/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220121.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 21, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 10
Headlines
203 FRESH BODY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
519 CENTRAL: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Inn Workers
ADAPTIVISION INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces Roe Suit Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
AHTNA SUPPORT: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract
AIR METHODS: Has Until Feb 4 to Respond to Dyer Class Cert Bid
AKIMA LLC: Medrano Seeks Wages for Security Guards Under FLSA
ANDY FOOD: Faces Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AURIA SOLUTIONS: Oakes Sues Over Unpaid OT for Machine Operators
AXROFO LLC: Denied Sanchez Overtime, Meal Breaks, Slams Tip Credit
BALLSY INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BED BATH & BEYOND: Settlement Pending in N.J. Securities Suit
BRIAN MARIOTTI: Shumacher Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
CHROMALLOY GAS: Pays Manual Workers on Biweekly Basis, Suit Alleges
CINMAR LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CM ENTERPRISES: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Perez Says
CONAGRA BRANDS: Consolidated Labor Suit Pending in C.D. Cal.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suits Stayed Pending Firefighters' Suit
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement of Briseno Mislabeling Suit Axed
DUNCRAFT INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Muha Suit Removed to C.D. California
F. GAVINA & SONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over High-Cost Emissions Warranty Parts
FOXCROFT EXCHANGE: Chatmon Files Suit in D. Oklahoma
FREE RAIN: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GARDA CL GREAT LAKES: Kalb BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GROUP INC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Kelly Says
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Files Suit in D. Hawaii
HEADCO INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Malone Says
HUMBLE SHOE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Mount Markham Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarette, Richfield Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces West Side Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Jordan School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign in Utah
JUUL LABS: Potsdam Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Use Among Youth
JUUL LABS: Salmon School Sues Over E-Cigarette Epidemic in Idaho
KALALOU INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KING OF SHAVES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAW OFFICES: Talamas Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
LENDINGPOINT LLC: Horsley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
LET'S GO TECHNOLOGY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MAGICAL CREATIONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAINEHEALTH: Sargent Sues Over FMLA Rights Violation, Retaliation
MEDTRONIC INC: Lamug Suit Removed to C.D. California
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Price-Fixing Suit Underway in 9th Cir
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Computer Chip Price-Rigging Suit Dismissed
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Manning Appeals Court Decision on Labor Row
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Price-Rigging Suit on Appeal in Ninth Circuit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Suits Over Memory Chips Pending in Canada
ORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO: $6.75M Settlement for Court's OK
REMAX HOLDINGS: Price Rigging Row Pending in Canadian Federal Court
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Shirley Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
RUGSUSA LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SANDERSON FARMS: Employee Pay-Rigging Case Pending in D. Md.
TANDY LEATHER FACTORY: Stockholder's Restatement Suit Withdrawn
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Securties Suit Over Name Change to Voltswagen
WALMART INC: Webb Suit Slams Gender Discrimination
WATTS WATER: N.Y. Sup. Orders Inking of Intent to Pay Counsel Fees
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Still Faces Product Liability Claims
*********
203 FRESH BODY: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 203 Fresh Body, LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 203 Fresh Body, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00458 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
203 Fresh Body, LLC is located in Las Vegas, NV, United States and
is part of the Personal 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
519 CENTRAL: Bautista Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Inn Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
BALOY BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 519 CENTRAL PARK LLC, CANDLELIGHT LLC (dba
THE CANDLELIGHT INN), and JOHN JAY TRACEY, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00419 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 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 accurate wage statements, and failure to
provide notice at time of hiring.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to cook, clean, fry,
and pack from 2003 to December 27, 2021.
519 Central Park LLC is an owner and operator of the Candlelight
Inn located at 519 Central Park Ave., Scarsdale, New York.
Candlelight LLC is an owner and operator of the Candlelight Inn
located at 519 Central Park Ave., Scarsdale, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com
ADAPTIVISION INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adaptivision, Inc.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Adaptivision, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00264 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
AdaptiVision -- https://lowvisionsource.com/ -- helps people
succeed with assistive technology for low vision/blindness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces Roe Suit Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ROE and RUSSELL HEDLUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC.,
BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS,
INC., QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., and RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00086 (D. Conn., January 17, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a No-Poach
Agreement to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and
other skilled laborers working on aerospace projects among their
respective companies. The No-Poach Agreement did reduce competition
for engineers' services and, as a result, suppressed the job
mobility of and compensation to the Plaintiffs and Class members
below the levels that would have prevailed but for the illegal
No-Poach Agreement. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury
and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition
for their labor on the merits.
Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
is an aerospace engine manufacturer, with its principal place of
business in East Hartford, Connecticut.
QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc. is an aerospace engineering firm,
with its principal place of business in East Hartford,
Connecticut.
Belcan Engineering Group, LLC is an engineering services supplier,
with a principal place of business in East Hartford, Connecticut.
Cyient, Inc. is a technology company that provides outsource
engineering services, with a principal place of business in East
Hartford, Connecticut.
Parametric Solutions, Inc. is an engineering services company that
provides services in the aerospace industry, with its principal
place of business in Jupiter, Florida.
Agilis Engineering, Inc. is an engineering services company that
provides services in the aerospace industry, with a principal place
of business in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Golub, Esq.
Jonathan M. Levine, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
jlevine@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
AHTNA SUPPORT: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIPRIANO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHTNA SUPPORT AND TRAINING SERVICES, LLC,
AHTNA TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., and AHTNA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00006 (S.D. Tex., January 17, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract,
quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked as a detention officer for the Defendants at
the Port Isabel Detention Center in Texas since 2008.
