons,
they do not sell the same merchandise. Therefore, as has been
established by several courts, within and outside the First
Circuit, no common questions of fact exist when the surrounding
circumstances and facts relevant to each class member differ
widely.
Second, there are not common questions of law for the putative
class. At the Nov. 4, 2021 hearing, Judge Young ruled that the
resolution of a "common" legal issue was dependent on factual
determinations that would differ for each putative class plaintiff,
and thus, that a common issue of law did not exist for the purposes
of Rule 23(a)(2). The Local Merchants seek to certify a class of
9,000 businesses in Puerto Rico that "refrained from operating
and/or from selling items that were not of first necessity or
essential in nature, as required by the Executive Orders."
Common questions of law do not exist, however, "merely" because
putative class members "have all suffered a violation of the same
provision of law," or in the case, a violation of the same
Executive Order. This problem is precisely what precludes class
certification here: whether the Local Merchants were the victims of
a tort, unjust enrichment, or entitled to recover in equity -- the
claims brought by the Local Merchants -- depends on individualized
inquiries regarding the fairness of commercial acts as to very
different kinds of businesses. The Local Merchants have not
proposed a common question of law simply by raising claims that are
applicable to the injuries all the Local Merchants have suffered.
Therefore, Judge Young held that the Local Merchants had failed to
demonstrate a question of fact or law common to all putative
members as required by subsection 23(a).
Finally, as mentioned, the other path to satisfy CAFA's definition
of a putative class is for the action to be filed under a state
statute that is "similar" to Rule 23. 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(1)(B). The Local Merchants, however, similarly do not
satisfy this path for meeting CAFA's requirements for two reasons.
First, the Local Merchants' action was not "filed under" a state
statute that is similar to subsection 23(a). Second, even if their
action was properly filed under Puerto Rico's class action statute,
the Local Merchants would have still failed to meet the statutory
requirements for class certification.
Rule 20.1 is identical to Rule 23(a) and sets forth the same four
prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy.
It follows that since the Local Merchants have failed to satisfy
the commonality requirement under Rule 23, they have likewise
failed to establish it under Rule 20.1. Because the questions
essential to the determination of the Local Merchants' claims are
not subject to class wide resolution, the Local Merchants' proposed
class fails to satisfy the commonality requirement of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a). Since a class must satisfy all four
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) to be
certified, class certification was denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Young denied the Local Merchants'
motion to certify.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2021 Memorandum of Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/wvj4yjx9 from Leagle.com.
WALMART INC: Johnson CHRIA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 21CV387540, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on December 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05380 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act by denying
employment due to job applicants' prior criminal convictions.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 419-2149
E-mail: rquackenboss@HuntonAK.com
- and –
Thomas R. Waskom, Esq.
Christy E. Kiely, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
951 E. Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 788-8403
E-mail: twaskcom@HuntonAK.com
ckiely@HuntonAK.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Weindling Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH WEINDLING, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a Delaware
Corporation; WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV42907 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 22, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' failure to provide accurate, itemized
wage statements, reimburse business expenses, pay all wages due
upon termination, and unlawful kickbacks, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Ms. Weindling began working for the Defendants in California as a
WBS financial advisor from March 28, 2018 to the present.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA operates as a bank. The Bank offers online and
mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and
retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. Wells Fargo
Bank serves commercial, retail, and institutional customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dominic J. Messiha, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DOMINIC J. MESSIHA, PC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 650-8580
E-mail: Dominic@MessihaLegal.com
YOUTH SERVICES: Granison Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER GRANISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUTH SERVICES INTERNATIONAL INC.,
d/b/a POMPANO YOUTH TREATMENT CENTER, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-021750 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
December 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
retaliatory discharge and unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the Florida's Whistleblower's Act and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a youth care worker from
November 1, 2019 through September 18, 2020.
Youth Services International Inc., doing business as Pompano Youth
Treatment Center, is provider of treatment programs for troubled
youth in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
Daniel H. Hunt, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Courthouse Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgpattomeys.com
dhunt@rgpattorneys.com
ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES: Graham Sues Over Operators' Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-05484-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, November 24, 2021) challenges
policies and practices of the Defendant that violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act as well as the Ohio Rev. Code by failing to pay
overtime compensation for all of the hours Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees worked over 40 each workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately June
1998 to July 2021 as an operator.
Zekelman Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes steel pipes
and tubes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
ZIMMER BIOMET: Karl Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES KARL, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, v.
ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER US,
INC., a Delaware corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company; and BIOMET, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. finally approving the Settlement Agreement;
2. certifying, for settlement purposes, the proposed
Settlement Class under Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and (e);
3. finding the class notice as implemented satisfied Rule 23
and due process;
4. finally appointing the Plaintiff as the Settlement Class
Representative;
5. finally appointing as Lead Counsel Jason Lohr of Lohr
Ripamonti & Segarich LLP, and as class counsel Roberto
Ripamonti of Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich LLP and Denis Kenny
and John Lough of Scherer Smith & Kenny LLP, each as
counsel for the Settlement Class under Rule 23(g); and
6. finally appointing CPT Group as the Settlement
Administrator.
The principal terms of the Settlement provide for the following:
1. Certification of a Settlement Class defined as:
"any person who, during the period commencing June 24,
2015, through the date on which preliminary approval of
the class settlement is granted by the Court [July 15,
2021, Order Granting Preliminary Settlement Approval
("Preliminary Approval Order"), was hired or otherwise
engaged as an independent contractor for the purposes of
solicitation or sales of Zimmer Biomet products and/or
services in California by Zimmer US, Inc., Biomet U.S.
Reconstruction, LLC, and Biomet Biologics, LLC, or any one
of them."
2. The transition of sales representatives to employee status
by either January 6, 2022 or 30 days after the Effective
Date, whichever date is later.
3. A non-reversionary Class Settlement Amount of
$7,380,482.10.
On July 15, 2021, this Court granted preliminary approval of the
Amended Class Action Settlement and Release and approved
distribution of Notice to all Class Members. Class Members were
given 60 days to opt out or object to the Settlement ("Response
Deadline"). Now that the Response Deadline has passed, the
Plaintiff James Karl is pleased to report that to date: (1) no
Class Members have opted out of the Settlement Class; (2) no Class
Members have objected to the Settlement; (3) and the entire Net
Settlement Amount will be disbursed to all 251 Class Members
(hereinafter, the "Settlement Class Members" or "Class Members").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 9, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dNmQqU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Lohr, Esq.
Roberto Ripamonti, Esq.
LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
140 Geary Street, 4th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 683-7266
Facsimile: (415) 683-7267
E-mail: jason.lohr@lrllp.com
roberto.ripamonti@lrllp.com
- and -
Denis S. Kenny, Esq.
John B. Lough, Jr., Esq.
SCHERER SMITH & KENNY LLP
140 Geary Street, 7th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1099
Facsimile: (415) 433-9434
E-mail: denis@sfcounsel.com
john@sfcounsel.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 ***