/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220118.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 18, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 7
Headlines
AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE: Borrowers Slam Usurious Loan Rates
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Loschiavo Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
ALKERMES PLC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
ANTHONY'S AUTOMOTIVE: Marrero Suit Seeks Mechanics' Unpaid Wages
BARDOLINO PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Workers, Anastasio Suit Says
BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES: Muhammad Appeals Arbitration Ruling
BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Parton Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. W. Va.
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY: Bryan Sues Over Data Breach
BOYNE USA: Calloway FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Agent Class
BRIGHT HEALTH: Marques Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
BRONX PARK: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Apartment Tower Fire
CARGILL INC: Hearing Held as Part of COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit
CAROL MICI: Diggs Sues Over Unconstitutional Treatment of Prisoners
COLLECTION BUREAU: Rivera TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Suit
CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES: Briceno Sues Over Unpaid OT for Paralegals
DESKTOP METAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 22 Deadline
DISCOVERY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 8 Deadline
DOCUSIGN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 22 Deadline
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Action
EOG RESOURCES INC: White Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Faces Faulkner Suit Over Gender Discrimination
ETHEREUMMAX: Huegerich Sues Over Illegal Cryptocurrency Scheme
FIRST SOLAR: City Workers' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Panel Flop
FIRST SOLAR: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 8 Deadline
GEICO: Seeks to Stay Deadline for Class Certification Response
GENUINE PARTS: Cervantez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
GENUINE PARTS: Faces Cervantez PAGA Suit in California
GOOGLE LLC: Averts AdWorks Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
H MART: Baires Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Supermarket Workers
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ABC Diamonds Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
HEALING ENERGY: Faces Lane Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania
HOGSHEAD TAVERN: Solis Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in N.Y.
I.C. SYSTEM: Rodriguez-Ocasio Seeks to Certify Class Action
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Rosales Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
JOJO SIWA INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JULLIARD SCHOOL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of February 28 Deadline
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Johnson Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to W.D. Pa.
LAWNBRIGHT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LUCID GROUP: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MAJOR LEAGUE: Colludes to Restrict Baseball Market, Concepcion Says
MALCO PRODUCTS: Faces Chadwell Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Townsend Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
MENLO PARK, CA: Class Action Claims City Must Refund Residents
META PLATFORMS: Faces UK Class Suit For Breach of Competition Law
METROMILE INC: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Bushansky Says
MIDLAND CREDIT: Plotnik Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
MOOV INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MY CUBE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAMASTE INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL MENTOR: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Hagans Suit Claims
NCAA: Seeks Third Circuit Review in Johnson FLSA Suit
NEW YORK: Foster Children Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid
NEWELL BRANDS: Schaer Slams Mislabeling on Service Warranty
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: ADA Suit Filed in W.D. Pennsylvania
NORTH AMERICAN: Bennett Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
OAK STREET: Faces Allison Suit Over 20% Decline of Stock Price
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 14 Deadline
ONE HOME BRANDS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPEN ACCESS: Faces Moore Suit Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing
OPENSKY PROJECT: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OTHER HALF BREWING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OVH GROUPE: 51 Int'l Companies Join Class Action Over Data Loss
PERMIAN DUST: Ginkinger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Credit
PETRA LIVING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PREVECEUTICAL MEDICAL: Settlement Reached in Tietz Fraud Lawsuit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Suit Alleges Carcinogenic Aerosol Antiperspirants
PROPER CLOTH: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUALITY LIAISON: Faces Bernard Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tenn.
QUANTUM GROUP: Ciofoletti Sues Over Illegal Usurious Loans' Losses
RAY JONES: Back Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers
RB HEALTH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REXNORD INDUSTRIES: Underpays Machinists, Jordan Suit Claims
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Supreme Ct. Orders Review of Recession-Era Suit
ROUND TABLE: Barker Sues Over Car Wreck Patients' Hospital Liens
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Earbuds Allergic Reactions
SAXX UNDERWEAR: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Oddei Appeals Judgment in Contract Suit
SG GLOBAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Boone Alleges
SQUATTY POTTY: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Holder Sues Over Credit Reporting Violations
STENGER & STENGER: Blum Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
TABCOM LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Fraud Class Suit as Consumer Revenue Declines
TOWER HILL: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Barcomb Claims
UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Options Strategy
UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Personal Vehicle Drivers, Yardley Says
UNITED SERVICES: Spielman Seeks to Clarify Dec. 9, 2021 Order
UNIVERSAL YUMS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UPTOWN HEALTHCARE: Time Extension for Class Certification Sought
WALGREENS CO: Pain Relieving Products' Label "Deceptive," Dang Says
WALMART INC: Hit With Proposed Suit Over Female Drivers' Uniforms
WALMART INC: McEnheimer Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
WHATABRANDS LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WHP MEZZ: Morel Balks at Superintendents' Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Hargrove Sues Over Access of Customers' Info
XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Certification Trends
[*] U.S. Hiring, Retention Incentive Class Suits Expected to Spike
*********
AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE: Borrowers Slam Usurious Loan Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haremza and Jacob Murray, in his capacity as the executor of
the estate of Stacy Murray (Jacob's late wife), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John
Does Nos. 1-15, Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC, Terry Brockie, Dustin
Monroe, Tracy King, Kenneth Helgeson, Chris Gardipee, Romona Horn
and John Hawley,, Case No. 22-cv-00043 (D. N.J., January 5, 2022),
challenges the legality of Bright Lending's high interest loans and
seeks damages and declaratory relief against co-conspirators
participating in this scheme, and seek relief under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, New Jersey's usury laws,
New Jersey's Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act.
Plaintiffs are New Jersey consumers who claim to have incurred
illegal, high-interest loans over the internet, supposedly made by
an online lending company named Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC
operating as "Bright Lending." Both of the loans at issue in this
case charged Plaintiffs an annual percentage rate of 699.9%,
requiring them to repay more than $2,500 in finance charges in less
than six weeks on loans that were $550 or less. This, according to
the complaint, grossly exceeding New Jersey's 16% rate cap for
interest rates.
Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC is an entity formed under the laws of
the Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation
of Montana. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Grogan, Esq.
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 320-5660
Fax: (215) 320-5703
Email: jgrogan@langergrogan.com
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Loschiavo Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loschiavo, et al., v.
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby ask
the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
action under Section 216(b) against Defendant ADS on
behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals;
2. implementing an Opt-In period of whereby Court-approved
Notice of Named Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent via U.S.
Mail and e-mail to:
"All current and former hourly employees of ADS who (a)
worked as a production or yard worker; and (b) whose
payroll records reflect that they worked 40 or more hours
in any workweek beginning three years preceding the
instant Motion and continuing to the present ("Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs").
3. approving the content contained in the proposed Notice and
Consent to Join;
4. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
order, identify all Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
the names, dates of employment, location(s) worked, last-
known mailing addresses, and personal email addresses of
all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant
at any time from three years preceding the filing of this
Motion through the present; and
5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
Court, be sent to the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within
14 days of receipt of the list using the home and email
addresses provided by Defendant.
On October 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their collective and
class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to pay
hourly, non-exempt employees overtime wages for all hours worked
under the FLSA, as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
ADS is a manufacturer of corrugated pipe and services the storm and
water waste industry through a global network of domestic and
international manufacturing plants and distribution centers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kcdzrk
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
ALKERMES PLC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Class Action
Against Alkermes; Delaware Court of Chancery Allows SPAC Litigation
to Proceed; Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Convicted on Four
Counts of Fraud; Second Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Securities
Fraud Class Action Against Hain.
On December 7, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud putative class
action alleging that biopharmaceutical company Alkermes PLC and
certain of its executives had defrauded investors by mispresenting
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's feedback on ALKS 5461, an
opioid combination drug originally intended to treat major
depressive disorder and cocaine dependence.
Plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants made
misleading statements about the FDA's approval process relating to
ALKS 5461. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York dismissed plaintiff's complaint, concluding that plaintiff had
failed to plead the required strong inference of scienter.
On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed. The Second Circuit found that
while plaintiff alleged that Alkermes "mischaracterized" the FDA's
response to Alkermes' "novel approach to providing evidence of
efficacy for a new drug," the FDA had told Alkermes that the
approach appeared "reasonable" and Alkermes had disclosed that
there was a risk that the FDA would not accept it. The Second
Circuit concluded that rather than support an inference of fraud,
the circumstances, including Alkermes's disclosures, "reflect[ed]
the iterative process between a company and the FDA, particularly
when the agency must evaluate a novel study methodology" and that
Alkermes "viewed ALKS 5461's chances of FDA approval with optimism,
yet still made honest attempts to disclose the FDA's feedback where
relevant and to caution the market as to the risks inherent in
proposing new study designs." Having affirmed the dismissal of the
primary Section 10(b) claim, the Second Circuit also affirmed the
dismissal of the secondary Section 20(a) claim. Finally, the Second
Circuit also affirmed the district court's refusal to grant
plaintiff leave to further amend its complaint, concluding that
plaintiff had not provided an adequate explanation as to the
specific changes it would make to cure the pleading deficiencies.
Goodwin represented defendants in connection with the successful
motion to dismiss and the successful appeal.
DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY ALLOWS SPAC LITIGATION TO PROCEED
On January 3, 2022, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware
Court of Chancery largely denied defendants' motions to dismiss in
In re MultiPlan Corp. Stockholders Litigation, a challenge to the
merger between Churchill Capital Corp. III, a SPAC, or special
purpose acquisition company, and MultiPlan Inc. The case reflects
the novel application of traditional fiduciary duty principles in
the SPAC context.
In February 2020, the SPAC went public, raising $1.1 billion from
investors. In July 2020, the SPAC's board approved a merger
agreement with MultiPlan, a healthcare data analytics company, and
recommended that the SPAC's stockholders approve the merger.
According to plaintiffs, the proxy statement issued in connection
with the merger failed to disclose that MultiPlan's largest
customer was developing its own data analytics platform. In October
2020, the SPAC's stockholders approved the merger. When the
development of MultiPlan's largest customer's data analytics
platform later became public, MultiPlan's share price fell and this
litigation was filed. Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty
claims against the SPAC, its founder, directors, and officers, and
certain affiliated entities, alleging, among other things, that the
proxy statement was materially false and misleading.
Vice Chancellor Will concluded that the entire fairness standard of
review, which requires defendants to provide that both the price
and the process of the challenged transaction were fair to
stockholders, applied to the merger, or de-SPAC transaction, for
two reasons. First, the court held that plaintiffs had adequately
alleged that the merger was a conflicted controller transaction
because Michael Klein, who, through the SPAC's sponsor entity
controlled the SPAC, had a "potential conflict [with] public
stockholders resulting from their different incentives [with
respect to] a bad deal versus no deal." Specifically, the sponsor
held warrants and founder shares that were worth about $356 million
when the merger closed -- "representing a 1,219,900% gain on the
[s]ponsor's $25,000 investment" -- but would have been worthless
had there been no deal. The SPAC's public stockholders, on the
other hand, would have received back their investments had the SPAC
failed to close a deal. Second, the court held that plaintiffs had
adequately alleged that the SPAC's directors were conflicted
because their economic interest in the sponsor meant that they
would "benefit from virtually any merger -- even one that was value
diminishing for [public] stockholders" and because they were not
independent of Klein, who had appointed many of them to other SPAC
boards. Applying the entire fairness standard, Vice Chancellor Will
refused to dismiss the claims against the SPAC's directors.
As this case represents the novel application of traditional
fiduciary duty principles in the SPAC context, it remains to be
seen how the court's view of the economic interests of SPAC
participants will impact future litigation. Vice Chancellor Will
noted that while the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
SPAC's directors were not dismissed, "[that] conclusion does not
address the validity of a hypothetical claim where the disclosure
is adequate and the allegations rest solely on the premise that
fiduciaries were necessarily interested given the SPAC's structure"
and that "[i]f public stockholders, in possession of all material
information about the target, had chosen to invest rather than
redeem, one can imagine a different outcome."
EX-THERANOS CEO ELIZABETH HOLMES CONVICTED ON FOUR COUNTS OF FRAUD
On January 3, 2022, after a four month trial and seven days of
deliberation, a jury convicted former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes
of four of the 11 counts with which she was charged: one count of
conspiracy to defraud investors and three counts of wire fraud. The
jury concluded that Holmes and former business partner Sunny
Balwani had intentionally solicited payments from investors with
false statements about the blood testing devices developed by
Theranos, its business partnerships, and its financial model. The
jury also concluded that Holmes had committed wire fraud in
connection with investments Theranos obtained from (1) PFM
Sciences, (2) a firm associated with the family of former Education
Secretary Betsy DeVos, and (3) Daniel Mosely, formerly an advisor
to Henry Kissinger. Evidence introduced at trial in connection with
those counts indicated that Holmes had misrepresented, among other
things, Theranos' revenue from the U.S. Department of Defense, the
use of Theranos' technology by the military, and the endorsement of
Theranos' technology by pharmaceutical companies. The jury did not
reach a verdict with respect to three additional counts of wire
fraud. The jury cleared Holmes of charges that she had defrauded
medical patients who used Theranos' blood testing devices.
Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison for each count on which she
was convicted, as well as potential fines and restitution. Her
sentencing has not yet been scheduled.
SECOND CIRCUIT VACATES DISMISSAL OF SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTION
AGAINST HAIN
On December 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the dismissal of a securities fraud putative class
action against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers, remanding the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further
consideration.
Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants made
misleading statements attributing Hain's growing sales levels to
strong consumer demand when in fact they were allegedly due to
"channel stuffing," in which customers were incentivized to
purchase more product than needed prior to the end of each quarter,
and also that defendants' channel stuffing constituted an unlawful
scheme to defraud investors. The U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint, concluding
that plaintiffs had failed to allege a violation of Rule 10b-5 and
had also failed to allege scienter.
On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal. The Second
Circuit noted that as opposed to a violation of Rule 10b-5(a) or
10b-5(c), a violation of Rule 10b-5(b) does not require the
defendant to have used a fraudulent scheme or practice, but instead
"focus[es] . . . on whether something said was materially
misleading." The Second Circuit found that "[t]he district court
mistakenly imported the requirement of clauses (a) and (c) of a
fraudulent scheme or practice into clause (b), which includes no
such requirement" and that "[t]he success of . . . a complaint in
alleging a violation of clause (b) does not depend on whether the
alleged channel stuffing practices were fraudulent or otherwise
illegal." The Second Circuit also concluded that "[t]he district
court's mistaken understanding of the substance of the alleged
offense inevitably affected the district court's view of whether it
was done with scienter" and that the district court had also failed
to weigh plaintiffs' scienter allegations as a whole.
The Second Circuit's decision reaffirms that a defendant may be
held liable for securities fraud for a misleading statement even
where the statement does not implicate illegal or otherwise
fraudulent activity.[GN]
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
December 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio dismissed a putative class action against
a public utility company and certain of its executives under the
Securities Exchange Act. Nickerson v. Am. Elec. Power Co., No.
2:20-cv-4243 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants made various statements regarding prospective energy
legislation in Ohio which were misleading because they omitted that
the company was actively involved in an alleged lobbying scheme to
create that legislation. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations.
The allegations related to the company's statements regarding an
Ohio bill that was designed to provide subsidies to nuclear or
solar energy producers based on the power they produced. Slip op.
at 4. After the legislation was passed, multiple individuals were
indicted on racketeering and corruption charges related to the
law's passage. Id. Plaintiffs alleged that the company retained
lobbyists who worked on the legislation and contributed funding to
other industry groups involved in the effort. Id. at 6.
With respect to an earnings call in which the company stated it was
withholding support from a draft form of the legislation, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' argument that this statement was misleading
because it did not disclose that the company was withholding its
support because the bill did not include a cost recovery measure
that the company sought. Id. at 28-29. The Court emphasized that
defendants had been publicly advocating for those terms for several
years. Id. Moreover, the Court concluded that the challenged
statements were "too generic and innocuous" to create a duty to
disclose the bribery scheme alleged by plaintiffs. Id. at 29.
Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that another
earnings call was misleading because it gave the impression that
the company had not yet evaluated the impact of the legislation
when, in fact, the company helped create it and lobbied for its
passage. Id. at 30. The Court again concluded that the challenged
statements were "so vague, generic, and innocuous" that they did
not create an impression about the company's lobbying activities.
Id. at 31.
In addition, the Court assessed and rejected plaintiffs' argument
that the company's annual "corporate accountability reports"
contained statements that created a duty to disclose lobbying
activities, including "[e]ach year, [the company] publicly
discloses lobbying activities and political contributions" and
"[w]e believe in transparency and active participation in public
debate." Id. at 9. The Court determined that these statements were
mere puffery -- "corporate-speak so banal and ubiquitous" that a
reasonable investor would not rely on them. Id. at 31. [GN]
ANTHONY'S AUTOMOTIVE: Marrero Suit Seeks Mechanics' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY'S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS INC. and
ANTHONY VACCARO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00138 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notices, failure
to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay
wages.
The Plaintiff was employed as a mechanic at the Defendants'
automobile repair shop known as Anthony's Automotive Repairs,
located at 5268 Kings Hwy, Brooklyn, New York from February 2019
through and including March 11, 2020.
Anthony's Automotive Repairs Inc. is an automobile repair shop,
located at 5268 Kings Hwy, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
BARDOLINO PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Workers, Anastasio Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOLIN ANASTASIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARDOLINO PIZZA INC. (D/B/A
BARDOLINO PIZZA), MARIA T. ARIAS, and ANGEL S. AGUDO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00192 (S.D.N.Y., January 10, 2022) 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 provide accurate wage notices, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker
at Bardolino Pizza in New York, New York from September 20, 2020
until November 21, 2021.
Bardolino Pizza Inc. is an owner and operator of a pizzeria,
located at 1505 Lexington Ave, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com
BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES: Muhammad Appeals Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jahad Muhammad filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JARAD MUHAMMAD, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public, Plaintiff v. BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES, LLC,
California limited liability company AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.,
Delaware corporation, AMAZON.CO SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited
liabili corporation, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Delaware corporation,
and Does 1 through 30 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-07225-VAP-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles on September 8, 2021.
The case is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of: (1)
all hourly-paid 10 employees employed by, or formerly employed by
the Defendants within the state of California, to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid sick days, unreimbursed business
expenses, statutory penalties, restitution, as well as other
damages owed pursuant to the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code; (2) all former similarly-situated
employees of the Defendants that did not receive the timely payment
of their wages upon the separation of their employment to recover
statutory penalties and damages owed pursuant to the California
Labor Code; and, (3) all persons residing in California who applied
for a job with the Defendants in the state of California and who
executed Defendants' standard "BACKGROUND CHECK DISCLOSURE" form to
recover actual damages, statutory damages, penalties and punitive
damages.
On October 14, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
On December 2, 2021, Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order
granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissing
class claims.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of that order.