Ahtna Support and Training Services, LLC is a professional services
provider in Texas.
Ahtna Technical Services, Inc. is a provider of technical services
in Texas.
Ahtna, Inc. is an Alaska native regional corporation, headquartered
in Glennallen, Alaska. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
AIR METHODS: Has Until Feb 4 to Respond to Dyer Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vaughn Dyer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Air Methods
Corporation; and Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC, Case No.
9:20-cv-02309-DCN (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge David C. Norton entered
an order that the motion for extension of time is granted.
The Defendants shall have until February 4, 2022 to respond to
plaintiff's motion for class certification, says Judge Norton.
Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A0FPIM at no extra charge.[CC]
AKIMA LLC: Medrano Seeks Wages for Security Guards Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Medrano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Akima, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00046 (E.D. Va., Jan. 14,
2022) is a collective action brought under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Defendant is a government contractor providing, amongst other
services, security personnel services. According to its website,
Defendant provides "trained, duty function-certified, and qualified
armed security guards" to various branches of the United States
military.
The Plaintiff is an hourly-paid non-exempt security guard employee
of Defendant who worked at Defendant's customers' sites providing
security services including patrolling, monitoring, and reporting
suspicious activity as well as gate guarding services. Plaintiff
and https://www.akima.com/our-capabilities/protective-services/
(last accessed Jan. 6, 2022).
According to the complaint, the Defendants policies and/or
practices with regard to Plaintiff and similarly situated security
guards violated the FLSA. The Defendant typically required its
security guard employees to perform uncompensated work
"off-the-clock" after their scheduled shift. Plaintiff and
similarly situated security guards were required to perform
"off-the-clock" duties that were an "integral part of [their]
principal activity" pursuant to 29 C.F.R. section 553.221,
including continuing to secure a location while waiting for a
relief security guard to appear for work, post-shift turnover
duties, and other tasks which were not compensated as Plaintiff and
similarly situated security guards were at all times compensated
only for their set shift.
The time that Plaintiff and similarly situated security guards
spent completing these postliminary duties without pay was more
than de minimus. In weeks when Plaintiff and similarly situated
security guards worked more than forty hours (inclusive of time
worked "off-the-clock"), which occurred frequently, this
requirement resulted in a violation of the FLSA's overtime
provisions under 29 U.S.C. section 207, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks all damages available under the law, including
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, recoverable costs, post-judgment
interest, and any other remedies to which he may be entitled.
Plaintiff Edward Medrano is an individual residing in El Paso
County, Texas. Mr. Medrano was a security guard employee of
Defendant in El Paso, Texas at Fort Bliss beginning on or about
March 14, 2021.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid
security guard employee, providing security guard services
including patrolling, monitoring, reporting, and gate guarding
services including controlling gate access, checking badges,
redirecting traffic, and directing individuals around secured
government sites at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas.
The Defendant operates a business that provides, amongst other
services, security personnel staffing solutions for the armed
forces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Francuzenko, Esq.
COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC
3050 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 865-7480
Facsimile: (703) 434-3510
E-mail: alex@cookcraig.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-09
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
ANDY FOOD: Faces Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER GUZMAN and TONITO ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDY FOOD & CAFE CORP
D/B/A ANDY'S CAFE, and FADY GRACE, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00252 (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 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 appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium.
Plaintiffs Guzman and Ortiz were employed at Andy's Cafe as a chef
and food preparer and as a dishwasher and delivery man from May
2019 until October 25, 2021 and from December 2019 through October
12, 2021, respectively.
Andy Food & Cafe Corp, doing business as Andy's Cafe, is an owner
and operator of a cafe and pizza restaurant, located at 23-39
Astoria Boulevard, Astoria, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
AURIA SOLUTIONS: Oakes Sues Over Unpaid OT for Machine Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER OAKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AURIA SOLUTIONS USA INC., AURIA FREMONT,
LLC, AURIA HOLMESVILLE, LLC, and AURIA SIDNEY, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00088 (N.D. Ohio, January 17, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated machine operators 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 Wage Laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a machine operator
from September 2020 to December 8, 2021.
Auria Solutions USA Inc. is a supplier of automotive acoustical and
textile solutions, with a principal place of business in
Southfield, Michigan.
Auria Fremont, LLC is a subsidiary of Auria Solutions USA Inc. with
its principal place of business in Ohio.
Auria Holmesville, LLC is a subsidiary of Auria Solutions USA Inc.
with its principal place of business in Ohio.
Auria Sidney, LLC is a subsidiary of Auria Solutions USA Inc. with
its principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
AXROFO LLC: Denied Sanchez Overtime, Meal Breaks, Slams Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Nunez Sanchez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Axrofo LLC, Lenox Room Corp., Angelo Tony
Fortuna, Derek Axelrod and Dena K. Weiner, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00157, (E.D. N.Y., January 11, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
wages due to unpaid overtime and invalid tip credits and
spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate restaurants under the name "T-Bar," in New York
where Sanchez was hired to work as a barback, runner, and busboy.
He claims to have worked over 40 hours per workweek without being
paid overtime premiums for hours over 40 per week, sometimes
without meal breaks. She also claims to be denied wage statements.
Sanchez claims to have received a sub-minimum wage but also
performs a number of non-tipped duties unrelated to their tipped
occupations exceeding 20% of his time rendered. T-Bar allegedly
also takes tips from wait staff to pay non-tipped employees' wages.
