/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220112.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 3
Headlines
ALFI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 31 Deadline
ALIERA COS: Judge Orders Nearly $4.7MM Judgment in Class Action
AMAZON.COM INC: Must Face Employees' Data Privacy Class Action
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Criminal Background Screening Practices
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Stayed
AMERICAN TELECONFERENCING: Baker ERISA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
ANTHEM INC: Two Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
ATRIA SENIOR: To "Vigorously Defend" Wage-and-Hour Class Action
BAYER AG: Faces Investor Class Action Over Monsanto Takeover
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of February 7 Deadline
BLACKBERRY LTD: Judge Allows Investors' Class Action to Proceed
BOIRON INC: Chappell Questions Therapeutic Claim on Ointment
BRAVO NATURAL: Bunn Suit Seeks Overtime Premiums
BUYK CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Bikers, Perez Claims
BYTE-DANCE LTD: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Files Class Action
CALIFORNIA STATE: Lawyers Fail to Obtain Replacement LTC Policy
CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Heitzman Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to D. Kan.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over V8 Juice Nutrition Claims
CANADA: Indian Day Scholars Claims Filing Deadline Set on Oct. 2023
CHEGG INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CINDY MARTEN: Angel Must File Class Cert. Bid by April 15
COLES COUNTY ATTORNEYS: Wins Bid to Stay Class Cert. in Wolfe Suit
DELOITTE TOUCHE: Knight Must File Class Status Bid by May 10
DRIVEN FORCE: Ivery Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Courier Drivers
EOG RESOURCES: Wake Energy Seeks Class Certification
EQUIFAX INFO: Filing of Class Cert Briefs Extended to Jan. 26
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Fodera Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces Suit Over Rental Application Fees
F. HOFFMANN-LA: Faces Nelson Suit Over Side Effects of Mefloquine
FLORIDA POWER: Must Face Class Action Over Power Outages
FROST BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Overdraft Fees
GENERAC POWER: Faces Class Action Over Generators' Safety Defect
GENERAC POWER: Unlawfully Collects Inspection Fee, McMahon Claims
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bartholomew Suit Removed to E.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Class Action May Reveal Search Engine Payment to Apple
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Conditional Certification Briefs Sought
HALLMARK BEHAVIORAL: Faces Hudson Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Ariz.
HEBEI TIANKAI: Faces Wang Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Class Action Over Securities Violations Ongoing
JOVANI FASHION: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUSTO LABS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KE HOLDINGS: ADS Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cervantes Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dusza Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Goldis Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Travera Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
LA RANCHERA INC: Lagunas Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
LA'JAMES INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Student Loans
LG ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over RESU Home Solar Batteries
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Judge Allows Bread Price-Fixing Suit to Proceed
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over July 2021 Sewage Spill
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ERISA Fee
MASTERCARD INT'L: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status Order
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Putnam Sues Over Opioid Crisis in Florida
MEADE DIGITAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
META MATERIALS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 4 Deadline
META PLATFORMS: Tort Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIRACLE FAITH: Key TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
MOVE HOLDINGS: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
NATIONAL CREDIT: Swanson Seeks to Certify "No Consent" Class
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Fans' Class Action Demands Return to New York
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Malcolm Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Reply
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadline in Bafford Suit
OLD NAVY: Class Settlement Excludes Purchases Made in Missouri
PALISADES INSURANCE: Brown Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
PANEL SPECIALISTS: Danos Seeks Unpaid Wages, Slams Retaliation
PLAID INC: $58MM Privacy Settlement Hearing Set for May 12
PLY GEM: Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
PRATT & WHITNEY: Durbin Sues Over Antitrust Violations
PROCOLLECT INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FDCPA Violations
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Suits Over Secret Benzene Recall Pile Up
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Class Status Hearing Set for Feb. 28
QUESTFLEET LLC: Toye Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
RCX LLC: Thompson Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
RIOT GAMES: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action for $100-MM
RITCHIE TRUCKING: Imber Sues Over ESOP Losses Due to Stock Sale
ROLLINS INC: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plans
ROYAL WINNIPEG: Settles Bruce Monk Class Action for $10 Million
RUSHMORE LOAN: Derogatis Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to D.N.J.
SAHARA PAINTING: Rodriguez FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SANOFI SA: Families of Depakine Victims Can Join Class Action
SANOFI SA: French Court Allows Depakine Class Action to Proceed
SARAHS SILKS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATE FARM: Bid for Protective Order Withdrawn
STATE FARM: Sisia Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification
SUNSHINE HEALTH: Doyle Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SUREFIRE LLC: Contreras Suit Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Massive Data Breach
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of March 8 Deadline
THOR 1566: Saur Sues Over Hazardous Building-Wide Violations
TREADMAXX TIRE: Powell Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Judge Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
UNITED STATES: NCLA Sues Over Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate
WALMART INC: Goldstein Files Suit in S.D. New York
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Arcilla Sues Over Data Breach
WOK 1: Buruca Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Copyright Lawsuit
ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Christensen Suit Removed to S.D. California
[*] Alston & Bird Attorney Discusses SPAC-Related Class Actions
[*] Seyfarth's 18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report Discussed
*********
ALFI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 31 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 4 disclosed thata
class action lawsuit has been filed against Alfi, Inc. ("Alfi" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALF) (NASDAQ: ALFIW) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased Alfi common stock or
warrants pursuant to the Company's May 4, 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO") or securities between May 4, 2021 and November 15,
2021.
All investors who purchased shares of Alfi, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of against Alfi, Inc. you
may, no later than January 31, 2022, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
shares of Alfi, Inc.
According to the filed Complaint, on October 28, 2021, the Company
disclosed that the Company's Board of Directors ("Board") had
placed the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Technology
Officer, and Chief Financial Officer "on paid administrative leave
and authorized an independent internal investigation regarding
certain corporate transactions and other matters," and had
subsequently terminated its Chief Technology Officer. Then, on
November 1, 2021, the Company disclosed its Chair of the Audit
Committee had resigned from the Board and that its internal
investigation resulted from "the Company's purchase of a
condominium for a purchase price of approximately $1.1 million" and
"the Company's commitment to sponsor a sports tournament in the
amount of $640,000," both of which "were undertaken by the
Company's management without sufficient and appropriate
consultation with or approval by the Board."
On November 15, 2021, the Company disclosed it "received a letter
from the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its
affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an
ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC."
Further, the Company should preserve documents that "relate or
refer to the condominium or the sports tournament sponsorship
identified in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
November 1, 2021, or financial reporting and disclosure controls,
policies or procedures."
Subsequently, on November 16, 2021, the Company filed a notice of
its inability to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2021. The stock now
trades near $3.00 per share, after trading as high as $22.50 per
share within the class period on June 28, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law
and ethical rules. [GN]
ALIERA COS: Judge Orders Nearly $4.7MM Judgment in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janie Slaven, writing for Commonwealth Journal, reports that a
Lexington attorney with ties to Pulaski County recently won a
multimillion judgment for his clients in a federal class action
lawsuit.
Jerome P. "Jay" Prather, grandson of the late Somerset attorney
John Prather Sr. and nephew of Pulaski Circuit Judge John Prather
Jr., is a partner in the Lexington-based firm of Garmer & Prather
-- which sued The Aliera Companies on behalf of clients who had
contracted with its subsidiaries for health coverage.
After representatives of The Aliera Companies reportedly failed to
appear in Lexington's U.S. District Court multiple times, Senior
Judge Joseph M. Hood declared the company's claims of selling
health care sharing ministry plans to be inadequate and they should
have been subjected to Kentucky insurance laws. Though health-care
sharing ministry (HCSM) plans aren't subject to the same
regulations as insurance, since members share medical expenses
among themselves, they still have to meet strict requirements.
The Garmer & Prather firm gave as two examples of such requirements
that HCSMs under federal law must have been in existence and
continually sharing health care costs since 1999, and under
Kentucky law, all members of an HCSM must be members of the same
denomination or religion.
Judge Hood ruled Aliera, which was founded in 2015, didn't meet
those requirements -- ordering a nearly $4.7 million judgment.
"Aliera and its partners have taken advantage of hundreds of
Kentuckians, many of whom trusted the company because it professed
Christian beliefs," Prather said. "Aliera's customers sought
affordable healthcare coverage to protect their families in times
of need. But when those times of need came, Aliera was more likely
to shut the door in the face of its own customers. This ruling by
Judge Hood is the first step in helping those families recover what
they have lost."
According to the lawsuit, Aliera marketed and administered health
care plans for Unity HealthShare and Trinity HealthShare --
companies that were purported to be health-care sharing ministries.
Judge Hood's ruling in late November pertains to Aliera's
partnership with Trinity and includes an aggregate judgment
totaling $4,696,124.
Court records indicate that Trinity filed for bankruptcy in July.
The federal lawsuit is ongoing in regard to other plans which were
sold through Unity, which has rebranded as OneShare Health.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that Aliera sold plans to
potentially thousands of Kentuckians and kept 84 percent of their
payments. While insurance companies are required to pay out 80
percent of their premiums, that law doesn't apply to health care
cost-sharing companies.
Aliera, however, denies that it was a health care cost-sharing
company.
"It is a for-profit entity that contracted with Unity and then
Trinity (through its subsidiaries) to market memberships in their
sharing programs and to create processes to facilitate
member-to-member sharing of medical expenses," one court filing
stated. "Aliera has created a system that is designed to afford
members the ability to consent to their contributions being shared
on a real-time, case-by-case basis with other members as their
needs arise. But, as previously noted, all members are informed
that their requests for sharing payments may not be met -- there
are no payment guarantees or indemnification."
The case is called Albina and Willard v. The Aliera Companies,
Inc., Trinity HealthShare Inc., and OneShare Health, LLC d/b/a
Unity HealthShare, LLC, No. 20-496 (E.D. Ky.). [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Must Face Employees' Data Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tahira Mohamedbhai, writing for Jurist, reports that the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 3
refused to dismiss a class action brought by a former Amazon
employee on behalf of all bereaved employees over failure to gain
consent regarding facial recognition data.
The case concerns procedures in light of the COVID- 19 restrictions
that Amazon implemented for its employees, in which they collected
"facial geometry" and other biometric data. Former employee William
Naughton, who was a picker at an Amazon warehouse, accused the
e-commerce giant of violating state data privacy laws. Amazon
allegedly scanned the faces and checked the temperatures of its
employees then disclosed this information to third parties.
District Judge Mary Rowland concluded that Naughton's allegations
against Amazon regarding both the "possession" and "collection" of
biometric data were sufficiently pleaded and, therefore, could not
be dismissed.
Amazon also argued that Naughton failed to argue that it took an
"active step" in data collecting his biometric data, as required by
Section 15(d) of Illinois' Biometric Information Protection Act
(BIPA). Judge Rowland disagreed, concluding that Naughton correctly
plead "plausible dissemination" of his information.
Naughton's claims against Amazon also include illegal storing of
the biometric data, rather than appropriately discarding it.
Illinois data privacy laws prevent private companies from
gathering, selling, transferring or trading biometric data.
Facebook faced a similar suit under the BIPA back in 2015 and
settled the case for $650 million this year. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Criminal Background Screening Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that a woman who
applied for an unspecified job with Amazon sued the company on Jan.
3 for violation of her rights under the New York State Human Rights
Law, arguing that Amazon.com Inc. employment to qualified
applicants. Specifically, the lawsuit says that the company applies
an overbroad and discriminatory blanket refusal to hire many
applicants with criminal convictions.
The complaint explains that the plaintiff applied for a job in 2017
after having received a conviction for Welfare Fraud in the 5th
Degree, a misdemeanor, in 2015. The plaintiff reportedly paid the
amount due in restitution and never served jail time.
Yet, the filing says that Amazon denied the plaintiff employment
without inquiring into the circumstances of the conviction and
without analyzing the statutorily-required factors. The analysis
reportedly helps an employer determine whether "the individual
poses an unreasonable risk or was convicted of a crime that is
directly related to the ability to perform the job sought."
As a result, the plaintiff alleges that the denial was improper,
and part of a larger practice of disregarding the law. The suit
seeks to certify a class of any people who were denied or
terminated from Amazon in New York state based in whole or in part
on their prior criminal convictions within the last three years.
The filing requests injunctive and declaratory relief requiring
Amazon to change its practices. It also requests back pay and
compensatory damages, an award of nominal and/or exemplary damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff and
putative class are represented by Watkins Law. [GN]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Street et al v. Amazon.com
Services Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00912 (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the parties' stipulated motion to continue
certain Rule 26 deadlines.
The deadline to file a motion for class certification is stayed
pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss.
However, the parties are to proceed with discovery and initial
disclosures if they have not already done so. The parties shall
file a joint status report and a proposed scheduling order no later
than Jan. 19, 2022.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property - Other
Fraud.[CC]
AMERICAN TELECONFERENCING: Baker ERISA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN ADAM BAKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN TELECONFERENCING SERVICES,
LTD, d/b/a PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2021-cv-357466,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Fulton, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on January 5, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00030-TWT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in connection to
the termination of an Employee Severance Pay Plan.
American Teleconferencing Services, Ltd, doing business as Premiere
Global Services, Inc., is a software company based in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Seth T. Ford, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 885-3000
E-mail: seth.ford@troutman.com
ANTHEM INC: Two Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becker's Healthcare reports that two Anthem employees filed a
lawsuit Jan. 3 alleging that the insurer refused to pay enrollment
employees overtime compensation despite being required to work more
than 40 hours during a week to meet quotas.
The lawsuit claims that employees were required to work after hours
and on weekends to meet "extreme" enrollment quotas established by
Anthem and feared being terminated.
One employee claims to have been pressured to work upwards of 68
hours per week to meet quotas, but was not compensated for the 28
hours beyond their scheduled 40 hour work week.
The plaintiffs cite compensation protections under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and individual labor laws of 46 states and
Washington, D.C., that entitle them to overtime wages, according to
the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime wages, and statutory and punitive
damages, but it did not request an exact dollar amount.
Anthem had not yet responded to Becker's request for comment at the
time of publication. [GN]
ATRIA SENIOR: To "Vigorously Defend" Wage-and-Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Bonvissuto, writing for McKnights Senior Living, reports
that an Atria Senior Living spokesman said the Louisville, KY-based
company will "vigorously defend" itself after a federal court ruled
that a group of community sales directors in California can proceed
as a certified class on wage-and-hour claims.
The claims center on allegations that Atria misclassified the sales
directors as outside salespeople, exempting them from overtime pay
as well as from meal and rest breaks.
A spokesman for Atria told McKnight's Senior Living that the
court's decision was a "preliminary determination that reduced the
size of the class, but did not decide on the merits of the case
itself."
"We believe we followed California law with our sales job
classification and will vigorously defend our position," the
spokesman said. "Given that this litigation is ongoing, we have no
further comment."
George Stickles and Michele Rhodes filed the labor lawsuit against
Atria Senior Living and Atria Management Co. on Dec. 18, 2020. The
sales directors sought to certify a class of former and current
employees in the same position who did not sign arbitration
agreements and whose employment was between Dec. 18, 2016, and Dec.
31, 2019.
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of
California certified the class on Dec. 27, 2021, but narrowed the
timeframe to Sept. 29, 2019, dropping the number of potential
members in the class from more than 100 to around 50. Alsup ruled
that the classification issue can be resolved by examining common
evidence about the employees' job duties and employment conditions.
The evidence includes Atria's company policies, job descriptions
and employee depositions, according to Bloomberg Law.
Atria owns 46 senior living and assisted living communities in
California. [GN]
BAYER AG: Faces Investor Class Action Over Monsanto Takeover
------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph Steitz, writing for Reuters, reports that investors are
demanding around 2.2 billion euros ($2.5 billion) from Bayer as
part of a possible class action lawsuit in Germany over the
takeover of U.S. seed manufacturer Monsanto, law firm Tilp said on
Jan. 3.
The law firm said that as of Dec. 30, the sum covered lawsuits from
about 320 investors, both institutional and retail, that had been
filed with the district court in Cologne.
This represents a significant jump from the 250-plus investors
demanding damages of more than 1 billion euros that Tilp disclosed
last month.
Tilp has said it believes Bayer deceived shareholders about the
risks of consumer lawsuits pending in the United States linked to
the weed killer Roundup, which was brought into the company with
the $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto in 2016.
Bayer, in an emailed statement, said any complaints were unfounded,
adding the company had complied with the law and disclosure
requirements.
"In addition we are convinced that we have carried out adequate due
diligence regarding the acquisition of Monsanto," Bayer said,
adding it would defend itself accordingly.
