/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220125.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 12
Headlines
1ST CHOICE: April 29 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
217 BOURBON: Bartenders Get Conditional Certification in Bancroft
ACCELLION INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $8.1 Million
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Ivaldi Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
AGILIS ENGINEERING: No-Poach Deal Harms Engineers, Leavitt Claims
AGRANA FRUIT: Miller FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
AIR METHODS: Epler Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
ALLISTER ADEL: TASC Bid to Supplement Class Cert Response OK'd
AMERICAN SCISSOR: Court Denied Class Cert. in Wage-and-Hour Suit
AMERIHEALTH CARITAS: Bristow PMWA Suit Goes to E.D. Pennsylvania
APPLE INC: Developers Can Submit Claims Over App Store Charges
APPLE INC: Developers Receive Class Action Settlement Notices
APTIM SERVICES: Hurlocker Asks Court to Confirm Arbitration Award
AUSTIN POWDER: Court Vacates Bid for Conditional Class Cert.
AUSTRALIA: AG Queried Over Class Action Reform Constitutionality
AUSTRIA: Fails to Shut Down Hotels With COVID-19 Infected Tourists
BEVERLY HILLS SPA: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
BFI WASTE: Murfreesboro Opposes Proposed Landfill Class Settlement
BFI WASTE: Rutherford Cty., Tenn. Opts Out of Class Settlement
BOB DEAN: Anderson Must File Class Cert Bid by March 15
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Stafford Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger
BRIGHT HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 7 Deadline
C.A.R.E. INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
CAREDX INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Possible Securities Claims
CAREMOUNT MEDICAL: Ct. Enters Order on General Pretrial Management
CARMAX INC: Employees' Labor Suit Pending
CARTER FABRICATION: Faces Skaggs Suit for Breach of Contract
CHINA AUTO: Vanderhoef Wants Marcum to Produce Docs
CIANFRONE NIKOLOFF: Faces Gathen Suit Over Improper Debt Collection
CIOX HEALTH: Justis Sues Over Unlawful Charges for Medical Records
CLERCS DE ST. VIATEUR: Reaches $28M Settlement in Abuse Class Suit
COLLECTION BUREAU: Feb. 4 Deadline on Class Cert Response Sought
CORECIVIC INC: Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines
COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Order Scheduling Initial Case Mng't Entered
CP SECURITY: Security Officers Get Conditional Certification
CREDIT LAW: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Conditional Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Equipment's Repair Service, Wells Claims
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Class Action Says
DENMARK BANCSHARES: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger
DENTAL EQUITIES: Time to File Response on Class Cert Bid Extended
DEPUY SYNTHES: Gluckstein Lawyers Launch Personal Injury Class Suit
DETROIT EDISON: Nolan Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
EHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 18 Deadline
ESTES EXPRESS: St. Cloud Suit Seeks to Certify Yard Jockey Class
ETHEREUMMAX: Semerjian Sues Over Inflated Prices of EMAX Tokens
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Settlement in Fero Suit Gets Initial Nod
EXECU|SEARCH: Underpays Nurse Practitioners, Reid Suit Alleges
FALL CREEK: Initial Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Kildahl
FARADAY FUTURE: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 22 Deadline
FASHION NOVA: Alcazar ADA Suit Seeks Class Certification
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Pistorio Class Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Ram EGR Coolers
FIRST STUDENT: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Briefing OK'd
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Mar 15 Deadline
FISHER'S TOWING: Waite Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages
FORD MOTOR: Ontario Court Certifies Water Pump Class Action
FPL FOODS: Fails to Properly Pay Grocery Clerks, Morales Alleges
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Scheduling Order Entered in Washington Suit
FULL SAIL UNIVERSITY: Class Action Suit Over False Ads Examined
GCP APPLIED: Monteverde & Associates Probes Saint-Gobain Merger
GENERAL MOTORS: Jennings Files Bid for Class Certification
GENUINE PARTS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 15
GILL INDUSTRIES: Walters Loses Class Certification Bid
GOOD SHEPHERD: Class Cert. Bids Must be Filed by August 15
GREIF INC: Joint Bid to Vacate Initial Pretrial Conference OK'd
HAR NORTHERN: Rodriguez Sues Over Warehouse Staff's Unpaid Wages
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: $16.8M Class Deal in Utah Suit Has Final Nod
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Final Judgment Entered in Utah Retirement Suit
HOME DEPOT: Scheduling Order Modified in Patton Class Suit
ILLINOIS: 7th Cir. Reverses Permanent Injunction in Rasho v. IDOC
ILLINOIS: Judge Hears Arguments on COVID-19 Mitigation Lawsuits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Stipulation Extending Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd
JP MORGAN: Dennis Seeks Approval of Proposed Notice Plan
KELLER WILLIAMS: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to Jan. 31
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Claims in Hobbs Suit
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Toss Hobbs' Class Claims
LAND O' LAKES: Deadline to File Dispositional Documents Continued
LANDMARK REALTY: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Stay Class Discovery and Certification
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Complete Discovery Sought
LOUISIANA: Faces Suit Over Inmates' Inadequate Mental Healthcare
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Lawsuit in Puerto Rico Over Labor Violations
MANITOBA: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over 2011 Lake Flooding
MASS GENERAL: Norton Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
MAYFIELD CONSUMER: Factory Workers Sue Over Alleged Lay-Offs
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Manzo's Bid to Approve $2-Mil. Deal Denied
MELTECH INC: $160K Class Settlement in Grove Suit Wins Approval
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Over Misuse of User Data
MOMENTIVE GLOBAL: Monteverde & Associates Probes Zendesk Merger
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Smith Class Suit Remanded to State Court
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Emissions Class Suit Pending in D. South Carolina
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 21 Deadline
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Suit For Freezing Customer Accounts & Funds
PFNY LLC: Faces Ross Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in E.D.N.Y.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Dismisses COPOMIAO's Discrimination Suit
PLACE FOR ROVER: Rainey Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
PRET A MANGER: Fingerprinting Class Action Suit Reaches Settlement
PRIMOHOAGIES FRANCHISING: Delp Slams Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
RENOVATE AMERICA: Homeowners' Lawsuit Over PACE Program Pending
RETAIL SERVICES: Asabre MCEMA Suit Removed to D. Maryland
RIVIANA FOODS: Kutzback Sues Over Unpaid OT for Machine Operators
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
SAMSARA INC: Karling Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Underypays Customer Care Agents, Stanback Says
SS CARPENTRY: Espinoza Sues Over Assistant Carpenters' Unpaid OT
STATE FARM: Chiu Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Giron Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SUPERLATIVE RM: Plotnik Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TALK TO ME: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TALKSPACE INC: Allegedly Misleads Investors Over SPAC Merger Deal
TARGET CORPORATION: Gouwens Files Suit in S.D. New York
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Greene Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
THAKOON HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Slade Suit Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: RAV4 Fuel Tank Class Settlement Awaits Approval
TRAINA DRIED: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Appeal From Order in Rosa FLSA Suit Denied
UDR INC: Apartments' Pool Access Ads "Deceptive," Lee Suit Says
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: March Hearing Scheduled for Class Action
UPFIELD US: Clemmons Files Suit in S.D. New York
VALVE CORP: Briefing Schedule on Bid to Toss Dark Catt Suit Revised
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 15 Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 15 Deadline
WALMART INC: Female Drivers Sue Over Alleged Ill-Fitting Uniform
WELLS FARGO: Healy Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WEWORK INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Possible Securities Claims
WINSTON BOX: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WISE EARTHCARE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZENGA INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZMB ENTERPRISES: Brown Files Suit in S.D. California
ZOGENIX INC: Monteverde & Associates Probes UCB Merger Deal
*********
1ST CHOICE: April 29 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monisha Fuller v. 1st
Choice Family Services, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02771-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline for Plaintiffs to file for Rule 23 class certification
from the current date of March 1, 2022 to April 29, 2022.
The Plaintiffs commenced notification of collective class members
at the beginning of December 2021. The notice period will expire by
January 31, 2022. Pursuant to a settlement entered into with the
United States Department of Labor (DOL), the Defendant began
mailing checks to those individuals whom the DOL determined to be
entitled to overtime payments.
The last of those checks will be distributed by January 17, 2022,
with proof of payment by February 16, 2022.
Te Defendant has produced payroll and time keeping records to the
Plaintiffs. Both sides believe that they will have the information
necessary to evaluate the case by early February, i.e., once the
identities of opt-in plaintiffs are known and the identities of
individuals who cashed checks as part of the DOL settlement are
known.
The case schedule provides that discovery ends 150 days after the
close of the class notice period, i.e., in late June 2022.
Dispositive motions are due 45 days after the close of discovery.
The Parties do not believe that extended the date for filing the
motion for class certification should affect the rest of the case
schedule.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33M8LIo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
1360 East 9 th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ralph Breitfeller, Esq.
Brendan P. Feheley, Esq.
Danielle M. Crane, Esq.
65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 462-5400
Facsimile: (614) 464-2634
E-mail: rbreitfeller@keglerbrown.com
bfeheley@keglerbrown.com
dcrane@keglerbrown.com
217 BOURBON: Bartenders Get Conditional Certification in Bancroft
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY BANCROFT, et al.,
v. 217 BOURBON, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00545-BWA-JVM (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Bary W. Ashe entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of
collective action.
The further ordered that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216:
A. The collective action is conditionally certified as:
"All bartenders who are or were employed by Defendants at
The Drinkery bar in New Orleans at any point from March
17, 2018 to present (three years prior to filing the
complaint), who received a "tip credit" towards their
minimum wage, and/or have worked over 40 hours in at least
one workweek from March 17, 2018 to the present, and who
were subject to the pay practices of Defendants during
that time."
B. Within 14 days of the date of this Order & Reasons,
Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel the names,
last-known addresses, email addresses, and telephone
numbers (including known cell phone numbers) of all
putative collective action members.
C. At the earliest mutually convenient date, the parties
shall meet and confer about a joint proposed form of opt-
in notice and consent and shall submit such form to the
Court within ten days of the date of this Order.
D. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date
that the Court approves the proposed form of notice and
consent to transmit same to the putative collective action
members via U.S. mail, email, and text message.
E. Opt-in plaintiffs are granted a period of 60 days from the
date that the notice and consent form is mailed, emailed,
or texted to execute their consent forms online using
electronic signatures, thereby signifying their decision
to opt in to the collective action.
This case involves Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state-law
claims. The Plaintiffs worked as bartenders at The Drinkery,
Defendants' bar and restaurant located on Bourbon Street in New
Orleans. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (1) failed to pay
minimum wage and overtime pay in violation of the FLSA; (2) docked
their pay and misappropriated tips in violation of Louisiana law;
and (3) fired Plaintiffs in retaliation for questioning their
wages.
The Plaintiffs allege that approximately 40 current and former
bartenders have been affected by Defendants' common policies and
practices resulting in the failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
pay.
The Defendants paid Plaintiffs an hourly wage of $2.13 and applied
a "tip credit" towards the remainder of the $7.25 per hour federal
minimum wage.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' use of the tip credit was
improper because Defendants (1) did not provide them with advance
notice that the tip credit would be applied and (2) allowed certain
of the bar managers, who are not customarily tipped employees, to
retain a significant portion of the tips that were intended for the
bartenders.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KmPsXh at no extra charge.[CC]
ACCELLION INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $8.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that The Palo Alto, California-based
technology firm Accellion has proposed an $8.1 million settlement
to resolve a class action data breach lawsuit filed on behalf of
victims of the December 2020 cyberattack on the Accellion File
Transfer Appliance (FTA).
The Accellion FTA is a legacy solution that is used for securely
transferring files that are too large to be sent via email. The
Accellion FTA had been in use for more than 20 years and was at
end-of-life, with support due to end on April 30, 2021. Accellion
had developed a new platform, Kiteworks, and customers were
encouraged to upgrade from the legacy solution; however, a
significant number of entities were still using the FTA solution at
the time of the cyberattack.
In December 2020, two previously unknown Advanced Persistent Threat
(APT) groups linked to FIN11 and the CLOP ransomware gang exploited
unaddressed vulnerabilities in the Accellion FTA, gained access to
the files of its clients, and exfiltrated a significant amount of
data. Following the breach, four vulnerabilities associated with
the breach were disclosed and issued CVEs.
Accellion clients affected by the breach included banks, law firms,
universities, and healthcare organizations. Many of the files
belonging to healthcare organizations contained sensitive patient
and health plan member data. Healthcare organizations affected by
the breach include Health Net Community Solutions, Health Net of
California, California Health & Wellness, Trinity Health, The
University of California, Stanford University School of Medicine,
University of Miami Health, Kroger, Trillium, Community Health
Plan, Arizona Complete Health, CalViva Health, and Health
Employees' Pension Plan.
Following the attack, several lawsuits were filed against Accellion
and its clients over the data breach. The class action lawsuit
against Accellion alleged the company had failed to implement and
maintain appropriate data security practices to protect the
sensitive data of its clients, failed to detect security
vulnerabilities in the Accellion FTA, failed to disclose its
security practices were inadequate and failed to prevent the data
breach. As a result of the attack, highly sensitive information was
stolen, including names, contact information, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and healthcare
data.
Accellion denied all of the allegations in the lawsuit and accepts
no liability for the data breach. The company said in the
settlement agreement that it is not responsible for managing,
updating, and maintaining customers' instances of the FTA software.
Accellion also said the company does not collect any customer data,
does not access the content of files shared or stored via the FTA
solution, and provided no guarantees to customers that the FTA
software was secure.
It is unclear how many individuals will be covered by the
settlement, but the number is certainly in excess of 9.2 million
individuals. Accellion will attempt to obtain up-to-date contact
information for those individuals in order to send notices of the
proposed settlement. The proposed settlement includes a cash fund
of $8.1 million to cover claims, notices, administration costs, and
service awards to affected users of the Accellion FTA. $4.6 million
of the fund will be made available within 10 days, with the
remainder made available within 10 days of the settlement being
approved.
Affected individuals will be entitled to sign up for 24 months of
three-bureau credit monitoring and insurance services, or receive
reimbursement for documented losses up to a maximum value of
$10,000, or receive a cash payment, which is expected to be in the
region of $15 to $50. Accellion will also fully retire the
Accellion FTA and take steps to ensure the security of its
replacement Kiteworks solution. Those measures include increasing
its bug bounty program, maintaining FedRAMP certification,
employing individuals with responsibility for cybersecurity,
providing cybersecurity training to its workforce, and undergoing
regular assessments to confirm continued compliance with the
cybersecurity measures outlined in the settlement.
The proposed settlement will resolve all claims against Accellion
only. There are still lawsuits and settlements outstanding against
clients affected by the breach. The supermarket chain Kroger has
proposed a $5 million settlement to resolve lawsuits filed on
behalf of the 3.8 million employees and customers affected by the
breach. [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI) relating to its proposed
acquisition by Microsoft Corporation. Under the terms of the
agreement, ATVI shareholders will receive $95.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/activision-blizzard-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Ivaldi Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA IVALDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff 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 and COLLINS AEROSPACE DIVISION, MAHESH PATEL,
ROBERT HARVEY, HARPREET WASAN, STEVE HOUGHTALING, THOMAS EDWARDS,
GARY PRUS, FRANK O'NEILL, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00097-MPS (D. Conn., January 19, 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 Plaintiff 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.
Collins Aerospace, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
is a provider of technologically advanced aerospace and defense
products and aftermarket service solutions.
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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Krisch, Esq.
HALLORAN SAGE LLP
225 Asylum St.
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-6103
E-mail: krisch@halloransage.com
- and –
Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
E-mail: jaz@kellerlenkner.com
- and –
Zina Bash, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (501) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerlenkner.com
AGILIS ENGINEERING: No-Poach Deal Harms Engineers, Leavitt Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON E. LEAVITT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff 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-00103 (D. Conn., January 19, 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 Plaintiff 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.
Collins Aerospace, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
is a provider of technologically advanced aerospace and defense
products and aftermarket service solutions.