[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
BALLSY INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ballsy, Inc. The case
is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ballsy, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00457
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ballsy -- https://ballwash.com/ -- is the makers of Ballwash, which
as a new men's activated charcoal natural body wash that smells and
works great.[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
BED BATH & BEYOND: Settlement Pending in N.J. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 27, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a
settlement to a putative securities class action that was filed
April 14, 2020 remains subject to documentation and approval by the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The class action against Bed Bath & Beyond and three of its
officers and/or directors Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the company's
former Interim Chief Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the
company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer) is
captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the company's securities from
October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020.
The complaint alleges that certain of the Bed and Bath disclosures
about financial performance and certain other public statements
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.
A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned
Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and
appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead plaintiff and
additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of the company's securities from September 4, 2019
through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on December 21, 2020.
After a mediation held in August 2021, a settlement in principle
was reached between the company and lead plaintiff in the
Securities Class Action. If the settlement is approved, all claims
in the Securities Class Action will be fully resolved and the
matter will be dismissed.
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. is a retailer of home furniture,
furnishings & equipment stores based in New Jersey.
BRIAN MARIOTTI: Shumacher Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brian Mariotti, et
al. The case is styled as Leo Shumacher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Brian Mariotti, ACON
Investments, Adam Kriger, Fundamental Capital, LLC, Funko, Inc.,
Gino Dellomo, Ken Brotman, Russell Nickel, Case No. 2022-0051-PAF
(Del. Chancery Ct., Jan. 18, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Appraisal."
Brian Mariotti is the Chief Creative Officer and Director of
Funko.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
Joel E Friedlander, Esq.
Jeffrey M Gorris, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS PA
1201 N Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 573-3509
Email: cfoulds@friedlandergorris.com
CHROMALLOY GAS: Pays Manual Workers on Biweekly Basis, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES QUERETTE and VINCENT ISERNIA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CHROMALLOY GAS TURBINE LLC, Case No.
7:22-cv-00356 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
violated the requirement that manual workers be paid on a weekly
basis in accordance with the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were manual workers employed at Defendant's
Orangeburg, New York facility.
The Defendant allegedly paid Plaintiffs and their coworkers on a
biweekly basis. Because the harm suffered by Plaintiffs and their
coworkers was widespread, Plaintiffs bring this case as a class
action and will seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for the following Class:
"All employees working in the State of New York for Defendant as
manual workers, who were paid on a biweekly basis at any time in
the six years prior to the filing of this Complaint."
Chromalloy Gas Turbine LLC, doing business as Chromalloy,
manufactures and repairs aircraft engine components.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
CINMAR LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cinmar, LLC. The case
is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cinmar, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00449
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CINMAR Lighting Systems -- http://www.cinmarlight.com/--
established in 1979, is a regional supplier of lighting fixtures,
lighting control, emergency lighting, central batteries, media
facades, wiring devices, and smart home automation.[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
CM ENTERPRISES: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Perez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERODITA XIOMARA PEREZ SALGUERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CM ENTERPRISES OF ROCKLAND
INC. (Luigi O'Grady's Deli & Catering), and MICHELLE WORAB,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00411 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 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 pay overtime wages, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide notice at
time of hiring.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to make salads,
decorate cookies, and do general cleaning at Luigi O'Grady's Deli &
Catering restaurant in New York from August 5, 2019 to November 30,
2021.
CM Enterprises of Rockland Inc. is an owner and operator of Luigi
O'Grady's Deli & Catering restaurant, located on 106 N. Middletown
Rd., Pearl River, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Consolidated Labor Suit Pending in C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 28, 202 1, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a
number of class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v.
Conagra Foods, Inc., et al. remain pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California challenging its wage
and hour practices.
The plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or
federal law at several current and former Conagra manufacturing
facilities across the State of California. On June 21, 2021, the
trial court granted preliminary approval of a settlement in this
matter. If final approval is obtained, the settlement will require
a payment by Conagra of $9.0 million
Conagra Brands, Inc. is a food company based in Chicago, Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Securities Suits Stayed Pending Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that all
remaining stockholder lawsuits and demands are currently stayed by
agreement pending the final outcome of litigation involving West
Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund.
The company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits assert the Conagra's officers
made material misstatements and omissions that caused the market to
have an unrealistically positive assessment of the company's
financial prospects in light of the acquisition of Pinnacle Foods
Group, thus causing the company's securities to be overvalued prior
to the release of its consolidated financial results on December
20, 2018, for the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.
The first of these lawsuits, captioned West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That consolidated
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2020 for
failure to state a claim.
On January 22, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
trial court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. In addition, on May 9, 2019, a stockholder filed a
derivative action on behalf of the company against the company's
directors captioned "Klein v. Arora, et al." in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting harm to the
Company due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement
in connection with the Pinnacle acquisition.
On July 9, 2019, September 20, 2019, and March 10, 2020, the
company received three separate demands from stockholders under
Delaware law to inspect the company's books and records related to
the Board of Directors' review of the Pinnacle business,
acquisition, and the Company's public statements related to them.
On July 22, 2019 and August 6, 2019, respectively, two additional
stockholder derivative lawsuits captioned "Opperman v. Connolly, et
al." and "Dahl v. Connolly, et al." were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting similar facts
and claims as the Klein v. Arora, et al. matter.
On October 21, 2019, Conagra received additional demand from a
stockholder under Delaware law to appoint a special committee to
investigate the conduct of certain officers and directors in
connection with the Pinnacle acquisition and the company's public
statements.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is a food company based in Chicago, Illinois.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement of Briseno Mislabeling Suit Axed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that in case
docketed "Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.," the appellate court
rejected a settlement in the case and remanded the matter to trial
court for further proceedings as of June 1, 2021.