The appellate case is captioned as Jahad Muhammad v. Battle-Tested
Strategies, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55003, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 3, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Jahad Muhammad Mediation Questionnaire was due on
January 10, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by January 31, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on February 28, 2022;
-- Appellant Jahad Muhammad opening brief is due on April 12,
2022;
-- Appellees Amazon Logistics, Inc., Amazon.com Services, Inc.,
Amazon.com Services, LLC and Battle-Tested Strategies, LLC
answering brief is due on May 12, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JAHAD MUHAMMAD, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, is represented by:
Shadie Latae Berenji, Esq.
BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 708
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 855-3270
E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law
Defendants-Appellees BATTLE-TESTED STRATEGIES, LLC, a California
limited liability company; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation; and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
are represented by:
Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
E-mail: nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com
tim.johnson@ogletree.com
- and -
Albert Giang, Esq.
Kelly L. Perigoe, Esq.
KING AND SPALDING, LLP
633 W 5th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4355
E-mail: agiang@kslaw.com
kperigoe@kslaw.com
BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Parton Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. W. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW PARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.; JOHN DOE and JANE
DOE, unknown employees or officers of Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.; and
DOE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00014 (S.D. W. Va.,
January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
improper withholding and/or reduction of wages for returned
products, unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, unjust enrichment,
fraud, and punitive damages.
The Plaintiff worked as a driver and delivery-person for Bimbo.
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is a bakery owner and operator with its
principal place of business in West Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. New, Esq.
Amanda J. Taylor, Esq.
NEW, TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES
430 Harper Park Drive
P.O. Box 5516
Beckley, WV 25801
Telephone: (304) 250-6017
Facsimile: (304) 250-6012
- and –
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO
405 Capitol Street
Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY: Bryan Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Bryan and Patricia White, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00030 (M.D. Fla., January
5, 2022), seeks injunctive and other equitable relief in violation
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act 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.
BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services is a specialty pharmacy company
in Alamonte Springs, FL. In November of 2021, Bioplus first learned
of an unauthorized entry into its network, which contained
customers' private information.
Bryan used BioPlus's services in 2021 when she had a specialty
prescription filled through her doctor's office. To receive
services at BioPlus, Bryan was required to disclose her PII, which
was then entered into BioPlus's database. In December of 2021,
Bryan received a notification letter from Bioplus stating that her
data was taken. She claims that she has been incurring fraudulent
charges, medical procedures ordered in her names without her
permission, and targeted advertising without patient consent.
White's information was entered into BioPlus's systems in 2015 when
a clerical error resulted in her prescription information from her
doctor's office being sent to BioPlus instead of her in-network
pharmacy. Ms. White corrected the clerical error and canceled the
service from BioPlus, but her information remained in Bioplus'
systems until the data breach occurred in November of 2021. Ms.
White received a notice letter from Defendant that her information
was taken in December of 2021. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Tel: (561) 569-7062
Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: (202) 470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
BOYNE USA: Calloway FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Sales Agent Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY CALLOWAY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BOYNE USA, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00521-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the following collective:
"All hourly-paid Sales Agents, or employees who had
similar duties to Sales Agents, who earned a commission in
connection with work performed in any week in which they
worked over 40 hours at any time after June 21, 2018."
2. Approving his proposed Notice and Consent to Join and
proposed method of distribution including mailing and
emailing;
3. direcitng the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative collective member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
is entered;
4. allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin seven
days after the day that the Defendant produces the names
and contact information for the putative collective.
5. granting him the leave to send the applicable Notice and
Consent forms to each putative collective member via U.S.
Mail and email;
6. granting him the leave to send the Follow-Up Postcard via
U.S. Mail and email, thirty days after the opt-in period
begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not responded to
the Notice;
7. awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
all other good or necessary relief to which Plaintiffs may
be entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not.
The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of
certain former and current sales agents for the Defendant, to
recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), among other claims.
Boyne USA, Inc. owns and operates mountain resorts. The Company
offers gaming arcade, bike park, winter sportswear and equipment
store, and cafeteria.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tueuh6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick C. Lannen, Esq.
Plunkett Cooney, Esq.
38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 901-4027
E-mail: plannen@plunkettcooney.com
BRIGHT HEALTH: Marques Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORINO MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HEALTH GROUP, INC., G. MIKE
MIKAN, CATHERINE R. SMITH, JEFFREY J. SCHERMAN, ROBERT J. SHEEHY,
KEDRICK D. ADKINS JR., NAOMI ALLEN, JEFFREY FOLICK, LINDA GOODEN,
JEFFERY R. IMMELT, MANUEL KADRE, STEPHEN KRAUS, MOHAMAD MAKHZOUMI,
and ADAIR NEWHALL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 6, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of
the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a)
Bright Health common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about June 24, 2021; and/or (b)
Bright Health securities between June 24, 2021 and November 10,
2021, both dates inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Bright Health is an integrated care delivery company that engages
in the delivery and financing of health insurance plans in the U.S.
The Company operates in two segments -- NeueHealth and Bright
HealthCare. Bright Health offers individual and family, Medicare,
and employers' insurance plans. The Company also operates 28
managed and affiliated risk-bearing primary care clinics.
On May 19, 2021, Bright Health filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after
several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on June 23,
2021.
On June 25, 2021, Bright Health filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement, also known as the
Offering Documents.
Allegedly, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as
a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Bright Health had overstated its post-IPO
business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was ill-equipped
to handle the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (iii) the Company
was experiencing a decline in premium revenue because of a failure
to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (iv) all the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Bright Health’s business and financial condition; and (v) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
BRONX PARK: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Apartment Tower Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuven Fenton, Priscilla DeGregory, Nolan Hicks and Bruce Golding,
writing for New York Post, report that a $3 billion, class-action
suit alleges that the current and former owners of a Bronx
apartment tower should be held liable for the fatal fire there that
killed 17 people -- and a related filing says everyone affected
should get $1 billion each because city officials are also
"responsible" for the tragedy.
The suit filed on Jan. 11 by two tenants of 333 E. 181st St.
alleges that the landlords "had actual notice of defective
conditions" at the 19-story building, where officials have said a
self-closing door malfunctioned and let smoke pour out of an
apartment that was set ablaze by a space heater on Jan. 9.
Married couple Rosa Reyes and Felix Martinez, the lead plaintiffs,
are seeking $1 billion in compensatory damages for alleged
negligence and another $2 billion in punitive damages on behalf of
themselves and "all others similarly situated."
Another plaintiff, Jessika Valdez, 38, told The Post that her door
to her 18th-floor apartment "never closed on its own" during the 15
years she's lived there.
"We always had to pull it closed," she said.
"If you're renting to me, it's OK if you don't have an emotional
tie to me, but you have to protect your investment. I'm your
investment."
The defendants named in the Bronx Supreme Court suit include the
building's joint-venture owner, Bronx Park Phase III Preservation
LLC, and its three member companies, Lich Investment Group,
Belveron Partners, and Camber Property Group.
The other defendants are former building owners Cammeby's
International Group and the company's founder, real-estate tycoon
Rubin Schron of Brooklyn, who sold the property in 2019.
The class-action suit supplanted another court filing by Reyes and
Martinez earlier in the day.
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Robert Vilensky, also filed a notice of
claim against the city; the Department of Buildings; the Department
of Housing, Preservation and Development; former Mayor Bill de
Blasio and Housing Commissioner Melanie La Rocca.
It seeks $1 billion each for everyone who joins the planned
class-action case.
That notice says the shutting devices, or "returns," on
self-closing apartment doors "become rusty over time and the
springs on the door returns need to be replaced over time." It
alleges that city officials "failed in every way" to make sure that
happened at 333 E. 181st St.
It also says that the city, de Blasio and La Rocca "have known of
this condition for many, many years now and certainly since
December 28, 2017," when 13 people were killed in a fire at 2363
Prospect Ave. in The Bronx.
"At that time, [de Blasio] promised to ensure that the building
department inspectors inspected all buildings for these issues,"
Vilensky wrote.
"Yet it is obvious that said Department Building [sic] and
politicians only give ‘lip service' to safety issues and are
responsible for the resulting injuries and deaths."
The notice includes a copy of a Jan. 10 report by The Post about
how the building racked up more than two dozen violations and
complaints since 2014, one year after Schron got nearly $25 million
in state loans for repairs and upgrades.
"When I heard about what happened on Jan. 9, my blood boiled
because this was a preventable accident and a preventable fire. By
that, I mean the fire spreading," Vilensky told The Post.
In a prepared statement, Bronx Park Phase III Preservation LLC
said, "We are devastated by this terrible tragedy and are
cooperating fully with the Fire Department and other agencies as
they continue to investigate."
The city's Law Department also issued a statement that said, "This
was a horrific tragedy and too many lives were lost. There is an
active investigation into this tragic incident. We'll review the
claim."
Cammeby's and Schron didn't immediately return a request for
comment. [GN]
CARGILL INC: Hearing Held as Part of COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Dryden at CBC News reports that a hearing in the class-action
lawsuit against the Cargill meat-packing plant near High River,
Alta., was held in Calgary with the judge reserving a decision on
how the case will proceed.
The lawsuit, which was initially filed in mid-2020 by the
Calgary-based Guardian Law Group and James H. Brown and Associates,
alleges that Cargill should have known that a lack of preventative
measures could impact close contacts of employees.
The COVID-19 outbreak at the facility was at one point the largest
in North America.
Mathew Farrell, a lawyer at Guardian Law Group representing the
plaintiff, told CBC News prior to the hearing that workers'
families "deserve to be able to hold this company to account for
the specific wrongdoing that this specific company did."
"Part of this was about making sure that businesses knew from the
get-go that, look, you have a responsibility. There are things you
can do to protect your workers and you have to do them or the
courts will hold you accountable," Farrell said.
Cargill's defence stated it would be unreasonable to hold the
company accountable for the "legally indeterminate" spread of
infection from the workers.
A spokesperson with Cargill did not immediately respond to a
request for additional comment.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
The class action concerns those people who had close contact with
employees. The workers themselves are covered by labour and
workers' compensation laws.
The deaths of three people were linked to the factory's COVID
outbreaks. Two were employees. The third was a worker's father,
Armando Sallegue, who had travelled to Alberta to visit his son.
The outbreak is the subject of a police investigation, though no
charges have been laid.
Criminology professor unsurprised at lawsuit
Steven Bittle, an associate criminology professor at the University
of Ottawa, said he isn't surprised at the existence of the lawsuit,
given the company's "inability or unwillingness to address the
safety concerns around the COVID pandemic."
History shows that such class action lawsuits are difficult to win,
Bittle said, especially when one is dealing with large companies
with deep pockets that can contest issues in court.
"This is one of the tools that people have tried more in the United
States, this class-action route, to try to get some justice and
compensation for the situation," he said. "It's highly unusual."
The plaintiff's case involves a claim that the risks were known by
the company and that the company did not adequately adjust to meet
those risks, Bittle said.
He said the company, meanwhile, has made the argument that even if
they had a legal duty to protect workers, they cannot be held
responsible for that secondary victimization.
"I think the employer will try to argue in this case that they're
not responsible for the pandemic," he said.
Meanwhile, Bittle said the lawsuit speaks to the level of
frustration people have associated with what happened at the
plant.
"In this case, we could call it the death, the secondary
victimization that happened when somebody came home with the virus
and passed it on to somebody else," he said. "Without any
accountability here, there is a real sense of a lack of justice."
Farrell, the lawyer with Guardian Law Group, said he is unsure at
this time whether the judge presiding over the case will provide a
written or oral decision.
The plaintiff wants the issue of certification of the class-action
lawsuit to be heard first. Cargill wants its application to strike
the plaintiff's statement of claim for want of cause of action to
take priority. The judge has reserved a decision. [GN]
CAROL MICI: Diggs Sues Over Unconstitutional Treatment of Prisoners
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE DIGGS, DEMETRIUS GOSHEN, JAMES JACKS, DAVID JACKSON, RAPHAEL
REBOLLO, LUIS SALDANA, DAVONGIE STONE, XAVIER VALENTIN-SOTO, and
DANAVIAN DANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of the
Massachusetts Department of Correction; PAUL HENDERSON, former
Deputy Commissioner of Field Services; PATRICK DEPALO, Deputy
Commissioner of Field Services; CHARLES PRIMACK, Director of
Special Operations; STEVEN KENNEWAY, former Superintendent of
Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; DEAN GRAY, Superintendent of
Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; RONALD GARDNER, Director of
Security at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center; Captains DONALD
DENOMME and DAVID BRIEN; Lieutenants PAUL BIRRI, KEITH HOULE,
ROBERT DESCHENNE, JAMES ALLAIN, and JAMES GEARIN; Sergeant ROBERT
D'AMADIO; Correction Officers JOSEPH BELLINI and JOHN MADDEN; and
K9 Officer EVAN LARANJO, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-40003-TSH (D.
Mass., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.
The case arises from the Defendants' role and contribution in the
launch of a campaign against the prisoners at Souza-Baranowski
Correctional Center (SBCC) wherein they were subjected to excessive
force and unconstitutional treatment. The alleged retaliatory force
campaign consisted of weeks of unprovoked, retaliatory violence
against SBCC prisoners, and amounted to an unlawful, orchestrated
effort to intimidate, injure, and violate the rights of prisoners
in retaliation for the tensions that occurred between a small group
of prisoners and officers in the N1 Unit at SBCC on January 10,
2020, despite the fact that those individuals were not actually
involved in the incident. The Defendants were present on numerous
occasions when officers used excessive and unjustified force
against prisoners, but allowed it to continue, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs therefore seek, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated to them, damages for injuries suffered
due to violations of their rights during the campaign, and
declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the Defendants'
continuing constitutional violations. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lauren Petit, Esq.
James R. Pingeon, Esq.
David Milton, Esq.
Kristyn J.E. Henry, Esq.
PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS
50 Federal Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 482-2773
E-mail: lpetit@plsma.org
jpingeon@plsma.org
dmilton@plsma.org
khenry@plsma.org
- and –
Anthony E. Fuller, Esq.
Gregory F. Noonan, Esq.
Julia McLetchie, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Pignatelli, Esq.
Alexandra G. Watson, Esq.
Courtney A. Caruso, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
125 High Street, Suite 2010
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 371-1000
E-mail: anthony.fuller@hoganlovells.com
gregory.noonan@hoganlovells.com
julia.mcletchie@hoganlovells.com
elizabeth.pignatelli@hoganlovells.com
alexandra.bailey@hoganlovells.com
courtney.caruso@hoganlovells.com
COLLECTION BUREAU: Rivera TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Collection
Bureau Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No. 9:21-cv-80711-AMC (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class with respect to his claims for
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA);"
"All persons who during the four years prior to the filing
of this lawsuit were successfully transmitted a
prerecorded voice call on their cellular telephones from
or on behalf of Defendant using the VoApps, Inc. calling
platform and whose cellular telephone number was obtained
by Defendant utilizing the TLOxp skip tracing service
provided by TransUnion;"
2. designating him as class representative; and
3. designating his counsel as Class Counsel.
This case concerns Defendant's use of robocalls to collect debts.
The Defendant has contributed to the barrage of robocall related
complaints by utilizing "skip tracing" to acquire the Plaintiff's
and the Class members' telephone numbers, and then harassing them
with prerecorded voice calls.
The Defendant is a "contingency" debt collection agency that
collects on past-due accounts for its creditor clients.
Beginning in approximately 2013, and as part of its attempts to
contact consumers for its clients, Defendant began using non-party
vendor VoApps, Inc. to send prerecorded voice messages using
purported "ringless" voicemail calls, the lawsuit says.
"Americans passionately disagree about many things. But they are
largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal
Government receives a staggering number of complaints about
robocalls -- 3.7 million complaints in 2019 alone," the suit adds.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rmXSF8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
Telephone: 786.496.4469
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Butler, writing for The Ithaca Voice, reports that Cornell
University is one of 16 universities named in a class action
lawsuit over alleged student financial aid collusion practices in
violation of antitrust laws.
The suit, which is available to read here, demands damages on
behalf of five plaintiffs (plus "all others similarly situated") as
well as an injunction against the defendant schools from
"continuing to illegally conspire regarding their pricing and
financial-aid policies." It names Cornell among 16 other schools
including Duke University, Brown University, University of Chicago,
Columbia University and others—the "568 Cartel," as deemed by the
lawsuit, referring to Section 568 of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994.
That section provides an exemption to anti-trust laws for schools
where "all students are admitted on a need-blind basis," and
financial capacity of students and their families are not
considered. Those schools are accused of violating that tenet
through the "consensus methodology," a "common formula for
determining an applicant's ability to pay."
An article from 2001 shows that then-Cornell president Hunter
Rawlings mentions the formulation of the "consensus approach," but
in the context of determining which students are eligible for
financial aid among schools claiming Section 568 exemptions. That
very determination method seems to be the root of the class action
suit.
Cornell spokesperson Abby Butler declined to comment on the suit.
It was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The plaintiffs
are named as Sia Henry, Michael Maerlander, Brandon Piyevsky, Kara
Saffrin, Brittany Tatiana Weaver and others, presumably all student
applicants.
The complaint is 61 pages, filed in Illinois, and allege that
"these defendants have participated in a price-fixing cartel that
is designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid as a locus of
competition, and that in fact has artificially inflated the net
price of attendance for students receiving financial aid." The suit
argues that the defendants have admitted students at least in part
based on the "financial circumstances of students and their
families, thereby disfavoring students who need financial aid."
The latter conduct violates the antitrust exemption that the
schools were given by the federal government, the suit argues. The
lawsuit separates the 16 schools into two groups: nine which are
explicitly not adhering to the "need-blind" methodology, according
to the suit, and seven (including Cornell) which are in violation
of the antitrust exemption for claiming it while the other schools
are actively violating it.
In short, the suit does not directly allege that Cornell has
actually engaged in preferential treatment for students who won't
need financial aid to afford tuition. It does, though, charge that
Cornell is "conspiring" with the other schools to maintain the
collusion and "should have known" that the other nine schools were
not properly using need-blind policies—a guilt by association
charge, per se.
The suit states that Cornell's undergraduate student body is made
up of people with median family income of $151,600, with 10 percent
of the undergrads coming from the top 1% of the country's income
distribution and 64% from the top 20%, far outweighing the
percentage that comes from the bottom 20%. It cites the New York
Times as the source for these numbers.
"In critical respects, elite, private universities like Defendants
are gatekeepers to the American Dream," the lawsuit states.
"Defendants' misconduct is therefore particularly egregious because
it has narrowed a critical pathway to upward mobility that
admission to their institutions represents." [GN]
CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES: Briceno Sues Over Unpaid OT for Paralegals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA V. BRICENO and GIOVANNI J. VELEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CUPRYS AND
ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW CORP. d/b/a SERVING IMMIGRANTS INC.,
CUPRYS AND ASSOCIATES INC., d/b/a SERVING IMMIGRANTS and MAGDALENA
CUPRYS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20139-RKA (S.D. Fla., January
11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their
failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
paralegals overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Briceno and Velez worked as paralegals at Serving
Immigrants located at 4011 West Flagler Street, Suite 406, Miami,
Florida from July 01, 2019 to August 7, 2019 and from June 01, 2019
to July 31, 2019, respectively.