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 Plaintiff is 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
- and –
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whoese@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
chillwig@kohnswift.com
amonohar@kohnswift.com
- and –
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Karen Halbert, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
AGRANA FRUIT: Miller FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY MILLER, et al., on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. AGRANA FRUIT
US, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01919-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs
Gary Miller and Donovan Richardson ask the Court to enter an order
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:
(a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated;
(b) Directing that notice be sent by United States mail,
email and text message to the following:
All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Agrana Fruit US, Inc. whose job duties involved contact
with food, food-contact surfaces, or food-packaging
materials, and were required to change at work into
sanitary clothing and equipment (e.g., sanitary uniform,
sanitary boots, sanitary glasses, sanitary gloves, and
hair net), and worked at least 40 hours in at least one
workweek, from October 11, 2018 to present;"
(c) Directing Defendant to provide within 14 days an
electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the
definition above that includes their full names, dates of
employment, last known home addresses, personal email
addresses, and phone numbers;
(d) Directing Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
produced roster fully complies with the Court's Order;
and
(e) Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing
addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers are found
for any potential opt-in plaintiff.
The Plaintiffs, the opt-ins, and the proposed collective each
worked at one of these facilities. Agrana is in the business of
manufacturing, processing, cooking, and packaging food meant human
consumption.
The Plaintiffs, the opt-ins, and all proposed collective members
were required to wear the same sanitary clothing and equipment and
were subject to the same food safety work rules regardless of where
they worked or their job titles. Agrana workers, regardless of
location or job title or duties, were not paid for putting on or
taking off sanitary clothing and equipment.
All Agrana fruit processing plant workers who entered a production
floor were required to wear sanitary clothing and equipment. They
were required to don and doff the sanitary clothing and equipment
at Agrana's facility. All hourly non-exempt employees in all four
of Agrana's fruit processing plants that entered a food production
area were required to put on a sanitary uniform, sanitary boots,
sanitary glasses, sanitary gloves, and a hair net. This is because
these employees' job duties required them to be in contact with
food, food-contact surfaces, or food packaging materials. They
could not perform their jobs without wearing this sanitary clothing
and equipment, the lawsuit says.
Agrana owns and operates fruit processing plants in Ohio, New York,
Tennessee, and Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tChKa6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: 216-230-2955
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
AIR METHODS: Epler Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chris Epler, Robert Armer,
Ronald Cartre, Robert Cerone, Francine Freeborn, Navin Kadambi, and
Robert Merritt, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, v. Air Methods Corporation, and Rocky Mountain
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00461-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for certifying the following class:
"All real persons who have received emergency medical
transport by the Defendants from a location in Florida or who
have been billed for such transport of another."
Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical
services to between 70,000 and 100,000 patients every year.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33nWqe0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
service@normandpllc.com
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
Amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
- and -
J. Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
6923 N. Trenholm Rd. Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29206
Telephone: (803) 252-4800
Facsimile: (803) 252-4801
E-mail: petestrom@stromlaw.com
mpacella@stromlaw.com
- and -
Richard Joseph Burke, Esq.
Quantum Legal LLC – Highland Park
513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
Highland Park, IL 60035
Telephone: (847) 433-4500
E-mail: richard@qulegal.com
- and -
Edward L. White, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, PC
829 East 33rd Street
Edmond OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
ALLISTER ADEL: TASC Bid to Supplement Class Cert Response OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deshawn Briggs, et al., v.
Allister Adel, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02684-EJM (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Eric J. Markovich entered an order granting Defendant
TASC's Motion to Supplement Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification as follows:
1. TASC may file a supplemental response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification by January 21, 2022. The
supplement shall be limited to five 19 pages, excluding
the caption page. The supplemental brief shall be limited
to the issue of the class definition.
2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Reply in support of
their Motion for Class Certification shall be extended to
February 4, 2022. The Plaintiffs are hereby granted an
additional five pages to address arguments raised by TASC
in its 24 supplemental response.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IdKSbT at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN SCISSOR: Court Denied Class Cert. in Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, in Cirrincion v. American Scissor
Lift, Inc. recently upheld a trial court order denying class
certification in a wage and hour class action. Since class
certification is so often granted, this decision warrants further
attention.
The underlying case involved an employee bringing multiple wage and
hour claims, including allegations that the employer engaged in
unlawful rounding of employee's hours worked because it did not
have any rounding policy. The trial court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification concluding that plaintiff had failed
to establish that common questions of fact and law would
predominate over individual questions, or that plaintiff's claims
were typical of those of the proposed subclass. The trial court
focused on the predominance of common questions requirement.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, also focusing on
predominance of common questions, citing prior case law that "one
valid reason for denying certification is sufficient."
The Court of Appeal, like the trial court, did an extensive review
of the allegations related to rounding finding that the trial court
had correctly observed that an employer in California is entitled
to round its employees' work time if the rounding is done in a
"fair and neutral" manner that does not result, over a period of
time, in a failure to properly compensate an employee for all the
time they have actually worked. Moreover, the court noted, there is
nothing in California case law indicating that the "absence of a
written rounding policy constitutes a violation of California law
where an employer has a practice of rounding its employees'
worktime." Thus, the plaintiff's theory of liability is not a
recognized theory of legal responsibility.
This decision builds further supports that rounding procedures, so
long as conducted in a fair and neutral manner that does not
undercompensate employees over a period of time, are still
permitted under California law. Although employers should remember
that last year the California Supreme Court ruled that employers
were not permitted to round time for meal breaks.
The decision also indicates how even in wage and hour matters,
class action certification is not necessarily a foregone conclusion
if the employer can show that individual questions predominate.
[GN]
AMERIHEALTH CARITAS: Bristow PMWA Suit Goes to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISABELLA BRISTOW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERIHEALTH CARITAS, Case No.
210901884, was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on January 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00235 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
AmeriHealth Caritas is an insurance company based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Puma, Esq.
Jeffrey Becker, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
E-mail: michael.puma@morganlewis.com
jeffrey.becker@morganlewis.com
APPLE INC: Developers Can Submit Claims Over App Store Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Wiley, writing for iLounge, reports that developers who
are eligible for the 2019 class action lawsuit made against Apple
can now submit their claims.
In 2019 a group of app developers sued the Cupertino-based company
for charging mandatory annual fees and pricing structures for their
apps to get into the App Store. Several years later, Apple wanted
to settle and both parties agreed to a price of $100 million, which
will be distributed to small developers.
The fund website has opened on Jan. 14 and now accepts claims.
Developers can get anywhere between $250 to $30K as long as they're
eligible for it. Those who have sold their apps between 2015 and
2021 may be granted compensation. Furthermore, they must have not
made more than $1 million from the said time frame.
In addition to the settlement, minor changes have been made to the
App Store policy, including a new price tier, a promise to offer
15% reduced commissions and better developer and customer
communication.
Submission deadline is until May 20, 2022. [GN]
APPLE INC: Developers Receive Class Action Settlement Notices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Butts at macobserver.com reports that as part of the
settlement, the Cupertino-based company established a fund to grant
financial assistance to eligible small developers.
This fund will pay $100 million, split among all developers who
earned $1 million or less for all their apps and in-app purchases
in each calendar year from 2015 to 2021. Depending on how much a
developer made, these payments range from $250 to $30,000.
Class Action Settlement Notices Mailed Out
The Mac Observer has obtained photographs of the postcard mailed to
many eligible developers. It outlines what developers need to do to
benefit from the settlement, or opt out of the class.
Developers can also remain in the settlement class but object to
its terms. Those wishing to claim a benefit need to do so by May
20, 2022. If you wish to exclude yourself from the class or object
to the settlement, you will need to submit those requests no later
than March 21, 2022.
For more information, affected individuals or businesses can visit
the settlement website at
https://www.smallappdeveloperassistance.com/ or call (833)
920-3778, a toll free number. They can also email class attorneys
at info.smallappdeveloperassistance@hbsslaw.com. The final hearing
will take place June 7, 2022 at 2pm PST at the US District Court
for the Northern District of California in Oakland, Calif. [GN]
APTIM SERVICES: Hurlocker Asks Court to Confirm Arbitration Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hurlocker, on behalf of himself as well as all of those
alleged to be similarly situated claimants, and APTIM Services, LLC
move the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas to confirm an arbitration award rendered in the Claimants'
binding arbitration proceeding styled "Hurlocker, et al. v. APTIM
Services, LLC, et al.," pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.
Hurlocker was an employee of APTIM in California, who claims to be
paid straight time for overtime hours in a Fair Labor Standards Act
lawsuit where APTIM disputed this notion, and asserted that
Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective were exempt
employees and properly paid on a salary basis. APTIM is a Louisiana
corporation with headquarters in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
On December 3, 2021, the arbitrator granted the confidential
settlement reached by both parties and issued a Final Order
Approving Settlement. [BN]
John Hurlocker is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Rochelle D. Prins, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rprins@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
AUSTIN POWDER: Court Vacates Bid for Conditional Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carr, III v. Austin Powder
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-05140 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Kimberly A Jolson entered an order granting Motion to Vacate
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification due by Feb.
21, 2022.
-- Defendant's response is due March 14, 2022.
-- The Plaintiff's reply is due march 28, 2022.
The parties are ordered to file a Rule 26(f) Report within 14 days
of the Court's ruling on the forthcoming Motion for Conditional
Certification, says Judge Jolson.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Austin Powder provides blasting products, technical expertise, and
down-hole service to two of the largest mines on the Iron
Range.[CC]
AUSTRALIA: AG Queried Over Class Action Reform Constitutionality
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Financial Review reports that a senate committee has
ordered the Attorney-General's department to show how the Morrison
government has the constitutional power to enact its controversial
proposed class action law reforms, suggesting the bill was not in
fit shape to go to Parliament for a vote.
As the standing committee on economics held public hearings into
the bill on Jan. 17, senators across the political spectrum
demanded that the department explain the constitutional basis for
the bill.
But Albin Smrdel, an Assistant Secretary of the department, could
not do so despite receiving seven separate pieces of legal advice
on the issue, as Attorney-General Michaelia Cash had made a public
interest immunity claim over the advice.
This claim - which had not been granted - meant that she was
wanting to not just keep the legal advice private but also to keep
secret the heads of constitutional power under which she proposed
passing the laws.
Under the proposed changes, the share of class action payouts
litigation funders and lawyers could claim would be capped at 30
per cent and common fund orders would be limited.
But legal experts have raised concerns that the government does not
have the constitutional right to make such laws, prompting Labor
senator Deborah O'Neill to demand on Jan. 17 that the
Attorney-General's office point to its power to do so or take the
legislation back to the drawing board.
"It's a terrible piece of legislation. It's been roundly condemned
by people who would be plaintiffs, people who would be respondents,
and as yet, has no clear constitutional basis," said Senator
O'Neill.
"The truth is that if the government were confident about the
constitutional basis of these [changes], tell us what the
constitutional basis is. It does that all the time in relation to
lots of bills, without reference to legal advice and without any
risk of waiving privilege or advice."
'Advice shopping'
She accused Dr Smrdel of being "unprepared" to appear before the
committee, given he was unable to answer this question.
"So to be clear, Mr Smrdel, you're refusing to provide this
committee with an answer to a question about the fundamental
constitutionality of this bill?" Senator O'Neill asked.
"Despite 11 advices . . . of which seven were constitutional legal
advisors, despite all of that you still cannot point to a head of
power?"
Dr Smrdel said he could not answer the question as the heads of
power were covered by Senator Cash's public immunity claim.
He also said the department routinely claimed privilege over such
advice, which would also enable it to keep it private.
Independent senator Rex Patrick accused the Attorney-General's
department of "advice shopping" to try to find senior counsel who
would sign off on the bill being constitutional.
Dr Smrdel did not address the allegation but said that of the seven
pieces of legal advice it received on the constitutionality
question, one was from Perry Herzfeld, SC, one from the
Solicitor-General, and the remainder from the Australian Government
Solicitor.
He took on notice an order to identify the constitutional head of
power behind every section of the bill, although the legal
justification for each head will not be required to protect legal
privilege.
Lawyers share constitutional concerns
The Law Council of Australia, which is the legal industry's peak
professional body, told the committee in the hearing that it had
"significant constitutional law concerns".
The co-chairman of its class actions committee, John Emmering,
asked for the heads of power under the Constitution that the
government proposed to rely on for the bill, saying it was "the Law
Council's view that such information can be provided without
breaking privilege or public interest immunity".
Principal of Marland Law, Tom Marland, who also appeared before the
committee, also said the bill had "constitutional problems".
"From a practical point of view" that meant its enactment would
face "great difficulties"m he said. This suggested in practice such
a change would just push cases out of the Federal Court as
plaintiffs searched for state jurisdictions with less stringent
funding barriers.
"If this bill is passed, class actions will just be running state
jurisdictions and the federal government needs to reach some sort
of arrangement with states before they even contemplate passing
this bill because it will simply be pushed to different
jurisdictions," Mr Marland said.
"And that will be a great loss to our class action regime because
our federal courts, the federal judges, are the most experienced,
the most resourced, and the ones that should be presiding over
these class actions to make sure they're done economically and
efficiently, and in the best interests of both plaintiffs and
defendants." [GN]
AUSTRIA: Fails to Shut Down Hotels With COVID-19 Infected Tourists
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicky Harley at thenationalnews.com reports that hotels in the
Austrian ski resort of Ischgl could face legal action over their
knowledge of the Covid-19 outbreak by tourists who caught the
virus.
Thousands of people, from 45 countries, claim they caught Covid-19
at the resort and are accusing Austrian authorities of failing to
shut the resort down once they knew there was an infection problem
in March 2020.
Ischgl was believed to be Europe's Covid-19 epicentre.
The Consumer Protection Association (VSV) is bringing legal action
on behalf of the families of those who died of Covid-19 after
contracting it at the resort.
In a statement, the VSV says tourists, in many cases, had contacted
hotels before travelling to the resort to inquire about the
situation.
It is now preparing a civil case, to be heard in June, against
hotels who allegedly advised it was safe.
"An evaluation of the complaints from tourists about multi-organ
failure in Ischgl has shown that tourists accuse more than 50
hotels in and around Ischgl of simply lying to them when making
inquiries before the start of their vacation," Peter Kolba,
chairman of VSV, said.
"From March 5, 2020, it was clear to the crisis management teams at
state, district and municipal level that various groups of
Icelandic holidaymakers had been infected in Ischgl the week before
and had tested positive for Covid-19 on arrival home.
"The state press service claimed in a press release on March 5,
2020 that the Icelanders were only infected on the plane on the
return flight. Against our better knowledge, that was flat
misinformation.
"That will have to be clarified in the official liability
lawsuits."
Mr Kolba says a defence statement in the cases has accused the
tourists of not having made preventive inquiries.
"Many asked the hotel or the Paznaun Tourist Association (TVB)
before arrival whether there were any problems with the new virus
on site. In many cases this was flatly denied," he said.
"If they reported on request that there was no problem with
Covid-19 in Ischgl, then they had seriously violated contractual
protection and due diligence obligations and -- alongside the state
-- are liable for damages. In these cases, we will sue these
hoteliers or the TVP in the official liability lawsuits as
collaborators in Vienna."
Of the 6,000 who allegedly contracted coronavirus in Ischgl and the
surrounding area, 32 people have died and 5 per cent still suffer
from symptoms of long Covid, including headaches, sleep disturbance
and shortness of breath, the VSV said.
Last year Austrian prosecutors closed an 18-month criminal
investigation into the outbreak in Ischgl.
Epidemiologists found hundreds of Germany's earliest infections
could be traced back to Ischgl. The resort was also accused of
being the sole source of Iceland's first wave of infections, half
of Norway's, a third of Denmark's, and one sixth of Sweden's. [GN]
BEVERLY HILLS SPA: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND ORTIZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. THE BEVERLY HILLS SPA & SALON LLC and HILBERT MOHABIR,
individually Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-60107 (S.D. Fla., Jan.
13, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants regular unpaid wages
and overtime wages for every hour above 40 that Plaintiff worked,
liquidated damages, retaliatory damages, and any other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Ortiz was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time desk spa attendant, from May 1, 2021, through
approximately October 17, 2021, or 20 weeks. He also had multiple
additional responsibilities, including cleaning the facility.
The Beverly Hills Spa & Salon LLC provides a full range of hair,
face, and body beauty treatments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BFI WASTE: Murfreesboro Opposes Proposed Landfill Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
wsmv.com reports that the City of Murfreesboro announced Friday
that it would oppose the proposed Middle Point Landfill Class
Action Settlement.