In the United States, Bayer is defending itself against thousands
of lawsuits by Roundup users because of the alleged carcinogenic
effect of the product. Bayer has always rejected this. [GN]
BERKELEY LIGHTS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of February 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Jan. 5 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Berkeley Lights, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLI). The class action is on behalf
of shareholders who purchased Berkeley Lights securities between
July 17, 2020 and September 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). To serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
move the Court no later than
February 7, 2022.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a substantial
loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead
plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by
email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone
number. Additionally, you can:
The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Berkeley Lights' flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from
numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns,
high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems,
limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research
institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (ii)
Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding
the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights' automation
systems, including complaints related to the design and
manufacturing; (iii) the actual market for Berkeley Lights'
products and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented
to investors because of, among other things, the relatively high
cost of Berkeley Lights' instruments and consumables and inability
to provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these
high costs; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' statements to
investors during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights'
business, operations and financial results were materially false
and misleading.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Berkeley Lights class-action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the Berkeley Lights class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
BLACKBERRY LTD: Judge Allows Investors' Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a U.S. judge is allowing a
class-action lawsuit claiming BlackBerry Ltd. defrauded investors
by misleading them about the success of its BB10 devices to move
forward.
New York judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the case brought against
the Waterloo, Ont. technology company by purchasers of BlackBerry's
common stock can head to trial, likely in September or October.
Lead plaintiffs Todd Cox and Mary Dinzik filed the class-action in
2013, claiming that BlackBerry made "rosy" public statements that
concealed a "far less rosy truth" about their products.
The plaintiffs further allege that BlackBerry prematurely
recognized revenue for BB10 devices to keep its stock inflated.
BlackBerry denied several of the plaintiffs' claims and asked for
them to be dismissed because it alleged the plaintiffs did not
raise triable issues of fact during the period the case will
cover.
McMahon tossed several of the plaintiffs' allegations because of
the length of time that had passed since shareholders objected to
them, but found "genuine issues of material fact" remain in
dispute, so other claims can proceed.[GN]
BOIRON INC: Chappell Questions Therapeutic Claim on Ointment
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Chappell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boiron, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00035 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2022), seeks compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution
and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit resulting from
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty
and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York's
general business laws, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and California's False Advertising Law.
Boiron manufactures, sells, and/or distributes Arnicare-brand
products, and is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade
dress and packaging of the Arnicare Products.
Chappell purchased Arnicare Cream for personal use relying on the
labels "Pain Relief," Muscle Pain & Stiffness," "Swelling from
Injuries," and "Bruising." She claims that said product lacked
requisite government review, and/or were not intended for
therapeutic purposes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: bscott@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
BRAVO NATURAL: Bunn Suit Seeks Overtime Premiums
------------------------------------------------
KC Bunn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Bravo Natural Resources, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00007 (N.D. Okla., January 4, 2022), seeks overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Bravo is an oil and gas exploration and production company where
Bunn worked as a Day Rate Drilling Consultant from approximately
June 2017 to February 2019 including time spent working in
Coalgate, Oklahoma. Bunn claims that Bravo pays him a flat daily
rate for all hours worked in a workweek, including those in excess
of 40 in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
BUYK CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Bikers, Perez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUYK CORP. and FOOD START INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-11168 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery bikers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Food Start Inc. to work as
delivery biker for Defendant Buyk Corp. in August 2021.
Buyk Corp. is a food delivery company, with a place of business
located at 8908 5th Ave., Brooklyn, New York.
Food Start Inc. is a food service company, with a place of business
located at 175 Elaine Drive, Oceanside, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
546 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 486-0011
E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com
BYTE-DANCE LTD: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Christmas is a time of joy and celebration. But for a TikTok
content moderator, the holiday turned into her worst nightmare: On
Christmas eve, she was placed on leave after raising workplace
safety concerns in a new lawsuit. On December 23, 2021, The Joseph
Saveri Law Firm filed a class action complaint on behalf of Candie
Frazier against Byte-Dance, Ltd., Byte-Dance Technology Co. Ltd.,
and TikTok, Inc. (collectively "Byte-Dance"). Within 24 hours, Ms.
Frazier was abruptly and unjustly placed on leave for speaking up,
with no clear path forward as to how she can regain her position.
TikTok user uploading video.
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm calls on TikTok to restore content
moderators job that was halted on Christmas Eve.
"In retaliation for bringing these important issues to the public,
Ms. Frazier was advised on Christmas Eve that she was being placed
on leave and had to give up her work equipment. As a result, she
can no longer do the job she relies on to support her family. Put
yourself in her shoes and imagine the fear and uncertainty she and
her family experienced because of this unnecessarily cruel act.
TikTok's behavior -- straight out of Dickens' novel or a modern
sweatshop -- is wrong, and we call upon TikTok to change course and
restore our client to her former position and responsibilities
without delay," said Steven Williams of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm.
"By screening social media posts for objectionable content, content
moderators are our frontline soldiers in a war against depravity: a
war we all have a stake in winning. The psychological trauma and
cognitive and social disorders these workers face is serious. But
they are being ignored, and the problems will only grow worse --
for the company and for these individuals. It's our hope and goal
that Byte-Dance recognizes its obligations to these workers and
creates a safer workplace for them."
To maintain a sanitized platform, TikTok relies on content
moderators to view and remove videos that violate the company's
terms of use. As a result of constant exposure to horrific content,
the moderators now suffer from significant psychological trauma,
including anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Byte-Dance is aware of the
harmful effects of viewing this content but has allegedly failed to
implement industry standard safety protocols. Ms. Frazier was
summarily dismissed from her position and her equipment taken away.
Her inability to work has penalized her monetarily and caused
emotional distress.
This case comes on the heels of the firm's success in Scola v.
Facebook Inc., in which a $52 million settlement and workplace
improvements were reached stemming from allegations that Facebook
failed to properly protect their content moderators.[GN]
CALIFORNIA STATE: Lawyers Fail to Obtain Replacement LTC Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
California State University disclosed that the lawyers involved in
the settlement of the CalPERS Long-Term Care Program class action
lawsuit have been unable to find a California-licensed insurance
provider willing to provide a substitute Long-Term Care policy for
those class members who chose Option 2 in the settlement
agreement.
Option 2 would have allowed eligible policyholders to use their
CalPERS LTC Program premium refunds to purchase a replacement LTC
policy. Brokers working on behalf of the lawyers approached more
than 90 insurance companies about the possibility of offering a
replacement policy. However, all of these companies declined to
offer such a policy.
As a result, CalPERS LTC Program members who initially chose Option
2 will have to elect by January 28, 2022 either Option 1 --
surrendering their CalPERS LTC policy in exchange for a full refund
of all premiums paid (less any benefits paid), or Option 3 --
requesting exclusion from the Settlement and retaining your CalPERS
LTC Policy.
If you are a CSU-ERFSA member who initially chose Option 2, we
recommend that before you elect Option 1 or Option 3 you should
speak with a representative from our benefits partner, AMBA, to see
if any of the LTC options they provide would work in your
individual situation. Here is the contact information for our
California AMBA representative:
jack.danielson@amba.info
530-864-3793
Another option to consider would be to use your premium refund to
help you enter a California-licensed life care retirement
community. Unlike other continuing care retirement communities, to
advertise in California as a "life care" retirement community, the
facility has to provide independent living, assisted living, and
skilled nursing at the same location. [GN]
CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Heitzman Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to D. Kan.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEREMY HEITZMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CALVERT'S EXPRESS AUTO SERVICE & TIRE,
LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00767, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas on January 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Kansas assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-02001-JAR-JPO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
appropriate minimum and overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
Calvert's Express Auto Service & Tire, LLC is an auto repair shop
in Independence, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Kennedy, III, Esq.
Sarah Jane Hunt, Esq.
KENNEDY HUNT P.C.
4500 West Pine Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63108
Telephone: (314) 872-9041
Facsimile: (314) 872-9043
E-mail: tkennedy@kennedyhuntlaw.com
sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, 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
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over V8 Juice Nutrition Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Heath, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Kyle
Banta Yoshida, Anthony Mancuso and Ashley Mistler filed a federal
class action complaint on Dec. 7 in the Northern District Court of
California against Campbell Soup Company over nutrition claims.
According to the lawsuit, Campbell's manufactures, produces,
distributes, markets and sells a line of V8 brand juices called
"Fruit and Vegetable Blends" that is marketed to be healthy, claims
to "boost your morning nutrition" while containing "healthy
greens." The class action alleges this is a false representation of
the juice blends due to the sugar content, which increases the risk
of metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes. and
liver disease.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim that consumers would not spend the
money and purchase such products had the products not been
misrepresented.
Plaintiffs are represented by Paul K. Joseph of Fitzgerald Joseph,
LLP in San Diego.
Northern District Court of California case number 3:21-cv-09458-TSH
[GN]
CANADA: Indian Day Scholars Claims Filing Deadline Set on Oct. 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a Claimant in this Class Action?
A Federal Court Order has appointed Deloitte to process claims for
the Indian Residential Schools Day Scholars Claimants. This page is
a resource for you, the claimant, to understand the claims process
and find information about the status of your claim.
A Day Scholar is a person who attended an Indian Residential School
as a student during the day only, but did not sleep there at
night.
Background on the Settlement
On September 24, 2021, the Federal Court approved a nation-wide
class settlement to compensate students who attended a Federal
Indian Residential School as a Day Scholar which were funded,
managed and controlled by the Federal Government of Canada
("Canada").
The Survivor Class and the Descendant Class reached a settlement
with Canada for the loss of culture and language suffered by those
who attended Indian Residential Schools as Day Scholars (attended
during the day only but did not sleep there at night) between
1920-1997.
As part of the Approved Settlement of this Class Action, Canada
will provide funding for compensation. To be eligible for
compensation, a person must have attended any of the Indian
Residential Schools listed in Schedule E of the Settlement
Agreement as a Day Scholar for any part of a school year, so long
as they have not already received compensation for that school year
as part of the Indian Residential School Common Experience Payment
(CEP) or McLean Settlement (Indian Day Schools).
Get help with the claims process
Please know, we are committed to processing your claim in a way
that is as timely and smooth for you as possible. To help with
this, please take your time completing your form and, before you
send it, double check that it is fully complete, to the best of
your ability.
If you have general questions about the Claim Form, Claim process,
or to report an address change after submitting your Claim, contact
the Claims Administrator at 1-877-877-5786 (toll free).
If you need help determining if you can apply and are eligible for
this Class Action, please contact Class Counsel:
dayscholars@waddellphillips.ca or call 1-888-222-6845 (toll free).
Updates from the Administrator
Claims Process Now Live - January 4th, 2022
The claims process to apply for the Indian Residential Schools Day
Scholars Compensation has now gone live as of January 4th, 2022.
Eligible claimants have until the Claims Deadline of October 4,
2023 to submit a claim. To avoid unnecessary administrative delay,
for example due to incomplete Claim Forms, Claimants are strongly
encouraged to carefully complete and take time to review their
Claim Form before submitting it.
More information to follow once further updates become available.
[GN]
CHEGG INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 5 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHGG) common
stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
All investors who purchased the shares of Chegg, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in Chegg, Inc., you may, no later than
February 22, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in Chegg, Inc.
The filed complaint filed in this class action alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that:
-- Chegg's increase in subscribers, growth, and revenue had been
a temporary effect of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in remote
education for the vast majority of United States students and once
the pandemic-related restrictions eased and students returned to
campuses nationwide, Chegg's extraordinary growth trends would
end;
-- Chegg's subscriber and revenue growth were largely due to the
facilitation of remote education cheating – an unstable business
proposition – rather than the strength of its business model or
the acumen of its senior executives and directors; and
-- as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On November 1, 2021, Chegg released its financial results for the
first quarter in which students had returned to campuses after an
extended period of remote education due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chegg announced fewer-than-expected enrollments and did not provide
fiscal 2022 guidance.
Chegg's CEO and president admitted to being aware of the slowdown
in September 2021.
On this news, Chegg's stock price fell $30.64, or 48.8%, to close
at $32.12 per share on November 2, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
CINDY MARTEN: Angel Must File Class Cert. Bid by April 15
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE ANGEL, et al., v.
CINDY MARTEN, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07333-ODW-PVC (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order setting class
discovery response and class certification motion deadlines as
follows:
-- The deadline for Defendants to respond to the discovery
referenced in the parties' Stipulation is now March 11,
2022; and
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification is now April 15, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
COLES COUNTY ATTORNEYS: Wins Bid to Stay Class Cert. in Wolfe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfe, et al., v. Coles
County States Attorneys Office, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02206
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order
granting County Defendants' motion to stay class certification.
The Plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition. After the
court rules on the pending dismissal motions, the court will set a
deadline for the County Defendants' response brief, says Judge
Bruce.
The nature of suit states other statutes -- Constitutionality of
State Statutes.[CC]
DELOITTE TOUCHE: Knight Must File Class Status Bid by May 10
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saxon Knight on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07114-JGK (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order:
-- All pre-certification fact discovery April 12, 2022
shall be completed on or before:
-- The Plaintiff will file her motion May 10, 2022
for class certification (50 pages
or less), supporting declarations,
and expert report(s) on or before:
-- The Defendant will file its July 12, 2022
opposition to Plaintiff's motion
for class certification (60 pages
or less), supporting declarations,
and expert report(s) on or before:
-- The Plaintiff will file her reply August 12, 2022
in support of motion for class
certification (25 pages or less),
and rebuttal expert report(s) on
or before:
-- All expert discovery on class August 29, 2022
certification shall be completed
on or before:
-- Defendant will file any motion August 16, 2022
to strike Plaintiffs expert report
in support of motion for class
certification on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34qogpQ at no extra charge.[CC]
DRIVEN FORCE: Ivery Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Courier Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMEON IVERY, DENISE ROBINSON, and ROBERT BURNS III, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
DRIVEN FORCE, INC., and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC. d/b/a DHL EXPRESS,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01206-F (W.D. Okla., December 30,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated courier drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as courier drivers at any
time between 2018 and 2021.
Driven Force, Inc. is a transportation company that maintains
principal offices in Oklahoma.
DHL Express (USA) Inc., doing business as DHL Express, is a
delivery company, headquartered in Plantation, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael P. Hill, Esq.
MICHAEL HILL, PLLC
308 Northwest 13th Street, Suite 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
Telephone: (405) 232-0555
Facsimile: (405) 232-1849
E-mail: mike@burtonlaw.com
- and –
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Reginald Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
EOG RESOURCES: Wake Energy Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. EOG
Resources, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00183-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23:
"All non-excluded persons or entities owning interests in
Wyoming oil and gas wells who: (1) received payments from
EOG for proceeds of Wyoming oil or gas production beyond
the timeframes set forth in W.S. section 30-5-301; or (2)
whose proceeds for Wyoming oil or gas production were sent
to escrow by EOG beyond the timeframes set forth in W.S. §
30-5-301; and (3) whose payments or escrowed proceeds did
not include the 18% interest required by W.S. section 30-
5-303(a);"
Excluded from the Class are: (1) EOG, its affiliates,
predecessor affiliates, and employees, officers, and
directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
of the United States of America or the State of Wyoming;
(3) accumulated proceeds of Wyoming oil or gas production
that total $100 or less and that were paid or escrowed
within one year; (4) persons or entities with other
periods or arrangements for the first and subsequent
payments that are provided for in a valid contract with
the person or entity entitled to such proceeds; and (5)
payments dated on or before September 22, 2012;
2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and
3. appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel.
This case concerns the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act ("WRPA"), and
Plaintiff seeks certification of class of oil-and-gas mineral
owners to whom EOG hasn’t paid the required 18% statutory
interest under the WRPA.
EOG Resources is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration. It is organized in Delaware and headquartered in the
Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r5ohr8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & W LSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
John Paul Albert, Esq.
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
NEEDHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
410 N. Walnut Avenue, Suite 110
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 297-0176
Facsimile: (405) 297-0173
E-mail: jpalbert@theneedhamcompanies.com
brady@theneedhamcompanies.com
- and -
Rick Erb, Esq.
RICHARD A. ERB, JR., PC
PO Box 36
Gillette, WY 82717
Telephone: (307) 682-0215
Facsimile: (307) 682-1339
E-mail: rick@rickerb.com
EQUIFAX INFO: Filing of Class Cert Briefs Extended to Jan. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hines v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06701 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Ramon E Reyes, Jr. entered an order extending the time
to file the bundled class certification briefs to Jan. 26, 2022.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[CC]
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Fodera Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK J. FODERA, JR. and
MICHAEL M. BONELLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-05072-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure ("FRCP"), Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
-- The Wage Statement Class, defined as:
"all non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in
California from April 3, 2018 through the present, who
received at least one wage statement with pay codes
Overtime Prem; CA Rest Break; Break Premium; PT Ses Cancel;
CanXNo show; Pilates No Show, and/or break violations;"
-- The Fitness Instructor Class, defined as:
"All individuals who worked for Defendant in one or more of
the following positions -- Personal Trainer, Group Fitness
Instructor, and Pilates Instructor -- in California from
April 3, 2015 through the present;" and
-- The Meal Period Regular Rate Class, defined as:
"All individuals who worked as non-exempt employee for
Equinox in California from April 3, 2015 through the
present, and who received non-discretionary remuneration
and were paid any meal period premium payments in the same
pay period that the non-discretionary remuneration was
earned."