Cuprys and Associates Attorneys at Law Corp., doing business as
Serving Immigrants Inc., is a law firm with its place of business
at 4011 West Flagler, Suite 406, Miami, Florida.
Cuprys and Associates Inc., doing business as Serving Immigrants,
is a law firm located in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DESKTOP METAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds Investors that a securities class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
securities of Desktop Metal, Inc. ("Desktop" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DM) between March 15, 2021 and November 15, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Desktop securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Desktop Metal, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe
Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Desktop purports to offer additive manufacturing technologies
focused on the production of end use parts. The Company's platforms
include: Production System, a manufacturing platform using the
Company's proprietary Single Pass Jetting technology enabling
production quantities of up to millions of parts per year; Shop
System, an affordable turnkey binding jetting platform to bring
metal 3D printing to machine and job shops; Studio System, an
office-friendly metal 3D printing system; and Fiber, a desktop 3D
printer using the Company's proprietary Micro Automated Fiber
Placement.
On February 16, 2021, the Company acquired EnvisionTEC, Inc. and
certain of its affiliates (collectively, "EnvisionTEC"), a provider
of volume production photopolymer 3D printing solutions for end use
parts.
According to the complaint, 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: (i) there were deficiencies in EnvisionTEC's manufacturing
and product compliance practices and procedures; (ii) the foregoing
deficiencies presented a material risk to the commercialization of
EnvisionTEC's products; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On November 8, 2021, after the market closed, Desktop disclosed
that it was conducting an internal investigation into certain
matters, including "manufacturing and product compliance practices
and procedures with respect to a subset of its photopolymer
equipment and materials at its EnvisionTec US LLC facility." The
Company also stated that the Chief Executive Officer of EnvisionTec
US LLC had resigned.
On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.39, or 4%, to close at
$8.81 per share on November 9, 2021.
Then, on November 15, 2021, after the market closed, the Company
stated that it would notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDA of "compliance issues with certain shipments of EnvisionTEC's
Flexcera dental resins and its PCA4000 curing box."
On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.19, or 15%, to close at
$6.83 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Desktop securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/desktopmetalinc-dm-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-471/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
DISCOVERY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Discovery Inc. ("Discovery" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: DISCA) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 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/discovery-inc-goldman-sachs-group-inc-loss-submission-form
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.
Discovery Inc. NEWS - DISCA NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Discovery shares during the
class period while in possession of material, non-public
information about Archegos and its need to fully liquidate its
position in the Company because of margin call pressure. As a
result of these sales, Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley
avoided billions in losses combined.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Discovery, you have until March 8, 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 Discovery securities between March
22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/discovery-inc-goldman-sachs-group-inc-loss-submission-form
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]
DOCUSIGN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds Investors that a securities class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
securities of DocuSign, Inc. ("DocuSign" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
DOCU) between March 27, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired DocuSign securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
DocuSign Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe
Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
DocuSign purportedly offers the Agreement Cloud, a broad
cloud-based software suite that enables users to automate the
agreement process and provide legally binding e-signatures from
nearly any device.
According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the impact of the
Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's business was positive, not
negative; (ii) DocuSign misrepresented the role that the Covid-19
pandemic had on its growth; (iii) DocuSign downplayed the impact
that a 'return to normal' would have on the Company's growth and
business; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On December 2, 2021, after market hours, DocuSign held an earnings
conference call for its third quarter fiscal year 2022 ("3Q 2022
Earnings Call"). During the 3Q 2022 Earnings Call, the Company
revealed that its anticipated growth for the fourth quarter of 2022
would be lower than expected.
Also on December 2, 2021, DocuSign published a press release
announcing its third-quarter fiscal year 2022 financial results and
guidance for the fourth-quarter fiscal year 2022. The guidance
provided, in pertinent part, midpoint revenue guidance of $560
million, missing analysts' consensus estimates of $573.8 million.
The guidance also provided a billing guidance of $653 million,
missing consensus estimates of $705.4 million.
On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or
over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021,
damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 22, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired DocuSign securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/docusigninc-docu-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-472/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Among Defendants in Financial Aid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS46 reports that an antitrust class action lawsuit has been filed
against 16 of the country's most elite, private universities,
alleging that they have unlawfully conspired to reduce the amount
of financial aid they provide to admitted students, effectively
fixing the net price of attendance.
The lawsuit alleges that the 16 universities agreed to fix the net
price of attendance; invoked an exemption from the antitrust laws
to which they are not entitled; and impeded discovery of their
misconduct and of the resulting injury to the proposed class.
The lawsuit names Brown University, California Institute of
Technology, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell
University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University,
Georgetown University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame, University of
Pennsylvania, Rice University, Vanderbilt University and Yale
University as defendants. The group was reportedly called the "568
Presidents Group" and was allegedly formed to reduce or eliminate
price competition among its members.
Emory University reportedly left the group in 2012, according to
the lawsuit.
The crux of the lawsuit hinges on part of a 1994 federal education
law called Section 568, which provides exemption from antitrust
laws for colleges and universities that that don't consider an
applicant's financial status while deciding admission, known as
need-blind admission.
This exemption allows the need-blind colleges and universities to
ignore the antitrust laws and collaborate with their competitors.
The actions of the schools reportedly affected more than 170,000
financial-aid recipients by at least hundreds of millions of
dollars, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also alleges the schools favored students who didn't
need financial aid.
The lawsuit, which was filed on the behalf of five former
Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Duke University students, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
The lawsuit seeks to compensate people who received financial aid
packages that did not fully cover the cost of tuition, room and
board from one of the 16 schools. [GN]
EOG RESOURCES INC: White Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Brannon White, on of behalf herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EOG Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00025 (D. N.M., January 11, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
EOG is an oil and gas exploration and production company with
operations throughout the United States where White worked as a
drilling consultant from approximately January 2017 through April
2020. White was paid a day rate with no overtime compensation and
was misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
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
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Faces Faulkner Suit Over Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN FAULKNER and QUINN TEW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00242 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law,
and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against
Plaintiff Faulkner on the basis of her gender by not recommending
its members to use her as a personal trainer on the basis of her
gender and terminated her in retaliation for complaining about
gender discrimination. The Defendant also discriminated against
Plaintiff Tew on the basis of her pregnancy by allegedly refusing
to provide her with a pregnancy accommodation.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover: (i) back pay; (ii) emotional
damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) interest; (v) attorneys' fees
and costs; and (vi) such other and further relief as the court
finds necessary and proper.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as personal trainers
at its luxury fitness center in New York.
Equinox Holdings, Inc. is a company that owns and operates luxury
fitness centers located across the State of New York and the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Vagnini, Esq.
Alexander M. White, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
ETHEREUMMAX: Huegerich Sues Over Illegal Cryptocurrency Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HUEGERICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. STEVE GENTILE, GIOVANNI PERONE, JUSTIN
FRENCH, KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN, FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR., PAUL PIERCE,
DEFENDANT "X," and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00163 (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2022) is a class action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and an objectively identifiable
class consisting of all investors that purchased EthereumMax's EMAX
Tokens between May 14, 2021 and June 17, 2021, arising from a
scheme among various individuals in the cryptocurrency sector that
violates the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California common law.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant
EthereumMax (or the "Company"), Steve Gentile, Giovanni Perone,
Justin French (the "Executive Defendants"), Kimberly Kardashian,
Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and Paul Pierce (the "Promoter Defendants"
and, together with the Executive Defendants, the "Defendants").
Allegedly, the Defendants misleadingly promote and sell the digital
asset associated with EthereumMax (the EMAX Tokens) to unsuspecting
investors. The Company's executives, collaborating with several
celebrity promotors, (a) made false or misleading statements to
investors about EthereumMax through social media advertisements and
other promotional activities and (b) disguised their control over
EthereumMax and a significant percent of the EMAX Tokens that were
available for public trading during the Relevant Period (the
"Float"), says the suit.
In furtherance of this scheme, the Defendants touted the prospects
of the Company and the ability for investors to make significant
returns due to the favorable "tokenomics" of the EMAX Tokens. In
truth, the Defendants marketed the EMAX Tokens to investors so that
they could sell their portion of the Float for a profit, the suit
added.
Plaintiff Huegerich purchased EMAX Tokens and suffered investment
losses as a result of Defendants' alleged conduct.
EthereumMax is a company that offers ERC-20 tokens, the EMAX Tokens
that are blockchain-based digital assets, on the ethereum ETHUSD,
+1.22% network, according to its website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 236-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and -
Sean T. Masson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com
FIRST SOLAR: City Workers' Fund Hits Share Drop Over Panel Flop
---------------------------------------------------------------
City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First
Solar Inc., Mark Widmar, Alexander R. Bradley and George Antoun,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00036 (D. Ariz., January 7, 2022) seeks
compensatory damages including interest thereon, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
First Solar is a manufacturer of solar energy panels and power
plants headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. Its project development
segment buys land, develops sites, installs solar panel units, and
then sells the entire site to a buyer, typically a utility provider
or large tech company. During construction and after a site has
been sold, its engineering, procurement, and construction segment
provides engineering design and related services, such as
construction contracting, while its operating and maintenance
segment provides support to solar panel sites, including activities
associated with operating and maintaining a solar power system.
Through these interrelated business segments, First Solar stood to
generate income not only through the manufacturing of solar panels
and the creation of Project Development sites, but also through the
operating/maintenance segments that continued to generate income
for First Solar after a project was developed and sold.
In 2017, First Solar launched a new PV solar panel module, the
Series 6 which it touted an aggressive cost per watt reduction
target. Plaintiff alleges that First Solar misrepresented to its
investors that the Series 6 solar module was not commercially ready
at the time of its release, that had a component that was failing
in the field and causing fires, was not able to hit its projected
and touted wattage targets and had an inconsistent output. On this
news, the price of First Solar stock fell $4.03 per share, or
nearly 7%, from a close of $58.78 on January 14, 2020, to close at
$54.75 per share on January 15, 2020.
On February 6, 2020, another report and suggested that, in an
attempt to gain back its market share, First Solar was "bidding
more aggressively, leading to lower prices, and finally cutting
into margins." On this news, the price of First Solar stock fell
$0.45 per share, from a close of $53.10 on February 5, 2020, to
close at $52.65 per share on February 6, 2020.
Finally, on February 20, 2020, First Solar announced that it was
exploring a sale of its Project Development business. On the same
day, First Solar acknowledged it was experiencing "challenges with
regard to certain aspects of the overall cost per watt" and that
the company would not be realizing its cost per watt goals, despite
having previously represented that it had been "slightly ahead of"
its goals as recently as the previous quarter. Following this, the
company stated that it would no longer be disclosing a discrete
cost per watt for its Series 6 units. These disclosures caused
First Solar stock to decline by $8.73 per share, or nearly 15%,
from a close of $59.32 per share on February 20, 2020, to close at
$50.59 per share on February 21, 2020.
City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System is a pension
plan providing benefits to eligible general employees of the City
of Pontiac, Michigan. It purchased shares of First Solar common
stock at artificially inflated prices and suffered damages as a
result of the violations of the federal securities laws. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Kimberly C. Page
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
Email: afriedman@bftb.com
kpage@bffb.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Email: scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
hannah@blbglaw.com
avi(ablbglaw.com
- and -
Naumon Amjed, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Email: namjed@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
FIRST SOLAR: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
First Solar, Inc. ("First Solar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FSLR)
common stock between February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). First Solar investors have until
March 8, 2022 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your First Solar investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/first-solar-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On January 15, 2020, Barclays reported that First Solar had
"seemingly been, in large part, priced-out of the U.S. downstream
solar market" and that the Company had concealed its rapidly
declining market share through misleading financial reporting by
including projects in its Project Development pipeline that had
actually been completed in prior years.
On this news, First Solar's stock fell $4.03, or 7%, to close at
$54.75 per share on January 15, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on February 6, 2020, Barclays stated that, in an attempt to
gain back its market share, First Solar was "bidding more
aggressively, leading to lower [Project Development contract]
prices, and finally cutting into margins."
On this news, First Solar's stock fell $0.45 to close at $52.65 per
share on February 6, 2020, thereby injuring investors further.
Then, on February 20, 2020, First Solar announced that it was
exploring a sale of its Project Development Business. The Company
also disclosed that it was experiencing "challenges with regard to
certain aspects of the overall cost per watt" and that it would not
be realizing its cost per watt goals.
On this news, First Solar's stock fell $8.73, or 15%, to close at
$50.59 per share on February 21, 2020, thereby injuring investors
further.
The 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: (1) the Company's Series 6 solar module was not commercially
ready at the time of its release, had a component that was failing
in the field and causing fires, was not able to hit its projected
and touted wattage targets, had an inconsistent output, and (2) as
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March
8, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
GEICO: Seeks to Stay Deadline for Class Certification Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN ZAMBITO, et al., v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a GEICO, Case No.
8:21-cv-02223-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant GEICO asks the
Court to enter an order staying its deadline to respond to
Plaintiff Ryan Zambito's Motion for Class Certification until 30
days after submission of a Case Management Report, if needed.
In the alternative, should the Court deny GEICO's request for a
stay, GEICO requests that the Court grant it 30 days from the date
of such order, so that GEICO has adequate time to prepare a
response to Plaintiff's Motion and is not prejudiced.
On September 27, 2021, the Plaintiffs Ryan Zambito and Robert
McDaniel filed a First Amended Class Action and Collective Action
Complaint against GEICO. On October 1, the Court issued its FLSA
Scheduling Order, which directed the exchange of specified written
discovery, required counsel for the parties to meet following that
exchange to discuss settlement, and, following that attorney
conference, required the parties to file a Report Regarding
Settlement.
On January 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional
certification, requesting notice to allegedly similarly situated
current and former employees of GEICO under Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to ask them to join the lawsuit.
Among Plaintiff's requested relief is that GEICO produce a list of
individuals employed in job positions like that of Plaintiff in
Florida over the last three years, including their personal contact
information.
GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with
headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nt8qBE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Reed L. Russell, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000
Tampa, FL 33602-5315
Telephone: (813) 472-7550
Facsimile: (813) 472-7570
E-mail: reed.russell@phelps.com
- and -
Eric Hemmendinger, Esq.
Teresa D. Teare, Esq.
SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP
One South Street, Suite 1800
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 752-1040
Facsimile: (410) 752-8861
E-mail: eh@shawe.com
teare@shawe.com
GENUINE PARTS: Cervantez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK CERVANTEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, doing business
as NAPA AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV40245,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00211 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse expenses, and
failure to timely pay wages.
Genuine Parts Company, doing business as NAPA Auto Parts, is an
automobile parts company, with its principal place of business in
Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander W. Simon, Esq.
MARTENSON, HASBROUCK & SIMON LLP
2573 Apple Valley Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 909-8100
Facsimile: (404) 909-8120
E-mail: asimon@martensonlaw.com
GENUINE PARTS: Faces Cervantez PAGA Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
MARK CERVANTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, doing business as
NAPA AUTO PARTS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV00981 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys' General Act including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages owed during
employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, knowing and
intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement
provisions, failure to keep accurate records, and failure to pay
sick pay at the proper rate.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee.
Genuine Parts Company, doing business as NAPA Auto Parts, is an
automobile parts company, with its principal place of business at
2999 Wildwood Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
GOOGLE LLC: Averts AdWorks Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Alphabet
Inc.'s Google dodged class action litigation over fraud claims
involving its AdWorks business, when a federal judge in San Jose,
Calif., ruled that the advertiser leading the case raised too many
issues unlikely to affect other customers.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied a bid to certify the case as a
class action late on Jan. 10, reducing Google's legal exposure by
orders of magnitude for allegedly exaggerating the percentage of
malicious, bogus, or otherwise "invalid" ad "clicks" screened out
by AdWorks.
The lead plaintiff, Gurminder Singh, "provided no evidence" that
other advertisers relied on alleged misrepresentations "buried"
deep on Google's website. [GN]
H MART: Baires Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Supermarket Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMELINA MERCADO BAIRES, JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO, WALTER EDENILSO
ESCALANTE CORADO, JORGE ADOLFO GARCIA HERNANDEZ, CARLOS ARTURO
ZETINO MELGAR, ARTURO HERNANDEZ VILLANUEVA, JOSE MARTIN ALVARADO
VELASCO, JOSE BELMER ALVARADO VELASCO, MARTIR HIREN VILLANUEVA, and
WILFREDO MELENDEZ QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. H MART BAYSIDE, LLC, H
MART COMPANIES, INC., and H MART, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00158 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) 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 wage
statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed at the Defendants' supermarket at any
time between 2013 and 2021.
H Mart Bayside, LLC is an owner and operator of a supermarket
located at 46-40 Francis Lewis Blvd., Queens, New York.
H Mart Companies, Inc. is an owner and operator of a supermarket
located at 46-40 Francis Lewis Blvd., Queens, New York.
H Mart, Inc. is an owner and operator of a supermarket located at
46-40 Francis Lewis Blvd., Queens, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 457-1699
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ABC Diamonds Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ABC Diamonds Incorporated filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ABC DIAMONDS INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., and
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-07097, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The lawsuit is a class action against the Defendants for bad faith
breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to fulfill its
contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, the
Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses
resulting from the suspension of its operations, including
suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased a Spectrum Business
Owner's commercial insurance policy issued by Hartford to protect
its properties and income from the operation of its businesses. The
Plaintiff agreed to pay premiums to the Defendants in exchange for
promises of coverage for all risks of loss except those
specifically and unambiguously excluded. The actions of the
Defendants in improperly denying the Plaintiff's claim were a
blatant disregard for its contractual rights resulting in a
material breach of the Defendants' duties and obligation owed under
the Spectrum Policy and deprived it of the benefit of its bargain
causing serious financial damages to the Plaintiff.
On December 10, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as ABC Diamonds Incorporated v.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 22-1026, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 7,
2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet is due by January 21, 2022;
-- Docketing Statement is due for Appellant ABC Diamonds
Incorporated by January 14, 2022; and
-- Appellant's brief due on or before February 16, 2022 for ABC
Diamonds Incorporated.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ABC DIAMONDS INCORPORATED, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lisa Brooke Weinstein, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 610-5351
E-mail: lweinstein@gelaw.com
Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
227 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1265
E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com
HEALING ENERGY: Faces Lane Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIAMOND LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALING ENERGY HOMECARE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 220100797 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., January
11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure
to pay wages which are due and owing for all hours worked in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and
breach of its contractual obligations under Pennsylvania Common
Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a direct care worker
from October 1, 2021.