In March 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal district
court in Nashville against BFI Waste Systems of Tennessee, LLC, the
owner and operator of Middle Point Landfill. BFI is a subsidiary of
Republic Services, one of the largest waste management companies in
the country.
The lawsuit alleges that noxious odors emanating from Middle Point
Landfill had caused "substantial harm" to nearby residents. More
specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the noxious odors have and
continue to interfere with the use of the residents' properties and
have diminished the value of residential properties in the area.
Recently, residents and others owning residential property within
three miles of Middle Point Landfill, located along the Stones
River in the Walter Hill community, should have received notice of
the proposed settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement is
subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.
The City of Murfreesboro has had no involvement in the lawsuit,
according to a news release. Although the city owns property within
a third of a mile of Middle Point Landfill, the city is not a
member of the class of potential claimants or plaintiffs covered by
the lawsuit because the class is limited to natural human beings.
Government entities and private corporations and other companies
are not natural persons and are not part of the class.
According to City Attorney Adam Tucker, even if the City were a
member of the class, it would object to and opt out of the
settlement, because "the settlement terms are inadequate, vague,
and do not require BFI to mitigate the odors fully, let alone fix
the underlying problems at Middle Point that are likely the cause
of the odors."
For those reasons and out of an abundance of caution, the City's
legal counsel sent a letter in December to the law firm in Michigan
representing the plaintiffs clearly stating that the City wished to
be excluded from the settlement.
Further explanation about why the City does not support the
proposed settlement is available online. This site also has
additional information about the odors emanating from the Middle
Point and how to report an odor. In addition, the site includes the
latest information on the City's efforts related to the proposed
expansion of Republic/BFI's landfill operations at Middle Point.
Information about the proposed settlement, including whether you
are member of the class and how your legal rights might be affected
if the court approves the settlement, is available online. You can
also call 1-800-536-0045 for information. [GN]
BFI WASTE: Rutherford Cty., Tenn. Opts Out of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
WGNSRadio.com reports that Rutherford County Mayor Bill Ketron
announced that the county will also be opting out of a class action
lawsuit settlement from BFI Waste Systems of Tennessee, LLC, a
subsidiary of Republic Services and the owner/operator of Middle
Point Landfill.
The lawsuit, filed in March 2021 in federal court, was brought by
local resident, Justin Burriss, with the assistance of a Michigan
law firm, It alleges that operations and noxious odors originating
from Middle Point Landfill are "causing damages through nuisance,
negligence, and trespassing." The lawsuit further indicates that
the odors have had a tremendously negative effect on property
values.
Residents and residential property owners within three miles of the
landfill should have received communications regarding the proposed
settlement. It is important to understand that the settlement is
still subject to approval from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee. For more information about the
settlement, residents and other interested parties should visit
www.LSCCOUNSEL.com/MiddlePointLandfill or call 1-800-536-0045.
The City of Murfreesboro released a statement on Friday (1/14/2022)
explaining that while the City is not a member of the class of
potential claimants covered by the lawsuit, they nonetheless want
to be expressly excluded from the settlement.
The news release stated, "The City of Murfreesboro has had no
involvement in this lawsuit. Moreover, although the city owns
property within a third of a mile of Middle Point Landfill, and
therefore Murfreesboro is not a member of the class of potential
claimants or plaintiffs covered by the lawsuit because the class is
limited to natural human beings. Government entities and private
corporations and other companies are not natural persons and,
therefore, are not part of the class."
County Mayor Ketron explained, "Like the City of Murfreesboro,
Rutherford County is not a member of the class covered by the
settlement. However, out of an abundance of caution, we are
choosing to expressly opt out of this settlement even though
Rutherford County is the closest owner of property since its
property adjoins Middle Point Landfill."
In conclusion, Ketron agreed with the city that the settlement's
terms are vague and insufficient at best and do not mitigate all of
the existential ongoing issues and potential future problems. [GN]
BOB DEAN: Anderson Must File Class Cert Bid by March 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY ANDERSON, ET AL. v.
BOB DEAN JR., ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-01891-LMA-JVM (E.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Lance M. Africk entered an order partly granting the
joint motion to extend the deadline for plaintiffs to move for
class certification.
The Plaintiffs shall move for class certification no later than
Tuesday, March 15, 2022, says Judge Africk.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpHVOv at no extra charge.[CC]
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Stafford Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BOJANGLES'
RESTAURANTS INC., a North Carolina Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-266-MOC (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. granting his motion to certify a North Carolina Class;
2. appointing him as the North Carolina Class representative;
and
3. appointing current counsel as Class counsel.
The Plaintiff further requests the Court, in the interests of time
and judicial economy, to also certify classes for South Carolina,
Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama after the Second
Amended Complaint is filed.
Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast food restaurants
that specializes in cajun-seasoned fried chicken and buttermilk
biscuits that primarily serves the Southeastern United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fzrnc4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
Nicole K. Haynes, Esq.
GESSNER LAW , PLLC
G.G. Galloway House
602 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 234-7442
E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
nicole@mgessnerlaw.com
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Bottomline Technologies, Inc. (EPAY), relating to its acquisition
by Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, EPAY shareholders
will receive $57.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bottomline-technologies-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.[GN]
BRIGHT HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 7, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Bright Health Group, Inc. ("Bright Health" or
the "Company") (NYSE: BHG): (a) common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"); (b) and/or securities between June 24, 2021 and
November 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Bright Health investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/bright-health-group-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In June 2021, Bright Health completed its IPO, selling
approximately 51 million shares of common stock for $18.00 per
share.
On November 11, 2021, Bright Health reported its third quarter
financial results, revealing earnings per share ("EPS") of -$0.48
as calculated under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
("GAAP"), missing consensus estimates by $0.31. The Company also
reported a sharp rise in the Company's medical cost ratio ("MCR"),
advising investors that its MCR "for the third quarter of 2021 was
103.0%, including a 540 basis point unfavorable impact from
COVID-19 related costs and a 900 basis point unfavorable impact
primarily from a cumulative reduction in premium revenue due to an
inability to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives."
On this news, Bright Health's stock fell $2.36, or 32%, to close at
$4.94 per share on November 11, 2021, significantly below the IPO
price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Bright Health had
overstated its post-IPO business and financial prospects; (2) the
Company was ill-equipped to handle the impact of COVID-19-related
costs; (3) the Company was experiencing a decline in premium
revenue because of a failure to capture risk adjustment on newly
added lives; (4) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on Bright Health's business and financial
condition; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bright Health securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March
7, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
C.A.R.E. INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lee Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWANDA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C.A.R.E. (CONSULTING AND ADVICE FOR THE
RETIRED AND ELDERLY), INC. Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00072-LMA-DMD (E.D. La., Jan. 13, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Shawanda Lee is an adult resident of Franklinton,
Louisiana who has worked at Care, Inc. for approximately 10 years.
Ms. Lee and those similarly situated have regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid overtime for those
hours but at a rate that, during pay periods in which the bonuses
were paid, does not include the hazard bonus, asserts the
complaint.
C.A.R.E. (Consulting and Advice for the Retired and Elderly), Inc.
is a Louisiana corporation which, according to their website,
careinc.com, is "one of Louisiana's oldest and largest premium
in-home care service providers for the elderly and developmentally
disabled" in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE, 3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
CAREDX INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Possible Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against CareDx,
Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA), Seer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SEER), and Laboratory
Corporation (NYSE: LH). Our investigations concern whether these
companies have violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged
in other unlawful business practices. Additional information about
each case can be found at the link provided.
CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA)
On January 25, 2021, the Company sold 1,923,077 shares of its
common stock through an underwritten public offering at a public
offering price of $91.00 per share.
On October 28, 2021, after the market closed, CareDx released Q3
2021 financial results in which the Company disclosed that the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") had recently served a civil
investigatory demand requesting documents in connection with a
False Claims Act investigation. The DOJ is investigating business
practices related to CareDx's kidney testing and phlebotomy
services. The Company also disclosed that it received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for
similar issues as well as certain accounting and public reporting
practices, and the Company received an information request from an
unnamed state agency.
On this news, the Company's share price declined by $19.34 per
share, or approximately 27.5%, from $70.34 per share to close at
$51.00 per share on October 29, 2021.
For more information on the CareDx investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CDNA
Seer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SEER)
On November 4, 2021, The Bear Cave, a newsletter authored by Edwin
Dorsey, issued a short report alleging that Seer appears to have
misled investors about its recent Chinese distribution partnership,
customer base, and management's past track record.
On this news, shares of Seer stock fell 7% in intraday trading.
For more information on the Seer investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SEER
Laboratory Corporation (NYSE: LH)
On January 1, 2022, an article from the New York Times called into
question the accuracy of certain noninvasive prenatal tests,
including that developed by Labcorp. The article alleges that
positive results on tests are incorrect about 85% of the time.
Patients who receive a positive result are supposed to pursue
follow-up testing, which "can cost thousands of dollars, come with
a small risk of miscarriage and can't be performed until later in
pregnancy." The investigation highlights the statistical challenge
of testing from things that are extremely rare. But, this isn't
adequately explained to patients who were sold the tests. Companies
that develop these tests use language like "highly accurate" and
"total confidence," do not publish data on their tests' overall
performance, or only stress data from tests that are more
accurate.
On this news, Labcorp's stock fell over $16.00, or 5%, to close at
$298.18 per share on January 3, 2022, injuring investors.
For more information on the Laboratory Corp. investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LH
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B.
Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com
[GN]
CAREMOUNT MEDICAL: Ct. Enters Order on General Pretrial Management
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA ANTIPOVA v.
CAREMOUNT MEDICAL P.C., et al., Case No. 21-CV-7453-JPC-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management.
1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
discovery set by the Court.
2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
after the need for such an application arises and must
comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences are not required, but may be requested where
counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or
extensions will not be entertained.
5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's
Individual Practices, letters and letter- motions are
limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments.
6. The Plaintiff is hereby notified that, until further
notice, pro se parties may file pleadings, letters, and
other documents with the Court.
CareMount Medical operates as a health care center. The Center
specializes in internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology,
pediatrics, and urgent care.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GCtEo3 at no extra charge.[CC]
CARMAX INC: Employees' Labor Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2022, that two class action
lawsuits asserting wage and hour claims with respect to non-exempt
CarMax employees in California are still pending.
The asserted claims include failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks, pay statutory or contractual wages and reimbursement
for work-related expenses. Two of these claims have been filed in
court, whereas one has yet to be filed in court.
On August 3, 2021, Charles Walker filed a notice with the
California Labor Workforce Development Agency, which is a
prerequisite to filing an action in court. To date, Walker has not
yet filed a lawsuit.
Carmax, Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.
CARTER FABRICATION: Faces Skaggs Suit for Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH SKAGGS, and JWS BUILDERS, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability
Company, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Plaintiffs v. CLINTON BOONE, and JOHN
DOES I-XXX, Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-00012-DLC-KLD (D. Mont.,
Jan. 14, 2022) is a tort and breach of contract action brought by
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals arising from a
business arrangement and joint venture between the Plaintiffs and
Defendant.
In late 2019, a corporation named Isotex Health LLC, a Texas
Limited Liability Company, began developing a large facility in
coordination with Lincoln County, Montana to process hemp crops
into CBD products. As part of its development, Isotex hired
Defendant as a subcontractor. Plaintiff Jeremiah Skaggs moved
himself, his family and several employees from Idaho to Lincoln
County, Montana and began work in October 2019 on the project.
According to the complaint, the Defendant and Plaintiffs agreed to
fabricate machinery to be used in the project in exchange for
payment by Defendant to Plaintiffs for time, materials, and 45% of
any remaining profits after expenses.
Isotex allegedly paid Defendant $2,688,400.00 towards completion of
the fabrication project, leaving an alleged shortfall of $672,100.
Sometime in December 2019, the Defendant refused to continue
working on the fabrication project and requested that Plaintiffs do
so as well. At the time Defendant breached his agreement with
Plaintiffs, he owed Plaintiffs $156,807.01.
The Defendant stopped communicating with Plaintiffs in 2020 and
then sent him a letter dated January 14, 2020 setting a January 25,
2020 meeting in which Defendant intended to disassociate Plaintiffs
from the joint venture in order to wrongfully retain the remainder
of the funds paid by Isotex, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs claim that they have been damaged through their
reliance on Defendant's representations.
Plaintiff JWS Builders, LLC provides fabrication and building
services in Idaho and the northwest.
The Defendant founded and controls Carter Fabrication, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company, and Hemp Robotics, LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Doggett, Esq.
DOGGETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2120 S. Reserve St., #130
Missoula, MT 59801
Telephone: (406) 442-1160
Facsimile: (406) 258-0398
E-mail: mike@doggettlawoffice.net
CHINA AUTO: Vanderhoef Wants Marcum to Produce Docs
---------------------------------------------------
In case docketed "Tracy Vanderhoef, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. China Auto Logistics
Inc., et al., Defendants," Case No. 2:18-cv-10174 (D. N.J., June 5,
2018), Lead Plaintiffs Zhengyu He, Harold Brooks Moss, and Andrew
Pagliara moved the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on January 14, 2022, for an order to compel non-party
Marcum Bernstein & Pinchuk LLP to comply with the subpoena for
documents served by Plaintiffs in the civil action.
In support of this motion (under Miscellaneous Action No.
1:22-MC-15), Plaintiffs submitted an accompanying Memorandum of
Law, the Declaration of Joshua Baker with exhibits thereto, and all
further filings and proceedings had in this action. Counsel for
Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Marcum Bernstein & Pinchuk in
good faith, but after a sincere attempt to resolves differences,
have been unable to reach an accord. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Baker, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: jbaker@rosenlegal.com
Marcum Bernstein & Pinchuk LLP is represented by:
Steven R. Berger, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE
1633 Broadway, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Email: sberger@vedderprice.com
CIANFRONE NIKOLOFF: Faces Gathen Suit Over Improper Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI L. GATHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIANFRONE, NIKOLOFF, GRANT & GREENBERG,
P.A., Defendant, Case No. 22-000284-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th Jud.
Cir., Pinellas Cty., January 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent debt collection
letter to the Plaintiff for her alleged past due assessments owed
to the Association. However, neither the association nor the
Defendant had any basis to collect assessment of $125 per year for
each of 2019, 2020, or 2021. The Defendant attempted to collect
improperly levied assessments for 2019, 2020, and 2021 that
exceeded the limit allowed under the declaration, says the suit.
Cianfrone, Nikoloff, Grant & Greenberg, P.A. is a law firm with its
principal office in Pinellas County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
CIOX HEALTH: Justis Sues Over Unlawful Charges for Medical Records
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN JUSTIS, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIOX HEALTH LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00023-DJN (E.D. Va., Jan. 13, 2022) alleges the
Defendant, who acts on behalf of healthcare providers to Virginia
citizens, has charged Plaintiff and others amounts in obtaining
copies of their medical records not authorized by Va. Code Section
8.01-413.
The Plaintiff is one of many persons to whom Defendant CIOX charged
illegal fees. She seeks to represent herself and the other persons
who are situated similarly to her because the relatively low dollar
amount of the illegal charges by the Defendant makes it an
appropriate situation for a class to be certified under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notes the complaint.
CIOX Health LLC is an entity that provides information retrieval
services for various healthcare providers in Virginia and other
states. CIOX is an independent medical copy retrieval service
contracted to provide the service of retrieving, reviewing, and
preparing such copies for distribution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dale W. Pittman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
The Eliza Spotswood House
112-A West Tabb Street
Petersburg, VA 23803
Telephone: (804) 861-6000
Facsimile: (804) 861-3368
E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com
- and -
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM LLC
1400 S. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21230
Telephone: (301) 620-1016
Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com
- and -
Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq.
933 N. Mayfair Rd., Ste. 311
Milwaukee, WI 53226
Telephone: (414) 774-7330
Facsimile: (414) 774-7670
E-mail: rwelcenbach@gmail.com
CLERCS DE ST. VIATEUR: Reaches $28M Settlement in Abuse Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a class action lawsuit launched in
2017 against the Clerics of Saint-Viateur has just reached a
$28-million settlement for the more than 300 alleged victims of
sexual assaults committed by members and employees of the
organization.