In the alternative, if the Court is not inclined to certify a
single Fitness Instructor Class, the Plaintiffs request that the
Court certify a separate subclass for each of the three Fitness
Instructor positions: personal trainers, Pilates instructors, and
group fitness instructors, using the definitions of classes A-C in
the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"):
-- Class A:
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
any Defendant in California as personal trainers, or in any
other similar capacity, at any time during the four-year
period preceding the filing of this action through the
present."
-- Class B:
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
any Defendant in California as group fitness instructors,
or in any other similar capacity, at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of this action
through the present;"
-- Class C:
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
any Defendant in California as a pilates instructor, or in
any other similar capacity, at any time during the four-
year period preceding the filing of this action through the
present;"
Similarly, in aforementioned Wage Statement Class Plaintiffs seek
to simplify the class definitions by including employees who
received a break premium code on their wage statement in the same
class as the other direct wage statement violation issues, which
arise in a similar manner, but simply result from different pay
codes. If the Court is not inclined to combine existing classes D
and E into the proposed Wage Statement Class, Plaintiffs request
that the Court certify classes D and E as alleged in the TAC as
follows:
-- Class D:
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
any Defendant in California in a non-exempt position and
who received a wage statement containing one or more of the
following pay codes/types at any time during the one-year
period preceding the filing of this action through the
present: Overtime Prem; CA Rest Break; PT Ses Cancel;
CanXNo show; Pilates No Show;"
-- Class E:
"All current and former non-exempt employees employed by
any Defendant in California in a non-exempt position and
who received meal period and/or rest period premium pay at
any time during the one-year period preceding the filing of
this action through the present."
The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order: (1) appointing
Plaintiffs as class representatives, and (2) appointing Makarem &
Associates APLC, including Ronald W. Makarem and Samuel D. Almon as
class counsel.
Equinox Group is an American luxury fitness company which operates
several lifestyle brands: Equinox, Equinox Hotels, Precision Run,
Project by Equinox, Equinox Explore, Equinox Media, Furthermore,
PURE Yoga, Blink Fitness, and SoulCycle.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Jan. 5,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tbnQOp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
Samuel D. Almon, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Telephone: (310) 312-0299
Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
almon@law-rm.com
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces Suit Over Rental Application Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Bautista, writing for The RealDeal, reports that Equity
Residential, the Chicago-based apartment investor that's been
shedding some "less desirable" units among its 35,000 California
assets, faces another West Coast lawsuit.
The firm, sued in 2017 over dubious late fees, now faces claims it
charged five times what it cost for background checks on
prospective tenants and violated California law by failing to
provide receipts and copies of its investigative consumer reports.
It amounts to "unlawful conduct," according to a complaint filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court. The $50 it charged for each application
"exceeds Equity's out-of-pocket costs of gathering information
concerning each Plaintiff." Equity's costs for each background
check came to just $8.50 per application, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs include 135,000 people who applied for housing in
Equity's California properties over the past four years. They're
seeking $10,000 in damages for each violation and reimbursement for
overcharges and also want an injunction to require Equity
Residential to provide prospective tenants with a copy of their
consumer reports within three days.
Equity Residential was sued for similar claims in 2017, when
tenants sued over the company's practice of charging late fees, set
at $50 or 5 percent of the outstanding rent. The firm was accused
of stacking late fees, a practice in which additional penalties
were imposed on rent checks that were old or already paid, in
violation of California's anti-profiteering regulations. That case
is still pending.
The firm has recently been diversifying its portfolio by shedding
"less desirable or regulatory challenged assets" in California. In
August, it sold a 450-unit apartment portfolio in Hermosa Beach for
$275 million. In its latest quarterly report from October, the firm
disclosed that its California portfolio totaled 34,587 units in
California. This includes 15,739 apartments in Los Angeles and
12,114 units in San Francisco.
Shareef Farag, the counsel for Equity Residential, didn't respond
to a request for comment. [GN]
F. HOFFMANN-LA: Faces Nelson Suit Over Side Effects of Mefloquine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, LTD.; F., HOFFMANN-LA
ROCHE, INC.; ROCHE LABORATORIES, INC.; GENENTECH, INC.; GENENTECH
USA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-10074-KAW
(N.D. Cal., December 30, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligent failure to warn, negligent design, strict
liability, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent
misrepresentation.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to warn the
U.S. military and its service members of the substantial and
irreversible dangers of their antimalarial drug mefloquine, which
includes the brand-name Lariam and any generic equivalents of the
drug. The Defendants marketed and sold mefloquine to the U.S.
military for service members deployed to Somalia, Afghanistan and
other foreign countries for the prevention of malaria. At the time
they sold the drug to the U.S. military, the Defendants knew of the
substantial danger of severe and irreversible neuropsychiatric side
effects of mefloquine. Despite existing and mounting evidence of
mefloquine's devastating side effects, the Defendants concealed the
scope and nature of the danger and recklessly sold the drug as a
safe and effective first-line treatment for malaria prevention. As
a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiff and Class members had been exposed to the risk associated
with mefloquine's use, says the suit.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. is a biotechnology company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
Roche Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
Genentech, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Roche Laboratories,
Inc., with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California.
Genentech USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Genentech Inc.,
with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erica W. Rutner, Esq.
MOORE & LEE, LLP
501 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (703) 506-2050
Facsimile: (703) 506-2051
E-mail: e.rutner@mooreandlee.com
- and –
Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
E-mail: gam@kttlaw.com
- and –
Yano Rubinstein, Esq.
RUBINSTEIN LAW
660 4th Street, Ste. 302
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 967-1969
Facsimile: (415) 236-6409
E-mail: yano@rublaw.com
FLORIDA POWER: Must Face Class Action Over Power Outages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders, writing for 12News, reports that more than four years
after Hurricane Irma plowed through the state, a judge has cleared
the way for a class-action lawsuit against Florida Power & Light
because of customers' electricity getting knocked out.
Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge David C. Miller late on Dec. 31
issued a 24-page order granting a motion to certify the
long-running lawsuit as a class action. Plaintiffs contend that the
utility did not meet obligations to help prevent power outages,
such as carrying out a storm "hardening" plan, replacing aging
poles and adequately clearing vegetation near lines.
"This action is predicated on a common contract with nonnegotiable
terms that permeates class wide, giving rise to uniform rights and
obligations," Miller wrote. "FPL contractually undertook to use
reasonable due diligence at all times to provide its customers
continuous service even during foreseeable wind events because of
its storm hardening improvements."
The lawsuit, filed in 2017, includes six named plaintiffs, but
class certification could open it to millions of FPL customers.
Irma made landfall in Monroe County as a Category 4 hurricane and
then caused widespread damage and power outages as it traveled up
the state.
FPL has vehemently fought the lawsuit, with issues twice already
going to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. Among other things, FPL
has contended that disputes about its storm hardening efforts
should go before the Florida Public Service Commission.
"FPL has at all times been in full compliance with the requirements
of the PSC for vegetation management, pole inspections and
replacement, and for all other elements of storm hardening as
established by the state agency with the exclusive jurisdiction to
establish, monitor and enforce such requirements," the utility's
attorneys wrote in a 2018 court document. "Accordingly, there can
be no basis for the imposition of liability against FPL on the
bases asserted in the amended complaint (the lawsuit)."
But the plaintiffs' attorneys argued in the lawsuit that FPL was
"grossly unprepared" for the hurricane and that customers who lost
power suffered damages such as lost profits and lost perishable
goods and faced expenses. The lawsuit said FPL had collected money
from customers to strengthen the power system.
"This case arises from acts and damages that are above and beyond
disappointed expectations of the benefit of the bargain," the
lawsuit said. "Specifically, the nature of relief sought by
plaintiffs flow from FPL's gross negligence and breach of
contractual undertaking to replace defective equipment and clear
vegetation overgrowth."
Miller held a three-day hearing last month before issuing the
formal order on Dec. 31 to certify the lawsuit as a class action.
The class certification does not resolve the underlying disputes in
the case.
"Plaintiffs are not claiming that FPL is an insurer against
hurricanes, nor will class status produce that result," Miller
wrote. "Instead, plaintiffs seek class wide management over a basic
contractual issue of whether FPL breached its contractual
obligation to honor its promise to use reasonable diligence at all
times to provide continuous service or did FPL somehow commit gross
negligence in performing its duties under its tariff (a type of
required utility document). These issues are best suited for class
wide treatment." [GN]
FROST BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Danner, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that
San Antonio's Frost Bank faces a potential class-action lawsuit
alleging it charged overdraft fees on accounts that were not
actually overdrawn.
The suit follows a similar action against San Antonio's Credit
Human Federal Credit Union in April, also filed in state District
Court in San Antonio.
Indeed, the suit against Frost Bank contains several paragraphs
nearly identical to ones in the Credit Human complaint - with the
only difference being that the bank's name is substituted for the
credit union's.
Numerous financial institutions have settled similar complaints
involving overdraft fees in the last year. Many other cases are
still pending.
San Antonio resident Theodore Woods filed the suit against Frost
Bank over what he calls its "unfair and unconscionable collection
of overdraft fees" on certain transactions.
Wood says his checking account contract documents addressing
overdraft fees promise Frost will only charge such fees on
transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover them.
But Wood adds Frost charges the overdraft fees even when there are
sufficient funds to cover a debit card transactions.
"Frost's customers have been injured by Frost's improper practices
to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from their accounts in
violation of their agreements with Frost," Woods alleges.
Bank spokesman Bill Day declined to comment on the lawsuit. He
referred a reporter to an April press release that said Frost would
no longer charge overdraft fees for certain customers when they
overdraw their checking accounts by up to $100 - as long as they
have monthly direct deposits of at least $500.
"Frost understands it's human to make a mistake and wants to show
customers they matter by giving them this overdraft grace where
they need it," the bank said.
Frost previously charged $35 for each overdraft, up to $175 a day,
Day said in April. That still applied for overdrafts over $100, but
most overdrafts are for less than that amount.
The bank generated $32.3 million in overdraft and insufficient fund
charges on consumer and commercial accounts in 2020, down from
$42.3 million in 2019. It didn't publicly reveal how much the
change might cost it in revenue.
Austin lawyer Jeff Edwards, part of Woods' legal team, did not
respond to a request for comment on Jan. 5. The suit seeks more
than $1 million in damages.
According to Woods' lawsuit, at the moment a debit card transaction
is authorized on an account with positive funds to cover the
transaction, Frost immediately reduces a customer's checking
account to cover the amount of that transaction.
As a result, the suit adds, a customer's account will always have
sufficient funds available to cover debit card transactions because
Frost already has put aside those funds for payment. In other
words, the funds are unavailable to cover subsequent transactions.
This means many subsequent transactions incur overdraft fees due to
the unavailability of the funds set aside for those debit card
transactions.
"However, Frost still assesses crippling OD Fees on many of these
transactions and misrepresents its practices in its Account
Agreement," the suit says.
The Credit Human case remains pending. The credit union sought to
have the case dismissed but state District Judge Antonia Arteaga
denied the request in August. A motion to certify the case as a
class-action has not been ruled on.
Other financial institutions have settled similar lawsuits.
For example, in April, Navy Federal Credit Union agreed to pay $16
million to class members in a federal lawsuit filed in Virginia.
The credit union allegedly charged multiple non-sufficient fund
fees on the same transaction.
Navy Federal agreed to settle even though the judge had granted its
request to dismiss the case. The plaintiff was in the process of
appealing the ruling when the case settled.
In May, Bank of America settled a class-action suit for $75 million
over similar allegations.
Two of the law firms in those cases represent Woods, while one of
them is part of the legal team representing the plaintiff in the
Credit Human case. [GN]
GENERAC POWER: Faces Class Action Over Generators' Safety Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the
owners of Generac home standby generators say the products have a
dangerous safety defect that the company refuses to acknowledge and
instead charges customers to have them diagnosed, a new class
action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Greg McMahon and Adam Goldberg filed the class action
complaint against Generac Power Systems, Inc. Dec. 30 in a
Pennsylvania federal court, alleging violations of state consumer
laws and federal warranty laws.
The plaintiffs are looking to represent owners of Generac home
standby generators who received a letter from Generac regarding an
inspection program for their generators.
According to the lawsuit, the generators have the propensity to
develop corrosion along the fuel line, which can lead to fuel
leakage and unit fire, "a dangerous safety defect."
"Generac, however, has refused to diagnose the corrosion issue at
no cost to consumers and instead requires consumers to pay an
inspection fee which will not be returned if Generac concludes that
corrosion has not 'significantly compromised' the fuel plenum," the
lawsuit states.
It says the inspection fee Generac charges constitutes a violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as Generac's implied and
express warranties.
Plaintiff Received Letter Concerning Corrosion, Asking For $80
Inspection Fee
Plaintiff Greg McMahon said he purchased a home that had a Generac
14KW/990 GRD+200A SE T/SW generator in 2014. In 2020, he received a
letter from Generac informing him that corrosion could be a safety
issue, and asking him to pay $80 to have the generator inspected.
The letter said he would only be reimbursed if the fuel plenum was
found to be "significantly compromised." He paid the fee but was
never reimbursed for it.
The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in the United States
who owns a Generac home standby generator and received a letter
like McMahon's, as well as a Pennsylvania and Virginia Class.
The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the class action,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
The news comes after more than 321,160 Generac portable generators
were recalled in Canada after they were linked to finger crushing
that led to seven finger amputations.
What do you think of the allegations in this class action lawsuit?
Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph G. Sauder, Joseph B. Kenney
and Lori G. Kier of Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
The Generac Power Systems Class Action Lawsuit is Greg McMahon v.
Generac Power Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05660, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
GENERAC POWER: Unlawfully Collects Inspection Fee, McMahon Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG MCMAHON and ADAM GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05660 (E.D. Pa., December 30,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and breach
of implied warranty.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged collection of an
inspection fee to the owners and purchasers of Generac home standby
generators, including the Plaintiffs. The Defendant initiated an
inspection program to check the generators' corrosion issue along
the fuel line which can lead to fuel leakage and unit fire. The
Defendant required consumers to pay an inspection fee which will
not be returned if it concludes that corrosion has not
significantly compromised the fuel plenum, says the suit.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of generators based
in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Lori G. Kier, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
lgk@sstriallawyers.com
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bartholomew Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARTIN BARTHOLOMEW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
L.P.; GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.; GOODMAN GLOBAL GROUP, INC.;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00311588, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
January 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00011 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 all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations,
wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, and unfair
competition.
Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. is a heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning company based in Houston, Texas.
Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. is an air conditioning repair service
provider in Houston, Texas.
Goodman Global Group, Inc. is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning manufacturer based in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and –
Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
Telephone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
E-mail: jnordlander@seyfarth.com
GOOGLE LLC: Class Action May Reveal Search Engine Payment to Apple
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lovejoy, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that it's an open secret
that Google pays Apple a multibillion-dollar sum each year to be
the default search engine on Apple devices. In other words, the
search engine that is used when you simply type your search term
into the combined address/search bar.
Neither company discloses the amount, leading to various estimates
over the years. But a new class action lawsuit may reveal the
actual sums . . .
Background
Being the default search engine on iPhones, iPads, and Macs is
worth a vast amount to Google, as relatively few people ever change
the default. That means that Google gets a huge amount of its
search traffic from Apple users, and thus the ability to place ads
in front of them.
Add in the fact that Apple customers are a particularly valuable
demographic, and you can see why Google would be willing to pay a
great deal of money to maintain the status quo.
One of the more recent estimates of the sum was from Bernstein.
Bernstein analysts are estimating that Google's payment to Apple
will increase to $15 billion in 2021, and to between $18 billion
and $20 billion in 2022. The data is based on "disclosures in
Apple's public filings as well as a bottom-up analysis of Google's
TAC (traffic acquisition costs) payments."
Default search engine class action lawsuit
A class action lawsuit has been filed, claiming that the
arrangement is harmful both to competing search companies, and to
businesses who place ads with Google. It further alleges that the
agreement violates antitrust laws.
California Crane School, Inc. filed a class action antitrust case
[3:21-cv-10001, C.C.S.I. v Google LLC] on 12/27/21 against Google
and Apple and the Chief Executive Officers of both companies
alleging violations of the Antitrust Laws of the United States.