Healing Energy Homecare, LLC is a home health care services
provider, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Schreiber, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
aschreiber@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
HOGSHEAD TAVERN: Solis Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOGSHEAD TAVERN and TARA WHOLLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 150237/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 10, 2022)
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 accurate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage notice, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cleaner/maintenance
man from November 2015 until August 2020.
Hogshead Tavern is an owner and operator of restaurant and tavern,
with a principal place of business located at 126 Hamilton PI, New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq.
T. A. BLACKBURN LAW, PLLC
1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11236
E-mail: tblackbum@tablackbumlaw.com
I.C. SYSTEM: Rodriguez-Ocasio Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ-OCASIO,
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:19-cv-13447-JMV-CLW
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23.
IC System is an accounts receivable management firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33AWPJu
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Daniel M. Baczynski, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Rosales Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESUS EVELIO ROSALES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV40280, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 10, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00203 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to timely pay wages, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
JetBlue Airways is an air transportation company with its corporate
headquarters and principal place of business in Long Island City,
New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-4000
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
- and –
Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
Taylor D. Horn, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com
taylor.horn@morganlewis.com
JOJO SIWA INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jojo Siwa, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jojo Siwa, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00255 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Joelle Joanie "JoJo" Siwa -- https://itsjojosiwa.com/ -- is an
American dancer, singer, and YouTuber. She is known for appearing
for two seasons on Dance Moms along with her mother, Jessalynn
Siwa, and for her singles "Boomerang" and "Kid in a Candy
Store."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
JULLIARD SCHOOL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Julliard School.
The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Julliard School, Case No.
1:22-cv-00282 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Juilliard School -- https://www.juilliard.edu/ -- is a private
performing arts conservatory in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
KE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of February 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of KE Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BEKE)
between August 13, 2020 and December 16, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important February 28, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased KE Holdings securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the KE Holdings class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2227.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 28, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) KE Holdings inflated the
Company's GTV; (2) KE Holdings inflated the Company's revenues; (3)
KE Holdings inflated the number of stores and agents using the
Company's platform; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the KE Holdings class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2227.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Johnson Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANNY JOHNSON, 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.
3:21-cv-00104, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on January 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00039-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, negligence, and duty to warn.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff was forced
to replace the device at considerable cost, says the suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry D. Helvey, Esq.
LARRY HELVEY LAW FIRM
2735 First Avenue SE, Suite 101
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Telephone: (319) 362-0421
Facsimile: (319) 362-3496
E-mail: lhelvey@helveylaw.com
LAWNBRIGHT LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawnbright LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Lawnbright LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00263-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lawnbright -- https://getlawnbright.com/ -- is an online lawn care
subscription service that sell all-natural and organic treatment
plans, similar to Sunday Lawn Care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
LUCID GROUP: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDELMIRA GUERRERO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCID GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00268 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure 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 people in violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, lucidmotors.com, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers.
Lucid Group, Inc. is an American electric vehicle manufacturer
headquartered in Newark, California. Lucid's other divisions
include energy storage, and original equipment manufacturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, 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: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
MAJOR LEAGUE: Colludes to Restrict Baseball Market, Concepcion Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CONCEPCION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
BASEBALL, an unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL, ROB MANFRED; ALLAN HUBER "BUD" SELIG; KANSAS CITY
ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.; MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL
ASSOCIATES LLC; BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P.; ANGELS BASEBALL
LP; CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD.; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO
ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; THE
CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC; ATHLETICS
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP;
CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., L.P.; CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL
CO., INC.; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.;
MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC;
DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES DODGERS, LLC; LOS ANGELES DODGERS
HOLDING CO.; STERLING METS L.P.; ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL
CLUB, INC.; AZPB L.P.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES, INC.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES,
L.P.; THE PHILLIES L.P.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL, INC.; PITTSBURGH
BASEBALL P’SHIP; NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP; TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL
LTD.; RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC; CHICAGO
BASEBALL HOLDINGS, LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.;
MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01017 (D.P.R., January 11, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Puerto Rico Wage and Hour Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy and
agreement to restrict and depress, at below market rates, the wages
and compensation they pay their minor league baseball players. The
Defendants are members of the monopsony cartel known as Major
League Baseball (MLB). In order to monopolize minor league players,
and restrain and depress their salaries, the MLB cartel inserted a
provision (known as the reserve clause) into players' contracts
that allows teams to retain the contractual rights to players and
restricts their movement and their ability to negotiate with other
teams for their baseball services and the compensation they
receive, which reserve clause preserves MLB's monopsony over the
minor league system of artificially low compensation paid to minor
league players and their nonexistent contractual mobility.
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball is an unincorporated
association doing business as Major League Baseball.
Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. is a baseball club operator in
Kansas City, Kansas.
Miami Marlins, L.P. is a baseball club operator in Miami, Florida.
San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC is a baseball club operator
in San Francisco, California.
Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P. is a baseball club operator in
Boston, Massachusetts.
Angels Baseball LP is a baseball club operator in Anaheim,
California.
Chicago White Sox Ltd. is a baseball club operator in Chicago,
Illinois.
St. Louis Cardinals, LLC is a baseball club operator in Saint
Louis, Missouri.
Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd. is a baseball club operator in
Colorado.
Baseball Club of Seattle, LLP is a baseball club operator in
Seattle, Washington.
The Cincinnati Reds, LLC is a baseball club operator in Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Houston Baseball Partners LLC is a baseball club operator in
Houston, Texas.
Athletics Investment Group, LLC is a provider of sporting events
services in Oakland, California.
Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership is a baseball club operator
in Toronto, Ontario.
Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., L.P. is a baseball club operator in
Cleveland, Ohio.
Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., Inc. is a baseball club operator in
Cleveland, Ohio.
Padres L.P. is a baseball club operator in San Diego, California.
San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P. is a baseball club operator in
San Diego, California.
Minnesota Twins, LLC is a baseball club operator in Minnesota.
Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC is a baseball club operator
in Washington.
Detroit Tigers, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Detroit,
Michigan.
Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC is a baseball club operator in Los
Angeles, California.
Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Co. is a baseball club operator in Los
Angeles, California.
Sterling Mets L.P. is a baseball club operator in Flushing, New
York.
Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. is a baseball club
operator in Atlanta, Georgia.
AZPB L.P. is a baseball club operator in Phoenix, Arizona.
Baltimore Orioles, Inc. is a baseball club operator in Baltimore,
Maryland.
Baltimore Orioles, L.P. is a baseball club operator in Baltimore,
Maryland.
The Phillies L.P. is a baseball club operator in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc. is a baseball club operator in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Pittsburgh Baseball P'Ship is a baseball club operator in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
New York Yankees P'Ship is a baseball club operator in New York.
Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd. is a baseball club operator in Tampa,
Florida.
Rangers Baseball Express, LLC is a baseball club operator in
Arlington, Texas.
Rangers Baseball, LLC is a baseball club operator in Arlington,
Texas.
Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC is a baseball club operator in
Chicago, Illinois.
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Inc. is a baseball club operator
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, L.P. is a baseball club operator
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-6281
Facsimile: (415) 981-7616
E-mail: samuel.kornhauser@gmail.com
- and –
Brian David, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID
1329 North Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: (847) 778-7528
Facsimile: (312) 346-8469
E-mail: bdbriandavid@gmail.com
- and –
Rafael Baella-Silva, Esq.
B & B LAW FIRM, PSC
Baella & Baella
563 Pedro Bigay Street
Urb. Ext. Baldrich
San Juan, PR 00918
Telephone: (787) 250-8080
E-mail: rbaellasilva@baellalaw.com
MALCO PRODUCTS: Faces Chadwell Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALYCIA CHADWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MALCO PRODUCTS OF OHIO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ohio, January 10, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff
and all similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a pad room operator at
its Barberton, Ohio manufacturing facility from in August 2020.
Malco Products of Ohio, Inc. is a manufacturing company
specializing in automotive fluid products, with its headquarters
located at 361 Fairview Ave., Barberton Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces Townsend Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE TOWNSEND, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-JCS
(N.D. Cal., January 10, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the
Private Attorneys General Act arising from the Defendant's failure
to pay regular and overtime wages, failure to reimburse necessarily
incurred business expenses, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to pay all wages due upon termination.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a recruiter in
Oakland, California, and later worked remotely in Hayward,
California, from approximately August 2018 to March 2021.
Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides home healthcare, companion
and behavioral care, healthcare staffing, and workforce
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Markham, Esq.
Maggie Realin, Esq.
Lisa Brevard, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
8910 University Center Lane, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
mrealin@markham-law.com
lbrevard@markham-law.com
- and -
Walter Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (888) 474-7242
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
E-mail: walter@whaines.com
MENLO PARK, CA: Class Action Claims City Must Refund Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Bradshaw at almanacnews.com reports that Menlo Park residents
David Fogel, Kirill Pertsev and Kaitlin Darke have filed a class
action lawsuit looking for a refund of utility users taxes from the
city of Menlo Park, alleging that the City Council has failed to
properly reauthorize the tax collection since 2014.
Menlo Park's Utility Users Tax (UUT) was approved by voters in 2006
and imposes a maximum 3.5% tax on gas, electrical and water usage
and a maximum 2.5% tax on cable, telephone and wireless services,
according to the city website. The taxes are collected by the
utility service providers and sent monthly to the city's finance
division.
The taxes, which have been set at 1% since 2007, also set a cap of
$12,000 for the total amount a user can pay for electric, gas and
water utilities. In the 20-21 fiscal year, the city collected about
$1.4 million in utility users taxes, and the amount collected
annually since the 2012-13 fiscal year has generally fluctuated
between roughly $1.1 million and $1.7 million.
An Oct. 28 demand letter by attorney James Pistorino on behalf of
Fogel, Pertsev and Darke states that these residents are demanding
that the city stop collecting utility users tax and provide a
refund.
According to the lawsuit, filed Dec. 28, each person who paid Menlo
Park's utility users tax past Dec. 31, 2016, "is entitled to a
refund (with interest) of all such monies paid."
When asked whether Menlo Park residents might see a tax refund in
their future, City Attorney Nira Doherty said in an email to The
Almanac, "The City now has the opportunity to file a responsive
pleading to the class action lawsuit. The lawsuit is in the very
early stages; any determinations on the allegations, including
those related to a tax refund, would be premature."
At the time the tax was approved in 2006, Pistorino writes in the
initial demand letter, those pushing to have the measure passed
argued that the city faced a recurring budget deficit of $2.2
million and needed the utility users taxes to avoid "drastic cuts"
and help pay for police, emergency preparedness, libraries, street
repairs, park maintenance and senior and youth programs. The law
passed by a narrow 67-vote majority.
In the municipal code, it says that the tax would need to be
reviewed every two years, and to be reauthorized, the City Council
would have to, by a two-thirds majority, make findings that the tax
is "necessary for the financial health of the city." If it didn't,
the tax would be terminated at the end of the calendar year. That's
what happened when the council allegedly neglected to reauthorize
the tax any time after 2016, Pistorino argues.
Furthermore, under the California Constitution, it says that
governments are not permitted to "impose, extend, or increase any
general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the
electorate and approved by a majority vote." Since Menlo Park
voters haven't voted on it since the tax allegedly lapsed, the city
is allegedly in violation of the state constitution, the lawsuit
claims.
According to Pistorino, citing city documents he obtained, the City
Council made the needed findings in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, but
hadn't been made in 2016 or any year beyond that, and as a result,
the UUT would have expired at the end of 2016 which, by extension,
means that any taxes collected after then were illegally
collected.
The group bring forward the lawsuit is making it a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all of the households who paid the utility
users tax after its authorization lapsed; estimated to be more than
12,000 households or entities, according to the legal complaint.
The lawsuit requests that the judge determine that the UUT is no
longer in effect, bar the city from collecting any more UUT, order
the city to refund those taxes, including interest, and award the
plaintiffs and class members litigation expenses and legal relief.
The claimants' research into the UUT began after Aug. 31, 2021,
when now Mayor Betsy Nash, Vice Mayor Jen Wolosin and Councilwoman
Cecilia Taylor expressed favor toward increasing the utility users
tax to the maximum 3.5% up from the current 1% rate to generate
funds to help low-income households replace gas power with electric
power. The votes "prompted increased scrutiny of the UUT itself
and, as a result, this demand letter," Pistorino wrote. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Faces UK Class Suit For Breach of Competition Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Martin at foxbusiness.com reports that the parent company of
Facebook is facing a class action lawsuit in the United Kingdom for
breach of competition law, according to a report.
The filing accuses the parent company, California-based Meta, of
abusing its dominance of social networking in the U.K. for several
years, according to TechCrunch.
The accusation comes from a legal expert on competition, backed by
a powerful litigation fund.
The suit. If successful, would have Facebook paying $3.1 billion in
damages to Facebook U.K. users.
The lawsuit was filed with the U.K.'s Competition Appeal Tribunal
in London.
The suit claims Facebook should pay its 44 million U.K. users
compensation for the exploitation of their data between 2015 and
2019.
JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
It says Facebook took all the personal and private data of its
users and in return all its users got, in effect, was the ability
to post photos of babies and kittens to their friends and
families.
The action is being mounted by international competition law expert
Dr. Liza Lovdahl Gormsen.
She claims Facebook set an "unfair price" for U.K. Facebook users.
TechCrunch reached out to Facebook asking for comment but had not
yet received a response.
Financial backing for the case is coming from Innsworth, one of the
largest litigation funders in the world. [GN]
METROMILE INC: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Bushansky Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROMILE, INC., DAN PRESTON,
COLIN BRYANT, JOHN BUTLER, SANDRA CLARKE, RYAN GRAVES, and VIKAS
SINGHAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00180-KAW (N.D. Cal., January
11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a false and misleading proxy statement by Metromile with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to convince Metromile
stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of
Metromile by Lemonade, Inc. The proxy statement omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) Metromile's and Lemonade's financial projections and the data
and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support
the fairness opinion provided by Metromile's financial advisor
Allen & Company LLC; (ii) the background of the proposed
transaction; and (iii) Metromile insiders' potential conflicts of
interest. Unless remedied, Metromile's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the proxy statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed merger.
Metromile, Inc. is a digital insurance platform company, with its
principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
- and –
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
MIDLAND CREDIT: Plotnik Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Moshe Plotnik, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore
Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-00231 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. also referred to as Midland Credit
-- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is one of the largest debt
collection companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM J. FISHBEIN
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Phone: (516) 791-4400
Fax: (516) 791-4411
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
MOOV INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moov Inc. The case is
styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Moov Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Moov -- https://welcome.moov.cc/ -- creates award-winning fitness
apps and wearables that combine inspiring design with cutting-edge
technologies, delivering highly engaging workouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MY CUBE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Cube, LLC. The
case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. My Cube, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00270 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mycube -- https://mycubesafe.com/ -- provides secure home safe
solutions that fit seamlessly into customers' lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
NAMASTE INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Namaste, Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Namaste, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00283
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lifeist (previously Namaste Technologies Inc.) --
https://lifeist.com/home/default.aspx -- is at the forefront of the
post-pandemic wellness revolution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
NATIONAL MENTOR: Underpays Direct Support Staff, Hagans Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HAGANS and VIVIAN HAGANS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL MENTOR
HEALTHCARE, INC. and NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00128 (D.N.J., January 11, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as direct support
professionals (DSPs) in New Jersey.
National Mentor Healthcare, Inc. is an in-home care service company
doing business as Sevita Health in New Jersey.
National Mentor Healthcare, LLC is an in-home care service company
doing business as Sevita Health in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
NCAA: Seeks Third Circuit Review in Johnson FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
NCAA, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON, ET AL., individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Civil Action No. 19-5230, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The First Amended Complaint alleges that student athletes who
attend colleges and universities in Division I of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and who engage in Division I
interscholastic athletic activity for those colleges and
universities that is unrelated to academics are student employees
similar to students engaged in work study programs and should be
paid for the time they spend in NCAA Division I interscholastic
athletics as if they were work study students.
The Complaint asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 Pa.
Stat. Section 333.101, et seq. (the "PMWA"), the New York Labor
Law, N.Y. Lab. Law Section 191, et seq. ("NYLL"), and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, C.G.S.A. Sections 31-58, et seq.
("CMWA"). The Complaint also asserts claims for unjust enrichment
under Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut common law against
all Defendants. The Complaint seeks the approval of an FLSA
collective and classes to pursue the Pennsylvania, New York, and
Connecticut law claims.
On Aug. 25, 2021, the Court denied the Attended Schools Defendants'
("ASD") Motion to Dismiss. The ASD moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FLSA and state statutory law claims as against them on the ground
that the Complaint does not allege facts that would establish that
the Plaintiffs are their employees, which is a requirement for
bringing a claim under the FLSA and the relevant state statutes The
ASD argued that the Plaintiffs could not be their employees for
three reasons: (1) student athletes such as the Plaintiffs are
amateurs; (2) the Department of Labor has determined that
interscholastic athletes are not employees for purposes of the
FLSA; and (3) the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the
Plaintiffs are employees pursuant to a multi-factor test used to
determine whether individuals are employees. The Court denied the
Motion to Dismiss as to all three of these arguments.
The ASD asked the Court to certify the following issue for
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b): Whether
NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees of the colleges
and universities they attend for purposes of the Fair Labor
Standards Act solely by virtue of their participation in
interscholastic athletics.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 11, 2022, Judge
John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania issued an Order-Memorandum:
a. granting the Motion of the Attended Schools to Certify
Interlocutory Appeal of Ruling Denying Their Motion to
Dismiss; and
b. certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal:
Whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees
of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes
of the Fair Labor Standards Act solely by virtue of their
participation in interscholastic athletics.
The Defendants now seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as NCAA, et al. v. Ralph Johnson,
et al., Case No. 22-8003, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on January 7, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
a/k/a THE NCAA, AND THE FOLLOWINGNCAA DIVISION I MEMBER SCHOOLSAS
REPRESENTATIVES OF ADEFENDANT CLASS OF ALL PRIVATEAND SEMI-PUBLIC
NCAA DIVISION IMEMBER SCHEDULES; DREXEL UNIVERSITY; LAFAYETTE
COLLEGE; VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY; LAFAYETTE COLLEGE; UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA; CORNELL UNIVERSITY; SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY; FORDHAM
UNIVERSITY; and UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, are represented by:
Alexandria M. Gilbert, Esq.
Steven B. Katz, Esq.
Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
E-mail: skatz@constangy.com
skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com
- and -
John E. MacDonald, Esq.
CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE
Princeton South Corporate Center, Suite 140
100 Charles Ewing Boulevard
Ewing, NJ 08628
Telephone: (609) 454-0096
E-mail: jmacdonald@constangy.com
- and -
Donald S. Prophete, Esq.
CONTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 750
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 472-6400
E-mail: dprophete@constangy.com
- and -
Marla N. Presley, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 232-0404
Plaintiffs-Respondents RALPH TREY JOHNSON, CLAUDIA RUIZ, JACOB
WILLEBEEK-LEMAIR, NICHOLAS LABELLA, ALEXA COOKE, STEPHANIE
KERKELES, RHESA FOSTER, ESTEBAN SUAREZ, ZACHARY HARRIS, LAURA
HAMILTON, MATTHEW SCHMIDT, LIAM WALSH, GINA SNYDER, TAMARA SCHOEN,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated;
Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
Renan Varghese, Esq.
Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
E-mail: tcrabill@wigdorlaw.com
rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com
mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
P L MCDONALD LAW LLC
1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 238-3835
E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com
NEW YORK: Foster Children Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ELISA W., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ELISA W., et al., Plaintiffs v, THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-5273, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The action was brought in 2015 on behalf of 19 children in foster
care in New York City. The Plaintiffs assert a range of
constitutional and statutory claims against both New York City and
the State of New York, based on alleged systemic failures in the
New York City foster care system, including a failure to exercise
proper oversight over the agencies responsible for the day-to-day
care of children.
Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
have been, and are at risk of being deprived of constitutional
rights protected by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution; that City Defendants' actions
constitute a pattern or practice of depriving Plaintiffs of various
rights conferred upon them by the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997; that City Defendants' actions constitute a deprivation
of rights conferred on Plaintiffs by various provisions of the New
York State Social Services Law and regulations adopted thereto; and
that City Defendants have breached and failed to enforce contracts
between ACS and Contract Agencies. At bottom, the Plaintiffs assert
that children in foster care in New York City are harmed by
systemic deficiencies, including failures by OCFS and ACS to
perform their respective oversight functions, and to enforce the
terms of the agreements between ACS and the Contract Agencies.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 21, 2021,
Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied:
(i) a Daubert motion filed by the City Defendants seeking to
exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness,
and
(ii) a renewed motion by the Plaintiffs for class certification.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the said denial of their motion
for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Elisa W. v. The City of New
York, Case No. 22-7, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on January 4, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Ayanna J., by her next friend, Meyghan
McCrea; Dameon C., by his next friend, Reverend Doctor Gwendolyn
Hadley-Hall; Olivia R., by their next friend, Dawn Cardi; Matthew
V., by their next friend, Samuel D. Perry, Individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; Mikayla G., by
her next friend, Michael B. Mushlin; Valentina T.C., by their next
friend, Rachel Friedman; Jose T.C., by their next friend, Rachel
Friedman; Lucas T., by their next friend, Rachel Friedman; Myls J.,
by their next friend, Elizabeth Hendrix; Ximena T., by their next
friend, Rachel Friedman; Malik M., by their next friend, Elizabeth
Hendrix; Emmanuel S., by their next friend, Samuel D. Perry,
Individually and on behalf of a class and all others similarly
situated; Alexandria R., by her next friend, Alison Max Rothschild;
Thierry E., by his next friend Michael B. Mushlin; Elisa W.; Xavion
M., by his next friend, Michael B. Mushlin; Tyrone M., by his next
friend, Bishop Lillian Robinson-Wiltshire; Ana-Maria R., by their
next friend, Dawn Cardi; and Brittney W., by her next friend,
Shamara Mills, are represented by:
Julie A. North, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza, 825 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
E-mail: jnorth@cravath.com
Defendants-Appellees The City of New York; New York City
Administration for Childrens Services; and Sheila J. Poole, Acting
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family
Services, in her official capacity, are represented by:
Jamison Davies, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2490
- and -
Elizabeth Brody, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-6167
NEWELL BRANDS: Schaer Slams Mislabeling on Service Warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Schaer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Newell Brands Inc. and Sunbeam Products, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-30004 (D. Mass., December 7, 2022),
brings claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
resulting from unjust enrichment, and fraudulent omission.
Newell Brands and Graco Children's Products manufacture, marketing
and sale of consumer products sold under the Sunbeam, Crockpot,
Oyster, and Mr. Coffee brand names.
Schaer claims that said products contain warranty statements that
condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only
an authorized repair service where a consumer product's warranty on
the use of a specific repair service. Its product packaging
allegedly states a one-year limited warranty, but the unlawful
repair restriction is not revealed to the consumer until after the
point of sale. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7011
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Neal Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: ADA Suit Filed in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Allegheny
School District, et al. The case is styled as JOHN DOE 1; JANE DOE
1, in their own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 1; JANE DOE 2,
in her own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 2 and CHILD DOE 3;
JANE DOE 3, in her own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 4 and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. North Allegheny School
District, a Pennsylvania governmental entity; Richard McCLure,
Elizabeth Blackburn, Marcie Crow, Leslie Britton Dozier, Paige
Hardy, Kevin Mahler, Vidya Szymhowiak, Elizabeth Werner, Shannon
Yeakel, all individual elected officials sued in their official
capacity as members of the North Allegheny School District Board of
Directors; North Allegheny School District Board of Directors, a
Pennsylvania elected legislative body; Case No. 2:22-cv-00055-MJH
(W.D. Pa., Jan. 10, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
North Allegheny School District -- https://www.northallegheny.org/
-- is a large, suburban public school district located in
McCandless, Pennsylvania, about 12 miles north of Pittsburgh.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
BEHREND LAW GROUP, LLC
428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1700
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 391-4460
Fax: (412) 391-5073
Email: krbehrend@behrendlawgroup.com
NORTH AMERICAN: Bennett Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE BENNETT on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; and GERALD MCGHEE, v.
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, where Classes are defined as:
"All persons in California who became NAB's pay-as-you-go
merchants prior to September 1, 2017, and who were debited
at least one $3.99 inactivity fee prior to September 1,
2017;" and
"All persons in California who became NAB's pay-as-you-go
merchants prior to September 1, 2017, who were debited at
least one $3.99 inactivity fee after September 1, 2017,
and did not agree to a contract authorizing debit of the
$3.99 inactivity fee."
2. appoints Plaintiff June Bennett as the Class
Representative of the Classes; and
3. appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and
LaGuardia Law, APC as class counsel.
In this action, the Plaintiff Bennett alleges that she and other
NAB pay-as-you-go merchants were fraudulently, unfairly, and
unjustly charged $3.99 monthly "inactivity" fees by the Defendant
North American Bancard, LLC ("NAB"). Further, Plaintiff Bennett
alleges that NAB's $3.99 monthly inactivity fees constitute
conversion and unjust enrichment.
In this Motion, the Plaintiffs assert that class certification is
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because (1)
the classes that Plaintiff Bennett seeks to certify are so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) that there are
questions and answers of law or fact common to class members; (3)
the claims of the representative Plaintiff Bennett are typical of
the claims of the classes she seeks to represent; and (4) the
representative Plaintiff Bennett and her counsel will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the proposed class.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rd4OVq
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Ethan Litney, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
elitney@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Eric A. LaGuardia, Esq.
LAGUARDIA LAW, APC
402 West Broadway, Suite 2200
San Diego, California 92101
Telepohone: (619) 655-4322
Facsimile: (619) 655-4344
E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com
OAK STREET: Faces Allison Suit Over 20% Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD T. ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAK STREET HEALTH, INC., MICHAEL
PYKOSZ, and TIMOTHY COOK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00149 (N.D.
Ill., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements about Oak Street's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Oak Street securities
at artificially traded prices between August 6 2020, and November
8, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Oak Street maintained relationships with
third-party marketing agents likely to provoke law enforcement
scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free transportation to
federal health care beneficiaries in a manner that would provoke
law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these activities may be
violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that, as such, Oak Street
was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ and/or other
federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a result, Oak Street
was subject to adverse impacts related to defense and settlement
costs and diversion of management resources; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about
the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $9.75, or
more than 20 percent, to close at $37.14 per share on November 9,
2021, damaging investors, says the suit.
Oak Street Health, Inc. is an operator of primary care centers
within the United States, with its principal executive offices
located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
- and –
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH) between August 6,
2020 and November 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 14, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Oak Street Health securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2210.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 14, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oak Street Health maintained
relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke
law enforcement scrutiny; (2) Oak Street Health was providing free
transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner
that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) these activities
may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) as such, Oak Street
Health was at heightened risk of investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") and/or other federal law enforcement
agencies; (5) as a result, Oak Street Health was subject to adverse
impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of
management resources; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2210.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
ONE HOME BRANDS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Home Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. One Home Brands, Inc. doing
business as: Blueland, Case No. 1:22-cv-00261 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
One Home Brands, Inc. doing business as Blueland --
https://www.blueland.com/ -- creates everyday eco-friendly cleaning
products to save money and space, without any plastic waste.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
OPEN ACCESS: Faces Moore Suit Over Alleged Illegal Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OPEN ACCESS INSURANCE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00102 (N.D. Ill., January 7, 2022) seeks redress for the
Defendant's illegal telemarketing that is consistent both with the
private right of action afforded by the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiff and all members of the class, have allegedly been
harmed by the telemarketing acts of Defendant because their privacy
has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing
calls that constitute a nuisance.
Open Access Insurance LLC is a national insurance agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
OPENSKY PROJECT: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opensky Project, Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Opensky Project, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00294 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OpenSky Project, Inc. -- https://www.opensky.com/ -- operates an
online e-commerce store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
OTHER HALF BREWING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Other Half Brewing
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Other Half
Brewing Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00293 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Other Half Brewing -- https://otherhalfbrewing.com/ -- resides as a
beacon in the heart of New York City, Brooklyn, churning out
incredible brews and an authentic New York City experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
OVH GROUPE: 51 Int'l Companies Join Class Action Over Data Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Judge, writing for DCD, reports that 51 international
companies who lost data when OVHcloud's SBG2 data center in
Strasbourg burnt down in March 2021, have joined a class action
claiming 'up to €1.9 million' in damages.
The legal action is being brought by Parisian legal firm Ziegler
Associates, and is still open to new claimants, before an official
letter goes to OVHcloud in March. The fire on March 10 destroyed
the cloud operator's SBG2 data center, and crippled the SBG1
facility on the same site. Many international businesses suffered
downtime and lost data.
OVHcloud has still not given any official information on the cause
of the fire, claiming it cannot do this until later this year, for
legal reasons, although initial reports suggested the blaze started
in UPS systems, and reports have alleged the company had inadequate
fire prevention systems.
Four arguments to shift the blame
Ziegler announced its class action in November with seven
companies, and 20 companies had signed up by early December. Now
that number has expanded, with Ziegler saying its clients are
"seeking justice and compensation for all the damages they may have
suffered as a result of this fire". It says its goal is "to
compensate companies that lost data during the fire at OVH's data
center in Strasbourg."
One of Ziegler's clients has shared OVHcloud's four legal arguments
against compensation. These are;
-- No fault would be attributable to OVH
-- The disaster was "force majeure": (beyond OVHcloud's
control)
-- A limited liability clause in OVHcloud's contract
OVHcloud's responsibility only includes direct damages -- the
hosting service -- and does not include indirect damages such as
loss of business
Ziegler will be arguing against all these points, saying that
OVHcloud was at fault for not taking specific additional security
measures, and because it kept backups on the same site as original
data: "OVH has the obligation to put in place all the necessary
means to deal with a possible security failure, for example a
fire," says Ziegler. "However, its data centers in Strasbourg were
not equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system. For some
companies having taken the backup option, the backups were carried
out in the same data center. They have de facto lost everything."
The conditions for invoking force majeure were not met. Under
clause 1218 of France's civil code, a force majeure defense
requrires the event to have been unpredictable, irresistible, and
outside the OVHcloud's control. Ziegler argues that because
prevention measures were available, the damage was within
OVHcloud's control.
Ziegler says OVHccloud's limited liability defense is invalid,
because it essentially claims it is not responsible to provide the
basic service its clients expect, to have data hosted securely. "As
soon as the limiting clauses generate a significant imbalance
between the parties, the judge may consider these clauses as
invalid," says Ziegler, adding that OVHcloud's limited liability
argument dispenses with its own purpose which is to host data in a
secure manner".
Finally, Ziegler says OVHcloud is not legally able to limit its
responsibility to direct damages only. The law firm says the judge
should take into account other costs such as the cost of restoring
and replacing data, loss of business, and even damage to an
OVHcloud customer's brand image.
According to a report in Le Journal Du Net, Ziegler intends to add
further confidential arguments to its letter before it is filed.
"The objective is to demonstrate that the situation of OVH is no
longer tenable, and that it will have to go through an amicable
discussion if it does not want a lost trial", says Jocelyn Ziegler,
according to that report.
OVHcloud has declined to comment on the Ziegler class action to DCD
until the formal letter is received: "We cannot comment more, as
the case is still not shared with the legal authorities nor with
our lawyers/legal department who still have no access to its
detailed elements," said an OVHcloud spokesperson, adding that
OVHcloud has provided support and refunds for customers for
impacted services. [GN]
PERMIAN DUST: Ginkinger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY GINKINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN DUST STORM HAULERS, LLC, and GILBERT
SAENZ, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00004 (W.D. Tex., January 10,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a truck driver in
Midland, Texas from July 12, 2021 through October 4, 2021.
Permian Dust Storm Haulers, LLC is a freight shipping and trucking
company which maintains offices in Midland, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
ROSS-SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone (512) 474-7677
Facsimile (512) 474-5306
E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Paschal and Pedro Zarazua Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Perry's Restaurants
LTD d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille; and Christopher V. Perry,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027 (W.D. Tex.,
January 11, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated
tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Paschal and Zarazua were employed by the Defendants to
work as servers from January of 2020 until May of 2021 and from
July of 2017 until July of 2021, respectively.
Perry's Restaurants Ltd., d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille,
engages in steak restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
PETRA LIVING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petra Living, Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Petra Living, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00292 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Petra Living, Inc. is located in San Francisco, California and is
part of the Consumer Goods Rental Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS REMICK, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
persons who are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief,
consisting of:
"All persons who are currently or will be in the future
confined in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons, and are
or will be subjected to unconstitutional and otherwise
illegal conditions of confinement, including extended
lockdowns; lack of out-of-cell time; denial of timely and
adequate medical care; lack of protection from physical
assaults; denial of access to the courts, to legal counsel,
and to timely legal mail; lack of due process in disciplinary
proceedings; lack of access to necessary exercise; inadequate
sanitation, hygiene, quarantine, and separation practices and
procedures to protect against COVID-19 infections."
The Plaintiffs commenced this class action seeking relief from
unconstitutional conditions of confinement that existed at that
time and which, absent judicial intervention, will continue to
exist in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons ("PDP").
The Plaintiffs filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. section
1983, 28 U.S.C. section 2241, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, on April 20, 2020, to compel Defendants City of Philadelphia
and Commissioner Blanche Carney to protect individuals incarcerated
in the PDP from the risks of serious harm they face from the twin
dangers of COVID-19 and prolonged isolation in their cells.
On April 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order
requiring Defendants to ensure that conditions of confinement in
PDP facilities complied with the then-current health and safety
standards necessary to protect the Plaintiff class from the risks
associated with COVID-19 and to provide humane conditions of
confinement, including adequate out-of-cell time consistent with
constitutional requirements.
The parties reached a partial settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Court and entered as a Consent Order on Partial
Settlement Agreement on June 3, 2020.
The Named Plaintiffs Thomas Remick, Nadiyah Walker, Jay Diaz,
Michael Alejandro, Michael Dantzler, Robert Hinton, Joseph Weiss,
Joseph Skinner, Saddam Abdullah, and James Bethea, were, at the
time of the filing of the original Complaint and the related Motion
for Class Certification, held in the PDP subject to the conditions
alleged in the Complaint. The First Amended Complaint updated all
relevant allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement
and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of those
persons who currently are, or will in the future, be subject to
such unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
The Second Amended Complaint, filed on January 7, 2022, added Clay
Pizarro, Michael Flynn, Nasir Lewis, Dyquill Pledger, and Troy
Harley as named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Clay Pizarro, Michael Flynn,
Nasir Lewis, Dyquill Pledger, and Troy Harley, in addition to
Michael Alejandro and Nadiyah Walker, are, as of the time of the
filing of the Second Amended Complaint and the
instant Amended Motion for Class Certification, held in the PDP
subject to the conditions alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
The only difference between the First Amended Complaint and the
Second Amended Complaint are inclusion of additional named
Plaintiffs and updated allegations of unconstitutional conditions
of confinement.
The Defendant City of Philadelphia is a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operates and funds the
Philadelphia Department of Prisons.
The Defendant Blanche Carney is the Commissioner of the PDP.
Defendants have actual knowledge of the challenged conditions of
confinement.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GuUAX1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
Grace Harris, Esq.
Sarah Bleiberg, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
718 Arch St., Suite 304S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215)-925-2966
E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org
mfeldman@pailp.org
gharris@pailp.org
sbleiberg@pailp.org
- and -
Bret Grote, Esq.
Nia Holston, Esq.
Rupalee Rashatwar, Esq.
ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
PO Box 31857
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (412) 654-9070
E-mail: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org
nia@alcenter.org
rupalee@alcenter.org
- and -
David Rudovsky, Esq.
Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq.
Susan M. Lin, Esq.
KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING,
FEINBERG, & LIN, LLP
718 Arch Street, Suite 501S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 925-4400
E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com
jfeinberg@krlawphila.com
slin@krlawphila.com
- and -
Will W. Sachse, Esq.
Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq.
Mary H. Kim, Esq.
Nicolas A. Novy, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
Cira Centre
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
Telephone: (215) 994-2496
E-mail: Will.Sachse@dechert.com
Ben.Barnett@dechert.com
Mary.Kim@dechert.com
Nicolas.Novy@dechert.com
PREVECEUTICAL MEDICAL: Settlement Reached in Tietz Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PreveCeutical Medical Inc. (CSE: PREV) (OTCQB: PRVCF) (FSE: 18H)
(the "Company" or "PreveCeutical"), is pleased to announce the
settlement of the proposed class action filed by Michael Tietz and
Duane Loewen against the Company and many other parties in B.C.
Supreme Court Action No. S197731, Vancouver Registry (the
"Action").
PreveCeutical commenced its own action against some of the
defendants to the Action claiming damages for fraud, conspiracy,
breach of contract, and other wrongs with respect to the same
transactions which are the subject of the claims asserted in the
Action (the "PreveCeutical Action").
The Company is pleased to announce that it has agreed to settle the
claims made against it in the Action, without any admission of
liability, in order to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and
burden of this litigation, and any other present or future
litigation arising out of the facts that gave rise to this
litigation (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement
requires the approval of the court, which is expected to be
obtained early in 2022.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, PreveCeutical has agreed to
make a payment of $350,000 and assign the PreveCeutical Action to
the representative plaintiff and the class of plaintiffs, as
defined in the Action, in exchange for a full and final release of
Stephen Van Deventer, Shabira Ragan, and all current and former
officers, directors, managers, employees, consultants and insurers
of PreveCeutical; a covenant by the representative plaintiff and
the proposed class of plaintiffs not to bring any proceedings or
assist anyone to bring any proceedings against PreveCeutical and
its associated companies, for any matter alleged in the plaintiffs'
action, and an order of the court barring all claims for
contributions and indemnity.