The law firm Arsenault, Dufresne and Wee said that a settlement
agreement has been reached, which must be approved by the Superior
Court at a Feb. 17 hearing at the Montreal courthouse.
The class action was filed on Nov. 14, 2017, and includes more than
375 alleged victims to date in Quebec, the law firm said, noting
the courage they have shown throughout the process.
Justin Wee, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told CTV News that the
abuse was permitted due to a culture of silence.
"Even a child said something to the director and the director said
you have to stay silent. And that's why so many victims were abused
by even one teacher," Wee said in an interview. "I know, in this
College Bourget, for instance, there is a teacher who abused 50, 60
young boys and that was possible only because everybody wanted to
keep the silence."
Brian Ford, who had been a resident at College Bourget in Rigaud,
Monteregie, from 1981 to 1986, is a representative of the class
action members.
The class action, granted by the Superior Court on April 25, 2019,
is primarily aimed at acts that allegedly occurred at College
Bourget de Rigaud, but also in at least 20 other institutions.
Following next month's hearing, the members of the class action
will present a claim in confidence before former judge Claude
Champagne, who has been appointed as arbitrator.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French on
Jan. 20, 2022, with files from CTV Montreal's Max Harrold. [GN]
COLLECTION BUREAU: Feb. 4 Deadline on Class Cert Response Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLLECTION
BUREAU HUDSON VALLEY, INC., Case No. 9:21-cv-80711-AMC (S.D. Fla.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
and afford it up to and including February 4, 2022, to file its
response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Collection Bureau provides receivable collection services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tCWwcd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhirlado@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Ignacio J. Hirlado, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John M. Marees, II, Esq.
Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD.
12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 718
Jacksonville, FL 32223
Telephone: (904) 527-1172
Facsimile: (904) 683-7353
E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com
jmarees@messerstrickler.com
CORECIVIC INC: Seeks to Extend Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et
al., v. CORECIVIC INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the remaining
expert and dispositive motion/class certification deadlines as
follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Defendant's Expert Jan. 19, 2022 Feb. 2, 2022
Disclosures
-- Rebuttal Expert Feb. 8, 2022 Feb. 22, 2022
Disclosures
-- Close of Expert Feb. 22, 2022 March 8, 2022
Discovery
-- Dispositive and Class March 21, 2022 April 4, 2022
Certification Motions
The Parties have worked diligently to complete discovery in this
matter. The Plaintiffs served all written discovery requests on
Defendant prior to the September 25, 2021 deadline.
The Plaintiffs thereafter took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
third-party Trinity Services Group, Inc. and, once CoreCivic had
produced the majority of the ESI in this matter, took depositions
of current and former CoreCivic employees and a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of CoreCivic.
In response to Plaintiffs' written discovery requests, CoreCivic
produced over 300,000 pages of electronically stored information
(ESI). CoreCivic served its own written discovery requests on all
Plaintiffs on May 5, 2021. Plaintiffs provided responses and
objections to those requests on July 6, August 30, September 30,
and October 12, 2021. The parties met and conferred as to those
responses on November 30, 2021, and CoreCivic filed a Motion to
Compel as to those areas on which the parties were not able to
agree on December 3, 2021. That motion remains pending completion
of briefing.
CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a
company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers
and operates others on a concession basis.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I4Oe0O at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
Rachel Love, Esq.
Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
Ashlee B. Hesman, Esq.
Eden G. Cohen, Esq.
STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC
3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
Chandler, AZ 85226
Telephone: (480) 420-1600
Facsimile: (480) 420-1695
E-mail: dstruck@strucklove.com
rlove@strucklove.com
nacedo@strucklove.com
ahesman@strucklove.com
jlee@strucklove.com
ecohen@strucklove.com
- and -
Jacob D. Massee, Esq.
David Bobo Mullens, Esq.
OLIVER MANER LLP
PO Box 10186
Savannah, GA 31412
Telephone: (912) 236-3311
Facsimile: (912) 236-8725
E-mail: jmassee@olivermaner.com
dbmullens@olivermaner.com
COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Order Scheduling Initial Case Mng't Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURO SANCHEZ and JUAN
EUSEBIO SANTIAGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. COSAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., AMCG INC., TERRENCE JAMES
FERGUSON, and AARON KING, Case No. 1:21-cv-06744-PGG-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order
scheduling initial case management conference as follows:
-- The parties' requests to adjourn sine die the mediation
scheduled for February 9, 2022, and for the Court to
schedule the initial case management conference, are
granted.
-- An initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
will be held on Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:00 pm, on
the Court's conference line.
-- The counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case
Management Conference. No later than one week before the
conference, the parties shall file a Report of Rule 26(f)
Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qz3XiJ at no extra charge.[CC]
CP SECURITY: Security Officers Get Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH GRABLE, et al., v.
CP SECURITY GROUPS, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00095-MTT (M.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell entered an order:
1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a class defined as:
"all persons who worked for Defendant as Security
Officers, or other positions with similar titles and/or
duties, who: 1) worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, but were not compensated at a rate of time-and-
one-half, at any time in the three (3) years prior to the
commencement of this action; 2) were not compensated at
least at a rate of minimum wage for any hours actually
worked at any time in the three years prior to the
commencement of this action; and/or 3) questioned
Defendant about matters involving compensation or
complained, either internally or externally, about their
compensation and were then subjected to some adverse
action as a result;"
2. approving the plaintiffs' proposed notice to putative
class members; and
3. directing the defendant to provide the information to the
plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days.
The Court said, "So far, only two security officers employed by the
defendant, the named plaintiffs themselves, have filed consents to
join this action. The plaintiffs argue that this is sufficient
evidence "to demonstrate other potential employees' interest in
opting-in to this lawsuit." While the number of employees who have
opted in is small, the Court is nonetheless satisfied that the
plaintiffs have carried their light burden at this stage in
establishing that there are other employees who potentially may
desire to opt into this litigation."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33nXFda at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT LAW: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC
a/k/a THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN LLC, d/b/a CREDIT LAW CENTER, and
THOMAS ADDLEMAN a/k/a TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO
(D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending
the time and modifying the existing briefing schedule as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's Reply shall be due February 22, 2022
on or before:
(2) Plaintiff shall provide March 1, 2022
courtesy copies to the
Court on or before:
Credit Law is a credit repair company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33svucW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chad C. Beaver, Esq.
BEAVER LAW FIRM, LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 920
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 579-1800
Facsimile: (816) 817-0540
E-mail: cbeaver@beaver-law.com
- and -
Timothy A. Hudson, Esq.
Jordan E. Wilkow, Esq.
TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC
209 S. LaSalle St., 7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 762-9450
Facsimile: (312) 762-9451
E-mail: thudson@tdrlawfirm.com
jwilkow@tdrlawfirm.com
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Salone Conditional Class Cert. Bid Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY SALONE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S.,
INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01151-RWS (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Rodney W. Sippel entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Plaintiff Gary Salone's motion for conditional class
certification and court-supervised notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
-- Salone's motion will be granted with modifications as to
conditional certification and denied without prejudice as
to court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
-- The motion is granted with modifications as to conditional
certification and denied without prejudice as to court-
supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
-- The conditionally certified class shall include:
"all current and former hourly non-exempt maintenance
employees of Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. and Cushman &
Wakefield, Inc. who, during the three years preceding the
date of this order and continuing through the final
disposition of this case, worked at least 40 hours in a
workweek and had a meal-break deduction applied to their
compensable hours."
-- The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint
proposed notice form by no later than February 3, 2022.
-- The Defendants Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. and Cushman &
Wakefield, Inc. shall provide Plaintiff Gary Salone's
counsel with a list of all putative class members by no
later than February 3, 2022. The list shall be provided in
a readable electronic data file and shall include the
putative class members' full names, dates of employment,
facility locations, job titles, last known home addresses,
and e-mail addresses.
From 2016 to 2018, Salone worked for C&W as a maintenance
technician, also referred to as a facilities technician, in Ohio.
C&W's maintenance technicians are hourly non-exempt employees. Id.
While employed by C&W, Salone regularly worked forty or more hours
in a workweek.
As alleged in Salone's complaint, C&W have a companywide policy
that requires maintenance employees 1 to take unpaid meal breaks.
Salone alleges that C&W apply these unpaid meal breaks by (a)
automatically deducting time from maintenance employees'
compensable hours; (b) requiring maintenance employees to clock in
and out for meal breaks; or (c) requiring maintenance employees to
submit their hours into a computer, then manually deducting time.
Salone alleges further that C&W apply these meal-break deductions
even when meal breaks were not taken or were interrupted by work
duties. According to Salone, he and other maintenance employees
were often unable to take full uninterrupted meal breaks because
C&W require maintenance employees to prioritize work duties over
meal breaks.
On January 29, 2021, Salone filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and Ohio's wage laws.
Salone contends that C&W have failed to properly pay their
maintenance employees overtime wages and failed to maintain
accurate records. Since the filing of this lawsuit, seven
individuals have filed consent forms to join as opt-in plaintiffs.
C&W provide facility maintenance, cleaning, and related services
for businesses and organizations throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fzUZLK at no extra charge.[CC]
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Equipment's Repair Service, Wells Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRINITY DALE WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE),
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00074-LCB (N.D. Ala., January 19, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, promissory estoppel, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of the
repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment
with onboard central computers known as engine control units
(ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market for
repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with
ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to
farmers and independent repair shops. Furthermore, John Deere's
network of highly-consolidated independent dealerships is not
permitted through their agreements with John Deere to provide
farmers or repair shops with access to the same software and repair
tools the dealerships have. As a result of the Defendant's
monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have derived
supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance
services, added the suit.
Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Washington St., Suite 302
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
tony@mastandoartrip.com
- and –
Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
2-20th Street North, Suite 930
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 870-9989
Facsimile: (205) 803-4143
E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com
- and –
Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
Tucker Brown, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
2001 Park Place Suite 1000
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 488-1200
Facsimile: (205) 800-922-4851
E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
tbrown@whatleykallas.com
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Class Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
farm-equipment.com reports that Forest River Farms in Forest River,
N.D., has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Deere & Co. over what
the case claims to be a "monopolization of the repair service
market for John Deere ("Deere") brand agricultural equipment with
onboard central computers known as engine control units, or
‘ECUs.'"
The class action lawsuit was filed in Chicago federal court on Jan.
12, 2022.
According to a Jan. 13, 2022, report by Progressive Farmer, "Forest
River Farms in Forest River, North Dakota, asked for a trial by
jury and wants the court to order John Deere to make the necessary
software available to individual farmers and repair shops."
The lawsuit also seeks damages for farmers who have paid for
repairs from Deere dealers since Jan. 12, 2018 to the present,
according to the complaint.
It is also noted in the complaint that Forest River Farms owns 5
Deere tractors and 2 Deere combines that use ECUs.
The complaint states, "Deere's monopolization of the Deere Repair
Services Market allows Deere and the Dealerships to charge and
collect supracompetitive prices for its services every time a piece
of equipment requires the Software to diagnose or complete a
repair. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class members have paid
millions of dollars more for the repair services than they would
have paid in a competitive market."
The complaint also claims that while Deere has demonstrated that it
understands farmers have a right to repair their own equipment, the
manufacturer has been "misleading the public regarding how easy it
is for farmers or independent repair shops to perform repairs."
Two reports by Farm Equipment's sister publication, Ag Equipment
Intelligence, are referenced in this lawsuit:
Big Dealers Continue to Get Bigger, April 22, 2021
John Deere Responds to Vice Article on Right to Repair, March 30,
2021 [GN]
DENMARK BANCSHARES: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Denmark Bancshares, Inc. (DMKBA), relating to its proposed
acquisition by Bank First Corporation. Under the terms of the
agreement, DMKBA shareholders will receive either 0.5276 shares of
Bank First or $38.10 in cash per share they own. Click here for
more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/denmark-bancshares-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]
DENTAL EQUITIES: Time to File Response on Class Cert Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A.
v. Dental Equities, LLC et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00041 (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge John L. Badalamenti entered an endorsed order
granting defendant's motion for extension of time to file Response
/ Reply on Motion to Certify Class.
-- Responses due on or before Jan. 28, 2022, says Judge
Badalamenti.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions
involving Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment.[CC]
DEPUY SYNTHES: Gluckstein Lawyers Launch Personal Injury Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gluckstein Lawyers has commenced a proposed class-action personal
injury lawsuit alleging a "shockingly high failure rate" of the
DePuy Attune Total Knee Arthroplasty implant that "were defective
and unreasonably dangerous - when sold."
The proposed class action is brought against DePuy Synthes
Companies, Synthes (Canada), Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. and Johnson &
Johnson on behalf of representative claimant Cassandra Lyon and
thousands of patients who received the implant and have experienced
a device failure. It is alleged that many suffered severe
complications that necessitated additional surgeries one or two
years after the device was implanted.
The system is a total knee replacement implant manufactured by
DePuy Synthes, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and was approved
in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration in
December 2010 under the agency's 510(k) clearance process. Devices
approved through this process are not required to undergo clinical
trials, nor do they require any evidence of safety before being
approved and distributed for implantation. This process allows such
medical devices to be available for faster treatment. However, it
also increases the risk that a faulty device will be distributed
without proper evaluation.
Between 2002 and 2013, DePuy Synthes recalled 277 knee replacement
and related components due to implant loosening and premature
failure. This was a Class I device recall, meaning that the product
is linked to serious or even fatal adverse health consequences.
The Plaintiffs state that they had no way of knowing that the
device used in their total knee replacement surgeries was defective
in design, manufacture and marketing, even when properly implanted
by surgeons and/or healthcare providers.
Typically, patients who receive a total knee replacement can expect
the implanted joint to last approximately 20 years. However, the
plaintiffs allege the DePuy system has been failing at a much
faster rate for many patients, most within less than two years.
"Public trust in our healthcare system extends to the devices our
medical professionals use. Ultimately, a catastrophic device
failure erodes that confidence," says Class-action lawyer Jordan
Assaraf of Gluckstein Lawyers. "A lawsuit offers consumer
protection, allowing people who might not have the resources to
take on these large organizations and corporations to seek
justice."
If you have experienced pain or complications from the DePuy Attune
Knee Implant and would like further information about the lawsuit,
please contact Gluckstein Lawyers at (416) 408-4252 or visit our
website. [GN]
DETROIT EDISON: Nolan Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE D. NOLAN, v.
DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, DTE ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, DTE
ENERGY COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN, DTE ENERGY BENEFIT PLAN
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, JANET POSLER, QUALIFIED PLAN APPEALS
COMMITTEE, MICHAEL S. COOPER, RENEE MORAN and JEROME HOOPER, Case
No. 2:18-cv-13359-DML-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M.
Lawson entered an order suspending case management deadlines and
dismissing certain motions.
-- All deadlines in the amended Case Management and
Scheduling Order are suspended.
-- The plaintiff's motion for class certification is
withdrawn.
-- The defendants' renewed motion for judgment on the
administrative record is dismissed without prejudice.
-- The plaintiff must file her motions to certify any
settlement class and for preliminary approval of the class
settlement on or before March 4, 2022.
The parties have informed the Court that they have reached a
settlement of this putative class action and have filed a
stipulation to stay certain case management deadlines so that they
can finalize the necessary documents for settlement.
The Court will suspend the case management deadlines. The Court
also will dismiss the pending motions for class certification and
judgment on the administrative record, which will be rendered moot
by the settlement.
DTE Energy is a Detroit-based diversified energy company involved
in the development and management of energy-related businesses and
services in the United States and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rup1pI at no extra charge.[CC]
EHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against eHealth, Inc. ("eHealth" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EHTH) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth securities between April
26, 2018 and July 23, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until March 18, 2022 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
eHealth is a health insurance broker that focuses on selling
Medicare-related policies on behalf of private insurers. Its main
source of revenue is commissions from selling Medicare Advantage,
Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Part D prescription drug
policies. On January 1, 2018, eHealth adopted and implemented a new
accounting standard for recognizing revenue. This standard,
referred to herein as Accounting Standard Codification 606 or ASC
606, allowed eHealth to recognize immediately the entirety of the
commissions it expected to receive over the expected life of the
policies. Although eHealth sold annual policies that could be
cancelled at any time by the consumer, it assumed that its policies
would be renewed for several years. Consequently, for many of
eHealth's Medicare-related policies, it recognized between three
and five years of commissions immediately upon the sale of the
policy.