The complaint charges that Google and Apple agreed that Apple would
not compete in the internet search business against Google. The
complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete
agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with
Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for
all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings between the
executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-billion-dollar
payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business;
(5) suppression of the competition of smaller competitors and
foreclosing competitors from the search market; (6) acquiring
actual and potential competitors. The complaint alleges that
advertising rates are higher than rates would be in a competitive
system. The complaint seeks the disgorgement of the billion-dollar
payments by Google to Apple.
The complaint asks for an injunction prohibiting the non-compete
agreement between Google and Apple; the profit-sharing agreement;
the preferential treatment for Google on Apple devices; and the
payment of billions of dollars by Google to Apple.
Consumers can be said to be indirectly harmed because higher
advertising costs will be reflected in higher product prices.
The lawsuit also calls for the breakup of both Apple and Google
into smaller companies.
Discovery would likely reveal the amount paid
If the lawsuit proceeds as far as the discovery process, then that
would likely lead to disclosure of the actual amounts paid to
Apple.
Discovery is a pre-trial procedure in which each side is entitled
to ask the other for relevant information, both through the release
of otherwise confidential documents, and by interviewing executives
from the company. Details of the actual sums paid would seem to be
extremely relevant to the case, and thus almost certain to be
requested.
It should be noted, however, that many class action lawsuits don't
make it to trial, or even to the discovery phase. Lawsuits can be
settled at an early stage, and defendants can also file motions for
lawsuits to be dismissed before they make any headway at all.
The lawsuit is being initiated by a relatively small company, so
how far it proceeds will likely depend in part on whether the
lawyers are able to get any big names on board. [GN]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Conditional Certification Briefs Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN ZAMBITO And ROBERT
MCDANIEL On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly situated,
v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Case No.
8:21-cv-02223-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order for the following conditional certification briefs
that:
-- GEICO provide Plaintiffs, within 10 days from the date of
the Court's Order granting this Motion, the names, last
known addresses, home and cellular phone numbers, and work
and personal e-mail addresses of those individuals who
work or worked for GEICO as Region 6 Automobile and/or
Residential and/or Catastrophic Adjusters I and/or II
and/or III during the period October 2018 to the present;
-- The Court authorize the Notice attached to Plaintiffs'
Memorandum in Support of this Motion, to be immediately
issued by first class mail, electronic mail, and text
message to those individuals whose names are provided;
-- The Court authorize the Consent to Join Lawsuit Form
attached to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of this
Motion, to be enclosed with the Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope;
and
-- The potential class members be allowed to opt-in to this
action at any time up to 60 days after the mailing and/or
e-mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms to those
individuals whose names are provided.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 5,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f3mddt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charlotte Fernée Kelly, Esq.
FERNEE KELLY LAW
1228 E 7th Ave., No. 200
Tampa, FL 33605
Telephone: (813) 315-3981
E-mail: charlotte@ferneekellylaw.com
- and -
Tad Delegal, Esq.
James C. Poindexter, Esq.
Alexandra E. Underkofler, Esq.
DELEGAL & POINDEXTER P.A.
424 East Monroe Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 633-5000
E-mail: Tad@Delegal.Net
James@Delegal.Net, Esq.
Alex@Delegal.Net, Esq.
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
HALLMARK BEHAVIORAL: Faces Hudson Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNNETTE HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALLMARK BEHAVIORAL HEALTH @ LAGO, LLC D/B/A
HALLMARK ASSISTED LIVING @ LAGO, LLC D/B/A HALLMARK ASSISTED LIVING
@ LARGO, LLC, Defendant, 2:21-cv-02230-JJT (D. Ariz., December 30,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act including failure
to pay overtime wages and failure to provide notice, statements and
interference with rights under Arizona Sick Leave Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Hallmark as an hourly-paid employee from
October 2020 to October 2021.
Hallmark Behavioral Health @ Lago, LLC, doing business as Hallmark
Assisted Living @ Lago, LLC, is a provider of in-home caregivers
and caregiving services in Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
HEBEI TIANKAI: Faces Wang Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
QIAN WANG a/k/a Sarah Wang, TIANDE WANG, LU YANG, YA XU, and
ZHANWEN CHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HEBEI TIANKAI FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL CO. LTD d/b/a Hebei Tiankai Wood & Land Construction;
YINGJIE LI a/k/a Ying Jie Li; and WEI WANG a/k/a Maggie Wang,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07194 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
reimburse expenses, and failure to pay wage notice.
The Plaintiffs were hired as billing, payroll and sanitation
worker, and commuter van drivers at any time between 2015 and
2021.
Hebei Tiankai Foundation Engineering Technical Co. Ltd, d/b/a Hebei
Tiankai Wood & Land Construction, is a construction company based
in China. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Class Action Over Securities Violations Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanford Law School disclosed that the Instadose Pharma Corp.
Securities Litigation is ongoing.
The case was filed on December 30, 2021.
According to the Complaint, Instadose does not have significant
operations and was at all relevant times classified as a "shell"
company. Instadose was formerly known as "Mikrocoze, Inc.", which
was organized to sell micro-furniture for small spaces via the
Internet. The Company has since pivoted its business to focus on
growth and acquisition of pharmaceutical grade agricultural
products.
On December 7, 2020, Instadose (then still known as Mikrocoze)
entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Instadose Pharma
Corp., a Canadian-based cannabis producer ("Instadose Canada"), and
holders of a majority of its outstanding shares for a transaction
to acquire 100% of the outstanding common shares of Instadose
Canada in exchange for approximately 80% of the issued and
outstanding shares of common stock of the Company following such
exchange (the "Business Combination").
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Instadose
had performed inadequate due diligence into the Business
Combination and/or ignored significant red flags associated with
Instadose Canada; (ii) Instadose's internal controls and policies
were inadequate to detect and/or prevent impermissible trading
activity by control persons of the Company; (iii) the foregoing
subjected Instadose to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement action; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. [GN]
JOVANI FASHION: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jovani Fashion Ltd.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Jovani Fashion Ltd., Case No.
1:22-cv-00105 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jovani -- https://www.jovani.com/ -- offers designer dresses,
wedding gowns & evening dresses, and prom dresses online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
JUSTO LABS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Justo Labs LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Justo Labs LLC doing
business as: Akalo, Case No. 1:22-cv-00069 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 5,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Justo Labs LLC doing business as AKALO -- https://akalo.co/ -- is a
lifestyle wellness brand focused on creating innovative products to
improve people's everyday lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
KE HOLDINGS: ADS Securities Class Action Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Stanford Law School disclosed that KE Holdings Inc.: American
Depositary Shares Securities Litigation is ongoing.
The case was filed on December 30, 2021.
According to the Complaint, KE Holdings Inc. is an integrated
online and offline platform for housing transactions and services
focused on reinventing how service providers and housing customers
navigate and consummate housing transactions such as existing and
new home sales, home rentals, home renovation, and real estate
financial solutions. KE Holdings also owns and operates Beijing
Lianjia Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd., a Chinese real estate
brokerage brand. As of December 31, 2020, KE Holdings had 119,658
employees.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions, and
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and that later, when the
truth concealed by Defendants' prior misrepresentations and
omissions was disclosed to the market, the price of KE Holdings'
ADS fell precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation came out
of the price over time. [GN]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Cervantes Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN CERVANTES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-03912, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on January
3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00005-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranties, breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act by manufacturing and selling
defective Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure devices.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a holding company and sole member of
Philips NA, with its principal place of business located at 222
Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erin Copeland, Esq.
FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND & BRIGGS
1150 Bissonnet St.
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: ecopeland@fibichlaw.com
- and –
Kenneth T. Fibich, Esq.
FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND & BRIGGS
1150 Bissonnet St.
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: tfibich@fibichlaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dusza Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MIKE DUSZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01720, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on December 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01913-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict liability,
design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect,
negligent recall, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered economic injuries.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
- and –
Kelly Hyman, Esq.
THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, P.A.
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 538-7198
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Goldis Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARYL GOLDIS-WELLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01222, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on January
5, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00023-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and negligent misrepresentation by manufacturing
and selling defective Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and
BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure devices.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a holding company and sole member of
Philips NA, with its principal place of business located at 222
Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
Catherine D. Hilliard, Esq.
Rudy Gonzales, Jr., Esq.
Marion M. Reilly, Esq.
Jessica J. Pritchett, Esq.
HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 882-1612
Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
catherine@hmglawfirm.com
marion@hmglawfirm.com
jpritchett@hmglawfirm.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Marin D. Mclean, Esq.
Jacob P. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Ste. 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone (206) 623-7292
Facsimile (206) 623-0594
E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
martym@hbsslaw.com
jakeb@hbsslaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Travera Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROGER TRAVERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC; ADAPTHEALTH CORP.;
and CMMC, INC., Case No. 211201983, was removed from the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
December 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05674 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged design defect strict
liability, negligent design, personal injury, and breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose by manufacturing and
selling Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel
Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices containing
polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).
The Defendants recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices due to
degradation and health risks associated to the devices. As a result
of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have
suffered physical injuries, says the suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
AdaptHealth Corp. is a full-service home medical equipment company
headquartered in Pennsylvania.
CMMC, Inc. is a pharmacy in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: john.lavelle@morganlewis.com
- and –
Michael H. Steinberg, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-6670
Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
E-mail: steinbergm@sullcrom.com
- and –
William B. Monahan, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2498
Telephone: (212) 558-7375
Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
E-mail: monahanw@sullcrom.com
LA RANCHERA INC: Lagunas Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Lagunas, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. La Ranchera, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-00017, (S.D. Tex., January 4, 2022), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and
post-judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action,
plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
La Ranchera is a producer and distributor of baked goods, more
specifically, tortillas, chips and masa. Lagunas is a former
employee of La Ranchera and worked as a route driver/sales
representative until his termination on November 5, 2021. During
his employment, he claim to have been misclassified as an
independent contractor thus denied overtime compensation despite
working over 40 hours per week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES
3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 960-8300
Fax: (713) 621-6670
Email: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
LA'JAMES INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Student Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Morris, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that
La'James International College, which operates a chain of
cosmetology schools in Iowa, faces a class-action lawsuit from
current and former students who accuse the college of mishandling
their student loan money.
But the court battle doesn't represent the first time the school
has faced legal scrutiny; and the Des Moines Register has covered
allegations levied by current and former students -- and the
subsequent investigations that were launched in response by the
Iowa Attorney General's Office and the U.S. Department of Education
-- for nearly 10 years, publishing more than a dozen news stories
and opinion columns about the institution.
Here are some of the things the Register has written in recent
years:
2013: Numerous complaints from students and families
Register editorial writer Andie Dominick was a Pulitzer Prize
finalist in 2013 for a series of editorials on occupational
licensing and state oversight in various industries, including
several pieces about La'James. In a May 5 column, she wrote:
"Iowa's government forces people who want to be cosmetologists to
spend thousands of dollars and months attending a beauty school to
secure a state license to work. That government provides
essentially no oversight of the schools and little help when
students are wronged.
"It's the perfect arrangement if you are a for-profit beauty school
but not so much if you are a student. It is time for government to
look out for students."
2014: La'James fined for sanitation, instruction infractions
In 2013, after the Register's editorials had been published, the
Iowa Board of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences levied administrative
charges against La'James. As summarized by the Register at the
time:
". . . the board accused the company of failing to disinfect
instruments and equipment, failing to clean pedicure spas, and
failing to provide a separate room for the practice of esthetics.
The colleges also were accused of failing to have enough
instructors to supervise students, employing instructors without
proper certifications, and failing to post notices that public
services were being performed by students."
The following year, owner Cynthia Becher and administrator Tracy
LaDage reached a settlement with the board, agreeing to pay a
$10,000 fine while denying wrongdoing.
The Register's Editorial Board wasn't satisfied with that
resolution, though, which included a promise of "self-inspections"
by the school to ensure it remained in compliance.
"This is how things work when it comes to Iowa's cosmetology rules
and laws, which often make little sense. It doesn't make sense, for
example, to require someone to obtain 2,100 hours of education and
training at a cosmetology school to cut, color and style hair. It
doesn't make sense to require those 2,100 hours of training for
someone who wants to work only braiding hair, a skill that may not
even be taught at a cosmetology school."
Later in 2014: La'James sued by Iowa Attorney General
The Attorney General's office sued La'James in August 2014,
claiming the school systematically defrauded students. It also put
out the call for other former students to share their accounts with
the state.
"What many students experience is a school with extraordinary
turnover of instructors, resulting in instructorless classrooms and
inconsistent instruction, lack of access to practice their skills,
and ultimately, an institution that treats them more like free
labor than students," according to a lawsuit the Iowa attorney
general's office filed in Polk County District Court. "Indeed,
through their tuition, students seemingly pay La' James for the
privilege of working for the company."
An attorney for the school told the Register at the time the
Attorney General's claims were without merit.
"We have been highly cooperative and transparent with the attorney
general's office, and are surprised and disappointed at the
approach and position the office has taken -- particularly given
that the complaint appears to be completely devoid of any facts
supporting the very general and inflammatory allegations,"
Philadelphia attorney Daniel Walworth wrote in an email to the
Register.
2016: La'James forgives $2.1 million in student debt to settle
case
La'James eventually settled the Attorney General's lawsuit, paying
$500,000 to the state on top of $25,000 each from Cynthia and
Travis Becher. The school also agreed to forgive $2.1 million in
outstanding debt and accepted monitoring by an independent
administrator.
The deal also called for a number of policy changes from the
school, including that:
* The school would no longer require students to recruit
customers to receive credit or pay the school for clients.
* The school would agree not to require students to perform
janitorial or sanitation services beyond Iowa Board of Cosmetology
Arts & Sciences or Iowa Board of Massage Therapy minimum
requirements.
* La' James would agree to staff classes with qualified,
licensed instructors.
* La' James could not remove a student's completed program hours
unless allowed by a written policy.
* La' James would have to establish a leave-of-absence policy
that permitted extended absences for justifiable reasons, including
medical leaves or financial hardships.
* If a student withdrew within two weeks of enrolling, La' James
would have to provide a full refund, except for the $50 application
fee.
March 2020: the Register investigates Iowa licensing laws
Iowa requires 2,100 hours of education for a cosmetology license,
tied for the most of any state. Despite this, a Register
investigation found that both students and employers questioned the
value of that education, both from La'James and other beauty
schools, while also criticizing the cost burden it puts on people
entering a new profession.
"Hannah Arant, the manager at Trixies Salon in Des Moines, said she
graduated from La'James with $28,000 of debt. Some days, she said,
instructors didn't show up for class, and students watched movies.
Arant supports the 2,100-hour requirement, in theory. But she said
she didn't get the training she paid for."
At the time, the Legislature was considering bills that would have
reduced the education requirement for cosmetology to 1,500 hours,
among other changes, but the bills did not advance through the
legislative process.
August 2020: Attorney General alleges new violations
In August 2020, Attorney General Tom Miller claimed that La'James
was not in compliance with its 2016 settlement agreement and asked
to extend the independent administrator's term, at La'James'
expense.
"We're very concerned about students' continued complaints about
La' James, as well as the administrator's findings that the school
is not in compliance with prohibitions regarding false, deceptive
or misleading representations; omissions of material fact; and
engagement in unfair practices," a spokesperson for Miller's office
said at the time. ...
"Because of that, we have sought to extend the June 2016 settlement
agreement so the school can correct these problems and serve
students. In addition, because most of the problems relate to
federal student aid, we ask that the U.S. Department of Education
use its statutory authority to enforce these violations."
A Register investigation also found that in the midst of the
alleged financial improprieties, the school received multiple loans
from the federal Paycheck Protection Program early in the pandemic
worth more than $1 million. [GN]
LG ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over RESU Home Solar Batteries
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges LG Energy Solution Michigan has refused to
take corrective measures and compensate California residents who
paid thousands for supposedly dangerous LG RESU home solar
batteries.
The eight-page suit claims that although LG has touted the
batteries as storage-ready solar inverters capable of producing
more energy than a home needs and then storing the excess energy
for use after the sun sets, the RESU home solar batteries are, in
truth, dangerous, and have been linked to a number of fires and
property damage.
The plaintiff, a San Diego resident, alleges the LG RESU home solar
batteries are not fit for their stated purpose of "battery
arbitrage," that is, storing energy during the day and then using
that stored energy at night or in the event of a power failure.
Because of the safety concerns linked to the batteries, "most, if
not all," have been taken out of service, while those still in
operation may pose a safety risk, the case relays.
Overall, the lawsuit alleges LG Energy Solution Michigan has run
afoul of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act by
misrepresenting the RESU solar batteries as safe for use and
capable of storing energy and using stored energy.
"The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ('CLRA') prohibits a
variety of specified unfair or deceptive acts 'in a transaction
intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods
or services to any consumer,'" the complaint states.