The action alleges that the labeling for Wesson (R) oils as 100%
natural is false and misleading because the oils contain
genetically modified plants and organisms.
In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United
States declined to review the decision and the case was remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings.
On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter. In the second quarter of fiscal year
2020, a single objecting class member appealed the court's decision
approving the settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is a food company based in Chicago, Illinois.
DUNCRAFT INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duncraft, Inc. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Duncraft, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00455 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Duncraft -- https://www.duncraft.com/ -- is America's number one
resource for wild bird supplies.[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
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Muha Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charlotte Muha, individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 30-02021-01233648, was removed from the Orange
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 14, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00077 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Phone: (949) 851-3939
Fax: (949) 553-7539
Email: javogt@jonesday.com
F. GAVINA & SONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F. Gavina & Sons Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. F. Gavina & Sons Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00448 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
F. Gavina & Sons Inc. doing business as Gavina Gourmet Coffee --
https://www.gavina.com/ -- is a coffee importer and roaster located
in Vernon, California.[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
FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over High-Cost Emissions Warranty Parts
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERNIE MIRAMONTES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00300-CAS-SK (C.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2022) is a class
action arising out of Ford's failure to accurately and
comprehensively identify the vehicle parts that should properly be
classified as "high-cost emissions warranty parts" under
California's emission warranty requirements and covered under the
emissions warranty for 7-years and 70,000 miles.
According to the complaint, in order to minimize Ford's warranty
exposure, Ford has unilaterally limited the parts that should be
covered under the emissions warranty for 7-years and 70,000 miles,
including the parts specifically identified by Plaintiff.
By not comprehensively identifying the parts that should be
included as "high-cost" warranty parts, Ford is able to limit the
warranty coverage for those parts, thus saving money.
By this action, the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for, inter alia,
all out of pocket costs paid for repairs that should have been
covered under the 7-years and 70,000-mile emissions warranty and an
injunction to compel Ford to properly identify parts as high-priced
warranty parts.
For decades, Ford has been in the business of importing and
distributing vehicles in the State of California, with the intent
to sell Ford vehicles to consumers in California. As such, the Ford
vehicles have been subject to state and federal regulations
regarding both emissions standards and regarding Ford's obligations
to provide consumers with warranties relating to emissions parts,
says the suit.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded
by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
FOXCROFT EXCHANGE: Chatmon Files Suit in D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foxcroft Exchange,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cathy Chatmon, Kimberly Banks,
Major Lanier, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Foxcroft Exchange, LLC, Regional Management Co. Inc., Exchange
Titleholder 1031 Co., Inwood National Bank, Karin A. Church, KMA
Foxcroft LLC, Capstone Property Management LLC, Case No. CJ-2022-28
(D. Okla., Jan. 4, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Civil relief more than $10,000:
DAMAGE."
Foxcroft -- https://www.foxcroftcollection.com/ -- offers a
collection of breezy styles that never need iron from non-iron
shirts, tunics and dresses.[BN]
FREE RAIN: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Free Rain, LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Free
Rain, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00233 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Free Rain -- https://freerain.com/ -- is a naturally flavored
sparkling water infused with adaptogens, including siberian ginseng
(eleuthero), ashwagandha and passionflower..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
GARDA CL GREAT LAKES: Kalb BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRIS KALB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GARDA CL GREAT LAKES, INC., Case No.
2021-CH-00835, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00229 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing,
and using its employees' biometric information, specifically their
fingerprints.
Garda CL Great Lakes, Inc. is a provider of security services,
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark L. Shapiro, Esq.
Phillip M. Schreiber, Esq.
Kelly D. DeWitt, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 263-3600
Facsimile: (312) 578-6666
E-mail: mark.shapiro@hklaw.com
phillip.schreiber@hklaw.com
kelly.dewitt@hklaw.com
GROUP INC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Kelly Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REANNA KELLY, an individual v. GROUP INC dba SHOW PALACE
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a NEW YORK corporation; LAMPROS MOUMOURIS, an
individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No.
1:22-cv-00226 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
Defendants evade the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with
Plaintiff's tips.
As a result of Defendants' alleged violations, the Plaintiff seeks
to recover all tips kept by her employer, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA. This
includes the return of all kickbacks that caused her payments to go
below the minimum wage.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' principal places of business
located at 42-50 21st Street, Long Island City, New York in the
past three years.
The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility in
Long Island City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Cho, Esq.
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
E-mail: pcho@cz.law
kristensen@cz.law
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: O'Hailpin Files Suit in D. Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc. The case is styled as Riki O'Hailpin, Nina Arizumi, Robert
Espinosa, Erwin Young, Puanani Badiang, Sabrina Franks, Ronald Lum,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-JAO-KJM (D.
Haw., Jan. 5, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for
Employment Discrimination.
Hawaiian Airlines -- https://www.hawaiianairlines.com/ -- is the
largest operator of commercial flights to and from the U.S. state
of Hawaii.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Sullivan, Esq.
SL LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Blvd., Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
Phone: (469) 523-1351
Fax: (469) 613-0891
Email: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr., Esq.
Topa Financial Center
700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 256-7382
Email: jim@JamesHochberglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Alston, Esq.
Corianne W. Lau, Esq.
John S. Rhee, Esq.
Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1001 Bishop Street 18th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 524-1800
Fax: (808) 524-4591
Email: paul.alston@dentons.com
cori.lau@dentons.com
john.rhee@dentons.com
nick.kacprowski@dentons.com
HEADCO INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Malone Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MALONE, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. HEADCO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00263 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 14, 2022) is brought
against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendant's alleged failure to
pay overtime wages based on the correct regular rate of pay to
Plaintiff and other bonus-eligible hourly employees.