The Complaint in the Class Action alleges that the assumption that
eHealth's customers would renew its policies was unrealistic and
contrary to eHealth's recent experience of both cancellations and
renewals. Beginning in 2017, eHealth started soliciting Medicare
customers with television advertising. Late-night commercials
boasting $0 monthly plan premiums effectively generated a surge in
customers in a short period of time. Between 2017 and 2018, the
number of Medicare-related insurance applications submitted to
eHealth by applicants grew by 39%. These customers, however, were
notorious for cancelling their policies in short periods of time,
causing eHealth to experience sky-rocketing "member churn" ratios,
i.e., the percentage of customers who cancel their policies within
the first year. Notwithstanding, eHealth was able to provide
analysts and investors with record-setting earnings due to the fact
that it was able to recognize three- to five-years of commission
revenue for these policies upfront and immediately.
The Complaint further alleges that Class members were materially
harmed by eHealth's false and misleading statements. As a direct
result of Defendants' materially false and misleading statements,
eHealth's stock price artificially increased from a relative steady
price of around $15.32 per share of common stock on March 19, 2018
to $136.32 prior to April 8, 2020. It was on that day that Muddy
Waters Capital, a well-known and highly respected research firm,
published a report revealing eHealth's accounting misconduct. The
report disclosed, among other things, that eHealth's "highly
aggressive accounting masks a significantly unprofitable business,"
"that the key driver of growth since 2018 has been EHTH's reliance
on Direct Response television advertising, which attracts an
unprofitable, high churn enrollee," "that EHTH's persistence
assumptions in its LTV model [under ASC 606] seem highly aggressive
when compared to reality." Muddy Waters report also disclosed that
eHealth's financial statements for 2019: (a) overstated revenue by
$128 million; (b) overstated operating profit by $263 million; and
(c) understated an operating loss of -$181 million. The Muddy
Waters report resulted in a sharp decline in the price of eHealth's
stock, plummeting to $103.20 per share.
Subsequently, on July 23, 2020, when eHealth announced its earnings
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2020, its stock price fell
again as the information contained in its announcement confirmed
substantive aspects of the "member churn" allegations previously
asserted in the Muddy Waters report. In response, eHealth's stock
price declined from a closing price of $114 per share on July 23,
2020 to $79.17 per share on July 24, 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
ESTES EXPRESS: St. Cloud Suit Seeks to Certify Yard Jockey Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMARCUS ST. CLOUD,
STEPHEN BUTLER, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
ESTES EXPRESS LINES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00456 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
and authorizing counsel to notify all current and former Estes
Express Lines employees who meet the following criteria:
"All current and former yard jockeys, or employees who were
responsible for operating a small vehicle to move cargo
exclusively within Defendant's property in a warehouse
environment, employed by the Defendant in the last three
years. The beginning of the notice period, June 10, 2018, is
three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in this
action."
Estes Express is a full-service freight transportation provider
based in Richmond, Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJFtsF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
Cullen Hamelin, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT AND CONSUMER LAW GROUP,
1720 West End Ave, STE 402
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 850-0632
The Defendant is represented by:
Tim K. Garrett, Esq.
BASS, BERRY, & SIMS PLC
150 Third Avenue South Suite 2800
Nashville, TN 37201
E-mail: tgarrett@bassberry.com
- and -
David L. Woodward
POYNER SPRUILL, LLP
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900
Raleigh, NC 27601
E-mail: dwoodward@poynerspruill.com
- and -
David L. Terry, Esq.
Poyner Spruill, LLP
301 S. College Street, Suite 2900
Charlotte, NC 28202
E-mail: dterry@poynerspruill.com
ETHEREUMMAX: Semerjian Sues Over Inflated Prices of EMAX Tokens
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SEMERJIAN, NABIL NAHLAH, TILL FREEMAN, and MARKO CIKLIC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. STEVE GENTILE, GIOVANNI PERONE, JUSTIN FRENCH,
KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN, FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR., PAUL PIERCE, DEFENDANT
"X", and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00400 (C.D.
Cal., January 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and the New York's General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made false or misleading
statements about EthereumMax (EMAX) through social media
advertisements and other promotional activities in order to trade
EthereumMax tokens at artificially inflated prices between May 14,
2021 and June 27, 2021. In addition, the Executive Defendants
disguised their control of EthereumMax to avoid scrutiny and
facilitate this scheme. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
deceptive trade practices, the Plaintiffs were deceived into
retaining functionally worthless cryptocurrencies and/or investing
their cryptocurrency and/or fiat currency with a company that
functioned solely as an engine of fraud, thus causing significant
economic damage to the Plaintiffs. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 236-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and –
Sean T. Masson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Settlement in Fero Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW FERO, et al., v.
EXCELLUS HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-06569-EAW-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order
granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and
directing notice of proposed settlement:
1. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.
The Settlement Agreement, including the exhibits are
preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, pending a final hearing on the
Settlement.
The Court finds that the class representatives and class
counsel have adequately represented the class in all
respects.
The Court further finds that the settlement proposal was
negotiated at arm's length by informed and experienced
counsel after two mediation sessions with mediator Bennett
G. Picker.
The Court finds that the timing of the proposed award of
attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable, and will review
the reasonableness of the amounts requested upon the
timely filing of a fee application.
Finally, the Court finds that the proposed settlement
treats class members equitably relative to each other, and
provides benefits equally to the members of the Injunctive
Relief class.
2. Stay of the Action.
Pending the Final Fairness Hearing, all proceedings in the
Action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or
enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement and this Order, are hereby stayed.
3. Class Definition.
The Court certified an Injunctive Relief Class consisting
of:
"All individuals in the United States whose PII and/or PHI
was stored in Excellus's systems between December 23, 2013
and May 11, 2015 who (1) are included in Excellus's list
of Impacted Individuals and (2) whose PII and/or PHI
currently resides in Excellus's systems (the Class)."
4. Representative Plaintiffs.
Consistent with the Court's prior order on class
certification in this case, the Court finds and
determines, pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, that Plaintiffs Matthew Fero, Roger A.
Carroll, D.D.S., Andres Curbelo, Cindy Harden, Cathryn
Kwit, Robert Kwit, Nina Mottern, Barbara Palmer, Carole
Preston, James J. Smith, Jr., Sharon C. Smith, Dwayne
Church, Don Korn, Therese Boomershine, Carlos Martinho,
Harold Jackling, and Brenda Caltagarone ("Representative
Plaintiffs") will fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the Class in enforcing their rights in the
Action and appoints them as Representative Plaintiffs.
5. Class Counsel.
The Court previously appointed Hadley Lundback Matarazzo
of Faraci Lange, LLP, and James J. Bilsborrow of Seeger
Weiss, LLP as Class Counsel. The Court authorizes Class
Counsel to enter into the Settlement on behalf of the
Class Representatives and the Class, and to bind them all
to the duties and obligations contained therein, subject
to final approval by the Court of the Settlement.
6. Class Notice.
Because this Settlement relates to an injunctive relief
class, the Court finds and determines that providing
notice to the relevant federal and state regulatory
authorities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1715 (the "CAFA
Notice").
7. Notice Date.
The Class Notice is to be posted on the Plaintiffs'
Website within 14 days following the entry of this Order,
and shall remain up until Final Approval of the
Settlement.
Excellus is a non-profit health insurance company headquartered in
Rochester, New York. It is part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ry9fub at no extra charge.[CC]
EXECU|SEARCH: Underpays Nurse Practitioners, Reid Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
VERONA REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE EXECU|SEARCH GROUP, LLC and NEW YORK
CITY HEALTH and HOSPITALS CORPORATION d/b/a NYC HEALTH+HOSPITALS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00469 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 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 proper wage-and-hour notice,
and failure to provide proper wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as a nurse practitioner since June
2020.
The Execu|Search Group, LLC is a provider of staffing solutions for
the medical industry.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, doing business as
NYC Health+Hospitals, is a healthcare facility in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rrustmann@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
FALL CREEK: Initial Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Kildahl
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SK b/n/f GINA KILDAHL, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF FALL CREEK, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00637-wmc (W.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary
pretrial conference order as follows:
1. Disclosure of class certification
experts:
Proponent: March 7, 2022
Respondent: April 8, 2022
2. Motion & Brief To Certify Classes: May 6, 2022
3. Disclosure of liability experts:
Plaintiff: July 1, 2022
Defendants: August 1, 2022
4. Deadline for filing dispositive September 6, 2022
motions:
5. Discovery Cutoff: December 23, 2022
6. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all January 6, 2023
motions in limine:
Objections: January 20, 2023
7. Final Pretrial Conference: February 1, 2023
8. Trial: February 15, 2023
Fall Creek School District contains 3 schools and 835 students.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KeWtcp at no extra charge.[CC]
FARADAY FUTURE: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. ("Faraday" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FFIE) f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition
Corp. ("PSAC") securities between January 28, 2021 and November 15,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you have incurred losses in Faraday Future Intelligent Electric
Inc., you may, no later than February 22, 2022, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc.
On October 7, 2021, J Capital Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Faraday Future was unlikely to ever sell a
car, noting that after eight years in business, the Company has
"failed to deliver a car, has reneged on promises to build
factories in five localities in the U.S. and China, is being sued
by dozens of unpaid suppliers, and has failed to disclose that
assets in China have been frozen by courts." Moreover, the report
alleged that Faraday Future's claimed 14,000 deposits are
fabricated because 78% of these reservations were made by a single
undisclosed company that is likely an affiliate. The report further
alleges that contrary to representations of progress toward
manufacturing made by Faraday Future in September 2021, former
engineering executives did not believe that the car was ready for
production.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35 per share, or
more than 4%, to close at $8.05 per share on October 8, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, Faraday Future announced that it would be
unable to file its Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September
30, 2021 on time. Faraday Future further announced that its board
of directors "formed a special committee of independent directors
to review allegations of inaccurate disclosures," including the
claims in the J Capital report.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.28 per share, or
approximately 3%, to close at $8.83 per share on November 16,
2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
FASHION NOVA: Alcazar ADA Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FASHION NOVA,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01434-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting class certification in this case, on the
grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including
both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied.
The Plaintiff Alcazar meets the criteria for class certification of
this matter brought against Fashion Nova, one of the nation's
fastest growing online clothing retailers. Fashion Nova created and
knowingly operates its website in violation of Plaintiff's civil
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff represents a class of similarly situated, visually
impaired individuals who tried to access Defendant's website,
www.fashionnova.com ("Website"), using screen-reader software, but
could not. Thus, Plaintiff and Class Members were denied accesss to
the goods and services of Defendant's stores, places of public
accomodation.
Fashion Nova's intentional actions and inactions greatly impact
visually impaired persons such as Plaintiff causing difficulty,
discouragement, and frustration. Fashion Nova owes a duty to
visually impaired consumers to ensure its website is ADA compliant
because a sufficient nexus exists 15 its website and corresponding
stores.
The Defendant Fashion Nova is a well-known and sophisticated
American retail company, selling modern fashion such as dresses,
pants, jackets, and shoes for women and men using discounts and
low-price sales strategies. The Defendant often uses celebrities,
models, and social media influencers to promote its products
online. It operates using both a substantial online e-commerce
store and through brick-and-mortar locations.
Throughout the class period through the present, Defendant operated
www.fashionnova.com. The Defendant further employed several
third-party vendors to manage and audit its Website. Despite this,
Defendant still failed to keep its Website accessible throughout
the class period, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a legally blind person who uses screen-reading
software to experience the internet. The Plaintiff and visually
impaired persons use screen-reading software to browse and shop on
the internet. Screen-reading software reads aloud both textual and
visual elements on websites. This popular and readily available
software enables visually impaired persons to navigate the Website
through auditory cues. The Plaintiff attempted to access the
Website several more times with screen-reading software including
on August 9, 2020, but was unable to navigate the Website due to
the barriers set forth herein.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nBUeGC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Pistorio Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edwar Pistorio, et al v.
FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order denying in part and granting in part
defendant's motion to dismiss as follows.
-- granting FCA's motion as to the claims on behalf of a
nationwide class and DISMISS Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4;
-- granting FCA's motion as to the breach of warranty claims
under Florida law and dismissing Counts 18 and 19;
-- granting FCA's motion as to the breach of implied warranty
claims under Alabama and Illinois law and dismissing Counts
5 and 24;
-- granting FCA's motion as to the negligent misrepresentation
claim under Alabama law and dismissing Count 9;
-- granting FCA's motion as to the Michigan Consumer
Protections Act claim and dismissing Count 33;
-- granting motion as to the unjust enrichment claims
and dismissing Counts 4, 10, 17, 23,29, 35, and 41; and
-- denying the remainder of FCA's motion. Counts 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32,
34, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 shall remain.
On July 7, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated this action. On August 12,
2021, te Plaintiffs Edward Pistorio, Paul Murdock, Daniel Przekop,
Hasan Aktulga, Sandra and Thomas Kloszewski, Randall Courtney,
Corey Gerritsen and Sara Elice, Justin and Elizabeth Bagley, and
Marcus Swindle filed Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint and Jury Demand.
The Plaintiffs filed this action for themselves and "on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any
2017-2019 Chrysler Pacifica or Chrysler 300 vehicles equipped with
FCA US LLC's "Uconnect" infotainment system ("Class Vehicles")
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted,
and/or serviced" by FCA.
This is a putative class action of nationwide vehicle purchasers
based on alleged defects in the Uconnect infotainment systems of
vehicles manufactured by Defendant, FCA US LLC ("FCA").
Generally, the Plaintiffs allege:
FCA manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Class
Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' Uconnect
infotainment system ("Uconnect") was defective. Specifically, the
Uconnect system is designed and/or manufactured with screens,
including their operating software and routing modules, that suffer
from freezing, loss of back up camera functionality, loss of
navigation system functionality, black screens, repeated
unintentional reboots, and general lack of operation ("Uconnect
Defect"). The Uconnect Defect results in the need for frequent
software updates and expensive replacements of screens and related
components. FCA knew about the deficiencies of the Uconnect well
before Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicles.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A8V3M5 at no extra charge.[CC]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Ram EGR Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hanson, Esq., writing for LegalScoops, reports that current or
former owners or lessees of Dodge Ram EcoDiesel 1500 trucks
manufactured between June 12, 2013, to October 23, 2019, and
equipped with allegedly defective exhaust gas recirculation ("EGR")
coolers need to pay close attention to their legal rights.
There are widespread allegations that Ram EcoDiesel EGR coolers
have problems in that they are prone to thermal fatigue, which
makes the coolers more prone to internal cracks over time and can
cause a vehicle fire.
According to a class action complaint filed over this issue, "an
internal crack can introduce preheated, vaporized coolant to the
EGR system while the engine is running. This is a potentially
dangerous situation as the intake manifold may combust and can
cause a vehicle fire if the mixture interacts with other
hydrocarbons and air in the system."
Current or former owners or lessees should know that under
California's lemon law and other state and federal laws may force
Fiat Chrysler to either "buy the vehicle back" as qualifying
"lemons" or provide other compensation, which can mean a large cash
refund and payoff of your loan or lease if these Ram vehicles
experience EcoDiesel problems.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Under California law, these awards could be as much as everything
you paid for the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments,
down payments, tax, finance charges, license, registration, etc.
Depending on the circumstances, you could even qualify for two
times your money back.
There is a formula in the law that starts with you getting all your
money back and then taking certain deductions and exclusions away
from your payment. Those refunds and exclusions are difficult to
understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable consumer
attorneys. Don't settle for small-dollar payments or more possible
fixes without speaking to a qualified consumer attorney with your
individual best interest in mind.
Ram 1500 EcoDiesel EGR Cooler Problems and Partial Recall
In 2019 Fiat Chrysler recalled over 100,000 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel
trucks with EGR coolers built between 2014 and 2019 in the U.S. and
announced that a remedy for the EGR cooler issue was not yet
available but forthcoming. Fiat Chrysler told customers to continue
to monitor their coolant levels and contact dealers if the levels
were consistently low.