The suit goes on to allege LG Energy Solution Michigan was
"willful" in its apparent misconduct, as evidenced by the fact
that, according to the complaint, LG has admitted that its
batteries are defective and offered to replace some of them yet has
not done so for roughly a year, apparently due to an inability to
obtain replacement parts. At the same time, the company has sold
new, non-defective batteries to new customers, the case says.
"The defendants were aware of the probable dangerous consequences
of their conduct and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid
those consequences," the lawsuit alleges.
The proposed class action was initially filed on November 12, 2021
in San Diego County Superior Court before being removed to
California's Southern District Court on December 29. [GN]
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Judge Allows Bread Price-Fixing Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Mandel, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that millions of
Canadian sandwich makers could soon be sharing in a huge pile of
dough.
An Ontario judge has given the green light to a class-action
lawsuit against the major players in the $40-billion packaged bread
market -- including Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro -- for an alleged
20-year price-fixing scheme. The cartel of manufacturers and
grocery chains are accused of colluding to inflate the price of
"soft top" sandwich loaves like Wonder Bread and pocketing about $5
billion in ill-gotten gains.
That's a lot of bread.
The claim against Loblaw, Weston Bakeries, Weston Foods, Canada
Bread, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart Canada, and Giant Tiger seeks
billions in damages.
"It affects practically every Canadian who has bought packaged
bread during the conspiracy period -- you're looking at 19 years or
so of packaged bread sales across Canada. It's an awful lot of
commerce" said David Wingfield, one of the lawyers leading the
lawsuit.
"That's why these (alleged) price-fixing conspiracies are a form of
fraud on the economy. You take a small amount of money from
everybody, every week, over a long period of time, it adds up and
it hurts the economy as well as the people who paid inflated
prices."
If the lawsuit is successful, companies like Loblaw could owe each
consumer far more than the $25 gift card they were handing out to
placate angry customers after they confessed their part in the
scheme to the Competition Bureau in 2017.
"I certainly hope so," laughed Wingfield.
"Bread, according to the biblical Book of Prophets, is the staff of
life," wrote Superior Court Justice Ed Morgan in his decision
certifying the class action. "According to the Plaintiffs, it is
also key to the Defendants' book of profits."
The proposed class involves anyone who bought packaged bread from
the named companies between November 1, 2001 and up until Dec. 31,
2021.
"There is certainly sufficient evidence to support, for
certification purposes, the allegation that this product has been
the subject of a price-fixing conspiracy. Loblaw and George Weston
have admitted to the conspiracy even if those it says were its
co-conspirators persist in denying it," the judge wrote.
"There is some -- indeed, more than just some -- basis in fact to
indicate that damages may be awarded to consumers as well as
businesses who paid intentionally inflated prices for packaged
bread."
Morgan declined to expand the class to include people who bought
fresh bread -- he didn't buy the argument that the alleged
price-fixing on packaged bread spilled over to increase the cost of
the fresh variety.
The scandal erupted in 2017 after the Competition Bureau disclosed
it had begun an investigation after whistleblowers at Weston
Bakeries approached the federal department to admit their
participation in the alleged collusion.
As a result of coming forward, Loblaw and its affiliates received
immunity from prosecution. More than four years later, the
Competition Bureau investigation is still ongoing.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. "We see no
evidence of any Sobeys involvement in the conduct being alleged and
have seen absolutely no indication that Sobeys contravened
competition law. It is unfortunate that our brand has been painted
with the same brush as others," a spokesperson wrote in an email to
the Toronto Sun.
Metro declined to comment and the other companies could not be
reached.
According to Wingfield, there are still a few more years of
litigation ahead so don't count your money just yet.
But the future pile of dough could be the greatest thing since
sliced bread. [GN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over July 2021 Sewage Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a lawsuit filed on Jan. 4 alleges
negligence by the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation led to a
massive sewage spill last July, as crews continue to clean up
Southern California beaches closed because of a sewage spill.
The class action lawsuit places blame for last summer's spill on
workers at LA's Hyperion treatment plant as well as the
manufacturer of screens designed to filter debris from raw sewage,
the Southern California News Group reported.
Debris clogging a filtering screen became clogged, triggering a
flood at the plant that prompted workers to intentionally discharge
millions of gallons of raw sewage into the ocean on July 11.
Lingering odors permeated residential neighborhoods in nearby El
Segundo for months.
Elena Stern, a spokeswoman for the L.A. Department of Public Works,
told the news group that the agency does not comment on pending
litigation.
Meanwhile, beaches in Long Beach remained closed on Jan. 4 after a
sewage spill shut off large segment of the LA-area coastline before
New Year's Day. Officials said on Jan. 3 that closures were lifted
for five of seven beaches in Los Angeles County.
A sewer main line failed on Dec. 30 in the city of Carson,
discharging roughly 8.5 million gallons (32 million liters) of
sewage into the Dominguez Channel, which empties into LA Harbor.
[GN]
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ERISA Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edelson Lechtzin LLP has filed an ERISA excessive fee class action
against Marathon Petroleum Company.
While most employer-sponsored 401(k) and 403(b) retirement savings
plans are well managed, some fall through the cracks. When that
happens, participants have the right to bring lawsuits on behalf of
the plan for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA"). ERISA "imposes a ‘prudent person' standard by
which to measure fiduciaries' investment decisions and disposition
of assets." Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459,
2467 (2014).
Participants in the Marathon Petroleum Company Thrift Plan ("Plan")
recently filed an ERISA class action alleging that Marathon
Petroleum Company, its Board of Directors, and its Investment
Committee breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately
monitor and control the Plan's recordkeeping expenses. These
excessive fees wasted their retirement savings. A copy of the Class
Action Complaint can be found here.
What does the Complaint allege?
The Complaint alleges that as of year-end 2020, the Plan had net
assets of more than $6 billion. This gave the Plan had substantial
bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged
against participants' investments. The Plan's fiduciaries failed to
use this bargaining power to the Plan's advantage. Instead, Plan
participants were saddled with above-market recordkeeping and
administrative fees. The per-participant recordkeeping fees for the
Plan averaged $65.37 during the Class Period. Plaintiffs allege
that comparable 401(k) plans paid no more than $20 to $35 per
participant during this time period.
In addition, the Plan's fiduciaries failed to prudently select and
monitor each of the Plan's investment offerings. As a result, the
Plan retained at least one underperforming fund -- the DFA Emerging
Markets Value I Fund -- from 2015 to 2020. The Plaintiffs allege
that this mutual fund underperformed its benchmark index over the
critical 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods as of September 30, 2021. A
prudent fiduciary should have been aware of better-performing
lower-cost alternatives and replaced the DFA Emerging Markets Value
I Fund with a lower-cost, better-performing alternative.
Excessive fees have long been a problem for 401(k) plans
There's no question that ERISA plans are complicated to manage.
Financial advisors, recordkeepers, third-party administrators, and
custodians all want a piece of the financial pie for their
services. It is only fair, after all, that they are compensated
reasonably for their efforts – but not to excess.
Plan fiduciaries have an obligation to monitor and control
recordkeeping fees in order to ensure that such fees remain
reasonable. Recordkeeping expenses can either be paid directly from
plan assets or indirectly by the plan's investments through revenue
sharing (or a combination of both). Revenue sharing payments are
made by investments within the plan, typically mutual funds, to the
plan's recordkeeper.
The problem with revenue sharing arrangements is that without
"tight control, the growth of your plan's assets over time may lead
to higher than reasonable amounts getting paid to service
providers. This is because most revenue sharing is asset-based. If
a recordkeeper's workload is about the same this year as last, why
should they get more compensation just because the market had a big
year and inflated the asset base? In a large plan, this phenomenon
can lead to six figure comp bloat over time. That's bad for plan
participants…" Jim Phillips, (b)est Practices: What Do You Know
About Revenue Sharing? PLANSPONSOR.com (June 14, 2014).
How do I find out if my 401(k) plan is wasting my retirement
savings?
The recent lawsuits over excessive fees, including the Marathon
Petroleum Company case, indicate that many companies are still
missing the mark. If you believe that your retirement savings are
being mismanaged by your employer's failure to keep watch over your
ERISA plan, it may be time to explore your legal options. Contact
Edelson Lechtzin LLP for a free consultation. [GN]
MASTERCARD INT'L: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A.,
FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., and DR. WILLIAM P. GRESS, individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-00041-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its motion to reconsider that portion of
its Order certifying the Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class and granting
such other and further relief that the Court deems just and
proper.
It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs have failed to adduce
classwide evidence showing how the Faxes were received. However,
the Court interpreted the effects of this failure differently for
the All Fax Recipients Class and the Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class,
clearly erring when it made the below inconsistent findings:
-- All Fax Recipients Class
"Individualized inquires would be required to determine
whether each member received a fax via a stand-alone
machine or online fax service because only those who
received a fax via a stand-alone machine could potentially
have a valid TCPA claim, and thus the element of receipt
on a 'telephone facsimile machine' would not be subject to
classwide proof;" and
-- Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class
"[B]ecause each member of the class received the fax via a
stand-alone machine, the element of receipt of a fax on a
telephone facsimile machine could likely be proven by
classwide evidence."
MasterCard provides payment processing products. The Company offers
products including, credit, debit, prepaid, personal, commercial,
chip, and contactless cards, as well as offers security and fraud
management services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fcvU9A
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ross M. Good, Esq.
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
bwanca@andersonwanca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher G. Karagheuzoff, Esq.
Jonathan Montcalm, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
51 W. 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 415-9200
E-mail: karagheuzoff.christopher@dorsey.com
montcalm.jonathan@dorsey.com
- and -
Kyle Dudek, Esq.
HENDERSON, FRANKLIN,
STARNES & HOLT, P.A.
1715 Monroe Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Telephone: (239) 344-1237
E-mail: kyle.dudek@henlaw.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Putnam Sues Over Opioid Crisis in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.,
MCKINSEY HOLDINGS, INC., MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES,
and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01289-HES-PDB (M.D. Fla., December 30, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in
creating and deepening the opioid crisis in public schools in
Florida. The Defendants allegedly knew of the dangers of opioids,
and of the misconduct of opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, but
nonetheless they advised Purdue and implemented a marketing
strategy to increase the sales of OxyContin, a brand-name opioid.
The Plaintiff brings this action against McKinsey for the
consulting services it provided to opioid companies in connection
with designing the companies' marketing plans and programs that
helped cause and contribute to the opioid crisis, including
prenatal exposure to opioids.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
McKinsey Holdings, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. is a management
consulting firm, with its principal place of business in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wayne Hogan, Esq.
Leslie A. Goller, Esq.
TERRELL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A.
233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 722-2228
E-mail: hogan@terrellhogan.com
lgoller@terrellhogan.com
- and –
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Joshua Karsh, Esq.
C. Ezra Bronstein, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K Street NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
jkarsh@findjustice.com
ebronstein@findjustice.com
- and –
Neil Henrichsen, Esq.
HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP, PLLC
655 15th Street, N.W. Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 423-3649
E-mail: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com
- and –
Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
Margaret Truesdale, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD
70 W Madison St., Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 604-2606
E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
mtruesdale@hsplegal.com
MEADE DIGITAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meade Digital
Enterprises Corp. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Meade Digital Enterprises Corp. doing business as: Fulton Fish
Market, Case No. 1:22-cv-00087 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Meade Digital Enterprises Corp. doing business as Fulton Fish
Market -- https://fultonfishmarket.com/ -- offers the largest
assortment and finest quality seafood online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
META MATERIALS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 5 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Meta Materials Inc. f/k/a Torchlight Energy
Resources, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT, TRCH) (OTC: MMTLP) between September
21, 2020 and December 14, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").
All investors who purchased the shares of Meta Materials Inc. f/k/a
Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to
contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information
concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in Meta Materials Inc., you may, no
later than March 4, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in Meta Materials Inc.
According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose:
-- the business combination of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.
and Metamaterial Inc. would result in an SEC investigation and
subpoena in the matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy
Resources, Inc.;
-- the Company has materially overstated its business
connections and dealings;
-- the Company has materially overstated its ability to produce
and commercialize its products;
the Company has materially overstated its products' novelty and
capabilities;
-- the Company's products did not have the potential to be
disruptive because, among other things, the Company priced its
products too high; and
-- as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Tort Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.),
Case No. 21-CIV-06465, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on January 5, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00051-AGT to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged tort violations under
theories of strict product liability and negligence.
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., is a
technology company, with its principal place of business” in
“Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristin A. Linsley, Esq.
Rosemarie T. Ring, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
E-mail: klinsley@gibsondunn.com
rring@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Perlette Michele Jura, Esq.
Bradley Hamburger, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: pjura@gibsondunn.com
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
MIRACLE FAITH: Key TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRITTANEY KEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MIRACLE FAITH CENTER, INC. d/b/a
APOSTOLIC GLOBAL CHURCH, Case No. 2021 CA 003054(F), was removed
from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for
Escambia County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida on January 3, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00075-TKW-MJF to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Miracle Faith Center, Inc. d/b/a Apostolic Global Church is a
religious organization headquartered in Pensacola, Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Roy Black, Esq.
BLACK SREBNICK, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 371-6421
E-mail: RBlack@RoyBlack.com
MOVE HOLDINGS: Reimer Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Move Holdings, et al.
The case is styled as Ruhi Reimer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Move Holdings doing business as:
Realtor.com, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00075 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Move Holdings doing business as Realtor.com --
https://www.realtor.com/ -- is a real estate listings website
operated by the News Corp subsidiary Move, Inc. and based in Santa
Clara, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
NATIONAL CREDIT: Swanson Seeks to Certify "No Consent" Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSALYNE SWANSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-01504-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a No Consent Class defined as follows:
"All persons in the United States who, from September 19,
2015 through the date notice is disseminated, (1) Defendant
caused to be called; (2) on the person's cellphone; (3) using
the same dialing equipment that was used to call Plaintiff;
(4) for the purpose of collecting a debt; and (5) had their
cellphone number obtained by NCS in the same way that NCS
obtained Plaintiff's cellphone number."
This lawsuit challenges debt collection phone calls that NCS placed
to Plaintiff and the members of the alleged Class.
NCS is a debt collector which has allegedly violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) uniformly with respect to
the entire Class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33gMoe5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
- and -
Matesky Law PLLC
1001 4th Avenue, Ste. 3200
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 701-0331
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Fans' Class Action Demands Return to New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry McShane, writing for New York Daily News, reports that forget
the recent years of football failures: There's still one fan who
wants the Giants and Jets to leave New Jersey for their old home in
New York.
A $6 billion Manhattan Federal Court lawsuit filed recently
demanded the two teams, with a combined record of 8-24 and one week
left in yet another lost season, abandon their shared Meadowlands
home of MetLife Stadium and return to the Big Apple.
Plaintiff Abdiell Suero, of Greenwich Village, asked in the class
action complaint for an order returning both franchises to New York
in 2025 -- along with the multibillion payout nearly a half-century
after the Giants moved to the swamps of Jersey.
"If the Giants and Jets want to call themselves New York teams,
they need to come back to New York," said Suero in court papers.
"I've traveled to and from MetLife Stadium by mass transit and car
service, and both ways are a nightmare."
Court papers also asked for the two teams to be rebranded as the
East Rutherford Giants and Jets for as long as they continue to
play in New Jersey.
The Jets did not immediately respond to the lawsuit, while the
Giants issued a statement declaring "this case has no merit and we
will defend it vigorously."
The Giants moved to New Jersey and the since torn-down Giants
Stadium in 1976, while the Jets joined them in the Garden State
eight years later. Both teams now play in MetLife Stadium.
"The Giants and Jets have no legal or ethical right to play in a
stadium built on cheap landfills in New Jersey and still call
themselves New York franchises," said plaintiff's attorney Evan
Spencer. "New York is a special state and an iconic brand that
can't be used by NFL New Jersey Teams to increase their value."
In court papers, Suero and his attorney contended the relocation of
the teams to East Rutherford took a toll on their fans.
"Plaintiff and the class of New York Giants and Jets fans
respectfully request that both teams return to the State of New
York so they can enjoy all the healthy social, psychological and
physical benefits associated with sports identifications of their
home NFL teams," read the 19-page court filing.
"The move to New Jersey financially benefited the the defendants
alone at the expense of plaintiff and the class of millions of
Giants and Jets fans . . . Plaintiff and the class have suffered
mental and emotional damage, including depression, sadness and
anxiety . . . as a result of the Defendants' conduct."
The lawsuit seeks $2 billion in monetary damages and $4 billion in
punitive damages. The class, according to the suit, would include
all Giants and Jets fans who live in New York. Legal claims against
the teams and the NFL include false advertising and deceptive
practices.
Suero complained specifically about the time and trouble required
for a trip to watch the teams that still claim their long-severed
ties to the Big Apple.