PreveCeutical will not be required to incur any costs of pursuing
the PreveCeutical Action, will be indemnified for any costs that
might be awarded against it and is entitled to 25% of the amount
recovered by the plaintiffs, less unrecovered legal costs.
Stephen Van Deventer, PreveCeutical's Chief Executive Officer,
commented, "Even though we would have preferred to have the Action
dismissed on the merits, in consideration of the potential time and
costs that the Company would incur if the Action continued, the
Board of PreveCeutical decided that settlement of the Action was
the best option for the Company. PreveCeutical expects that it will
benefit from the end result of the PreveCeutical Action and takes
satisfaction in knowing that the defendants to the PreveCeutical
Action will be held accountable for the damage that they caused to
the Company."
About PreveCeutical
PreveCeutical is a health sciences company that develops innovative
options for preventive and curative therapies utilizing organic and
nature identical products. The Company aims to be a leader in the
preventive health sciences sector.
With the completion of three of its research programs, the Company
is actively working on the development, clinical trials, and
commercialization of its products; and has filed a number of
provisional patent applications to protect the intellectual
property from its research programs. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Suit Alleges Carcinogenic Aerosol Antiperspirants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Lowcountry law firm has filed a South Carolina Class Action
against Procter and Gamble for what it says are carcinogenic
aerosol antiperspirants.
Class action attorneys from Anastopoulo Law Firm have filed the
class action on behalf of South Carolinians who purchased Procter &
Gamble Company's Old Spice and Secret aerosol spray
antiperspirants, as well as Old Spice Below Deck aerosol spray
products.
According to the suit, the products contained amounts of benzene
that were dangerous to humans.
Attorneys argue certain levels of exposure to the chemical can
cause cancers and blood disorders.
The lawsuit notes that Procter & Gamble notified retailers to
remove the products, but that 18 known lots of the items had
already been found to contain the chemical in dangerous amounts.
"This is an important case for millions of consumers nationally.
When people buy well known brands such as Secret and Old Spice
aerosols they do not expect they may be exposed to poisonous
chemicals by using them. We look forward to pursuing justice for
the people" said Roy T. Willey IV, lead attorney on the case.
Those with questions can contact Anastopoulo Law Firm's client
services team at 800-777-7777. Those wishing to submit their
experiences with the products listed above can do so online.
Consumers who used the products with an an expiry through September
2023 are urged consult their health care provider if they
experience any side effects. [GN]
PROPER CLOTH: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proper Cloth, Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Proper Cloth, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00296 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Proper Cloth -- https://propercloth.com/ -- enables customers to
design and purchase custom dress shirts online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
QUALITY LIAISON: Faces Bernard Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEROY BERNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY LIAISON SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00015 (M.D. Tenn., January 11,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee.
Quality Liaison Services of North America, Inc. is a provider of
quality control services for suppliers in original equipment
manufacturer plants across the United States, with its principal
address located at 100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd., Hendersonville,
Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
QUANTUM GROUP: Ciofoletti Sues Over Illegal Usurious Loans' Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEANOR and ROCCO CIOFOLETTI and LARRY STOSPAL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE QUANTUM
GROUP USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00055-DWL (D. Ariz.,
January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
alter ego/successor liability for Shurwest LLC's aiding and
abetting of Securian Life Insurance Company's fiduciary breaches
and/or Shurwest LLC's fiduciary breaches.
The case arises from the Defendant's liability as
successor-in-interest to Shurwest LLC, which marketed and sold the
Minnesota Life Insurance Company (MLIC) or Securian Life Insurance
Company (SLIC) indexed universal life (IUL) insurance policies
linked to structured cash flow products from Future Income
Payments, LLC (FIP Products). As early as 2015, state regulatory
agencies had investigated the FIP Products and determined them to
constitute illegal usurious loans. Shurwest, however, continued to
sell FIP Products in conjunction with Securian IUL products through
2018. When FIP ceased operations in mid-2018 as a result, the
Plaintiffs and the Class not only lost their investments in FIP
Products, but also lost or were at risk of losing the life
insurance policies purchased through the Securian Financial Network
because, without the cash flows from the FIP Products, they could
no longer pay for them or had to pay from sources other than the
FIP products which were marketed and sold to them as premium
finance investments, added the suit.
The Quantum Group USA, LLC is a financial consulting firm doing
business in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (480) 348-6400
Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
- and –
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
- and –
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
424 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
- and –
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
Melinda J. Morales, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
kae@wexlerwallace.com
RAY JONES: Back Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL BACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAY JONES TRUCKING, INC., TERESA JONES,
GRANT JONES, and STEVE JONES, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-00005-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., January 10, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated truck drivers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver.
Ray Jones Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company, with its principal
place of business at 3296 State Route 181 South, Greenville,
Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com
RB HEALTH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RB Health (US) LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. RB Health (US) LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00259 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RB Health (us) LLC -- http://www.reckitt.com/-- is located in
Parsippany, New Jersey and is part of the Home Health Care Services
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
REXNORD INDUSTRIES: Underpays Machinists, Jordan Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MYRON JORDAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00029-BHL (E.D. Wis., January 11, 2022) is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of machinist working at
Defendant's Milwaukee, Wisconsin location from August 2019 until
December 8, 2021.
Rexnord Industries, LLC is a manufacturer of motor, air, and power
transmission parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Supreme Ct. Orders Review of Recession-Era Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
housingwire.com reports that the Supreme Court weighed in on a
class action lawsuit against Quicken Loans, now Rocket Mortgage,
regarding its appraisal practices during the financial crisis,
delivering a procedural win for the mortgage lender.
On Monday, the Supreme Court remanded the class action to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reexamine
its March decision in favor of borrowers. Rocket had requested the
revision of the case last fall.
The dispute involves a potential payment of $9.7 million stemming
from allegedly tainted appraisals for 2,769 mortgage loans Quicken
Loans originated from 2004 to 2009. Its affiliate appraisal
company, Title Source, now Amrock, provided the appraisals, court
records show.
The lawsuit, filed in 2011 in the Circuit Court of Ohio County,
West Virginia, claimed that the nonbank lender wrongly influenced
home appraisal values during the financial crisis.
Rocket, in a statement to HousingWire, said it is not surprised by
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.
"The facts of this case are clear, and demonstrate that our
practices were compliant and that the refinance loans we provided
benefited our West Virginia clients," a Rocket spokesperson said.
The leading plaintiffs are two couples, Phillip and Sara Alig and
Daniel and Roxanne Shea, who refinanced their mortgages in 2007 and
2008, respectively. The borrowers paid for the appraisals - $260
from the Aligs and $430 from the Sheas - and received their
refinance loans.
But they claim that Quicken Loans influenced appraisers to raise
their home values and originate higher loans. Messages left with
plaintiffs' attorneys were not returned.
According to the lawsuit, the Aligs, for example, estimated their
home was worth $129,000, and provided the information to Quicken
Loans. Quicken Loans passed the value along to the appraisal
company, which changed the home's valuation from $122,500 to
$125,500, the couple claimed.
The Aligs obtained a $113,000 loan, putting them underwater. Expert
witnesses estimated the actual 2007 value of their home to be as
much as $26,000 less than the appraised value.
Rocket claimed that plaintiffs were not injured because they
benefited from obtaining the loans. In a statement to HousingWire,
the company defended its past practices, pointing out that a
dissenting judge in the Fourth Circuit had said that providing
relevant information to appraisers "was an industry-wide
practice."
According to the Fourth Circuit decision in March, plaintiffs are
entitled to summary judgment on their claims for conspiracy and
unconscionable inducement, but not for the claim regarding breach
of contract.
"Plaintiffs paid an average of $350 for independent appraisals
that, as we conclude below, they never received. Instead, they
received appraisals that were tainted when Defendants exposed the
appraisers to the borrowers' estimates of value and pressured them
to reach those values," the Fourth Circuit judges wrote.
However, in its decision, the Supreme Court wrote that the dispute
needs to be analyzed by the Fourth Circuit in light of TransUnion
LLC v. Ramirez. In the case, concluded in June 2021, the Court
stated that the law requires a concrete injury to grant a person
the option to sue to vindicate a right. According to the case,
"injury in law is not an injury in fact."
The Fourth Circuit considered borrowers to have experienced
financial harm when they paid for a home appraisal service
influenced by Rocket. The company, however, said in the lawsuit the
borrowers were uninjured, received the loans, and the Court needs
to consider the level of harm suffered by each class member
individually.
Federal reforms following the 2008 financial crisis sought to put a
firewall between lenders and appraisers. As a result of the
changes, appraisal management companies came into wider use.
Federal regulators, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, are now
focused on rooting out bias in appraisals, after a string of news
stories and academic research suggesting bias may play a role in
home valuations.
A federal task force led by HUD is expected to make policy
recommendations on appraisals in the early part of this year.
Update: Title Source, now Amrock, is a subsidiary of Rocket
Companies, not Rocket Mortgage. [GN]
ROUND TABLE: Barker Sues Over Car Wreck Patients' Hospital Liens
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROUND TABLE PHYSICIANS GROUP, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex., January 11, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and
violations of the Fraudulent Lien Statute and the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant files illegal hospital
lien against patients injured in car wrecks, including the
Plaintiff. By filing these liens, the Defendant is trying to
illegally profit off these injured patients and hold their injury
claims hostage. The Defendant's illegal liens prevent these
patients from negotiating and settling their personal injury
claims, creating even more strain on an overworked legal system for
those personal injury claims that enter litigation, says the suit.
Round Table Physicians Group, PLLC is a physicians' group that
employs doctors to provide medical services, located in Houston,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and –
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Earbuds Allergic Reactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Bloom, writing for SnackSafely.com, reports that two weeks
ago, we published an article describing thousands of individuals
who developed serious reactions to the Facebook/Meta Oculus Quest
2, a virtual reality headset used primarily for gaming. Now, thanks
to Kurt Nielsen, Founder of the Anti Allergies, Asthma &
Anaphylaxis Worldwide Facebook Group, we have word of another
popular holiday gift that is causing allergic reactions and has
spawned a class-action lawsuit.
In Westerkamp v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc filed in August,
the suit alleges a defect causes users of Galaxy Buds Pro to
experience "itching, burning, redness, blistering, flaking,
scabbing and/or fluid leaking from the ear" soon after they begin
wearing the headphones. The only way to resolve the problems is to
discontinue the use of the product.
The "Pro" model of the earbuds sells for significantly more than
its Galaxy Buds+ and Galaxy Buds Live stablemates.
The suit alleges the reactions are caused by a defect in the
product's material, workmanship, or manufacturing and puts users'
health at serious risk. The suit also claims that Samsung knew
about the alleged problems as soon as they began selling the
earbuds in January 2021 but did not warn purchasers of the
potential for developing allergic reactions.
An excerpt of the complaint reads:
Samsung's marketing techniques are false and misleading in that a
reasonable consumer would believe that the Earbuds were of premium
quality, are capable of being used as intended and would not result
in health risks under ordinary use. But in reality, the Defect
renders the Earbuds unsafe and useless, and result [sic] in
significant health issues.
The suit claims Samsung responded to reports of allergic reactions
by either limiting its one-year warranty so as not to cover the
defect or by replacing the earbuds with another pair "that
contain[s] the exact same Defect." [GN]
SAXX UNDERWEAR: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAXX Underwear (USA)
Co. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAXX Underwear (USA)
Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-00289 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SAXX Underwear -- https://www.saxxunderwear.com/ -- provides
underwear that are built with a patented internal ballpark pouch,
providing superior comfort.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES: Oddei Appeals Judgment in Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nana Serwaah Oddei filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled NANA AKUA SERWAAH ODDEI, an
individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPTUM,
INC., a Delaware corporation, HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP,
P.C., a California corporation, SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03974-SB-MRW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action case against
Defendants on March 22, 2021. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts
three causes of action. First, Plaintiff alleges that all
Defendants have violated California Evidence Code Section 1158 by
charging members of the public 25 cents per page for copying
medical records in violation of California's 10 cents per page cap.
Second, Plaintiff alleges that ScanSTAT has violated the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Civil
Code by engaging in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential
medical information, which provides for $1,000 in statutory damages
per violation. Third, the Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants
have violated California Business & Professions Code by virtue of
their other alleged violations of California law.
On May 11, 2021, Optum removed the matter under the Class Action
Fairness Act.
The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand on June 9, 2021.
On July 15, 2021, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion.
On November 1, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings as to Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered December 3, 2021 Order and
December 5, 2021 Judgment, granting Defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order and judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Nana Serwaah Oddei v. ScanSTAT
Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55035, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 5, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Nana Akua Serwaah Oddei Mediation Questionnaire is
due on January 12, 2022;
-- Appellant Nana Akua Serwaah Oddei opening brief is due on
February 28, 2022;
-- Appellee ScanSTAT Technologies, LLC answering brief is due on
March 30, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant NANA AKUA SERWAAH ODDEI, an individual, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bruce Thomas Murray, Esq.
PIMENTEL LAW, PC
30 N Raymond Avenue, Suite 210
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 765-6505
E-mail: btm@pimentellaw.com
Defendant-Appellee SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:
Kimberly D. Howatt, Esq.
GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
101 W Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 696-6700
E-mail: khowatt@grsm.com
SG GLOBAL: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SG Global Trade LLC.
The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SG Global Trade LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00285 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SG Global Trade LLC is located in Edison, New Jersey and is part of
the Apparel, Piece Goods, and Notions Merchant Wholesalers
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SPB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Boone Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES BOONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPB HOSPITALITY LLC and OLD CHICAGO TAPROOM
II LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061 (D. Colo., January 10,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
pay the Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers their earned
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Orders, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Orders, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado
Wage Claim Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at an Old
Chicago Pizza & Taproom restaurant located in Colorado Springs,
Colorado from approximately September 5, 2018 through July 5,
2020.
SPB Hospitality LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of
restaurants under the trade name Old Chicago Pizza & Taproom in
several states across the U.S., including in Colorado.
Old Chicago Taproom II LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of
restaurants under the trade name Old Chicago Pizza & Taproom in
several states across the U.S., including in Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 250
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and –
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
SQUATTY POTTY: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Squatty Potty, LLC.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Squatty Potty, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00271 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Squatty Potty -- https://www.squattypotty.com/ -- is the original
toilet stool that positions your body in a natural, comfy
squat.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Holder Sues Over Credit Reporting Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD T. HOLDER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00115-MLB-CMS (N.D. Ga., January 11,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false advice to the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers that their debts could be included
on their credit reports more than seven years from the date the
debts were first delinquent. Furthermore, the Defendant violated
the FDCPA by sending the Plaintiff a collection letter with a wrong
address for the property that allegedly secured the underlying debt
and by failing to conduct reasonable investigations of the
Plaintiff's credit reporting disputes.
Statebridge Company, LLC is a debt collector based in Colorado.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Telephone: (404) 855-3600
Facsimile: (404) 301-2300
E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
- and –
J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
200 13th Street
Columbus, GA 31901
Telephone: (706) 322-6226
Facsimile: (706) 322-6221
STENGER & STENGER: Blum Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STENGER & STENGER, P.C.; LVNV FUNDING LLC;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00141 (D.N.J.,
January 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The case arises from a debt collection letter sent by Defendant
Stanger & Stanger to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant LVNV. The
collection letter is allegedly false, deceptive and misleading
because it failed to state that interest is accruing and waived on
the judgment. As a result of the Defendants' confusing collection
letter, the Plaintiff was therefore unable to evaluate his options
of how to handle this debt, says the suit.
Stenger & Stenger, P.C. is a debt collector based in Grand Rapids,
Michigan.
LVNV Funding LLC is a debt collector based in Albany, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@SteinSaksLegal.com
TABCOM LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TABcom, LLC. The case
is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TABcom, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00280
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TABcom LLC operates as an internet company. The Company specializes
in developing domains and websites offering products, social
engagement, and interactive services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Fraud Class Suit as Consumer Revenue Declines
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Torrence at fiercehealthcare.com reports that after losing
its two founders and pushing out its chief operating officer last
November, Talkspace's woes aren't over. The online therapy app now
faces a securities fraud lawsuit.
The digital health company, which connects patients with licensed
therapists or psychiatrists for video or text conversations, has
been accused of misleading investors before it went public last
year by misrepresenting its financials and growth.
Namely, the class-action suit filed Jan. 7 alleges Talkspace failed
to disclose critical growth headwinds, including increased
advertising and customer acquisition costs and worsening growth and
gross margin trends, and overvalued its accounts receivable from
certain health plan clients.
In an email statement to Fierce Healthcare, the company said they
"do not believe (the allegations) have any merit," and stated they
are prepared to "defend the company vigorously."
Talkspace's market value has plummeted in the last seven months
since going public in a $1.4 billion deal with a blank check firm.
That deal made Talkspace the first publicly traded virtual
behavioral health company, providing it with $250 million in cash
to be used as growth capital.
But the company's stock has seen a steep decline since then,
falling 82% since its first day of trading in late June, with a
current market cap of approximately $248.3 million.
The behavioral health company took several hits in November after
its co-founder and CEO Oren Frank, as well as co-founder and head
of clinical services Roni Frank, stepped down.
A week later, President and COO Mark Hirschhorn was pushed out
after an internal review of his conduct "in connection with a
company offsite event that took place" the prior week. In seven
days, the company's shares dropped more than 36%.
Interim CEO Doug Braunstein said Thursday during the company's
presentation at the all-virtual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference
that while Talkspace's B2B business did see growth in the fourth
quarter of 2021, consumer revenue fell compared to both the
previous quarter and the previous year.
According to Braunstein, changes in the company's advertising spend
are largely to blame for that decrease—namely, he said, Talkspace
cut down on advertising "as a purposeful way to begin the process
of optimizing our returns in the B2C business."
"While disappointed obviously in the revenue, we have seen some
modest positive signs of stabilization in both our conversion and
retention rate," he said. Multiple times throughout the
presentation, he stressed that qualifier: "modest."
Braunstein also said the company has significant cash resources,
which they'll use to drive growth in the business.
Talkspace now expects approximately $112 million in full-year 2021
revenue, down from previous projections of $125 million which the
company withdrew after releasing third-quarter earnings.
Braunstein didn't address the lawsuit in Thursday's presentation.
However, he did field questions from investors about an 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in December, which
reduced the number of covered lives listed in Talkspace's B2B
business.
According to Braunstein, Talkspace had conversations earlier in the
year with "a very large payer" that provided their network access
to the company's behavioral health offerings. Talkspace believed
they had access to a large number of that payer's network and
included them in the total number of covered lives, writing in
their second- and third-quarter earnings that 75 million were
eligible for Talkspace via the B2B business.
"Subsequent conversations, it was clear that we did not have access
to that payer's covered lives," he said. The company revised those
numbers and now claims to have covered 69 million lives through the
end of 2021.