However, the required parts were not available, and Fiat Chrysler
dealers were apparently advised that replacement parts were very
limited and EGR coolers should be replaced only if the part has
failed.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Status of the Ram EGR Cooler class action
A class-action lawsuit over the EGR coolers was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
August 27, 2020 (Crawford v. Fiat Chrysler US LLC.,
2:20-cv-12341-SJM-DRG) and has been consolidated with several other
related actions.
On August 13, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, and Fiat Chrysler
filed an Answer on September 3, 2021.
A scheduling order was issued on September 22, 2021, setting
numerous pretrial dates, including a trial set for October 31,
2023.
The court has not yet approved the case to proceed as a class
action.
What Will Happen in the EGR Class Action Lawsuits?
As with most litigation, many class action cases settle. While
there is no indication the lawsuits involving the Ram ecodiesel
problems will end up in a settlement, if the case settles and the
court preliminarily approves the settlement, you will receive a
class notice describing your options. Those options will be: (a) do
nothing, in which case you may get nothing but be bound by the
settlement, (b) submit a claim form if requested and get whatever
relief is made available and you are also bound by the settlement,
or (c) opt out and pursue your own claims, in which case you are
not bound by the settlement but cannot participate in the relief
being offered to class members.
Sometimes a class action settlement may provide significant
benefits and requires little effort to participate. It also comes
with no risk, as the claims have been resolved. And if plaintiffs
prevail at trial, you receive whatever relief is awarded by the
judge or jury. But if they lose, you may not litigate claims over
the issues raised.
For people who have had significant damages or reside in a state
that has strong lemon law protection, opting out and pursuing one's
individual case or negotiations may provide them an opportunity to
receive a better recovery in a shorter period, but as always no
guarantee they will get anything in a settlement.
When it comes to car class actions, what to do can be a complicated
decision, as it can depend on many factors and an accurate
understanding of what the law provides. Here are some important
factors to weigh with your consumer lawyer:
Do you still own the car? (You may still have claims if you don't)
Are you willing to consider the opportunity of getting a more
significant recovery as compared to taking what is offered in a
settlement?
How old is your car, and what is the mileage?
Did it ever stall?
Did you ever have any other problems? What were/are they?
How long was your car in the shop for each repair and in total?
Were you ever told the problems you experienced were "normal"?
Did you have repeated repairs attempted?
When did the problems start?
When did you first take it in for repair?
Where did you buy the car?
Did you ever ask them to buy it back before?
If they offered to repurchase it, what deductions did they demand?
A qualified attorney working with your best interest in mind can
help you weigh all these factors and more.
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
a well-informed decision. For a free lemon law consultation fill
out the form below or call us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Dodge Ram EGR Cooler Recall and Class Action FAQ
When and where was the EGR class action lawsuit filed?
Crawford v. Fiat Chrysler US LLC., 2:20-cv-12341-SJM-DRG, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on August 27, 2020, and has been consolidated with two
other lawsuits:
Anderson, et al. v. Fiat Chrysler US LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-13294
(E.D. Mich.) (Levy, J.), filed on October 16, 2020, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On December
11, 2020, the parties stipulated to transfer this case to the
Eastern District of Michigan, which the court granted on December
14, 2020.
Briggs, et al. v. Fiat Chrysler US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-13235
(E.D. Mich.) (Drain, J.), filed on December 9, 2020.
What does the class action allege is the nature of the EGR defect
in the Ram vehicles?
The class action lawsuits allege Fiat Chrysler US LLC sold hundreds
of thousands of Ram 1500 ecodiesel trucks between June 12, 2013,
and October 23, 2019, equipped with defective EGR coolers.
The lawsuits allege that these EGR coolers are prone to thermal
fatigue, which makes the coolers more prone to internal cracks over
time. As the complaints in these lawsuits allege, "an internal
crack will then introduce preheated, vaporized coolant to the EGR
system while the engine is running. This is a potentially dangerous
situation as the intake manifold may combust and result in a
vehicle fire if the mixture interacts with other hydrocarbons and
air in the system."
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
What are the affected Ram 1500 models identified in the class
action lawsuit?
Dodge Ram 1500 and 1500 Classic vehicles manufactured between June
12, 2013, to October 23, 2019, and equipped with 3.0L EcoDiesel
engines that contain EGR coolers.
How many Ram EcoDiesel vehicles are affected by this EGR defect?
According to publicly available data, the total number of Class
Vehicles sold is approximately 3.4 million.
How does the Ram EGR defect violate the affected vehicle warranty?
The complaints filed in the lawsuits allege Fiat Chrysler provided
Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class with written
warranties wherein Fiat Chrysler promised to fix any defect in
design or manufacture during the warranty period. Fiat Chrysler
also warranted in advertisements that the vehicles were safe and
reliable. Fiat Chrysler breached these express warranties because
the vehicles contain defective EGR coolers.
The complaints filed in the lawsuits also allege Fiat Chrysler also
impliedly warranted (obligations the law "implies" in the sale,
even if not directly stated) these vehicles would conform to the
descriptions promised in Fiat Chrysler's advertisements and
consumer-facing communications. Fiat Chrysler breached the implied
warranty of merchantability because the vehicles contained
defective EGR coolers. Therefore, according to the complaints, "the
vehicles are defective, unmerchantable, and unfit for their
ordinary, intended purpose."
Are Ram EcoDiesel vehicles containing EGR coolers unsafe?
The complaints in the class action lawsuits allege that any vehicle
with an installed component that creates a chance of combusting and
catching fire is unsafe.
Does Fiat Chrysler know about the Ram ecodiesel problems, and have
Ram ecodiesel owners been offered anything in settlement?
The complaints filed in the lawsuits allege that Fiat Chrysler has
known about the Ram ecodiesel problems and defects in the EGR
coolers for years. According to the Complaints, in 2019 Fiat
Chrysler recalled over 100,000 Ram 1500 trucks with EGR coolers
built between 2014 and 2019 in the U.S. and announced that a remedy
for the EGR cooler issue was not yet available, but forthcoming.
However, the required repair parts were not available, and dealers
were apparently advised that replacement parts were very limited
and EGR coolers should be replaced only if the part had actually
failed.
Even with this recall, Fiat Chrysler told customers to continue to
monitor their coolant levels and contact dealers if the levels were
consistently low. Beyond this, Fiat Chrysler has not consistently
offered significant ecodiesel settlements.
Has the EGR class action lawsuit been settled?
There has been no announcement of a Ram ecodiesel settlement or any
indication there are any ongoing or scheduled settlement
negotiations. The parties in that lawsuit are currently engaged in
active discovery into the Ram ecodiesel problems.
Is there anything I need to do at this time?
At this point, the class action lawsuits have not been settled or
been certified to formally proceed as a class action.
If you want to bring your own claim over Ram ecodiesel problems,
you can do so now. You can opt out when you receive the class
action notice, or the class may be defined as those people who have
not sued or settled their claims, and you could be automatically
opted out of the settlement.
As settlement has not been reached nor a class certified, there is
nothing you are required to do now. However, there is no reason to
wait.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
What happens if I don't opt out of the Class Action lawsuit or
future settlement?
It depends on how the settlement is structured, but generally, if
you do not opt out of the settlement you will be bound by its
terms. You will receive any benefits offered in the settlement,
either automatically or by submitting a claim form.
However, you will not be able to get more or bring any individual
case over the defective Ram EGR coolers, except possibly for
personal injury claims.
Why should I opt out of any class action or settlement?
Some class actions provide significant benefits without the need to
do much other than complete a claim form. And because the matter is
settled, as long as the court approves the settlement you will get
the relief described in the class notice.
However, many other people who know their rights may decide that
the relief offered as part of the class action settlement is not
adequate, that they do not want to wait to get relief, or that they
could get more if they do not participate in the class action
settlement and go their own way with their own lawyer. This depends
on a variety of factors, such as how old is your car, can you
document the defect that occurred in your car, have you taken it in
for repairs on more than one occasion, do you still own the
vehicle, is it still under warranty and where you bought the care -
among many other factors.
Depending on the answers to those questions, while there is no
guarantee you will receive any recovery, you may have the
opportunity to receive significant relief, including a vehicle
repurchase and possible penalties.
What is the Song Beverly Warranty Act?
The California Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code
Section 1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires
manufacturers to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair
attempts. What is "reasonable" is not part of hard and fast rules -
safety defects should be fixed immediately. The defects have to
"substantially impair the vehicle's use, value, or safety." Civil
Code Section 1793.22(e)(2).
Under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers must promptly
repurchase or replace the vehicle they cannot fix in a reasonable
time frame. In addition, Civil Code Section 1794(c) and Section
1793.2(d) provides that customers may have a civil penalty up to
two times actual damages if manufacturers acted "willfully"
(meaning knowingly, not necessarily with wrongful intent) in
ignoring or failing its obligation under Song-Beverly.
Finally, under Civil Code Section 1794(d), manufacturers must pay
the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs as part of the
settlement. The Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer fee-shifting
statute.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Questions? Please contact us
There is a lot to consider in deciding whether to pursue an
individual lemon law claim.
The Hanson Law Firm is available to help you sort through these
questions and make an informed decision. [GN]
FIRST STUDENT: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Briefing OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN and CYNTHIA
PROVENCIO, on behalf of themselves, all 20 others similarly
situated, v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar
entered an order granting parties' stipulation seeking to further
continue the deadlines for the class certification briefing
schedule and hearing date as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Opposition to Motion for Jan 13, 2022 Feb. 3, 2022
Class Certification
-- Reply to Opposition to Feb. 3, 2022 March 31, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Hearing on Plaintiff's March 3, 2022 May 5, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
First Student provides bus transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GSQEQ5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone (310) 432-0000
Facsimile (310) 432-0001
E-majlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
aburton@lelawfirm.com
- and -
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
The Defendant are represented by:
David J. Dow, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: ddow@littler.com
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Mar 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired common stock of FirstCash Holdings, Inc. (the "Company" or
"FirstCash") (NASDAQ: FCFS) between February 1, 2018 and November
12, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired FirstCash common stock,
and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please
visit FirstCash Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Lisa Sriken toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
lsriken@bernlieb.com.
FirstCash owns and operates pawn stores in the United States and
Latin America. Through its pawn stores, FirstCash provides
non-recourse pawn loans and buys merchandise from customers to
allow them to meet short-term cash needs. In September 2016,
FirstCash finalized its merger with pawnshop provider and payday
lender Cash America International, Inc. ("Cash America"). In
November 2013, Cash America had entered into a Consent Order with
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for making loans to
covered members of the military or their dependents in violation of
the Military Lending Act (MLA), which violations related to debt
collection, failure to prevent or timely detect problematic conduct
due to inadequate internal compliance, and failure to maintain
required records (the "Order"). In the Order, Cash America agreed
to cease and desist from the violations and to implement a plan
designed to ensure its future compliance with the terms of the
Order. The CFPB fined Cash America $5 million and ordered it to
deposit $8 million into an account in order to provide redress to
affected consumers.
According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that:
(i) FirstCash had made more than 3,600 loans to over 1,000
active-duty members of the military and their families at usurious
interest rates above 36%, and often exceeding 200%, in violation of
the MLA and the Order; (ii) FirstCash had failed to implement the
remedial measures imposed by the Order; (iii) FirstCash's financial
results were, in substantial part, the product of FirstCash's
violations of the MLA and the Order; and (iv) as a result,
FirstCash was exposed to a material undisclosed risk of legal,
reputational, and financial harm if FirstCash's violations of the
MLA and the Order were ever publicly disclosed.
On November 12, 2021, the CFPB announced that it had filed a
complaint against FirstCash for violations of the MLA and the
Order. The CFPB complaint alleged that between June 2017 and May
2021 (the only period for which the CFPB currently has Defendants'
transactional data), FirstCash and its subsidiary Cash America
West, Inc. together made over 3,600 pawn loans to more than 1,000
covered borrowers in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Washington. The
CFPB found that, in all of the loans at issue, FirstCash imposed
interest rates over 36%, with rates frequently exceeding 200%.
Additionally, the CFPB found that FirstCash's usurious loan
practices had been ongoing since at least October 2016, in
violation of the Order. A CFPB release describing the agency's
action against FirstCash stated that FirstCash had cheated and
gouged military families and robbed them of their rights to go to
court.
On this news, the price of FirstCash common stock declined
approximately 28% over the following two trading days, damaging
investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 15, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired FCFS common stock, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/firstcashholdingsinc-fcfs-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-479/
or contact Lisa Sriken toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
lsriken@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
FISHER'S TOWING: Waite Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
BRAIDEN WAITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FISHER'S TOWING & TRANSMISSIONS, LLC and
ROBERT S. FISHER, JR., an individual, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-00005-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C., Jan. 14, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against the
Defendants for unpaid wages including overtime premiums for all
hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek, overtime bonus premiums,
and statutory penalties, including liquidated damages.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt hourly employee for Defendants
from approximately January 28, 2020 to present as a driver.
Fisher's Towing & Transmissions, LLC is an auto repair shop in
Granite Falls, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
Nicole K. Haynes, Esq.
GESSNERLAW, PLLC
602 East Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 234-7442
Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
nicole@mgessnerlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Ontario Court Certifies Water Pump Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
against Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada,
Limited. The class action alleges that certain models of Ford
vehicles contain a defective water pump, the failure of which could
cause engine damage and that such engine damage could potentially
result in injury.
The class action is brought on behalf of all individuals and
companies who owned or leased certain Ford vehicles and whose water
pumps failed, causing the vehicle to sustain damage, and includes
individuals who suffered injury as a result of engine damage caused
by a water pump failure.
The vehicles that are alleged to include the defective water pumps
are:
2007-2018 Ford Edge; 2011-2019 Ford Explorer; 2009-2019 Ford Flex;
2010-2012 Ford Fusion Sport; 2011-2012 Ford Fusion; 2013-2019 Ford
Police Interceptor (Taurus); 2013-2019 Ford Police Interceptor
Utility (Explorer); 2008-2019 Ford Taurus; 2008-2009 Ford Taurus X;
2009-2016 Lincoln MKS; 2017-2020 Lincoln Continental; 2010-2019
Lincoln MKT; 2007-2018 Lincoln MKX; 2007-2016 Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ;
and 2008-2009 Mercury Sable.
Class members who do not want to be a part of the class action must
"opt out" of it. Individuals who "opt out" will not be entitled to
any compensation that may become available as a result of the
relevant class action, but they will be able to commence their own
lawsuit or continue any lawsuit they have previously brought.
The Court has not ruled on the Class's claims and Ford denies the
allegations. [GN]
FPL FOODS: Fails to Properly Pay Grocery Clerks, Morales Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FPL FOODS, INC. and ANTONICO FOODS CORP.
(DBA LA BELLA MARKETPLACE) and LEONARD PESCE, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00318 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 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 proper wage-and-hour notice, and failure
to provide proper wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as grocery clerks at La Bella
Marketplace located in Brooklyn, New York from October 6, 2020
until January 8, 2022.
FPL Foods, Inc. is an operator of a specialty market, with
headquarters at 7907 13th Ave., Brooklyn, New York.
Antonico Foods Corp., doing business as La Bella Marketplace, is an
operator of a specialty market, with headquarters at 7907 13th
Ave., Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Scheduling Order Entered in Washington Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malaika Washington, et
al., v. Freedom of Expression LLC, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01318-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael T. Liburdi
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The deadline for joining parties, filing a motion to amend
the pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is March
18, 2022.
-- If desired, a proposed Joint Stipulated Protective Order
must be lodged with the Court no later than January 28,
2022.
-- The deadline for the completion of fact discovery,
including discovery by subpoena, shall be June 10, 2022.
-- The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall
provide full and 23 complete expert disclosures, as
required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, no later than May 20, 2022.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for FLSA
conditional certification is February 25, 2022.
-- The deadline for Defendants to file an opposition to
conditional certification is March 11, 2022.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of
the motion is March 18, 2022.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification is September 2, 2022.
-- The deadline for Defendants to file an opposition to class
certification is September 16, 2022.
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply in support of
motion for class certification is September 30, 2022.