The Defendant is a Broadview, Illinois-based company that does
business as Bearing Headquarters Co. and provides manufacturing
components for products such as chains, couplings, electric motors,
and hydraulics.
During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Defendant paid
bonuses to hourly employees, calculated pursuant to a formula set
by company policy. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an
hourly employee subject to Defendant's Bonus Policy.
The Defendant allegedly employed other individuals as hourly
employees subject to Defendant's Bonus Policy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza -- Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
HUMBLE SHOE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Humble Shoe
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. The Humble Shoe Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Humble Shoe Co. is a footwear store who sells new shoes, do trades
and offer shoe cleaning services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Mount Markham Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOUNT MARKHAM CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00289 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Mount Markham Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 500 Fairground Road in West Winfield,
New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarette, Richfield Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00304 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Richfield School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 555 North Tiger Drive in Richfield, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces West Side Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WEST SIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00302 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
West Side School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 626 North West Side Highway in Dayton, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Jordan School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00297 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Jordan School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 7387 South Campus View Drive in Jordan, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Potsdam Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Use Among Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
POTSDAM CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00291 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says,
Potsdam Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 29 Leroy Street in Potsdam, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Salmon School Sues Over E-Cigarette Epidemic in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALMON SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00295 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Salmon School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 907 Sharkey Street in Salmon, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KALALOU INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalalou, Inc. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kalalou, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00452 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kalalou -- https://www.kalalou.com/ -- is a wholesale home decor
resource for industrial furniture, lighting, pendants, wall decor,
coastal, holiday, ceramics, metal décor, wood decor, cast iron,
tabletop, vases, handblown glass, natural baskets, recycled home
décor, rustic home décor, botanica, latex flowers, and much
more.[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
KING OF SHAVES: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against King of Shaves Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. King of Shaves Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00459 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
King of Shaves -- https://kingofshaves.com/ -- is a British company
manufacturing advanced high performance shaving, skin and beard
care products.[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
LAW OFFICES: Talamas Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JERIES TALAMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN COHEN LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00403 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FDCPA, by
inter alia: (a) communicating directly with a represented consumer;
(b) failing to cease and desist collection efforts despite the
Plaintiff's request; and (c) engaging in conduct, the natural
consequence of which was to harass or abuse a consumer in
connection with the collection of a debt. The Plaintiff and others
similarly situated have suffered harm as a direct result of the
Defendant's abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices,
added the suit.
Law Offices of Steven Cohen LLC is a law firm located at 540 East
180th Street, Suite 203, Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Plaza
60 East 42nd. Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
LENDINGPOINT LLC: Horsley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LendingPoint LLC. The
case is styled as Kenneth Allen Horsley, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LendingPoint LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00202-JPB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LendingPoint -- https://ww1.lendingpoint.com/ -- is a financial
technology platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq.
600 Blakenham Court
Johns Creek, GA 30022
Phone: (404) 276-7277
Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com
LET'S GO TECHNOLOGY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Let's Go Technology,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Let's Go Technology, Inc.
doing business as: New England Low Vision and Blindness, Case No.
1:22-cv-00237-RPK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
New England Low Vision and Blindness -- https://nelowvision.com/ --
is an Eye care center in Worcester, Massachusetts and a
full-service provider offering technology products, training,
software, and free consultations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MAGICAL CREATIONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magical Creations
Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Magical Creations Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00450 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Magical Creation -- https://www.magicalcreation.net/ -- is a one
stop shop offering christmas gifts, tumblers, sets, ornaments wine
sets and more.[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
MAINEHEALTH: Sargent Sues Over FMLA Rights Violation, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE SARGENT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAINEHEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00006-JAW (D. Me., January 6, 2022) challenges the
Defendant's unlawful interference with the rights of Plaintiff and
all those similarly situated to take protected leave under the
Federal Family Medical Leave Act and the Maine Family Medical Leave
Requirements Law, as well as retaliation against Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees of MaineHealth for attempting to take
protected FMLA leave.
Plaintiff Sargent began working for MaineHealth in May 2016 as a
phlebotomist in the oncology office of NorDx, a subsidiary of
MaineHealth, located in Biddeford.
This class action pleads in the alternative to Sargent's disability
discrimination case against NorDx that MaineHealth retaliated
against Sargent for requesting FMLA leave and also interfered with
her right to take FMLA leave, ultimately leading to Sargent's
termination from employment on May 15, 2019.
Mainehealth, doing business as Maine Medical Center, provides
health care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura H. White, Esq.
Danielle Quinlan, Esq.
WHITE & QUINLAN, LLC
62 Portland Rd., Suite 21
Kennebunk, ME 04043
Telephone: (207) 502-7484
E-mail: lwhite@whiteandquinlan.com
dquinlan@whiteandquinlan.com
MEDTRONIC INC: Lamug Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gloria Lamug, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., a
Minnesota Corporation; Covidien, L.P., a Delaware Limited
Partnership; Does 1-50, inclusive; Case No. 30-02021-01226915-CU-,
was removed from the California Superior Court Orange County to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan.
5, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00015-CJC-DFM to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Medtronic -- https://www.medtronic.com/ -- is an American-Irish
registered medical device company that primarily operates in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina M Lucio, Esq.
James R Hawkins, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6776
Email: christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert J Herrington, Esq.