"The travel time was longer than the game and it ruined the whole
day," he griped. "The transportation cost almost as much as the
tickets." [GN]
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Malcolm Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malcolm v. The City of New
York, Case No. 1:20-cv-09641-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending the time to file the class
certification reply until February 7, 2022.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zHMtDN at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadline in Bafford Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen H. Bafford, et
al., v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-10219-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright
entered an order setting Class Certification Deadline 120 days
after issuance of scheduling and case management order:
Northrop is an American multinational aerospace and defense
technology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FaVwhF at no extra charge.[CC]
OLD NAVY: Class Settlement Excludes Purchases Made in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Genetti, writing for My Journal Courier, reports that if
you made a purchase at Old Navy clothing stores over a six-year
period, you might be able to get a store credit.
A class action lawsuit settlement that claimed Old Navy "used false
or misleading reference prices in their marketing," has resulted in
the company giving one or more $5 certificates (store credit) to
customers who made purchases between Nov. 15, 2015 and Dec. 2,
2021, according to OpenClassActions.com.
However, the information points out, but does not explain, that
this settlement excludes purchases made in Missouri.
"If your Old Navy purchases totaled less than $90.00 you qualify
for $5 for any purchase or off any purchase," the website states.
"\If your total purchases are more than $90.00, you will need to
provide proof of payment and you may qualify for $10."
Claims can be made online until May 31. [GN]
PALISADES INSURANCE: Brown Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mayritta Brown, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Palisades Insurance Company, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00008, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on Jan. 5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-00094-CS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Palisades Insurance Co. doing business as Plymouth Rock Assurance
Corporation -- https://www.plymouthrock.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers auto, home, motorcycle,
renters, condos, and umbrella insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
PANEL SPECIALISTS: Danos Seeks Unpaid Wages, Slams Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorrel Danos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Panel Specialists, Inc. and Joseph Earl
Bergeron, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00014 (E.D. La., January 4,
2022), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay
for all hours worked, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Louisiana Revised Statutes.
Danos was employed by Panel Specialists as an "Instrument
Technician" at their office in Houma, Louisiana. Danos seeks
compensation for unpaid hours worked and unpaid travel per diems.
He also brings this action for retaliation as he was denied
additional works when he threatened to sue. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL & ASSOCIATES, APLC
615 Baronne Street, Suite 300
New Orleans, LA 70113
Tel: (504) 527-6433
Fax: (504) 527-6450
Email: Craig@2hurt2work.com
- and -
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Tel/Fax 877-443-0999
Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com
PLAID INC: $58MM Privacy Settlement Hearing Set for May 12
----------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been proposed in class action litigation against
Plaid Inc. Approximately 5,000 mobile and web-based applications
("apps") use Plaid to enable users to connect the app to the users'
bank account(s). This class action alleges Plaid took certain
improper actions in connection with this process. The allegations
include that Plaid: (1) obtained more financial data than was
needed by a user's app, and (2) obtained log-in credentials
(username and password) through its user interface, known as "Plaid
Link," which had the look and feel of the user's own bank account
login screen, when users were actually providing their login
credentials directly to Plaid. Plaid denies these allegations and
any wrongdoing and maintains that it adequately disclosed and
maintained transparency about its practices to consumers.
You may be a Class Member if you are a United States resident and
you connected a financial account to an app between January 1, 2013
and November 19, 2021. More specifically, you are a Class Member if
you own or owned one or more "Financial Accounts" that Plaid
accessed using your login credentials and connected to a mobile or
web-based app that enables payments or other money transfers; or
for which you provided Financial Account login credentials to Plaid
through Plaid Link; between January 1, 2013 and November 19, 2021.
To search for and confirm whether specific apps or services that
connected to your financial account(s) used Plaid for account
connections, you can visit the Settlement website at
www.PlaidSettlement.com.
Under the Settlement, Plaid has agreed to minimize the data it
stores going forward, to delete certain previously retrieved data,
and to improve and maintain certain already-implemented
enhancements to Plaid Link. Class Members are also able to view and
manage the connections they've made between their financial
accounts and chosen applications using Plaid, and delete data
stored in Plaid's systems by creating a Plaid Portal account, at
my.plaid.com. In addition, the Settlement establishes a $58 million
Settlement Fund, to be used for cash payments to Class Members who
submit valid claims for compensation, after deducting the costs of
the settlement administration, court-approved attorneys' fees and
expenses, and Service Awards for eleven Class Representatives. The
amount of monetary payments issued to Class Members will depend on
the number of valid claims received. In exchange for the benefits
the Settlement provides, Class Members will release any and all
claims they may have (whether known or unknown) regarding the
allegations in the Complaint.
The Court will decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement.
If approved, the Settlement will resolve the litigation entitled In
re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:20-md-03056, which is
pending before Judge Donna M. Ryu in the Northern District of
California.
The class action settlement approval process may take several
months, or more, if there is an appeal.
Please Read this Notice Carefully.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
FILE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
You may file a Claim in order to receive a monetary payment from
the Settlement Fund.
Filing a Claim is the only way to receive a payment from this
settlement.
Deadline: April 28, 2022
EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THIS SETTLEMENT
You can exclude yourself from the Settlement by informing the
Settlement Administrator that you want to "opt-out" of the
Settlement. If the Settlement becomes final, this is the only
option that allows you to retain your rights to individually sue
for claims relating to the allegations in the Complaint. You will
not receive a payment from the Settlement if you exclude yourself.
Deadline: March 4, 2022
OBJECT TO OR COMMENT ON THE SETTLEMENT
You may object to the Settlement by writing to the Court about why
you don't think the Settlement should be approved. You can also
write the Court to provide comments or reasons why you support the
Settlement.
Deadline: March 4, 2022
GO TO THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
You may, but are not required to, attend the Final Approval Hearing
where the Court may hear arguments concerning the approval of the
Settlement. If you wish to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you
must state your intention to do so in your written objection or
comment.
Deadline: May 12, 2022
DO NOTHING
If you do nothing before the deadline to comment, object, or
exclude yourself, and if the Settlement becomes final, you will be
part of the Settlement Class and bound by the Settlement and give
up your rights to sue for claims relating to any or all allegations
in the Plaintiffs' complaint in this case.
PLY GEM: Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATHANIEL WILLIAMS and LAJUAN DENNIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLY GEM PACIFIC
WINDOWS CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2021-00309657-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on January 5, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00017 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay wages when due
during employment and at termination, failure to pay wages by
instrument payable on demand without discount, and unfair business
practices.
Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation is an exterior home building
products manufacturer, with its principal place of business in
Auburn, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Martin D. Bern, Esq.
David W. Moreshead, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: martin.bern@mto.com
david.moreshead@mto.com
PRATT & WHITNEY: Durbin Sues Over Antitrust Violations
------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DURBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRATT & WHITNEY, INC., QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC.,
BELCAN LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., AGILIS
ENGINEERING, INC., MAHESH PATEL, ROBERT HARVEY, HARPREET WASAN,
STEVE HOUGHTALING, THOMAS EDWARDS, GARY PRUS, FRANK O'NEILL,
CO-CONSPIRATOR 2, CO-CONSPIRATOR 4, AND DOES 1-50, Case No.
3:21-cv-1682 (D. Conn., Dec. 17, 2021) seeks to recover damages and
prevent Defendants from retaining the benefits of their antitrust
violations.
The complaint alleges that Pratt & Whitney, Inc. orchestrated and
enforced a conspiracy between and amongst five outsourced engineer
suppliers to restrain competition. This conspiracy violated the
antitrust laws. Defendants' conspiracy also denied their employees
access to job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and
deprived them of significant information that they would have used
to negotiate for better compensation and terms of employment. In
addition, Defendants' conspiracy eliminated the need for
compensation increases to preempt competitive offers and retain
employees. The result, by design, was suppression of broad employee
pay structures, the complaint adds.
Pratt & Whitney, Inc is one of the US' leading aerospace engine
design, manufacture, service, and supply companies where Plaintiff
Durbin worked as a jet engine mechanic from 1980 to 2019. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg D. Adler, Esq.
Dan Livingston, Esq.
LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, PC
557 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 454-9608
Facsimile: (860) 232-7818
E-mail: gdadler@lapmk.org
delivingston@lapm.org
- and -
Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
Sarah D. Zandi, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
ashaver@lchb.com
lchan@lchb.com
ysalahi@lchb.com
szandi@lchb.com
PROCOLLECT INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
AccountsRecovery.net reports that a class-action complaint has been
filed against a debt collector for violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act because it allegedly offered to delete a
debt from an individual's credit report if the individual accepted
a settlement offer, but instead reported the debt as "paid" with a
$0 balance instead.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Diallo v. ProCollect is
available at:
https://www.accountsrecovery.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Diallo-v-ProCollect.pdf
The plaintiff allegedly received a collection letter from the
defendant in regard to an unpaid apartment debt. The letter had the
heading, "RECEIVE 35% DISCOUNT & DELETION FROM CREDIT REPORT" and
included the following statement:
The plaintiff contacted the defendant, accepted the offer, and made
the payment during a phone conversation. But when the plaintiff
checked her credit report several months later, the report said
that the debt had been "paid" and had a balance of $0. It had not
been deleted as allegedly promised by the defendant.
When the plaintiff contacted the defendant, a representative of the
defendant allegedly said the problem was the plaintiff's to solve
because the account had been closed and then allegedly hung up on
the plaintiff.
The plaintiff seeks to include two classes in her suit -- one for
individuals who received similar letters that the plaintiff
received, and one for individuals who made payments and whose
accounts were not deleted.
The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692e, 1692e(10), and
1692f of the FDCPA by misrepresenting in the letter that the
tradeline would be delete, as well as the Texas Debt Collections
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Suits Over Secret Benzene Recall Pile Up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that the number
of class action lawsuits filed in the wake of a recent Old Spice
and Secret deodorant spray benzene recall continues to grow, as
consumer concern and anger mounts after discovering that they were
sold products tainted with toxic cancer-causing ingredients for
years.
In early November, the independent testing pharmacy Valisure
released a report that found high levels of benzene in Old Spice,
Secret, Suave, and Tag deodorants and body sprays, resulting in a
citizen's petition that calls for the FDA to recall the affected
products.
Acknowledging the Old Spice and Secret deodorant benzene problems,
Procter & Gamble announced an Old Spice and Secret recall on
November 23, pulling nearly twenty separate Proctor & Gamble
aerosol antiperspirant spray products from the market. By that
time, at least two similar class action lawsuits had already been
filed.
Since that time, lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal
court system seeking class action status to pursue damages for
certain groups of consumers, each raising similar factual
allegations.
In a complaint (PDF) filed late last month in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, plaintiff Marianna
Campbell indicates that she purchased Secret Outlast Protecting
Powder aerosol deodorant on a continual basis for about 22 years,
which exposed her to dangerously high levels of benzene that may
increase her risk of cancer and other injuries in the future.
Campbell indicates she never would have purchased the deodorant, or
paid its current $7 price, had she known it was dangerous to her
health, alleging the recent recall is not an adequate remedy, since
it limited reimbursements to only three products, instead of the
entire list of deodorants found to contain benzene by Valisure, as
well as similar testing by Yale University.
"As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members are thus inaccurately
informed as to the potential dangers of the Affected Products,"
Campbell's lawsuit states. "Further, P&G makes no efforts to
describe whether it conducted its own testing and whether other
products, not tested by Valisure or Yale University, also contained
detectable levels of benzene."
The lawsuit seeks class action status for buyers of those affected
by the Old Spice and Secret benzene recall in Michigan and
nationwide, presenting claims of breach of warranty, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
Benzene is an industrial chemical associated with the development
of several fatal forms of cancer, leukemia and other conditions,
such as AML, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML), Acute Lymphocytic
Leukemia (ALL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Hairy Cell
Leukemia (HCL), Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma,
Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDL), Myelofibrosis and Myeloid
Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura.
The FDA categorizes benzene as a Class I Solvent, which should not
be used in the making of drug products because of its toxicity.
However, if a product must contain benzene, it should be limited to
2 parts per million (ppm).
In addition to claims of false and misleading advertising, the Old
Spice and Secret benzene lawsuits filed against Proctor & Gamble
also claim that the manufacturer failed to adequately screen its
aerosol deodorant spray products for harmful chemicals, exposing
consumers all across the nation to cancer causing chemicals. [GN]
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Class Status Hearing Set for Feb. 28
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENMA SAGASTUME,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION, an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-06624-DSF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer
entered an order:
-- Reply ISO Motion for Class January 31, 2022
Certification:
-- Hearing on Motion for Class February 28, 2022
Certification:
-- Motion to Amend Pleadings or
Add Parties
-- Cut-Off: March 28, 2022
-- Discovery Cut-Off: May 13, 2022
-- Expert Witness Exchange Deadline(s):
-- Initial: April 12, 2022
-- Rebuttal: May 13, 2022
-- Cut-Off: June 14, 2022
-- Motion Hearing Cut-Off: August 1, 2022
-- Last Day to Conduct ADR August 16, 2022
Proceeding:
-- Trial Documents Deadline September 20, 2022
(Set One):
-- Trial Documents Deadline September 27, 2022
(Set Two):
-- Final Pretrial Conference: October 3, 2022
-- Trial date: November 8, 2022
Psychemedics is a United States corporation which provides
patented, FDA-cleared, CAP certified clinical laboratory services
for the detection of drugs of abuse.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FidCys at no extra charge.[CC]
QUESTFLEET LLC: Toye Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
THEDA TOYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUESTFLEET LLC, JOES, NAPA JOE'S 4 INC.,
JOESONS AUTO PARTS INC., and RAYMOND PICHARDO, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07184 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a delivery driver from
September 2021.
Questfleet LLC is a delivery service provider, with a place of
business located at 634 Route 109, Lindenhurst, New York.
NAPA Joe's 4 Inc. is an automotive parts company, with a place of
business located at 4150 Hyland Boulevard, Staten Island, New
York.
Joesons Auto Parts Inc. is an automotive parts company based in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
546 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 486-0011
E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com
RCX LLC: Thompson Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA THOMPSON, ALEXIS BENTON, and EMANI BURGESS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RCX,
LLC dba STADIUM CLUB, RUDOLPH CLINE-THOMAS, and BREANNA WALKER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03386 (D.D.C., December 30, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal
kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tipping.
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at the Defendants' Stadium
Club located at 2127 Queens Chapel Road, Nebraska at any time
between 2018 and 2021.
RCX, LLC is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility named Stadium Club, located at 2127 Queens
Chapel Road, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Kristensen, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
Facsimile: (310) 858-1063
E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
RIOT GAMES: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action for $100-MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adi Robertson, writing for The Verge, reports that Riot Games has
struck a $100 million settlement deal in a discrimination and
harassment lawsuit brought by female employees. The League of
Legends and Valorant publisher will pay at least $80 million to
members of the settlement class and around $20 million in legal
fees, and it will agree to workplace changes that include greater
pay transparency and three years of third-party monitoring.
The settlement covers a 2018 class action lawsuit filed by current
and former Riot employees in the wake of a Kotaku report detailing
systemic sexism and unfair treatment. The suit described an
environment where male employees made derogatory sexual comments
about female colleagues and passed them over for promotion,
creating a company-wide "unwritten policy and practice of
preferring men to women in the hiring, promotion, and compensation
of its employees."
Riot agreed to a $10 million settlement in 2019, but the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) blocked the agreement, saying
women at the company could be entitled to up to $400 million. The
DFEH endorsed the latest settlement in a press release.
AN EARLIER SETTLEMENT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED $10 MILLION
According to the DFEH, the suit covers approximately 1,065 female
employees and 1,300 female contractors at Riot. Women who worked
for Riot in either capacity since November of 2014 may be eligible
for damages if a court approves the settlement. In a letter
obtained by The Washington Post, Riot leadership told employees
that "the final details of the agreement came together quickly,"
resulting in an unexpected end-of-year announcement.
"This is a great day for the women of Riot Games -- and for women
at all video game and tech companies -- who deserve a workplace
that is free of harassment and discrimination," said attorney Genie
Harrison, who began representing the plaintiffs in 2020. "We
appreciate Riot's introspection and work since 2018 toward becoming
a more diverse and inclusive company, its willingness to take
responsibility for its past, and its commitment to fairness and
equality in the future."
The new Riot settlement comes shortly after a court stopped the
DFEH from intervening in a settlement over similar gender
discrimination claims at games company Activision Blizzard. It
doesn't cover a separate 2021 complaint alleging that Riot's CEO
Nicolo Laurent harassed a former employee -- a claim that Riot
denied in March after conducting an internal investigation.
In a statement, Riot Games said it hoped the settlement "properly
acknowledges those who had negative experiences at Riot and
demonstrates our desire to lead by example in bringing more
accountability and equality to the games industry." [GN]
RITCHIE TRUCKING: Imber Sues Over ESOP Losses Due to Stock Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON IMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRUCE LACKEY, PAM LACKEY, LACKEY FAMILY
TRUST, COLE SCHARTON, the ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE
BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, MIGUEL PAREDES, RICK ROUSH,
DEL THACKER, RICHARD DEYOUNG, and RITCHIE TRUCKING SERVICE
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, and PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:21-at-01158 (E.D.