-- All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and
engage in good faith settlement talks no later than May 6,
2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33sxxxE at no extra charge.[CC]
FULL SAIL UNIVERSITY: Class Action Suit Over False Ads Examined
----------------------------------------------------------------
Full Sail University is a for-profit, private university in
Florida. It offers associate's, bachelor's, and master's degrees in
various disciplines, including film, music, digital media,
animation, and game design.
What is the Full Sail University Class Action Lawsuit?
The Full Sail University Class Action Lawsuit is a lawsuit filed in
February of 2017 by four university students. The students allege
that Full Sail University engaged in widespread fraud and false
advertising practices. They claim that the school promised them an
education they never received and that they are now burdened with
tens of thousands of dollars in students.
On October 10, 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Full
Sail University. The students allege that Full Sail University
engaged in widespread fraud and false advertising practices. They
claim that the school promised them an education they never
received and that they are now burdened with tens of thousands of
dollars in student loans.
This is not the first time Full Sail University has been accused of
fraud. In 2015, the school was sued by a group of students who
claimed that they were lied to about the quality of the education
they would receive.
Allegations Against Full Sail University Student Loan Forgiveness
In early January 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against
Full Sail University. The lawsuit alleges that Full Sail University
violated consumer protection laws by misleading students about
their degree programs. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Full
Sail University falsely claimed that their degree programs were
accredited and that employers would recognize their degrees.
Class action lawsuits are a type of lawsuit where a group of
people, called a class, sue a company or person for damages. The
class is represented by one or more people called class
representatives. Class action lawsuits are often used to sue
companies that have allegedly engaged in fraud or other illegal
behavior.
A class-action lawsuit is started when a class representative files
a lawsuit on behalf of the class. The class representative is
usually someone who the company's actions have injured. The class
representative must show that they can represent the interests of
the entire class.
The class-action lawsuit process can be complicated. There are many
things to consider, such as how the case will be divided up among
the members of the class and how the class representatives will be
paid. It is essential to have a lawyer who understands class-action
lawsuits to help you through the process.
Full Sail University Class Action Lawsuit Timeline and History
The Full Sail University class action lawsuit has been ongoing for
a few years now, with no end in sight. Here is a timeline of the
events leading up to the case and an update on the latest
developments.
2014: The Full Sail University class-action lawsuit is filed. The
lawsuit alleges that Full Sail University misled students about the
quality of their education and that they failed to provide the
promised job assistance after graduation.
2015: The first hearing in the Full Sail University class-action
lawsuit is held.
2016: A settlement agreement is proposed in the Full Sail
University class-action lawsuit, but the court ultimately rejects
it.
2017: Another settlement agreement is proposed in the Full Sail
University class-action lawsuit, but the court also rejected it.
2018: The Full Sail University class-action lawsuit goes to trial.
The Full Sail University class-action lawsuit is finally going to
trial. This lawsuit has been ongoing for years, with multiple
settlement agreements being proposed but ultimately rejected by the
court.
The plaintiffs, in this case, are accusing Full Sail of lying to
students about their graduation rates and job placement rates. They
allege that Full Sail misled students into enrolling in their
programs and then failed to provide the education and career
guidance that they promised.
Full Sail has denied all of the allegations and has stated that
they have always been upfront with their students about the
likelihood of graduating and finding a job after graduating. They
argue that the plaintiffs look for a payout and dismiss the
lawsuit.
Full Sail University is facing a class-action lawsuit from its
students. The plaintiffs allege that the school has been misleading
in its marketing, promising students that they would graduate and
find jobs in their field when in reality, the chances of doing so
are slim.
In early November of 2016, a group of students from Full Sail
University filed a class-action lawsuit against their school. The
students allege that the university has been deceitful in its
advertising and recruiting practices, promising students a quality
education but not delivering that promise. The students seek
refunds for the money they paid to attend Full Sail.
If you are considering attending Full Sail University or are
currently a student there, it is essential to be aware of the
class-action lawsuit and what it means for you. The first thing to
understand is that the lawsuit is still in its early stages, and it
is not yet known whether the students will be successful in their
claim.
Even so, the potential consequences of a successful lawsuit are
enormous. If the students are victorious, Full Sail University
could be required to refund all tuition fees paid by students since
it began operating in 1982. This could amount to millions of
dollars.
In addition, the school could be forced to change its admissions
policies and refund all money paid for student loans. This would be
a substantial financial blow to the school, struggling
financially.
The bottom line is that if you are a Full Sail University student
or are thinking of attending, you should keep an eye on the class
action lawsuit and its progress. It is possible that you could be
entitled to a refund if the students are successful in their suit.
Why Some Students Want to Get Their Money Back From Full Sail
University
While it is still unclear whether or not this class action lawsuit
will go through, it is a good reminder of why you should do your
research before choosing a school. There are many excellent schools
out there, and it is essential to find one that fits your needs and
interests. If you are considering attending Full Sail University,
do your research to ensure that the school is a good fit for you.
As of right now, there is a class-action lawsuit against Full sail
university. This lawsuit is still in the early stages, and it is
unclear whether or not it will go through. However, it is a good
reminder of why it is essential to research before choosing a
school. There are many excellent schools out there, and it is
necessary to find one that fits your needs and interests. If you
are considering attending Full Sail University, do your research to
ensure that the school is a good fit for you. [GN]
GCP APPLIED: Monteverde & Associates Probes Saint-Gobain Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
GCP Applied Technologies Inc. (GCP), relating to its sale to
Saint-Gobain. Under the terms of the agreement, GCP shareholders
will receive $32.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/gcp-applied-technologies-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Jennings Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIRKO, INC. and LISA MAE
JENNINGS individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02638-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff Lisa Mae Jennings asks
the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. certifying a class defined as:
"All current owners or lessees of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet
Avalanche, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014
Chevrolet Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014
GMC Sierra, 2011-2014 GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon
XL manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 that was
equipped with a Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9
engine that was purchased or leased in the State of Ohio;"
2. appointing her as Class Representative;
3. appointing DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC and Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. as Class Counsel.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company. Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, the
company is the largest automobile manufacturer based in the United
States and one of the largest worldwide.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33GPSGZ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Western Reserve Law Building
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: 440-953-8888
E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
GENUINE PARTS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due April 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yoakum v. Genuine Parts
Company, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00718 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Beth Phillips entered an order regarding Class Certification as
follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for April 15, 2022
Class Certification is
due:
-- Defendants' Opposition to May 27, 2022
Class Certification is due:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply in June 17, 2022
Support of Class
Certification is due:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property.
Genuine Parts Company is an American service organization engaged
in the distribution of automotive replacement parts, industrial
replacement parts, office products and electrical/electronic
materials.[CC]
GILL INDUSTRIES: Walters Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI WALTERS, in her
individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. GILL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00069-DCR-MAS
(E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff Lori Walters' motion for class
certification; and
2. denying as moot Walters' motion to postpone ruling on her
motion for partial summary judgment pending the Court's
ruling on class certification.
The Plaintiff Lori Walters seeks to certify a class of current and
former employees of Gill Industries, Inc. based on her claims that
Gill failed to pay its employees bonuses as promised under
retention agreements. However, certification will be denied because
Walters has not shown that the proposed class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable.
Walters alleges that her former employer, Gill Industries, Inc.,
entered into written agreements ("Retention Agreements") with her
and other employees in which Gill promised to pay bonuses in
exchange for work the employees performed while Gill searched for a
buyer for its manufacturing facility located in Richmond, Kentucky.
Walters contends that she and the other employees who entered into
Retention Agreements provided the agreed upon labor, but Gill
refused to provide the bonus payments as promised.
Walters asserts the following claims on behalf of herself and the
proposed class: fraud and fraud in the inducement; breach of
contract; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; civil
conspiracy; and joint enterprise. Walters defines the proposed
class as "any and all current and former employees of the
Defendants who entered in a Retention Agreement with Gill
Industries, Inc., and who were and are citizens of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky ("Proposed Class Plaintiffs")."
Walters now seeks to narrow the class definition as follows: "Any
and all current and former employees of Defendants' Richmond Plant
who entered into a Retention Agreement with Gill Industries, Inc.
between March 10-12, 2020 and who were and are citizens of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky."
The defendants oppose class certification, but do not object to
Walters' narrowing of the class definition. They also object and/or
seek clarification on various issues, including: "a class
definition including 'current and former employees' of an unlisted
employer;" "a class definition including 'current' employees when
no Defendant entity employs employees currently;" and the operative
date for determining whether class members are citizens of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Gill Industries is an American global supplier that works mainly in
welding and assembly, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan with
offices in Trenton, Georgia, Richmond, Kentucky, and global offices
in Mexico, Europe and Asia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ic0Ov4 at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOD SHEPHERD: Class Cert. Bids Must be Filed by August 15
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elizabeth Gray v. Good
Shepherd Fairview Home, Inc., Case No. 3:21-CV-1096 (N.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling
order as follows:
-- Any motion to join any person as March 7, 2022
a party to this action shall be
made on or before:
-- Any motion to amend any pleading March 7, 2022
in this action shall be made on
or before:
-- The parties are directed to file March 21, 2022
a status report on or before:
-- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory January 6, 2022
Disclosures are to be exchanged
by:
-- Initial Written Discovery January 6, 2022
Demands must be served by:
-- All discovery in this matter January 5, 2023
is to be completed on or
before:
-- Class certification motions are August 15, 2022
to be filed on or before:
Good Shepherd operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers various housing and health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nAnQ6Z at no extra charge.[CC]
GREIF INC: Joint Bid to Vacate Initial Pretrial Conference OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARNEST TATE, v. GREIF,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-05099-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting the parties' Joint
Motion to Vacate Preliminary Pretrial Conference and Reschedule as
Necessary.
-- The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for
January 19, 2022 is vacated.
-- The parties shall submit a joint Rule 26(f) report within
14 days of the Court's resolution of Plaintiff's
forthcoming Motion for Conditional Certification (which
Plaintiff intends to file on or before February 11, 2022),
which will prompt the Court to reschedule the Preliminary
Pretrial Conference if necessary.
Greif is an American manufacturing company based in Delaware, Ohio.
Originally a manufacturer of barrels, the company is now focused on
producing industrial packaging and containers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GG8vcF at no extra charge.[CC]
HAR NORTHERN: Rodriguez Sues Over Warehouse Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ, JORGE SILVERIO, KENLUIN SILVERIO, RENE ERNESTO
AREVALO, and ALBARO MORALES, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAR NORTHERN, INC. d/b/a H MART
NORTHERN, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00215-LDH-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
14, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
unpaid spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as warehouse workers.
Throughout their employment, H Mart allegedly failed to pay for all
hours worked and also failed to pay them at the correct overtime
wage rate for all weekly hours worked over 40. The Plaintiffs
further assert that they did not receive spread-of-hours pay on
days they worked shifts longer than 10 hours and, at points
throughout the last six years, H Mart paid them below the required
minimum wage rate.
HAR Northern, Inc., d/b/a H Mart Northern, is a chain of Asian
supermarkets in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: $16.8M Class Deal in Utah Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
et al., Civil Action No. 19-1227 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Lead Plaintiff's:
(1) motion for final approval of class action settlement and
plan of allocation and for certification of settlement
class; and
(2) motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(A)(4).
I. Background
The Lead Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
falsely claimed that Healthcare Services Group, Inc. ("HCSG") met
or beat Wall Street analysts' consensus estimates for its earnings
per share ("EPS") by manipulating net income and EPS to make it
appear that HCSG consistently met analyst expectations. It also
alleges that the Defendants hid from investors an ongoing SEC
investigation into the Company's EPS practices.
On Sept. 14, 2021, the Court preliminarily certified the settlement
class and approved the settlement agreement and method of notice to
the potential class members. The approved notice consisted of
direct mail notice to all settlement class members who were able to
be identified with reasonable effort, the publication of a summary
notice in Investor's Business Daily, and the creation of a
settlement-specific website:
http://www.HCSGSecuritiesLitigation.com.The evidence indicates
that the Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, followed the approved
notice plan.
While the Claims Administrator issued 161,839 notice packets to
potential class members, no class member objected to the proposed
settlement, plan of allocation, or attorney's fees, and only three
individual investors opted out of the settlement.
Presently before the Court are the Lead Plaintiff's motions for
approval of the settlement, plan of allocation, and for fees and
costs.
The class is comprised of: "All persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of HCSG between April 8, 2014 through
February 9, 2021, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby."
In exchange for settling their claims, the class will receive $16.8
million, from which will be deducted: (1) 25% as fees for the Lead
Counsel; (2) $485,493.28 in the Lead Counsel's litigation expenses;
and (3) $12,500 in Lead Plaintiff's expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(A)(4).
The remaining funds will be distributed per the parties' plan of
allocation. In the plan of allocation, the calculation of a
recognized loss for each claimant will depend on the date on which
the claimant purchased their shares of HCSG common stock, whether
shares were sold and, if so, at what price. The Claims
Administrator will then proportionally allocate the net settlement
fund to each authorized claimant on a pro rata basis; each pro rata
share will be the authorized claimant's recognized loss divided by
the total recognized losses of all authorized claimants and
multiplied by the total amount in the net settlement fund.
On Jan. 10, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions
and to assess the overall fairness of the settlement.
II. Discussion
Judge Robreno must first certify the settlement class. While the
exact process a district court should follow when presented with a
settlement class is not prescribed by Rule 23, under Third Circuit
law, he must determine that the settlement class meets the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b), and
must separately determine that the settlement is fair to that class
under Rule 23(e).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the settlement of a
class action requires court approval. A district court may approve
a settlement agreement "only after a hearing and only on finding
that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate." The factual
determinations necessary to make Rule 23 findings must be made by a
preponderance of the evidence. The decision of whether to approve a
proposed settlement of a class action is left to the sound
discretion of the district court.
Judge Robreno finds that the class certification requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been met,
and the settlement and plan of allocation are fair and reasonable
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). Similarly, he
concludes that the fee and expense requests are reasonable. Thus,
he will certify the settlement class and approve the settlement
agreement, plan of allocation, and request for fees and expenses.
III. Conclusion
In that Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) have been met, certification of the
settlement class is proper. Moreover, the terms of the settlement
agreement and plan of allocation appear fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Judge Robreno likewise finds that the fees and costs
sought by the Lead Counsel and the Lead Plaintiff are fair and
reasonable.
As a result, he certified the settlement class and granted the Lead
Plaintiff's motions for approval of the settlement, plan of
allocation, and for fees and costs.
Appropriate orders follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4mm2sr33 from Leagle.com.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Final Judgment Entered in Utah Retirement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice in the case, UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS,
Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., DANIEL P. MCCARTNEY,
THEODORE WAHL, JOHN C. SHEA, and MATTHEW J. MCKEE, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01227-ER (E.D. Pa.).
The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice dated
Sept. 14, 2021, on the application of the parties for approval of
the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated June 29, 2021. Due and adequate notice have been
given to the Settlement Class as required in said Notice Order, and
the Court has considered all papers filed and proceedings had
therein.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Robreno affirmed the Court's determination in the Notice Order and
finally certified, for purposes of settlement only, a Settlement
Class defined as: "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of HCSG between April 8, 2014 through Feb. 9,
2021, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were allegedly
damaged thereby.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Robreno
approved the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation. Accordingly,
he authorized and directed implementation and performance of all
the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms
and provisions hereof. Except as to any individual claim of those
Persons who have requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, he
dismissed the Action and all claims asserted therein with
prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except
as and to the extent provided in the Stipulation and in the Final
Judgment and Order.
Any Plan of Allocation submitted by the Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any attorneys' fee and Litigation Expense
application will in no way disturb or affect the Judgment and will
be considered separate from the Judgment.
Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Stipulation.
Judge Robreno directed immediate entry of the Judgment by the Clerk
of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mv8jn from
Leagle.com.