GREENNERG TRAURIG LLP
1840 Century Park East 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-7700
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Price-Fixing Suit Underway in 9th Cir
------------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 2, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that an
appeal seeking to revive a class action lawsuit over alleged
price-fixing of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) products is
underway in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On June 26, 2018, a complaint was filed against Micron and other
DRAM suppliers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. Subsequently, four substantially identical cases
were filed in the same court. On October 28, 2019, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated, amended complaint. The consolidated complaint
purported to be on behalf of a nationwide class of direct
purchasers of DRAM products. The consolidated complaint asserted
claims based on alleged price-fixing of DRAM products under federal
and state law during the period from June 1, 2016 through at least
February 1, 2018, and sought treble monetary damages, costs,
interest, attorneys’ fees, and other injunctive and equitable
relief.
On December 21, 2020, the District Court granted Micron's motion to
dismiss and granted the plaintiffs permission to file a further
amended complaint. On January 11, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a
further amended complaint asserting substantially the same claims
and seeking the same relief.
On September 3, 2021, the District Court granted Micron's motion to
dismiss the further amended complaint with prejudice. On October 1,
2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Micron Technology, Inc. is in to semiconductors and related devices
based in Idaho.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Computer Chip Price-Rigging Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 2, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
dismissed a class action complaint.
On May 3, 2021, several plaintiffs filed the complaint purportedly
on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of dynamic
random access memory products.
On July 19, 2021, the District Court dismissed the May 3, 2021
complaint pursuant to an agreement between the plaintiffs and
Micron providing that the plaintiffs may refile the complaint if
the District Court's December 21, 2020 dismissal order is not
affirmed on appeal.
Micron Technology, Inc. is in to semiconductors and related devices
based in Idaho.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Manning Appeals Court Decision on Labor Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 2, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that an
appeal by Chris Manning remains pending.
On June 13, 2019, Manning, a current Micron employee, filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject
to the Idaho Wage Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus
after the conclusion of 2018 whose performance rating was
calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range of
performance ratings.
On July 12, 2019, Manning and three other company employees filed
an amended complaint as putative class action representatives. They
assert claims for violation of the Idaho Wage Claim Act, breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and fraud. The court entered judgment in favor of Micron based on
the statute of limitations on June 24, 2020. The plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal on July 23, 2020.
Micron Technology, Inc. is in to semiconductors and related devices
based in Idaho.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Price-Rigging Suit on Appeal in Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 2, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that a
class action appeal remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit as of January 19, 2021.
On April 27, 2018, a complaint was filed against Micron and other
dynamic random access memory (DRAM) suppliers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, two
substantially identical cases were filed in the same court. The
lawsuits purported to be on behalf of a nationwide class of
indirect purchasers of DRAM products.
On September 3, 2019, the District Court granted Micron's motion to
dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to file a
consolidated, amended complaint. On October 28, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended complaint that purported
to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of
DRAM products.
The amended complaint asserted claims based on alleged price-fixing
of DRAM products under federal and state law during the period from
June 1, 2016 to at least February 1, 2018, and sought treble
monetary damages, costs, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
injunctive and equitable relief.
The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and entered
judgment against them on December 21, 2020.
Micron Technology, Inc. is in to semiconductors and related devices
and is based in Idaho.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Suits Over Memory Chips Pending in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 2, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that six
cases have been filed in these Canadian courts on the dates
indicated: Superior Court of Quebec (April 30, 2018 and May 3,
2018), the Federal Court of Canada (May 2, 2018), the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (May 15, 2018), and the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (May 10, 2018). The plaintiffs in these cases are
individuals seeking certification of class actions on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers of dynamic random access memory
(DRAM) products in Canada (or regions of Canada) between June 1,
2016 and February 1, 2018.
Micron Technology, Inc. is into semiconductors and related devices
based in Idaho.
ORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO: $6.75M Settlement for Court's OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company disclosed in its Current Report
on Form 8-K dated December 17, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that on July 11, 2021,
Portland General Electric Company (PGE) and other individual
defendants entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to fully
resolve a consolidated securities class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon captioned "In re Portland General
Electric Company Securities Litigation, No. 3:20-cv-1583-SI."
The settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides for a
settlement payment of $6.75 million in exchange for the complete
dismissal with prejudice and a release of all claims against the
defendants in connection with the Securities Action, without any
admission of fault or wrongdoing by the defendants. The Securities
Action settlement payment was paid by the company's insurance
provider under its insurance policy.
Portland General Electric Company provides electric services based
in Oregon.
REMAX HOLDINGS: Price Rigging Row Pending in Canadian Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REMAX Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that a
putative class action claim was filed in the Federal Court of
Canada on April 9, 2021 against the Toronto Regional Real Estate
Board, the Canadian Real Estate Association, RE/MAX
Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc. (which was acquired by the company in
July 2021), Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership, Brookfield Asset
Management Inc., Royal Lepage Real Estate Services Ltd., Homelife
Realty Services Inc., Right At Home Realty Inc., Forest Hill Real
Estate Inc., Harvey Kalles Real Estate Ltd., Sotheby's
International Realty Canada, Chestnut Park Real Estate Limited,
Sutton Group Realty Services Ltd. and IPRO Realty Ltd. is still
pending in said court.
Representative plaintiff, Mark Sunderland alleges that the
defendants and their co-conspirators conspired, agreed or arranged
with each other to fix, maintain, increase, control, raise, or
stabilize the rate of real estate buyers' brokerages' and
salespersons' commissions in respect of the purchase and sale of
properties listed on a multiple listing service system that the
Defendants and their co-conspirators acted in furtherance of their
conspiracy, agreement or arrangement to fix, maintain, increase,
control, raise, or stabilize the rate of real estate buyers'
brokerages' and salespersons' commissions in respect of the
purchase and sale of properties in violation of Part VI of the
Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985. Sunderland seeks damages against the
defendants and injunctive relief.