Cal., December 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for engaging in prohibited transaction, breach of fiduciary duty,
failure to disclose information, and co-fiduciary liability in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties to the People Business Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its
participants by allowing the sale of Ritchie Trucking Service
Holdings, Inc.'s common stock to the ESOP by Defendant Lackey
Family Trust on December 31, 2018. The said transaction was not
designed to be in the best interests of the ESOP participants and
caused the ESOP to pay more than fair market value. Before the 2018
transaction, Ritchie Trucking's largest client announced that it
would and ultimately did make significant changes that would
decrease Ritchie Trucking's market share and revenue. Had the
trustee performed a prudent investigation and sufficient due
diligence, such material information should have been discovered.
As a result of these breaches of fiduciary duty by all the Plan
fiduciaries, this material information was not considered in
valuing Ritchie Holdings for purposes of the transaction and was
not properly included in the transaction price, says the suit.
Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc. is a logistics service
company in Fresno, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jbarton@blockleviton.com
ROLLINS INC: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plans
------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Rollins Inc.
is facing a proposed class action in federal court in Georgia by
401(k) beneficiaries who say company officials didn't properly
manage the pest control company's retirement plan.
Former Rollins employee and current plan participant Marcia G.
Fleming is among the named plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of post-2008 plan participants who say the plan's assets were
dissipated in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act. The suit comes more than a year after Rollins evaded a similar
suit by Fleming due to her failure to satisfy ERISA's exhaustion
requirement. [GN]
ROYAL WINNIPEG: Settles Bruce Monk Class Action for $10 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Hoye, writing for CBC News, reports that potentially dozens
of former students of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet may be compensated
after the dance company settled a multimillion-dollar class-action
lawsuit involving a past instructor accused of taking nude and
sexualized photos of young women and teenage girls for years.
The RWB has agreed to a $10-million settlement in the case against
it and former instructor and photographer Bruce Monk. An approval
hearing is scheduled for next month.
"It's been a very long, difficult road for the women who've been
involved in this case," said lawyer Margaret Waddell of the Waddell
Phillips law firm. "I think that they all feel a sense of relief,
that they've reached a resolution and that there will be some
closure."
The class-action lawsuit got underway in 2016 and was approved by
the courts in 2018.
The lawsuit maintained the company failed to protect students and
breached fiduciary duties to students.
Lead plaintiff Sarah Doucet alleged Monk pressured her into being
photographed partially nude as a teenager.
"There's a lot of us that suffered and continue to suffer," she
said on Jan. 4, responding to the settlement.
"But . . . I'm really relieved. I think that this is hopefully
going to give permission to a lot of women to finally tackle this
and be able to get some closure and feel OK."
The settlement states the agreement is a "compromise of disputed
claims, without any admission or findings of liability or
wrongdoing" against Monk or the RWB.
CBC News has reached out to Monk's lawyer for comment. He has
previously denied the allegations, court documents say.
The lawsuit didn't allege Monk's conduct was criminal. It focused
on allegations he abused a position of trust and power.
He worked as an instructor and photographer for the RWB from 1984
to 2015.
Some RWB students allege during that time he took nude, semi-nude
and sexualized photos of them in private, some of which were posted
or sold online without consent.
Waddell said lawyers identified 50 to 70 former students who had
nude, semi-nude or sexualized photos taken of them, but she
estimates there could be more.
The RWB said in 2015 it had no prior knowledge of the multiple
allegations, though the ballet company did say it received an
anonymous email in 2013 outlining allegations of inappropriate
behaviour.
"As soon as we learned of the investigation into Monk's actions, he
was suspended," RWB said in a statement on Jan. 4.
The RWB fired him in 2015. He later volunteered and did contract
work for Ballet Victoria, which subsequently cut ties with him as
well.
Winnipeg police investigated but never charged Monk; Manitoba
Justice prosecutors recommended against charges, saying a
conviction was unlikely.
Waddell believes there were people in the RWB administration who
knew what was going on prior to 2015 but failed to "appreciate the
impropriety of it."
"I don't think that they understood or appreciated where the line
crossed between the body as an instrument of art and dance and
using it for improper purposes," said Waddell.
Compensation could begin next year
The RWB will pay $10 million to claimants and cover legal and
administrative expenses.
Nearly a quarter of the settlement -- $2.25 million plus taxes and
other costs -- will go toward legal fees.
The rest will go to students and their families through a series of
funds, including a student fund.
A claims administrator will decide whether a student is eligible
for compensation through the student fund. How much each receives
will be based on levels of harm suffered, according to Waddell
Philips.
Family members of affected students can also receive up to $2,500
each from $500,000 set aside for this purpose.
Another $500,000 is earmarked for a health services fund for
eligible students to make a request for a one-time payment of
$1,000, regardless of whether an adjudicator determines those
students have suffered other harms associated with being
photographed by Monk.
Affected students can receive some of the settlement by making a
declaration within the next 12 months. They may also include
supporting documents, including photographs or witness statements,
though evidence is not required, the legal team said. Claims will
be anonymized.
Safety 'highest priority'
Waddell said a significant part of the settlement is that RWB has
agreed to apologize.
The RWB wouldn't comment further until after the settlement
approval hearing Feb. 11.
"The safety of our students, staff and dancers remains the highest
priority for us and we continue to work with organizations like the
Canadian Centre for Child Protection to ensure our policies and
procedures at the RWB do all they can to provide a safe environment
for everyone," the company said in a statement.
Waddell said it's important the RWB recognize students and women
training at elite levels can be abused by people in positions of
authority.
"What Ms. Doucet and the other women who helped in prosecuting this
case achieved was the safety of the future generations at the
school and hopefully at other schools like this," she said.
Doucet hopes the settlement sets a precedent for institutions
involved with young people in dance, sport and beyond.
"I left the ballet at 18, but I had a full career in contemporary
dance and that was my dream . . . Everything I do now comes from
that," she said.
"It would be good if at some point in time . . . we could go
through those things unscathed and unharmed." [GN]
RUSHMORE LOAN: Derogatis Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER DEROGATIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. MER-L-002585-21, was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Civil Division, Mercer County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on January 5, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-00041 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract and
violations of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment
statute, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC is a multi-faceted
residential mortgage servicer based in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph N. Froehlich, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
Brookfield Place
200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10281-2101
Telephone: (212) 415-8600
Facsimile: (212) 303-2754
E-mail: Jfroehlich@lockelord.com
SAHARA PAINTING: Rodriguez FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE EDGARDO RODRIGUEZ AVILA, CARLOS FLORES REYES,
CARLOS ONAN RODRIGUEZ AVILA, JOSE FRANCISCO PAVON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAHARA PAINTING INC.
and JOSE M. IGLESIAS, Case No. 2021-020510-CA-01, was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Court, in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on December 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-20003-JEM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sahara Painting Inc. is a painting company in Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bayardo Aleman, Esq.
Alexander T. Harne, Esq.
PERERA ALEMAN
12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
Davie, FL 33330
Telephone: (786) 485-5232
E-mail: bayardo@pba-law.com
harne@pba-law.com
SANOFI SA: Families of Depakine Victims Can Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tangi Salaun, writing for Reuters, report that a French court ruled
on Jan. 5 that families of victims of Depakine, an epilepsy drug
that caused birth defects and learning difficulties when taken
during pregnancy, could join a class action lawsuit against
drugmaker Sanofi (SASY.PA).
Sanofi said it would appeal against the decision.
"This is a great victory. This decision acknowledges the
responsibility of the laboratory," Marine Martin, head of victims
association APESAC, told Reuters.
APESAC, which represents 7,500 families, launched the class action
in September 2021 against Sanofi, which was placed under formal
investigation in 2020 on charges of manslaughter over Depakine.
Sanofi denied those charges at the time and said it would challenge
the merits of the investigation.
It said on Jan. 5 the decision of the court, the Tribunal
Judiciaire de Paris, contradicted previous ones in this case.
"The laboratory will appeal this decision. It is partly based on
questionable conclusions of an expert's report submitted during the
criminal proceedings," the drugmaker said in a statement.
French health authorities have estimated Depakine was responsible
for deformities in between 2,150 and 4,100 children and
neuro-developmental defects in up to 30,400 children.
The class action would be a first in France's health sector. APESAC
has said families could obtain hundreds of millions of euros in
compensation. [GN]
SANOFI SA: French Court Allows Depakine Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that a French court on Jan. 5 allowed a class-action
lawsuit to go ahead against pharmaceutical giant Sanofi by families
of victims of Depakine, an epilepsy drug that can severely damage
foetal development.
Depakine, a valproic acid drug sold since 1967 sometimes under
different brand names, marked great progress in the treatment of
epilepsy, and of manic phases for bipolar patients.
But valproic acid is also believed to have caused malformations for
between 2,150 and 4,100 children since it was launched in 1967, and
neuro-development problems for between 16,600 and 30,400 children,
according to French health authorities.
A class action initiated in 2017 by the Apesac association alleged
that Sanofi did not inform patients early enough about the risks of
birth defects and slowed development in children whose mothers were
prescribed the drug during pregnancy.
In the Jan. 5 verdict the court ruled that the lawsuit was "valid"
and could proceed, saying Sanofi "was at fault because it failed to
meet the obligation for vigilance and the obligation to inform"
concerning the risks of Depakine for the foetus.
Sanofi said in a statement that it had always been "transparent by
alerting the health authorities", and that it would appeal the
verdict.
With the ruling the court opened the door to France's first
class-action suit in the health sector, following a 2016 change in
the law which previously allowed such action only against consumer
goods companies.
Sanofi had "produced and marketed a defective product", it said.
Based on medical knowledge at the time, Sanofi should have warned
patients about congenital malformations from 1998 onwards and about
neuro-developmental issues -- which were less well understood
previously -- from 2001.
Sanofi only started issuing such warnings clearly in 2006, advising
doctors not to prescribe Depakine to female patients, except those
unable to get pregnant or with an intolerance or non-reaction to
all alternative treatments.
A lawyer for the Apesac association, Charles Joseph-Oudin, told AFP
that the court's verdict brought "great relief" to the families
because it "recognises that Sanofi was at fault".
The court ordered the launch of a wide-ranging campaign to inform
patients and their children of the possibility of joining the class
action within five years.
Last year, an administrative court, which deals with wrongdoing by
officials, ruled that the French state carried some responsibility
in the scandal -- along with Sanofi and prescribing doctors -- and
ordered the authorities to pay damages to several families with
severely handicapped children.
Sanofi and France's medicines safety agency ANSM were charged with
involuntary manslaughter in 2020. [GN]
SARAHS SILKS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarahs Silks, Inc.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sarahs Silks, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00108 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sarah's Silks -- https://www.sarahssilks.com/ -- creates open-ended
playsilks, costumes and wooden toys that promote imaginative play
in children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
STATE FARM: Bid for Protective Order Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN CROSS, in her
capacity as executrix of the estate of Zona Jones and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01047-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order:
-- Withdrawing Defendant's motion for Protective Order; and
-- Denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to extend.
State Farm Insurance is an insurance company throughout the United
States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HViYRX at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Sisia Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY K SISIA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-02376-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order conditionally certifying this action as a class action
pursuant to Fed R. Civ P. 23(b)(3).
On May 19, 2009, the Plaintiff sustained injuries in an automobile
accident when the vehicle she was driving was struck in the rear by
another vehicle in Fulton County.
At the time of the May 2009 rear-end collision, the Plaintiff was
insured under State Farm Automobile Policy No. 847288-F-26-11E (the
"Policy").
The medical payments section of this Policy specifically excluded
thermography and several other generalized procedures which were
not specifically identified by State Farm in the Policy.
State Farm has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) which is pending.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q77hRQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ford, Sr.
JAMES LEE FORD, P.C.
2957 Hardman Court, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 281-8750
E-mail: jldf@jlfordlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel F. Diffley, Esq.
Melissa G. Quintana, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
E-mail: Dan.diffley@alston.com
Melissa.quintana@alston.com
SUNSHINE HEALTH: Doyle Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Doyle, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sunshine Health, LLC, Case No.
21-018696-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Jan. 5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-20054-DPG to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Sunshine Health -- https://www.sunshinehealth.com/ -- offers
affordable Florida Medicaid, Medicare Plans and Health Insurance
Marketplace product, Ambetter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
7450 Griffin Road,Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: (954) 889-3359
Fax: (954) 889-5913
Email: Jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 524-2820
Fax: (954) 524-2822
Email: seth@epllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven Joseph Brotman, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 215 East Tower
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 833-7700
Fax: (561) 655-8719
Email: steven.brotman@lockelord.com
SUREFIRE LLC: Contreras Suit Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YENSY CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUREFIRE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00009-KPF (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.surefire.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These alleged access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) the screen reader skips over certain text on the page and
(b) the screen reader fails to read the banner.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Surefire, LLC is an online retail company that conducts business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that a massive data breach involving the personal identifying
information of millions of T-Mobile US Inc. customers has led to a
class-action lawsuit.
T-Mobile (Nasdaq: TMUS) admitted Aug. 16 that a data breach
occurred. The company's preliminary investigation concluded that
the stolen files contained at least 7.8 million current customer
accounts, as well as 40 million-plus records of former or
prospective customers who had applied for credit with T-Mobile.
According to the lawsuit, the investigation appears to be ongoing
and may reveal many more affected accounts.
Customers nationwide began filing lawsuits immediately after the
company admitted to the data breach in August. The cases started
getting consolidated on Dec. 7 into a massive class-action case
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri. For now, the complaint involves 39 separate lawsuits.
T-Mobile did not respond to a request for comment.
Hackers using the Twitter handle "@und0xxed" claimed to be
responsible for the breach, stating that they stole personal
identifying information including names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, driver's license information, phone numbers, dates of
birth, security PINs and unique SIM card identifiers going back as
far as the mid-1990s. Customers of other telecoms T-Mobile owns,
including the former Sprint Corp., appear to be unaffected.
T-Mobile customers are being encouraged to change their password
and PIN, monitor their credit and consider deploying two-factor
authentication.
The plaintiffs are represented by 44 law firms stretching from
California to New York. Kansas City-based Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
filed one of the first cases on behalf of Lavicieia Sturdivant of
Evanston, Illinois, who has been a T-Mobile customer for 18 years.
T-Mobile's defense team includes: Alston & Bird LLP in New York
City; Perkins Coie in Seattle; Kristine McAlister Brown in Atlanta;
Snell & Wilmer LLP in Reno, Nevada; and Spencer Fane LLP in
Oklahoma City.
The class action accuses T-Mobile of failing to take reasonable
steps to protect customers' personal identifying information and
failing to properly invest in data security. Specifically, T-Mobile
is accused of negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
contract and breach of confidence. California plaintiffs also
accuse T-Mobile of violating the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring T-Mobile to deploy
reasonable data security measures, as well as actual and punitive
damages, civil penalties and attorney fees. [GN]
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until March 8, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Talis Biomedical
Corporation (NasdaqGM: TLIS), if they purchased the Company's
shares issued in connection with its February 2021 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
(PRNewsfoto/Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC)
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Talis and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-tlis/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by March 8, 2022.
About the Lawsuit
Talis and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in conjunction with the initial public offering,
violating federal securities laws.
The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the comparator assay in the
primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis's EUA
application for Talis One COVID-19 test; (ii) Talis was reasonably
likely to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for
the Talis One COVID-19 test; (iii) the Company's commercialization
timeline would be significantly delayed; and (iv) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's positive statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
The case is Modrak v. Talis Biomedical Corporation, et al.,
22-cv-105.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
THOR 1566: Saur Sues Over Hazardous Building-Wide Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUR and KARINA LAVECCHIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THOR 1566 THIRD AVENUE
LLC; THOR EQUITIES LLC; AVISON YOUNG - NY LLC; BOLD 636 BROADWAY
LLC; COMPASS INC.; CITI REAL ESTATE FUNDING INC.; and WILMINGTON
TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION INC., Defendants, Case No. 161641/2021
(Sup. Ct. N.Y., December 30, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Warranty of Habitability Building-Wide
Conditions and New York State General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful and dangerous
maintenance of a building located at 1566 Third Avenue, New York,
New York and their failure to obtain a new Certificate of
Occupancy, among other hazardous building-wide violations that have
never been ameliorated. The Defendants have failed to disclose the
existence of the building's condition to its many tenants. As a
result, the Defendants have circumvented fire safety and other
required protections including failing to legalize fire egress
conditions that threaten the lives and safety of the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated tenants, says the suit.