Demand for virtual behavioral health care remains even as offices
reopened after the initial phase of the pandemic. Investors have
taken notice, pooling billions into digital mental health startups
last year.
But significant concerns can arise with those investments, too,
especially if a company appears to be sinking. Patients rely on the
providers on these platforms to maintain their mental health, which
could be devastating if those platforms disappear, wrote Hunter
Walker, partner at HomeBrew, in a blog post last year.
"This is my most significant concern about the wave of mental
wellness startups being funded with venture dollars—what happens
to the clients of the ones which fail?" he wrote. [GN]
TOWER HILL: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES 44 LLC, v. TOWER HILL
SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY and TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00262-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should certify the following
class:
-- The Settlement Class
"All Medicare Advantage Plans that provided benefits under
Medicare Part C in the United States of America and its
territories and made accident-related payments on behalf
of a Medicare beneficiary, who made a bodily injury claim
against the Defendants' insurance policy that provided
coverage for medical benefits within the last four years
and 60 days from the filing of the complaint."
This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its
officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries,
and affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved in
this action and any members of their immediate families.
-- The No Fault Class
"All Medicare Advantage Plans that provided benefits under
Medicare Part C in the United States of America and its
territories and made accident-related payments on behalf
of Medicare beneficiaries, who were provided no-fault
medical payments coverage pursuant to the Defendants'
insurance policies for medical benefits within the last
four years and sixty days from the filing of the
complaint."
This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its
officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries,
and affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved in
this action and any members of their immediate families.
The Defendants issue commercial and residential liability policies,
which include coverage for medical expenses resulting from
accidents (such as a slip and fall) which occurred on their
insured's premises. Whenever the Defendants settle a bodily-injury
claim with a Medicare beneficiary, that settlement obligates the
Defendants to reimburse Medicare Advantage within 60 days, subject
to a claim for double damages.
The Defendants are liability insurers and primary payers under the
Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) law.
The class members are, essentially, private Medicare entities that
"stand in the shoes" of Medicare and are entitled to the same
rights and protections when it comes to their reimbursement
rights.
MSP Recovery is a Medicaid and Medicare Secondary Payer Act
Recovery Specialist.
Tower Hill operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KgzpdA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janpaul Portal, Esq.
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
jportal@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
Brickell World Plaza
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 375-0111
Facsimile (305) 379-6222
E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
jjr@ferrarolaw.com
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Barcomb Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN BARCOMB, GEORGETTE DELCAMBRE, SUZANNE DELGADO-DUBY, THOMAS
EGAN, LISA WALKER, SAUNDRA WALKER and BRYNN CHASE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRACFONE
WIRELESS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20124
(S.D. Fla., January 10, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory
judgment, and violations of the Federal Communications Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Customer Records
Act, the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, and the New York General
Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated
current and former TracFone customers' confidential information
from hackers. In or before December 2021, hackers gained access to
the personally identifiable information (PII) and customer
proprietary network information (CPNI) of thousands of TracFone
customers and used that confidential information to engage in
widespread port-out fraud. Even though TracFone is aware of the
data breach, it has misled customers as to the nature of the data
breach and fail to take reasonable steps to mitigate customers'
damages, says the suit.
TracFone Wireless, Inc. is an American mobile phone provider and
wireless service, with a principal place of business in Miami,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Wallace, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: ccline@sirillp.com
- and –
Mason Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor
New York, NY 10166
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
- and –
Nicholas Armer, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
E-mail: narmer@sirillp.com
UBS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Options Strategy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Welsch, writing for Barron's, reports that an investor is
suing UBS over alleged misrepresentations with regard to a
multi-billion-dollar options investment strategy that went awry in
2018. The lawsuit comes as the company faces dozens of arbitration
cases with regard to the strategy.
Christian Dumontet is seeking class action status on behalf of
himself and 1,500 other clients who invested approximately $5.7
billion in the firm's Yield Enhancement Strategy, or YES, according
to the lawsuit, which was filed Dec. 5 in federal court in New
York. He is asking the court for damages, restitution, and
disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains.
UBS has not yet filed a legal response to the lawsuit. The company
denies the allegations, according to a UBS spokesman. "The YES
strategy is an appropriate strategy for experienced, wealthy
investors, with a long, successful track record. UBS disclosed all
relevant risks to investors," the spokesman said in a statement.
"This new action is meritless and UBS intends to continue to defend
it vigorously."
Dumontet's lawsuit is the latest salvo in a series of legal battles
over how the firm's Yield Enhancement Strategy was presented to
clients and performed. The firm is still managing the strategy on
behalf of participating clients, according to a person familiar
with the matter. UBS says the risks were fully disclosed. Clients'
attorneys dispute that, and say the strategy was implemented
differently than advertised.
"UBS promised one thing, but delivered something else," says
Jeffrey Kaplan, a Miami-based attorney at law firm Dimond Kaplan &
Rothstein who is representing investors in arbitration cases
against UBS. He does not represent Dumontet.
A mixed bag. Of the dozens of arbitration claims filed so far,
arbitrators have issued rulings in 23 cases. UBS has prevailed in
13, and lost the other 10.
In some of the cases UBS has lost, arbitrators did not award
clients the full amount of damages requested. Last month, a
Washington, D.C.-based arbitration panel found in favor of client
Cheryl E. Amyx, awarding her approximately $300,000 of the $450,000
she requested.
"We're happy with the award. It was not the entirety of what we
requested, but it's a high percentage," says her attorney, W. Scott
Greco of McLean, Virginia-based law firm Greco & Greco.
In some arbitration cases, UBS has also requested arbitrators
expunge client complaints from advisors' regulatory records (client
complaints are visible on BrokerCheck, a public online database
maintained by industry self-regulator Finra). Arbitrators have so
far granted the requests eight times, and denied them 10 times,
according to copies of the arbitration awards. Arbitrators are not
required to provide explanations for their rulings, and none who
awarded clients monetary damages or denied expungement requests did
so.
Several arbitrators who granted expungement requests wrote that the
allegations were false, and said that the clients were
sophisticated investors who understood the risks associated with
YES. For instance, a Nashville-based arbitration panel wrote in
November that it was "totally unreasonable" for a client suing UBS
to pursue damages with regard to one investment when the client's
overall portfolio grew. The panel denied the client's request for
more than $1 million in damages and ordered the complaint removed
from the client's advisors' regulatory records.
While Dumontet's case seeks class action status, dozens more
arbitration cases are moving forward. Kaplan, who does not
represent Dumontet, has more than a dozen cases remaining, with
arbitration hearings for one case scheduled to begin this week via
Zoom on account of the pandemic. He says he finds it efficient and
prefers to keep cases moving forward.
"Time is not a friend to plaintiffs, in my opinion," Kaplan says.
"Memory fades, people get sick, people die. So it's a risk."
A complex strategy. UBS clients could invest in YES using margin
accounts and the strategy relied on both call and put options. It
incurred substantial losses starting in December 2018, reaching
approximately 20% of the $5.7 billion in the YES accounts, or
approximately $1.2 billion, according to Dumontet's lawsuit. A UBS
spokesman declined to comment on the alleged losses.
The company and its advisors "concealed the most material piece of
information that UBS customers would have wanted to know before
making an informed decision -- i.e., that the expected losses
during regularly occurring market conditions would dwarf the
expected returns," the lawsuit says. "YES was a money-losing
account for UBS customers and none of them would have made the
decision to choose a YES account and risk their existing portfolio
assets had they known this fact."
Dumontet's lawsuit says he invested in YES and suffered unspecified
losses. The lawsuit does not say who his financial advisor was.
Attorneys representing Dumontet did not respond to requests for
comment.
Four New York-based UBS advisors also named in the lawsuit
--Matthew Buchsbaum, Scott Rosenberg, Gerard Costello and Sonia
Attkiss -- did not respond to an email requesting comment. Reached
by phone, Costello referred a reporter to UBS for comment.
The four advisors allegedly developed YES while employed at Credit
Suisse, and brought it with them when they moved to UBS in 2015,
according to the lawsuit. A spokesman for Credit Suisse declined to
comment on the matter.
Other advisors at UBS were also able to invest client assets in
YES, according to attorneys representing clients in arbitration
cases with the company.
Samuel B. Edwards is an attorney who has represented clients in two
arbitration cases against UBS related to YES and won both. He does
not represent Dumontet.
"This is an actively managed options strategy that involves a lot
of moving components and parts," says Edwards, who is with
Houston-based law firm Shepherd, Smith, Edwards & Kantas. "You're
getting into delta, thetas -- very few retail brokers know how that
stuff works." [GN]
UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Personal Vehicle Drivers, Yardley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CATHRYN YARDLEY, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an
Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
January 6, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a personal vehicle
driver in the Knoxville, Tennessee area within the past three
years.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is a logistics and supply chain
management company in the business of delivering packages to
residential and commercial properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. Lee Parks, Jr., Esq.
John L. Mays, Esq.
PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
E-mail: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
- and -
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
UNITED SERVICES: Spielman Seeks to Clarify Dec. 9, 2021 Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER I. SPIELMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01359-TJH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
Lester Spielman asks the Court to enter an order clarifying that
the class certified in the Court's December 9, 2021 Order does not
include individuals who insured their vehicles with USAA Casualty
Insurance Company, a Defendant that was previously dismissed from
the case.
In their First Amended Class Action Complaint, Mr. Spielman and
Plaintiff Samantha Leitz named as Defendants both USAA Casualty and
USAA. Mr. Spielman alleged that his vehicle was insured by USAA and
put forth facts concerning only that entity.
In contrast, Ms. Leitz alleged that her vehicle was insured by USAA
Casualty and put forth facts only as to that company. On May 5,
2021, Ms. Leitz voluntarily dismissed all her claims in this action
with prejudice. Because Mr. Spielman does not assert claims against
USAA Casualty, Ms. Leitz's dismissal left USAA as the sole
remaining Defendant in this suit.
The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies
including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tBqVrc
at no extra charge.[CC]
Mr. Spielman is represented by:
Annick Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (213) 425-3657
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30 th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
UNIVERSAL YUMS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Yums LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Universal Yums LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00258 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Universal Yums -- https://www.universalyums.com/ -- is a monthly
snack subscription box featuring a different country each
month.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
UPTOWN HEALTHCARE: Time Extension for Class Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson, et al., v. Dean,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01891-LMA-JVM (E.D. La.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order extending the time to move for class
certification contained in Local Rule 23.1(B) which requires the
Plaintiffs to move for class certification within 91 days of
removal of a state court class action.
The parties agree that good cause exists for the requested
extension because plaintiffs contest the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Court, sought a Motion to Remand, and the Court
has granted jurisdictional discovery prior to making its
determination on the remand.
The parties propose that in any action where the Court denies a
motion to remand, the Plaintiff will have 60 days after the ruling
denying remand to move for class certification. All parties join in
this Motion and a Proposed Order is attached for the Court's
convenience.
The Plaintiffs include NANCY ANDERSON; JOY MANGUNO; JAYME SONGY, AS
CURATOR FOR MALVINA SONGY; AND JANICE VERDIN, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF
CATHERINE ROUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED.
The Defendants include BOB DEAN, JR.; UPTOWN HEALTHCARE CENTER,
L.L.C.; PLACE HEALTHCARE, LLC; RACELAND MANOR NURSING HOME, INC.;
MAISON DE'VILLE NURSING HOME, INC.; RIVER PALMS NURSING & REHAB,
LLC; MAISON DE’VILLE NURSING HOME OF HARVEY, L.L.C.; ST.
ELIZABETH'S CARING, L.L.C.; and BOB DEAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
Uptown Healthcare Center is a nursing community offering
person-centered rehabilitation and long-term care for individuals
in Denver, Colorado.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gu5xIk at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald C. Massey, Esq.
Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq.
COUHIG PARTNERS, LLC
3250 Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 588-1288
E-mail: dmassey@couhigpartners.com
WALGREENS CO: Pain Relieving Products' Label "Deceptive," Dang Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAM DANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS CO. d/b/a WALGREENS, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00177 (N.D. Ill., January 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for FRAUD, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the State Consumer Fraud Acts, the California False
Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Pain Relieving
Lidocaine Patch, Assorted Sizes Pain Relieving Lidocaine Patches,
and Pain Relieving Cream + Lidocaine products. The Defendant labels
its pain-relieving products as "Maximum Strength" despite the fact
that they only contain 4 percent lidocaine. Moreover, the Defendant
omitted from the products' labeling the fact that there are other
prescription products available in the market that contain a higher
percentage of lidocaine. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members were damaged
because they would not have purchased the Defendant's products had
they known the truth.
Walgreens Co., doing business as Walgreens, is a pharmacy store
chain operator, with its principal place of business and
headquarters located at 200 Wilmot Rd., Deerfield, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
jshub@shublawyers.com
- and –
Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (815) 878-4674
E-mail: msims@milberg.com
- and –
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and –
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
- and –
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
WALMART INC: Hit With Proposed Suit Over Female Drivers' Uniforms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart's (WMT) female truck drivers must either go to work wearing
company-provided men's pants, or pay to buy and launder their own
uniform-compliant garments, according to a new lawsuit filed in
federal court in Alabama.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gave Alabama driver
Diana Webb approval to file the proposed class action claiming sex
discrimination against similarly situated female Walmart drivers,
after the agency said it would not proceed further with its
investigation.
"I believe Walmart is discriminating against female truck drivers,
and possibly other female employees who are required to wear
uniforms," Webb wrote in her Oct. 5 complaint to the EEOC.
"Walmart is providing and cleaning uniform bottoms for the men,
while the women are expected to either wear men's bottoms, or
purchase and clean women's bottoms on their own."
Webb has worked for Walmart as a driver since July 20, 2020, the
lawsuit states.
According to the complaint, drivers on the job who fail to wear
clothing authorized by the company's uniform policy can be fired
right away. Walmart does provide its drivers with an entire uniform
that includes pants and shirts, the suit states; however, the
lawsuit says male pants are the only type of bottoms offered to
drivers, regardless of their gender.
"For female drivers, it is impossible to wear the men's pants
provided by Walmart specifically made to fit only male employees
due to anatomical differences between the sexes," the complaint
states. "Female drivers are therefore required to either suffer
discomfort, or purchase and launder their own pants, out of their
own pocket, with no option for reimbursement, in order to fulfill
Walmart's employment requirements."
Webb also alleges that she requested that Walmart reimburse her for
her out-of-pocket expenses to purchase multiple pairs of female
pants and shorts to wear for work. Supervisors, she alleges, denied
the request. Walmart will not launder any pants worn by female
drivers that the company didn't provide, Webb adds, and therefore
females, and not males, must incur the expense of washing their own
uniform pants.
In response to the lawsuit, Walmart's senior director of media
relations, Randy Hargrove, issued a statement to Yahoo Finance.
"Walmart is committed to providing our private fleet drivers with
various clothing options to meet our guidelines. No associate, male
or female, is required to wear company provided pants," the
statement said. "Months before the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Webb was
fitted for company provided pants which she now has. We continue to
review our clothing offerings for male and female drivers. We take
these allegations seriously and will respond in court as
appropriate."
Webb's claim says in treating male and female employees
differently, Walmart is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which prohibits gender-based discrimination. In addition,
the claim alleges that the company is unjustly enriching itself by
sidestepping the expenses shouldered by its female drivers.
As compensation, Webb is asking the court to disgorge Walmart of
expenses it saved by allegedly discriminating against female
drivers, to compensate drivers for their expenditures on purchasing
and laundering their own uniform-compliant pants, and to award
punitive damages.[GN]
WALMART INC: McEnheimer Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MCENHEIMER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00046-WSH (W.D. Pa., January 7, 2022) is an individual and
collective/class action under the Fair Labor Standards, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law to recover damages for non-payment of wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly associate and
was assigned as an in-house delivery driver from December 2015
until May 15, 2021, working primarily from Defendant's West
Mifflin, Pennsylvania store.
Walmart Inc. 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:
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
First & Market Building Suite 650
100 First Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 227-0763
Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
WHATABRANDS LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whatabrands LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Whatabrands LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00301 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Whatabrands LLC doing business as Whataburger --
https://whataburger.com/ -- is an American regional fast food
restaurant chain, headquartered and based in San Antonio, Texas,
that specializes in hamburgers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WHP MEZZ: Morel Balks at Superintendents' Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO MOREL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHP MEZZ BORROWER LLC, NIEUW AMSTERDAM
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, GALIL REALTY LLC, and BRAD HERSH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00267 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2022) is
a putative collective action arising under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law against Defendants for willfully
failing to pay Plaintiff and a collective of similarly situated
persons' wages at the applicable overtime rates, failing to proffer
wage notice and wage statements, and engaging retaliatory and
discriminatory acts and practices.
The Plaintiff began working in 1993 as a building superintendent
for the Defendants' building located in Manhattan, New York until
May 3, 2021 after Defendants terminated his employment.
The Defendants are property management companies based in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
Facsimile: (212) 233-3801
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Hargrove Sues Over Access of Customers' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOM HARGROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILDERNESS SPORTS WAREHOUSE, LLC, d/b/a
TACKLE WAREHOUSE; RUNNING WAREHOUSE, LLC; SPORTS WAREHOUSE, INC.,
d/b/a TENNIS WAREHOUSE; and SKATE WAREHOUSE, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00006-CDL (M.D. Ga., January 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se,
declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected personally identifiable information (PII)
of their customers following a data breach, failure to comply with
industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII,
and failure to provide adequate and prompt notice to the Plaintiff
and other Class members that their PII had been accessed and
compromised. As a result of the Defendants' alleged security
failures, the Plaintiff and Class members now face a substantially
increased risk of identity theft, both currently and for the
indefinite future.
Wilderness Sports Warehouse, LLC, doing business as Tackle
Warehouse, is an online retailer that conducts business in
Georgia.
Running Warehouse, LLC is an online retailer that conducts business
in Georgia.
Sports Warehouse, Inc., doing business as Tennis Warehouse, is an
online retailer that conducts business in Georgia.
Skate Warehouse, LLC is an online retailer that conducts business
in Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis C. Hargrove, Esq.
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
200 13th Street
Columbus, GA 31901
Telephone: (706) 322-6226
Facsimile: (706) 322-6221
E-mail: thargrove@thefinleyfirm.com
mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER A. SALVATORA and
SANDRA E. SALVATORA, D&M MARBURGER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, L.P.,
HEASLEY'S NURSERIES, INC., and RODNEY L. LANG and BONITA A. LANG,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. XTO
ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01097-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the "Marburger Class" for Count II of the
Second Amended Complaint:
"Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty
ownership interest in an oil and gas lease with Phillips
covering oil and gas interests at any time during the
period of limitations (a) who received one or more royalty
payments from XTO based upon proceeds received from which
charges for gathering and/or processing by Mountain
Gathering were deducted; (b) whose oil and gas lease
covered gas that was gathered on the Jefferson, Forward or
AK Steel gathering segments of the Mountain Gathering
system in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and (c) (i) who was
either a member of the settlement class in Marburger v.