RE/MAX OA denies the allegations in the claim and intends to
vigorously defend the action.
REMAX Holdings Inc. is in to real estate agents and managers based
in Colorado.
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Shirley Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reynolds Consumer
Products LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Shirley, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reynolds Consumer
Products LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00278 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Reynolds Consumer Products --
https://www.reynoldsconsumerproducts.com/ -- headquartered in Lake
Forest, Illinois, provides quality household essentials and
world-class brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
RUGSUSA LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RugsUSA, LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00062-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rugsusa.com, Inc. -- https://www.rugsusa.com/ -- manufactures rugs
and other home decoration products. The Company supplies and retail
products through 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
SANDERSON FARMS: Employee Pay-Rigging Case Pending in D. Md.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that
discovery of the employee anti-trust case in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland is pending after said
court denied Sanderson Farms' renewed motion to dismiss resisting
plaintiffs' second amended complaint filed in November 2, 2020.
Sanderson Farms filed an answer denying the substance of
plaintiffs' allegations in April 7, 2021.
On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and
Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers
and their affiliates, namely Agri Stats, Inc. and Webber, Meng,
Sahl and Company, Inc., were named in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
To date, three other nearly identical putative class action
complaints, each seeking to represent the same putative class, also
were filed.
The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and
maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged
that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and
depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and
compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present. The
plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively
sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways,
namely, attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida, receiving
Agri-Stats reports and directly exchanging wage and benefits
information with plant managers at other defendant broiler
producers. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative
class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial
purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated
complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019.
Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28,
2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss,
on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they
intended to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20, 2019.
Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods
and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler chicken
producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and their
affiliates. Plaintiffs brought their amended consolidated complaint
on behalf of employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing
plants and allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by
agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them. On
January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly
identical putative class action lawsuits.
On March 12, 2020, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the third nearly identical putative class
action lawsuit. In March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint. The company also filed an
individual motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the
company. After several COVID-19 related extensions, plaintiffs
filed their omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss on
July 17, 2020. Defendants filed their reply brief on August 13,
2020. On September 16, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion without prejudice, finding that
plaintiffs' allegations against certain corporate defendant
families, including Sanderson Farms, were deficient.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Sanderson
Farms, Inc. on November 2, 2020. Sanderson Farms filed a renewed
motion to dismiss resisting plaintiffs' amended allegations. The
Court denied that motion and allowed plaintiffs' case to go forward
in an order dated March 10, 2021.
Sanderson Farms Inc. is in to poultry slaughtering and processing
based in Mississippi.
TANDY LEATHER FACTORY: Stockholder's Restatement Suit Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2021,
that in April 2020, a class action suit in the Federal District
Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking unspecified
damages brought by a stockholder was withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Said case was filed in November 2019 was initially file in the
Federal District Court in Los Angeles, California, and subsequently
transferred to the Federal District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, against the company and members of its current and former
management relating to the company's announcement of the
circumstances leading to their restatement. Tandy Leather Factory,
Inc. believes that suit was without merit.
Tandy Leather Factory, Inc. is in to leather and leather products
based in Texas.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Securties Suit Over Name Change to Voltswagen
------------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY JO PHEIFFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., SCOTT, and MARK GILLIES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00045 (E.D. Va.,
14, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Volkswagen American depositary
receipts ("ADRs") between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
On March 15, 2021, Volkswagen staged a so-called Power Day to
showcase its latest electric car technology. The event was
Volkswagen's answer to Tesla's Battery Day presentations, which
draw intense attention from investors and electric car buffs.
Volkswagen also unveiled plans to build six battery factories in
Europe in joint ventures with suppliers, with 18,000 charging
stations on the continent by 2025. During the Power Day, Herbert
Diess, the Chairman of the Volkswagen brand Board of Management,
revealed that "[e]-mobility has become core business for
[Volkswagen]."
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding Volkswagen's
business and operations. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the name
"Voltswagen" was never going to be used by the Company's U.S.
subsidiary; and the Company and its spokespeople purposefully
misled reporters, even after the reporters' inquiries about whether
the name change was an April Fool's joke.
On March 29, 2021, shortly after Volkswagen's Power Day, VWoA
published a "draft" of a press release on its website for a short
time with the incorrect date of "April 29," announcing its
purported name change from "Volkswagen" to "Voltswagen." The
"draft" press release stated that VWoA planned to retain the dark
blue color of the VW logo for gas-powered vehicles and use light
blue to differentiate "the new, EV-centric branding." The release
also stated that "Voltswagen of America would remain an operating
unit of Volkswagen Group of America and a subsidiary of Volkswagen
AG, with headquarters in Herndon, Virginia." The release explained
that "[t]he new name and branding symbolize the highly-charged
forward momentum Voltswagen has put in motion, pursuing a goal of
moving all people point-to-point with Evs."
In the March 29, 2021 "draft" press release, the Defendant Keogh
stated: "We might be changing out our K for a T, but what we aren't
changing is this brand's commitment to making best-in-class
vehicles for drivers and people everywhere." The referenced
statements were materially false and/or misleading for the reasons
set forth, including because the announcement was a pre-planned
April Fool's Day joke that was developed by several of the
Company's key executives "in order to get people talking about the
ID.4," and VWoA never intended to change its "K for a T," nor to
use light blue color for the purported logo "Voltswagen."
The Defendants doubled down on their deception a day later, posting
on Tuesday morning, March 30, 2021, another full, finished
"official" version of the same release, which quoted Defendant
Keogh and Gardiner celebrating the new moniker. The release,
entitled "Voltswagen: A new name for a new era of e-mobility."