Thor 1566 Third Avenue LLC is a property management company based
in New York.
Thor Equities LLC is a property management company based in New
York.
Avison Young - NY LLC is a property management company based in New
York.
Bold 636 Broadway LLC is a real estate agency based in New York.
Compass Inc. is a real estate agency based in New York.
Citi Real Estate Funding Inc. is a real estate agency based in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karim H. Kamal, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KARIM H. KAMAL
430 East 86th Street, Suite 14B
New York, NY 10028
Telephone: (212) 586-0510
E-mail: khklaw@gmail.com
TREADMAXX TIRE: Powell Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONDRE POWELL,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
TREADMAXX TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03062-SDG (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order
conditionally certifying case as collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fa2yTY at no extra charge.[CC]
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Judge Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Collins, writing for Law Street, reports that Judge Robert L.
Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida dismissed a second
amended complaint against Trulieve Cannabis Corp. and its officers.
Plaintiff Monica Acerra, on behalf of the class, failed to prove
scienter in Trulieve's officer's actions that led to its stock
price dropping.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act for monetary damages, after they believed
they were deceived by executives and as a result the stock price
fell. The first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to
amend, as the plaintiffs did not successfully show that there were
sales within the U.S. and they failed to "adequately allege a
material misstatement or omission and scienter." The second amended
complaint managed to prove that there were domestic sales, but was
dismissed for not proving scienter.
The crux of the plaintiffs' argument was a "misleading" statement
from Trulieve's website: "Trulieve products are hand-grown and
specially cultivated in a state-approved, climate-controlled
environment to ensure purity and safety. We leave nothing to chance
while letting nature do her work." According to the complaint, this
was contrary to the belief that Trulieve grew marijuana in "hoop
houses," which are structures that are not heated or air
conditioned, and claimed that the statement on their website was
misleading to investors as a result.
In regards to the statement on their website, the complaint did not
allege "with particularity -- or even generally -- facts suggesting
the individual defendants had any role in drafting or approving the
website's 'climate controlled' language or even knew about it."
Furthermore, there is no strong inference pinning the named
defendants to this statement, as it was most likely written "at a
lower level." The complaint also alleged that the stock price
decreased as a result of these "misleading" statements, where in
reality it actually increased "substantially."
The second amended complaint was dismissed without leave to amend
as "any further amendment would be futile." The plaintiffs are
represented by the Rosen Law Firm. The defendants were represented
by King & Spalding. [GN]
UNITED STATES: NCLA Sues Over Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden Administration has enacted an unlawful executive order to
compel millions of Americans who work for government contractors
(even if they do not perform work on government contracts) to take
a COVID-19 vaccine. On January 4, 2022, the New Civil Liberties
Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, filed a
class-action lawsuit against President Biden, the Safer Federal
Workforce Task Force, the Office of Management and Budget, and
other government agencies and officials, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan. The Plaintiffs in this
lawsuit seek judicial relief from the unlawful and unconstitutional
Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate. Two subclasses are being sought
within the class-action suit, one for naturally immune contractor
employees and one for remote workers.
This mandate requires Plaintiffs to take a vaccine without their
consent -- and in the case of those with naturally acquired
immunity, against the medical advice of experts --thereby depriving
them of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and to
refuse unwanted medical care and violating their statutory right to
informed consent.
On September 9, 2021, the Biden Administration announced several
new administrative actions aimed at coercing a total of 100 million
Americans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition to private
employer, healthcare facility, and federal employee mandates, the
announcement covered those working for federal contractors. The
federal contractor mandate has been prohibited by judicial orders
in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Kentucky
and Southern District of Georgia.
The President cannot exercise authority this sweeping under the
guise of "procurement" in the absence of clear and explicit
congressional authorization. The attempt to control the personal
health decisions of Americans through general procurement authority
is a question of deep economic and political significance. Congress
did not provide -- nor does the Procurement Act allow -- the
President to have this power. Presidential policies prescribed
under the Procurement Act are valid only if there is a "nexus
between the regulations and some delegation of requisite
legislative authority by Congress." There is no nexus here.
Additionally, under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the
government cannot impair Plaintiffs' right to refuse medical care
through subtle forms of coercion any more than it could through an
explicit mandate.
NCLA released the following statements:
"This vaccine mandate is a remarkable act of legal contortion.
Because no statute authorizes the Executive Branch to unilaterally
impose a sweeping health care mandate on one-fifth of U.S. workers,
the President is trying to fit this mandate into a seventy-year-old
procurement law, using efficiency in government contracting as the
pretextual justification. No one is fooled. Forcing contractors to
fire their employees -- particularly those who cannot spread
COVID-19 in the workplace because they are naturally immune, work
remotely, or both -- will undermine rather than promote efficient
procurement of goods and services."
-- Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, NCLA
"As the President has admitted on many occasions, there is no
general federal power to require citizens to receive emergency
authorized vaccines. So instead, the administration is attempting
to use the unwarranted deference courts have granted administrative
agencies to snatch such power out of thin air. The Federal
Contractor Vaccine Mandate ignores the language of the federal
acquisition statutes and is directly in conflict with their purpose
-- to ensure the Federal Government has maximum access to the goods
and services produced by the American economy. This mandate will
both curtail federal access to the economy and shrink the output of
firms contracting with the federal government. This federal edict
is unlawful, and the Court should strike it down."
-- John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by
prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional
freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's
public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to
tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster
a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans'
fundamental rights. [GN]
WALMART INC: Goldstein Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The
case is styled as Aileen Goldstein, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00088 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Email: jonas@dovel.com
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Arcilla Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Craig Arcilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wilderness Sports Warehouse LLC, Sports
Warehouse, Running Warehouse, LLC and Skate Warehouse LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00012 (C.D. Cal., January 4, 2022),
seeks injunctive and other equitable relief for violation of the
California Customer Records Act, California Unfair Competition Law
and from the failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information and protected information acquired from or
created for its employees, including without limitation, names,
addresses, dates of birth, patient identification numbers, Social
Security numbers, driver's license/state ID numbers, passport
numbers, credit/debit card information and financial account
information.
Defendants are a group of online retailers specializing in products
relating to certain industries, namely fishing, tennis, running,
and skateboarding. On October 1, 2021, it experienced a data breach
through which unauthorized individuals accessed personal data of
its current and former employees.
Arcilla purchased goods online from Running Warehouse in September
2020. He claims to have incurred between 5-10 fraudulent charges on
his credit card after the data breach. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 621-2000
Fax: (312) 641-5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
WOK 1: Buruca Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Juan Buruca, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wok 1, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00016,
(S.D. Tex., January 4, 2022), seeks all available relief, including
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Wok 1 operates a restaurant that serves primarily Asian cuisine
located in Stafford, Texas, where Buruca worked as a cook. He
claims to regularly work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
without any overtime wages. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Copyright Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Wolfgang's
Vault -- which faces copyright litigation over its online archive
of live concert recordings dating back to the 1950s -- persuaded a
federal appeals court in San Francisco on Jan. 3 to overturn a
decision designating the case a class action.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling
by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who certified parallel classes of
performers and composers with potential claims under the federal
"anti-bootlegging provision" in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]
ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the American
Depositary Shares of Zhangmen Education Inc. ("Zhangmen" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ZME) in or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering, conducted on or about June 8, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zhangmen-education-inc-information-request-form?wire=4
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Zhangmen Education Inc. NEWS - ZME NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) People's Republic of China authorities were in
the process of implementing sweeping new regulatory reforms on the
private education industry in China including, among others,
prohibitions on (i) profit-making by private education companies,
(ii) engaging in core-curriculum tutoring on weekends and
vacations, and (iii) capital-raising by companies like Zhangmen;
(b) the known risks, events and uncertainties noted in (a) above
were reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business; and (c) based on the foregoing, the statements
in the Registration Statement concerning the Company's historical
financial performance, market demand, and industry trends were
materially incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Zhangmen, you have until January 18, 2022 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased American Depositary Shares of
Zhangmen in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering,
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zhangmen-education-inc-information-request-form?wire=4
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Christensen Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elisa Christensen, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Zions Bancorporation doing business
as: California Bank & Trust, Case No. 37-02021-0004736-CU-BC-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of CA, San Diego County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan.
5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00007-GPC-KSC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Zions Bancorporation -- https://www.zionsbank.com/ -- is a bank
holding company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Berger, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Fax: (510) 350-9701
Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John D. Freed, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 276-6500
Fax: (415) 276-6599
Email: jakefreed@dwt.com
[*] Alston & Bird Attorney Discusses SPAC-Related Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alston & Bird released its Class Action & MDL Roundup. The fall
edition covers notable class actions from the third quarter of
2021.
This quarter, its partner from the Securities Litigation Group,
Andy Sumner, discusses SPAC-related class actions.
It was another active quarter with significant activity across all
areas we monitor in the Roundup. COVID-19 continues to impact a
variety of industries across these areas, keeping the courts
particularly busy. Insurance companies saw the bulk of this
activity with cases ranging from breach of contract to coverage
claims involving losses due to stay-at-home orders. On the consumer
protection front, a district judge denied class certification in a
case involving claims that ticket refunds were not received after
event cancellations or delays due to COVID-19.
Other notable decisions covered include the Sixth Circuit reversing
the dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class
action involving prerecorded calls and the Fourth Circuit reversing
a class certification decision on numerosity grounds in an
antitrust case. Additionally, the Second Circuit held that once an
ERISA plaintiff demonstrates a loss to an ERISA plan, the burden
shifts to the defendant to disprove damages. This ruling aligns
itself with other circuit courts approving of this burden-shift
approach, furthering the current circuit split.
Antitrust/RICO
When the Numbers Don't Add Up: District Court's Numerosity Analysis
Falls Short
In re Zetia Antitrust Litigation, No. 20-2184 (4th Cir.) (Aug. 4,
2021). Vacating class certification order and remanding.
In a rare move, the Fourth Circuit reversed a class certification
decision on numerosity grounds. The plaintiff pharmaceutical buyers
had sought to certify a class of 35 putative members, which fell
within a "gray area" of the law: more than a presumptively
uncertifiable class of 19 members but less than a presumptively
certifiable class of 41 members. The district court found that
judicial economy favored certifying the class because multiple
individual trials would involve the same theories of liability and
evidence, so a class action would conserve judicial resources.
According to the Fourth Circuit, because Rule 23(a) speaks to the
impracticability of joinder, the district court should have focused
on whether judicial economy favored a class action or favored
joinder, rather than focusing on individual trials. Indeed, under
the district court's contrary analysis, judicial economy would
always favor class certification, which is simpler to manage than
individual lawsuits.
Whose Law Is It Anyway? Ninth Circuit Vacates Massive Class Cert
Decision on Faulty Choice-of-Law Analysis
Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 19-15159 (9th Cir.) (Sept. 29,
2021). Vacating class certification order and remanding.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's decision to certify
a nationwide class of up to 250 million indirect cellphone
purchasers based on an erroneous choice-of-law analysis. Applying
California's "governmental interest" test, the district court
concluded that California had an interest in applying its
Cartwright Act -- which permits indirect purchasers to bring
antitrust claims, effectively repealing Illinois Brick --whereas
states that did not repeal Illinois Brick had no interest in
applying their laws to the current dispute. That conclusion ignored
that non-repealer states had made a policy decision regarding how
to effectively enforce antitrust laws and promote business within
their borders. Thus, those states had an interest in applying their
laws to bar antitrust claims brought by indirect purchasers.
Because California law did not apply uniformly to the class, the
class could not show that common issues of law predominated.
Ascertainability Still Alive and Well in the Third Circuit
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:13-md-02460 (E.D. Pa.)
(Aug. 17, 2021). Judge DuBois. Denying class certification.
Judge DuBois denied a renewed motion for class certification
brought by end-payor plaintiffs in a pay-for-delay dispute, ruling
that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the ascertainability
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Judge DuBois recognized that in
addition to the other requirements for class actions in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Third Circuit requires that a Rule
23(b)(3) class be currently and readily ascertainable. To satisfy
this ascertainability requirement, plaintiffs must show that the
class is defined with reference to objective criteria and there is
an administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether
putative class members fall within the class definition. Here, the
plaintiffs had not shown that they could distinguish between class
members and intermediaries -- excluded from the class definition --
without review of the individual contractual relationships
underlying each transaction. [GN]
[*] Seyfarth's 18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth has released its 18th annual edition of the Workplace
Class Action Litigation Report, which is recognized as the nation's
most comprehensive guide to workplace-related complex litigation.
In its largest edition ever, Seyfarth analyzed a record number of
1,607 class action rulings on a circuit-by-circuit and
state-by-state basis to identify key themes from 2021 and emerging
litigation trends facing US companies in 2022.
Over the span of its 18 years, Seyfarth's Report has developed the
legal industry's largest class action database featuring analyses
of over 24,000 cases. Described as the "definitive source of
information on employment class action litigation" and a resource
that "no practitioner who deals with employment claims. . . should
be without" by Employment Compliance Magazine, Seyfarth's Report is
the sole compendium in the US dedicated exclusively to workplace
class action litigation. This year's 844-page Report is the "go to"
research and resource guide for businesses and their corporate
counsel facing complex litigation in the coming year.
"In the face of ongoing pandemic challenges, 2021 produced the
largest workplace class action settlement numbers in the 18-year
history of our analyses," said Seyfarth partner and author of the
annual Report, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. "The plaintiffs' bar
capitalized on a recovering economy and aligned priorities with the
new Biden Administration to secure a record financial haul in 2021.
As the defense based on arbitration agreements with class action
waivers faces increased attacks across the country, employers can
look at this past year as a precursor to new legal challenges and
an explosion of class and collective actions in 2022."
The Seyfarth Report details five key employment litigation trends
for corporations in 2022:
1. Highest Numbers In Workplace Class Action Settlements Ever - The
past year saw record class action settlement numbers -- $3.62
billion in 2021 as compared to $1.58 billion in 2020 and $1.34
billion in 2019. Many thought the on-going COVID-19 pandemic would
depress the pace and size of settlements in the new "cash-is-king"
approach to the business cycle. Instead, workplace class action
litigation defied those odds and demonstrated that the plaintiffs'
bar converted case filings into the highest level of settlement
numbers ever.
2. Government Enforcement Litigation Ramped Up - The DOL, OFCCP,
and the EEOC under the Biden Administration ramped up their
litigation enforcement programs and served notice that employers
are well-served to focus on compliance with workplace laws and
regulations to steer clear of government-initiated investigations
and lawsuits. The transformation of risk for governmental
enforcement litigation under the Biden Administration is markedly
different for employers used to the hands-off, laid back approach
of the prior administration.
3. Wage & Hour Litigation Remains The Sweet Spot For Plaintiffs -
Based on sheer volume and statistical numbers, workers scored the
most success in securing certification of wage & hour class and
collective actions in 2021 as compared to other areas of workplace
law. This state of affairs is expected to explode in 2022, with a
more friendly DOL that makes wage theft its enforcement priority.
Statistically speaking, the plaintiffs' bar converted case filings
into successful certification rulings at a rate of 81%, the second
highest level ever in over two decades. In turn, successful class
certification motions in the employment discrimination context were
at 72% and in the ERISA space at 57%. By comparison to 2020, the
success factor for certification in wage & hour was nearly
identical (84% in 2020), while up for employment discrimination
(42% in 2020) and down for ERISA (69% in 2020).
4. The COVID-19 Pandemic's Continuing Impact On Workplace Class
Action Litigation - The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic impacted all
aspects of life, including the legal system in general and
workplace class actions in particular. The pandemic spiked more
class actions (of all varieties) and for all types of workplace
issues. With the roll out of return-to-work programs and vaccine
mandates in the fourth quarter of 2021, class actions by states,
employee advocates, unions, and employer-groups were filed in
record numbers.
5. Arbitration Class Action Waiver Defense Under Increasing Attack
- Workplace class action litigation in 2021 was fueled by the
change from red to blue in the White House, expansion of workers'
rights, increased regulation of businesses, and aggressive
enforcement of workplace laws. With that platform, advocates for
workers and labor are doubling-down on efforts to overturn the
regime of workplace arbitration agreements with class/collective
action waivers established by Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612
(2018). Employers secured a broad array of victories in 2021 in
limiting workplace class actions through arbitration defenses, but
the future remains anything but clear as to whether that approach
will remain viable in the face of attacks on the Epic system.
To view additional videos, charts, and data from the Workplace
Class Action Litigation Report please visit
www.workplaceclassactionreport.com, where you may also request a
copy. Available as a downloadable eBook, the Seyfarth Report is
fully searchable, compatible with all major devices, allows readers
to bookmark useful sections for easy future reference, and includes
a number of other features, such as note-taking, highlighting and
more.
About Seyfarth
With more than 900 lawyers across 17 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to
clients worldwide. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. 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 ***