XTO Energy Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-910-CRE (W.D.
Pa.) ("Marburger"), or (ii) whose oil and gas lease based
the royalty on a percentage of proceeds and contained a
Market Enhancement Clause. The Marburger Class for Count
II excludes:
(i) any claims for any member of the settlement class in
Marburger v. XTO Energy Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-
cv-00910-CRE (W.D. Pa.), for times before the
effective date of the Marburger Final Order;
(ii) the United States;
(iii) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(iv) all individuals and entities who possessed a royalty
ownership interest in an oil and gas lease with
Phillips where the royalty provision provided:
To pay Lessor as a royalty, for the native gas, casing
head gas, condensate, hydrocarbons or other gaseous
substance, produced from said land and sold or used
beyond the well or for the extraction of gasoline or
other product, an amount equal to [a percentage] of
the gross amount realized by Lessee computed at the
wellhead from the sale of such substances from each
and every well. Lessor's royalty will never bear any
part of the costs or expenses of production,
gathering, compression or transportation of the oil or
gas produced from the lease premises; SAVE AND EXCEPT
that, Lessor's royalty shall bear its proportionate
share of all ad valorem taxes and production,
severance, and other excise taxes and the actual,
reasonable costs paid to or deducted by a non-
affiliated third party to gather, transport, compress,
process, stabilize or treat the production off the
lease Premises or lands pooled therewith in order to
make the production saleable, increase its value, or
get the production to a market. (Such lease is an "ABC
Lease");" and
2. certifying the "Market Enhancement Class" for Counts II
and III of the Second Amended Complaint:
"Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty
ownership interest in an oiland gas lease with Phillips
covering oil and gas interests at any time during the
period of limitations (a) who received one or more royalty
payments from XTO; (b) whose oil and gas lease covered gas
that was gathered by the Jefferson, Forward or AK Steel
gathering segments in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and (c)
whose oil and gas lease based the royalty on a percentage
of proceeds and contained a Market Enhancement Clause or
an essentially identical provision. A "Market Enhancement
Clause means an oil and gas lease provision that states
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein, it is agreed between the Lessor and Lessee that
all oil and gas royalties accruing to the Lessor under
this lease shall be net of Lessor's proportionate share of
the cost of gathering, storing, separating, treating,
dehydrating, compressing, processing, transporting, and
marketing the oil, gas or other products produced
hereunder to transform the product into marketable form."
or that uses substantially identical language and incudes
the words "marketable form." The Market Enhancement Class
excludes:
(i) the United States;
(ii) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and
(iii) all individuals and entities who possessed a royalty
ownership interest in an ABC Lease;"
3. appointing Roger A. Salvatora, Sandra E. Salvatora, D&M
Marburger Family Enterprises, L.P., and Heasley's
Nurseries, Inc. as Class Representatives of the Marburger
Class; and
4. appointing Rodney L. Lang and Bonita A. Lang as Class
Representatives of the Market Enhancement Class for claims
under Counts II and III of the Second Amended Complaint.
XTO Energy is an American energy company, principally operating in
North America, specializing in the drilling and production of
unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale
rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyD6Yi
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Borkovic, Esq.
JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP
411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-6400
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Certification Trends
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seyfarth Shaw LLP discusses Workplace Class Action Litigation Class
Certification Trends.
Seyfarth Synopsis: In its continuing coverage of the top trends
found in Seyfarth's 2022 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report,
wage & hour litigation remained the sweet spot for the plaintiffs'
class action bar over the past year. Based on sheer volume and
statistical numbers, workers certified more class and collective
actions in the wage & hour space in 2021 as compared to any other
area of workplace. Complex workplace litigation remains one of the
chief exposures driving corporate legal budgetary expenditures.
Class actions and multi-plaintiff lawsuits, in particular, continue
to provide a source of concern for companies. A prime component in
that array of risks indisputably continues to include complex wage
& hour litigation.
Seyfarth provided a circuit-by-circuit analysis of this year's 332
class certification decisions in all varieties of workplace class
action litigation, including wage & hour, employment
discrimination, and ERISA.
In 2021, complex wage & hour litigation under the FLSA drove more
certification briefings and a greater number of certification
decisions than other areas combined.
Wage & Hour Certification Trends
The ease with which plaintiffs have achieved first-stage
certification in the FLSA wage & hour context surely has
contributed to the number of filings in that area, and plaintiffs
achieved a higher rate of success on initial certification motions
in 2021 than in any other year of the past decade, indicating that
wage & hour remains a sweet spot for the plaintiffs' bar.
In 2021, wage & hour lawsuit filings in federal courts decreased
for the sixth year in a row. That said, more FLSA lawsuits were
filed during each of the preceding nine years -- during 2012, 2013,
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 -- than were filed in
any year of the preceding several decades. Many of these cases
remain in the pipeline within federal courts, and the result is a
burgeoning case load of wage & hour issues.
To be sure, the significant volume of FLSA filings over the past
several years has caused the issuance of more certification rulings
in the FLSA area than in any other substantive area of complex
employment litigation. Despite the pandemic's continued impact on
court operations and personnel, courts issued more rulings on wage
& hour certification issues in 2021 than they issued in each of the
past five years. In particular, federal courts issued 298 decisions
on FLSA certification and decertification issues in 2021, an
increase from the 286 certification rulings issued in 2020, the 267
certification rulings issued in 2019, the 273 certification rulings
in 2018, and the 257 certification rulings in 2017.
Of these rulings, 279 addressed first-stage motions for conditional
certification of wage & hour collective actions under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), whereas 19 addressed second-stage motions for
decertification. Plaintiffs historically have secured a higher rate
of success on the former, while employers have secured a higher
rate of success on the latter. In 2021, as noted above, plaintiffs
achieved an exceptionally high rate of success on first stage
conditional certification motions, equal to or higher than the rate
they achieved in any year of the past decade aside from 2020. In
2021, Plaintiffs saw their rate of success at 81%, down slightly
from their 2020 success rate of 84%, and the same as their 2019
success rate of 81%. Employers, on the other hand, saw their rate
of success on decertification motions rise to 53% in 2021, up from
50% in 2020 and 58% in 2019.
The analysis of these rulings -- discussed in Chapter V of this
Report -- shows that plaintiffs filed a high predominance of cases
against employers in "plaintiff-friendly" jurisdictions such as the
judicial districts within the Second and Ninth Circuits. For the
second time in a decade, however, rulings were equally or more
voluminous out of the Sixth Circuit, which also tended to favor
workers over employers in conditional certification rulings.
The statistical underpinnings of this circuit-by-circuit analysis
of FLSA certification rulings is telling in several respects.
First, it substantiates that the district courts within the Second,
Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are the epi-centers of wage & hour class
actions and collective actions. More cases were prosecuted and
conditionally certified -- 47 certification orders in the Second
Circuit, 31 certification orders in the Ninth Circuit, and 50
certification orders in the Sixth Circuit -- in the district courts
in those circuits than in any other areas of the country. For the
second time in two years, the Sixth Circuit -- which encompass the
states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee -- had more
rulings and certifications than either the Second or Ninth
Circuits.
Second, as the burdens of proof under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)
suggest, plaintiffs won the overwhelming majority of "first stage"
conditional certification motions (226 of 279 rulings or
approximately 81%) in 2021, which was similar to the 2020 numbers
(231 of 274 rulings or approximately 84%), the 2019 numbers (198 of
243 or approximately 81%), and the 2018 numbers (196 of 248 rulings
or approximately 79%), which were themselves the highest
percentages of plaintiff-side wins recorded in the last decade.
Further, in terms of "second stage" decertification motions,
employers won 53% (10 of 19 rulings) in 2021, which represented a
slight rise from the 2020 numbers (6 of 12 rulings or approximately
50%) and the 2019 numbers (14 of 24 rulings or approximately 58%).
Overall, these statistics show robust numbers for the plaintiffs'
bar, as plaintiffs prevailed on "first stage" conditional
certification motions at a high rate in 2021 and lost "second
stage" decertification motions at a lower rate. The "first stage"
conditional certification statistics for plaintiffs at 81% were
nearly as favorable as the rate of success that workers obtained in
2020 (84%), as favorable as the rate of success that workers
obtained in 2019, when plaintiffs won 81% of "first stage"
conditional certification motions, and more favorable as the rate
of success that workers obtained in 2018, when plaintiffs won 79%
of "first stage" conditional certification motions.
The "second stage" decertification statistics for employers at 53%
in 2021 was more favorable to employers than the decertification
statistics in 2020, when employers prevailed on 50% of such
motions, in 2019, when employers prevailed on 58% of "second stage"
decertification motions, in 2018, when employers won 52% of
decertification rulings, and in 2017, when employers won 63% of
decertification rulings.
Third, these numbers reflect the ongoing migration of skilled
plaintiffs' class action lawyers into the wage & hour litigation
space. Experienced and able plaintiffs' class action counsel are
apt to secure better results, and the case law that has developed
under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) serves to attract such individuals. In
light of the "lenient" standard that many courts apply at the
initial conditional certification phase of a case, plaintiffs often
can secure "first stage" conditional certification - and foist
settlement pressure on an employer - fairly quickly (shortly after
filing a case), with minimal monetary investment (e.g., without
support from an expert), as compared to class certification in an
employment discrimination class action or an ERISA class action,
for instance, which typically requires additional discovery,
evidentiary submissions, and expert testimony.
As a result, to the extent that litigation of collective actions
and class actions by plaintiffs' lawyers is viewed as an investment
of time and money, prosecution of wage & hour lawsuits is a
relatively low cost investment, without significant barriers to
entry, and with the prospect of immediate returns as compared to
other types of workplace class action litigation. Hence, as
compared to employment discrimination and ERISA class actions, FLSA
litigation is less difficult or protracted for the plaintiffs' bar,
and more cost-effective and predictable. In terms of their "rate of
return," the plaintiffs' bar can convert their case filings more
readily into certification orders and create the conditions for
opportunistic settlements over the short term.
The certification statistics for 2021 confirm these factors.
Despite the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lower
rate of case filings, courts issued more certification rulings in
2021 and the plaintiffs' bar secured more certification victories
in 2021 than in any other year of the past decade.
The extent to which Epic Systems will continue to impact wage &
hour certification trends remains uncertain. As 2021 reflected, the
number of FLSA lawsuits filed in 2021 continued to fall as compared
to prior years. Coupled with the settlements and the number of
rulings discussed above, these statistics suggest that the
plaintiffs' class action bar is not losing interest in these suits.
To the contrary, the number of rulings issued by federal courts,
despite the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that plaintiffs' counsel
are succeeding in obtaining rulings on motions for conditional
certification at a higher rate than ever. These factors also
indicate that arbitration agreements are not getting in the way of
these motions and that, instead, plaintiffs are being more
selective in filing their cases or in narrowing the groups of
employees that they seek to represent.
As discussed below, given the pro-worker policies of the Biden
Administration, employers are seeing legislative efforts to
overturn Epic Systems gain traction. Particularly if Democrats are
able to retain control of the House and Senate during the remainder
of President Biden's term, employers may see these legislative
efforts to overturn Epic Systems succeed. As a result, employers
could see substantial expansion of case filing numbers in the next
few years.
Employment Discrimination & ERISA Certification Trends
Against the backdrop of wage & hour litigation, the rulings in
Wal-Mart and Epic Systems continued to fuel more critical thinking
and crafting of case theories in employment discrimination and
ERISA class action filings in 2021. The Supreme Court's Rule 23
decisions forced the plaintiffs' bar to "re-boot" the architecture
of their class action theories.[1] Hence, the playbook on Rule 23
strategies is undergoing a continuous process of evolution, and the
plaintiffs' class action bar is continually testing ways to
navigate around and to wear away the force of these precedents.
As to Wal-Mart, one work-around has been the filing of "smaller"
employment discrimination class actions. In the past 10 years,
employers have seen more statewide or regional-type classes
asserted than the type of nationwide mega-case that Wal-Mart
discouraged. Plaintiffs' counsel have been more selective,
strategic, and savvy relative to calibrating the focus of their
cases and aligning the size of their proposed classes to the limits
of Rule 23 certification theories.
As to Epic Systems, at least in the employment discrimination area,
Plaintiffs have seemed apt to file scaled-down class actions to
test the prevalence of arbitration agreements among putative class
members and, depending on the result, to move forward with one or
more limited classes of non-signers or to use the threat of
undermining the enforceability of the arbitration program to
attempt to leverage a settlement prior to obtaining a ruling on the
propriety or scope of certification.
In 2021, the number of rulings on motions for class certification
expanded as compared to 2020. In 2021, courts issued 18 rulings on
motions for class certification in employment discrimination
actions, compared with 12 rulings in 2020 and 15 rulings in 2019.
Plaintiffs, however, prevailed on these motions at a higher rate.
Plaintiffs prevailed in 13 of the 18 rulings, or 72%, in 2021, with
four of those rulings emanating from the Ninth Circuit, compared to
5 of the 12 rulings, or 42%, in 2020, again with four of those
rulings emanating from the Ninth Circuit.
The rate of success of the plaintiffs' bar in 2021 on such motions
was materially higher than its rate of success in recent years. In
2019, plaintiffs won 7 of the 11 rulings, or 63%, on motions for
initial certification of class actions in employment discrimination
cases, but plaintiffs lost 4 of 4 motions for decertification, for
an overall success rate of 46.7%. By comparison, in 2018,
plaintiffs won 3 of the 11 rulings on motions for class
certification, or 27%, and, in 2017, plaintiffs won 7 of 11 rulings
on such motions, or 64%.
In terms of the ERISA class action litigation in 2021, the
decisions show that employers had the best chance of defeating
class certification in the context of ERISA class actions. Courts
issued 16 rulings on class certification in 2021, with plaintiffs
prevailing in 8 of 14 decisions, or 57%. As a result, 2021 marks
plaintiffs' lowest rate of success in terms on certifying ERISA
class action in recent years by a fair margin. In 2020, plaintiffs
won 11 of 16 certification rulings, a success rate of 69%. In 2019,
plaintiffs won 11 of 17 certification rulings, a success rate of
65%. By comparison, in 2018 plaintiffs won 11 of 17 certification
rulings for a similar success rate of 65%, and, in 2017, plaintiffs
prevailed in 17 of 22 certification rulings, for a success rate of
77%.
Overall Trends
So what conclusions overall can be drawn on class certification
trends in 2021?
In the areas of wage & hour and employment discrimination claims,
in particular, the plaintiffs' bar is converting their case filings
into certification of classes at a high rate. To the extent class
certification aids the plaintiffs' bar in monetizing their lawsuit
filings and converting them into class action settlements, the
conversion rate is robust.
While class certification rates in ERISA class actions took a nose
dive in 2021 compared to prior years (8 motions granted and 6
motions denied in 2021, for a success rate of 57%), class
certification for employment discrimination cases (13 motions
granted and 5 motions denied in 2021) and conditional certification
in wage & hour cases (226 motions granted and 53 motions denied in
2021) remained pronounced, with a success rate ranging from 71% to
81%.
The win/loss percentages in each of these substantive areas are as
follows:
- a success rate of 57% for certification of ERISA class actions;
- a success rate of 72% for certification of employment
discrimination class actions (both Title VII and age discrimination
cases); and
- a success rate of 81% for conditional certification of wage &
hour collective and class actions.
The most certification activity in workplace class action
litigation took place in the wage & hour space. The trend over the
past five years in the wage & hour space reflects a steady success
rate that ranged from a low of 73% to a high of 84% for the
plaintiffs' bar. The positive results are more concentrated in
plaintiff-friendly "magnet" jurisdictions where the case law favors
workers and presents challenges to employers seeking to block
certification.
While each case is different, and no two class actions or
collective actions are identical, these statistics paint the
all-too familiar picture that employers have experienced over the
past several years. Although case law precedents and defense
approaches continue to evolve and generate many good outcomes for
employers, courts continue to grant conditional certification
motions at high rates.
Whereas overall case filing numbers were down, the numbers of
rulings issued in 2021 and the rate of success of the plaintiffs'
bar in gaining conditional certification suggest that the
plaintiffs' bar is exercising more selectivity and restraint when
it comes to filing and seeking certification of narrower or more
defined groups, thereby contributing to a higher success rate.
The key bright spots in 2021 for employers were an increase in the
odds of defeating certification in ERISA class actions, where
employers succeeded in defeating class certification in nearly 43%
of the rulings issued during 2021, and in the odds of prevailing on
decertification of FLSA collective actions, where employers
succeeded in obtaining decertification in 53% of the rulings issued
during 2021. [GN]
[*] U.S. Hiring, Retention Incentive Class Suits Expected to Spike
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse R. Dill, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins disclosed that with the
calendar having turned to 2022, it is time to look into the crystal
ball and make a few predictions for the year ahead related to the
wage and hour world.
Class and Collective Actions Concerning Hiring and Retention
Incentives Will Increase
In 2021, many employers across the country experienced starkly
increased competition for workforce talent. Whether it was
convincing existing employees not to participate in the "Great
Resignation" or persuading candidates with multiple job options to
join the home team, companies often relied on financial bonuses to
curry employment favor. The increased use of these financial
incentives may lead to increased class and collective action
lawsuits regarding these payments. Specifically, increased wage and
hour litigation activity may address whether such enticements were
nondiscretionary bonuses that needed to be included in the overtime
rate calculations for nonexempt employees. Employers may want to
consider auditing new types of payments they made over the past
year for compliance with wage and hour law requirements.
More Employers Will Receive Requests for Compensation in
Cryptocurrency
In many ways, 2021 could be described as the year of
cryptocurrencies. Two of the most well-known cryptocurrencies
reached all-time high values. Multiple celebrities began endorsing
cryptocurrencies. Newly elected mayors in Miami and New York City
even promoted taking paychecks in cryptocurrency. All of these
headlines are sure to attract the attention of employees and lead
to questions about potential cryptocurrency compensation. Employers
that consider entertaining such inquiries may want to consider
whether and how any payments may be regulated by the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) or state laws. For example, several states
require wages to be paid in United States currency, which could
limit an employer's ability to pay in cryptocurrency. Wage and hour
laws and regulations will be key to whether an employer can provide
what may be a highly sought employee incentive in 2022.
Fewer Multistate Collective Actions
Just over halfway through 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision that significantly limited what began as a
multistate collective action lawsuit. The court held that a federal
court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a corporate
defendant with respect to the claims of nonresident opt-in
plaintiffs who join an FLSA collective action when the claims are
not connected to the defendant's activities in the forum state. A
day later, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly excluded
collective action claims with no connection to the state in which
the action was filed. Since then, multiple district courts outside
the Sixth and Eighth circuits have followed the reasoning of these
decisions. This trend may continue with multistate employers citing
these decisions to narrow the potential list of putative plaintiffs
in collective actions. [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 ***