On March 31, 2021, further reports regarding how the Company's
spokespeople purposefully misled reporters were published. For
example, ABC News published an article entitled "An unwelcome
prank: Volkswagen purposely hoodwinks reporters. Journalists are
wary of looking out for pranksters around April Fool's Day, but
this time it came from a multi-billion dollar corporation."
The price of Volkswagen ADRs plummeted on this news, falling 3.84%,
or $1.45 per share, to close at $36.3 per share on March 31, 2021
(from a closing price of $37.75 per share on March 30, 2021),
damaging investors.
The price of Volkswagen ADRs continued to fall as the market
continued to process the news about the purported name change. The
Company's ADR price fell 1.98%, or $0.72 per share, to close at
$35.58 per share on April 1, 2021 (from a closing price of $36.3
per share on March 31, 2021), damaging investors.
In total, Volkswagen's ADR price fell by $2.17 per share, or 5.75%,
over the course of two trading days from March 31, 2021 through
April 1, 2021, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the decline in the market value of the Company's ADRs, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.
The Plaintiff, as set forth in her Certification, acquired
Volkswagen ADRs during the Class Period, at artificially inflated
prices, and was damaged by the alleged federal securities law
violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions.
Volkswagen AG (known internationally as the Volkswagen Group) is
one of the world's leading automobile manufacturers and the largest
carmaker in Europe. The Group comprises twelve brands from seven
European countries: Volkswagen Passenger Cars, Volkswagen
Commercial Vehicles, Audi, SEAT, SKODA, Bentley, Bugatti,
Lamborghini, Porsche, Ducati, Scania, and MAN. Each brand has its
own character and operates as an independent entity on the market.
The product spectrum ranges from motorcycles to small cars and
luxury vehicles. The company operates 118 production plants in 20
European countries and 10 countries in the Americas, Asia and
Africa. Volkswagen AG sells its vehicles in 153 countries.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Volkswagen AG. It operates a manufacturing plant in Chattanooga,
Tennessee and houses the U.S. operations of Volkswagen's brands
including Volkswagen, Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini.
Headquartered in Herndon, Virginia, the company has approximately
8,000 employees in the United States and sells its vehicles through
a 1,000-strong dealer network.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue N.W.
Suite 500, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
WALMART INC: Webb Suit Slams Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------
WALMART INC: Webb Suit Slams Gender Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
Diana Webb on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Walmart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00044, (N.D.
Ala., January 11, 2022), seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
costs, interest, and attorneys' fees and such further relief for
Sexual Discrimination under Title VII.
Diana Webb was hired by Walmart as delivery driver on July 20th,
2020, and remains employed as a driver for Walmart.
Drivers are required to wear uniforms consisting of pants and a
shirt while working on their jobs as a condition of employment.
Walmart provides an entire uniform, including pants, as part of the
uniform requirement. Drivers are required to don these uniforms
prior to arrival at the job site. Webb claims that Walmart only
provides men's pants for both male and female drivers.
Said pants provided by Walmart to its drivers, regardless of
gender, are uncomfortable and poorly-fitting for the female
drivers. Webb claims that she needs to purchase and launder her own
pants, out of their own pocket, with no option for reimbursement,
in order to fulfill Walmart's employment requirements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Washington St., Suite 302
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
Phone: (256) 532-2222
Fax: (256) 513-7489
Email: teri@mastandoartrip.com
artrip@mastandoartrip.com
WATTS WATER: N.Y. Sup. Orders Inking of Intent to Pay Counsel Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Current Report on
Form 8-K dated December 17, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that on December 17,
2021, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered a
stipulated order requiring the Watts Water to issue its formal
agreement to pay $50,000 in fees and expenses to Plaintiff Shiva
Stein in the proceeding action for attorneys' fees and expenses
with regards to a Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint
against Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and members of its board of
directors as per case Shiva Stein v. Christopher L. Conway, et al.,
(Case No. 2021-0859-PAF.)
The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment
on, the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses the Company has
agreed to pay to Stein's counsel.
In the action, Stein alleged that a certain provision of the
company's Amended and Restated Bylaws (Removal by the Board
Provision) was illegal. Stein sought a declaratory judgment that
the Removal by the Board Provision was invalid and sought
attorneys' fees and expenses if the claim was successful. Although
the Removal by the Board Provision had never been used to remove
directors, to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the
company amended and restated its bylaws to eliminate the Removal by
the Board Provision, rendering the Action moot. Plaintiff agreed
that her claim was moot and filed a notice and proposed order to
dismiss her claim.
On November 15, 2021, the Court entered an order providing that the
action would be dismissed with prejudice as to plaintiff. The Court
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the
anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Without admitting
that the allegations in the complaint had merit, Watts Water
decided it would be in its and its stockholders' best interests to
resolve the Fee Application and avoid further litigation of the
issue by agreeing to pay $50,000 in fees and expenses to
Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full
satisfaction of their claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in
said action.
Watts Water Technologies Inc. is in to fabricated metal products
and is based in Massachusetts.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Still Faces Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Core & Main, Inc., has been and continue to be a defendant in
asbestos-related litigation matters, according to the Company's
Form S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Like other companies in our industry, we have
been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising
from the types of products that we distribute. As a distributor in
this industry, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product
liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have
distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged
to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property
damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws.
Such product liability claims in the past have included, and may in
the future include, allegations of defects in manufacturing,
defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the
product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties."
A full-text copy of the Form S-1 is available at
https://bit.ly/3nyIdld
*********
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 ***