HOME DEPOT: Scheduling Order Modified in Patton Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS PATTON, SALVADOR
REYNOSA, JR., AND ALBERTO MUNIZ, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01096-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Kendall J. Newmann entered an order granting stipulation to
modify the scheduling order as follows:
Current New
Date Date
-- Phase One Discovery Feb. 25, 2022 April 29, 2022
Cut-Off:
-- Expert Disclosures -- June 17, 2022 May 2, 2022
Phase 1
-- Rebuttal Expert July 15, 2022 May 24, 2022
Disclosures:
-- Phase I- Expert N/A June 20, 2022
Discovery Cut-Off:
-- Last day to file MSJ: April 22, 2022 June 24, 2022
-- Last day to file N/A July 29, 2022
Opposition to MSJ:
-- Last day to file Reply N/A Aug. 26, 2022
in Support of MSJ:
-- Expert Disclosures June 17, 2022 Oct. 14, 2022
(Phase 2):
-- Rebuttal Expert N/A Nov. 4, 2022
Disclosures (Phase 2):
-- Phase Two Discovery N/A March 24, 2023
Cut- Off, with exception
of Declarant Depositions:
-- Last day to file Motion Oct. 21, 2022 April 28, 2023
for Class Certification:
-- Last day to file Opposition N/A June 9, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Last day to file Reply in N/A July 21, 2023
Support of Motion for
Class Certification:
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services. The
company is headquartered in incorporated Cobb County, Georgia, with
an Atlanta mailing address.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33FGbsv at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS: 7th Cir. Reverses Permanent Injunction in Rasho v. IDOC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHOOR RASHO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ROB
JEFFREYS, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, and
MELVIN HINTON, Acting Statewide Mental Health Supervisor of the
Illinois Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants, Case
Nos. 19-1145, 19-1375, 19-1978 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction in its
entirety.
I. Background
Plaintiff Rasho, on behalf of a class of mentally ill inmates in
the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"),
sued IDOC officials for failing to provide constitutionally
adequate mental-health care.
The parties eventually reached a settlement requiring IDOC to meet
certain benchmarks across more than a dozen areas of mental-health
treatment, including implementing a revised screening system for
new inmates, providing individualized mental-health treatment
plans, and augmenting mental-health staff. The parties appointed
Dr. Pablo Stewart to monitor IDOC's compliance.
They also agreed to cabin the judge's authority to fashion relief
for violations of the agreement: "Any order granting such relief
must include a finding that the relief sought is narrowly drawn,
extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of
the federal right, and is the least intrusive means for doing so."
This remedial constraint, lifted verbatim from the PLRA,
effectively prohibits judicial enforcement unless IDOC's
noncompliance causes an Eighth Amendment violation -- the "federal
right" at issue. The district court retained jurisdiction to
oversee compliance with the agreement.
A year later, IDOC had failed to substantially comply with several
portions of the agreement, so the Plaintiffs returned to the
district court for relief. Under the terms of the agreement, they
needed to prove that the Defendants' breach itself caused an Eighth
Amendment violation.
The judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent
injunction. The district judge held that the Plaintiffs made such a
showing in five areas of mental-health treatment and noted that
IDOC's deficiencies were primarily attributable to a chronic,
severe shortage of mental-health staff. Because IDOC had known
about its staffing problem for several years and displayed a "lack
of a sense of urgency" in fixing the issue, the judge concluded
that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk of
harm associated with inadequate mental-health care. He entered a
permanent injunction.
The essential terms of the order are summarized as follows:
(1) Staffing: Within 90 days, IDOC must employ 7 Site Mental
Health Service Directors; 12 Mental Health Unit Directors; 16 Staff
Psychologists; 142.5 Qualified Mental Health Professionals; 102
Behavioral Health Technicians; 54.5 Registered Nurses—Mental
Health; 24 Staff Assistants; 85.5 Psychiatric Providers; 1 Director
of Nursing—Psychiatric; and 5 Recreational Therapists. The order
includes job descriptions for several of these positions and
requires follow-up reporting and evaluation. The judge drew the
staffing numbers from a 2014 Remedial Staffing Plan that IDOC
voluntarily offered during settlement negotiations.
(2) Crisis care: IDOC may use crisis care only for a patient
dangerous to himself or others or upon a finding by a mental-health
professional that no less restrictive treatment is appropriate. A
mental-health professional must conduct a confidential, daily
assessment of a patient's progress and update the patient's
treatment plan no later than the time of discharge. For patients
who do not stabilize, the treatment team must establish a plan to
provide a higher level of care or explain in writing why
establishing such a plan is not appropriate.
(3) Segregation: A mental-health professional must assess and
document an inmate's condition upon placement in segregation. For
any inmate in segregation for 16 days or more, IDOC must conduct
rounds at least every 7 days and provide out-of-cell time. If an
inmate in segregation for more than 60 days refuses out-of-cell
time, a mental-health professional must evaluate the inmate to
determine the risk of deteriorating mental health.
(4) Medication: Inmates prescribed psychotropic medication
must be evaluated by a psychiatric provider at regular intervals
consistent with constitutional standards. IDOC must administer
medications in a manner that provides reasonable assurance that the
medications are actually delivered.
(5) Evaluations and treatment plans: IDOC must provide all
class members an individualized treatment plan that includes long-
and short-term objectives and regular reviews with the patient.
II. Discussion
The Defendants challenge the judge's ruling that the shortcomings
in IDOC's performance under the settlement agreement amount to an
Eighth Amendment violation. They also challenge the scope of the
injunction under the terms of the agreement and the PLRA.
The Seventh Circuit reviews the judge's factual findings for clear
error, including his finding of deliberate indifference. It reviews
a decision to enter a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion,
but a legal error is necessarily an abuse of discretion.
The Seventh Circuit will reverse the district court's order and
vacate the injunction. It explains that the IDOC officials took
reasonable steps to cure the deficiencies identified by the
Plaintiffs -- in particular, the understaffing -- and those actions
cannot be squared with the judge's finding of deliberate
indifference. Even if those steps were not fully successful, their
reasonable effort to address a known risk of harm shows that they
did not recklessly disregard that risk.
The court's order also exceeds the remedial limitations set by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the Seventh Circuit adds. In
the corrections context, prospective remedies must be "narrowly
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of
the Federal right, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal right." The Seventh Circuit
finds that the permanent injunction goes well beyond these bounds
by prescribing specific staffing levels and treatment timelines
without evidence that such requirements go no further than
necessary to correct an Eighth Amendment violation.
III. Conclusion
The Seventh Circuit concludes that the IDOC officials took multiple
reasonable steps to cure the staffing shortage and improve
mental-health services in the five areas at issue in this claim.
Those actions demonstrate due regard for the harms imposed by
inadequate mental-health care, so the judge's finding of deliberate
indifference was error. In addition, and as an independent
reversible error, the scope of the injunction exceeded the bounds
set by the PLRA. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the
district court's order and vacated the permanent injunction in its
entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7bsvff from Leagle.com.
ILLINOIS: Judge Hears Arguments on COVID-19 Mitigation Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Valley at bnd.com reports that after two more days of
hearings, a Sangamon County judge has not yet ruled in either of
two combined lawsuits over requirements involving COVID vaccines,
tests, masks and quarantines in Illinois schools. Right now, the
hearings are about whether to grant temporary restraining orders to
school employees and students against their school districts and
state administrators, and to certify the class for a class action
lawsuit. Judge Raylene Grischow took the requests from school staff
and students' families under advisement at the end of the hearings.
She also heard two days of arguments earlier this month. Bond
County Attorney Thomas DeVore is representing most of the
plaintiffs in both the school employees' case regarding the mandate
to either be vaccinated or get tested and the students' case
regarding masking in schools and quarantines for children who have
been cited as a close contact but don't have any symptoms
themselves. Twenty-two districts and state officials are being sued
over the vaccine or test mandates and more than 140 are being sued
over the mask and quarantine rules.
Attorneys have until Jan. 27 to file orders before Grischow makes
her ruling. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Stipulation Extending Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., DOES
1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. entered an order granting
stipulation extending all outstanding deadlines and dates by 60
days as follows:
Current New
Date Date
-- Fact Discovery Cut-Off June 20, 2022 Aug. 22, 2022
(with the exception of
written discovery; no new
written discovery may be
issued after May 20, 2022)
-- Last Day to File Motion Jan. 3, 2022 May 2, 2022
for Class Certification
-- Last Day to File Feb. 17, 2022 May 2, 2022
Opposition Brief to
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Last Day to File Reply June 1, 2022 April 21, 2022
Brief in Support of
Motion
Johnson & Johnson Consumer engages in the research and development
of products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34NEoSv at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Dennis Seeks Approval of Proposed Notice Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis, et al., v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. e 1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. approving their proposed notice plan and forms of notice
for purposes of Plaintiffs' six proposed class action
settlements with the Defendants Westpac Banking
Corporation, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
Limited, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National
Australia Bank Limited, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A. and Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley
Australia Limited;
2. superseding orders conditionally certifying the Settlement
Class with respect to the Westpac and JPMorgan Settlements
in light of the amendment of the JPMorgan and Westpac
Settlement Agreements; and
3. setting a date for a fairness hearing and deadlines for
settlement-related events leading up to the fairness
hearing.
The Plaintiffs include RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER
FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND,
L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY
LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED,
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC,
HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK
PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY
AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP
PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON
(AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank
and financial services holding company headquartered in New York
City. JPMorgan Chase is incorporated in Delaware.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rKHsXF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: 914-997-0500
Facsimile: 914-997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
ghorn@lowey.com
- and -
Christopher McGrath, Esq.
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
cmcgrath@lshllp.com
- and -
Todd Seaver, Esq.
Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to Jan. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as St John, et al., v. Keller
Williams Realty, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-01347 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Daniel C. Irick entered an order on motion for extension of
time to complete discovery.
The class certification discovery deadline is extended to Jan. 31,
2022, says Judge Irick.
The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions
involving restrictions on use of telephone equipment.
Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international
real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.[CC]
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Claims in Hobbs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO
BELL, ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC., and SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01421-AT
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order denying
without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
The Court said, "The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because,
as former employees, they do not have standing to bring these
claims. First, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs have standing to
bring at least some of their claims. And, if any proposed class
includes plaintiffs who are current employees of Defendants, those
plaintiffs will have standing to bring claims for injunctive
relief. Thus, because the class certification process is logically
antecedent to the Article III concerns, the Court shall defer
consideration of Defendants' standing objections until after class
certification."
The Plaintiffs Tavares Hobbs, Ricardo Bell, and Robert Shaw bring
this putative class action against the Defendants, alleging that
Defendants violated the New York Labor Law (NYLL) by failing to
properly compensate Plaintiffs for off-the-clock work, pay minimum
wage, pay overtime compensation for off-the-clock work, provide
spread-of-hours pay, and provide accurate itemized wage
statements.
The Defendants move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(d)(1)(D) to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations and proposed
class definitions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for overtime and spread-of-hours pay
for failure to state a claim, and under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief for lack of standing.
Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company based in Phoenix, Arizona. It is the fifth largest trucking
company in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A5uDur at no extra charge.[CC]
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Toss Hobbs' Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC. and SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ.
1421 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants'
motions:
(1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D) to
strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations and proposed
class definitions;
(2) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' claims for overtime and spread-of-hours
pay for failure to state a claim; and
(3) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief for lack of standing.
I. Background
Plaintiffs Tavares Hobbs, Ricardo Bell, and Robert Shaw bring this
putative class action against Defendants Knight-Swift
Transportation Holding, Inc., and Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC (collectively, "Knight-Swift"), alleging that the
Defendants violated the New York Labor Law ("N.Y.L.L.") by failing
to properly compensate the Plaintiffs for off-the-clock work, pay
minimum wage, pay overtime compensation for off-the-clock work,
provide spread-of-hours pay, and provide accurate itemized wage
statements.
Knight-Swift employs hundreds of truck drivers, who haul freight in
long-haul semi-trucks either alone, or as part of a two-driver
team. Its trucks contain a sleeper-berth, a small space with a bed
located in the truck's cabin, as well as a camera that monitors
drivers when they are in the trucks.
Department of Transportation ("DOT") safety regulations require
drivers to log 10 consecutive hours as "off-duty" after they have
driven for eleven hours. Knight-Swift requires its drivers to
remain with the truck for those 10 hours to ensure the security of
the loads and enable the trucks to move as efficiently as possible.
This requirement extends to drivers' sleeping time, which must take
place in the truck's sleeper berth. Knight-Swift remains in
communication with drivers during their 10-hour rest period and
occasionally requests that drivers handle discrete tasks, respond
to instructions, or report information. It also requires drivers to
remain with the truck during DOT-mandated thirty-minute "off-duty"
breaks, and occasionally makes other requests while drivers are
purportedly "off-duty."
Knight-Swift drivers log their time in an electronic system as
either "driving" time, "on-duty, not driving" time, "off-duty"
time, and "sleeper berth" time. It pays its drivers one rate for
"driving" time and a lesser rate for certain periods of "on-duty,
not driving" time, which can include waiting time between loads,
pre- and post-trip vehicle inspections, fueling, weighing, and
other tasks. It does not pay drivers for "off-duty" time or
"sleeper-berth" time. It provides its employees wage statements
that reflect these payment practices.
Messrs. Hobbs, Shaw, and Bell all previously worked as truck
drivers for Knight-Swift. Hobbs was employed by Knight-Swift from
July 2019 to March 2020 as a solo truck driver. His regular
schedule required him to work approximately 24-hours a day, six
days a week, including the time spent driving, doing non-driving
work tasks, and taking breaks where he was required to remain with
the truck. He was paid between $900 and $1,100 a week, resulting in
a weekly salary of approximately $1,000 for 144 hours of work. His
regular route took him through New York City and upstate New York.
Mr. Shaw worked for Knight-Swift as a solo driver from March 2017
to October 2017. His regular schedule also required him to work
approximately 24-hours a day, six days a week. Shaw was typically
paid approximately $570 per week for a total of 144 hours of work.
His regular route took him from Johnstown, New York, to New York
City and Long Island, and back.
Mr. Bell was employed by Knight-Swift from June 2016 to January
2017. He initially began working as part of a two-driver team, but
then transitioned to working as a solo driver. In both of his
roles, Bell's regular schedule required him to work approximately
24-hours a day, five days a week. He was paid between approximately
$800 and $1,450 per week, resulting in an average of $1,000 per
week for 120 hours of work. His regular route took him from
Amsterdam, New York, to the Bronx, and back.
While working for Knight-Swift, all three Plaintiffs were not
compensated at 1.5 times the minimum wage rate for the hours they
worked in excess of 40 hours in a given week, and they did not
receive "spread-of-hours" pay for working more than ten hours in a
day.
The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Feb. 17, 2021, and amended
it twice -- on March 17, and May 19, 2021. In their second amended
complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that they are bringing their
N.Y.L.L. claims on behalf of two classes of people.
They defined the classes as follows:
a. Class A: All current and former truck drivers who have been
employed by Defendants while being based out of a work location in
New York state at any time beginning six years before the filing of
this Complaint until resolution of this action; and
b. Class B: All current and former truck drivers who have been
employed by Defendants while being based out of a work location
outside of New York state, but who had one or more tours of duty
and/or routes that necessitated being in New York state for more
than 40 hours during at least one workweek at any time beginning
six years before the filing of this Complaint until resolution of
this action.
The Defendants move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(d)(1)(D) to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations and
proposed class definitions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for overtime and
spread-of-hours pay for failure to state a claim, and under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims
for injunctive and declaratory relief for lack of standing.
II. Analysis
1. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." A plaintiff is not required to
provide "detailed factual allegations," but he must assert "more
than labels and conclusions." Although courts must "draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor and assume all
well-pleaded factual allegations to be true," they are not "bound
to accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading
as factual conclusions."
A. Overtime Claims
Overtime claims under the N.Y.L.L. are evaluated under the same
standards as claims under the federal Fair Labor Standard Act
("FLSA"). A plaintiff must show that she worked "40 hours of work
in a given workweek as well as some uncompensated time in excess of
the 40 hours." Moreover, a plaintiff is required to "provide
sufficient detail about the length and frequency of her unpaid work
to support a reasonable inference that she worked more than forty
hours in a given week." Determining whether a plausible claim has
been pled is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
Judge Torres finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations plausibly show
that they worked more than 40 compensable hours in a workweek. As
the Defendants concede, the Plaintiffs allege "that each and every
week of their employment was the same, without deviation in duties
performed or hours worked, such that they always worked 24 hours
per day every day of their employment." They contend that these
allegations are "implausible," but they state no reason as to why
the Court should agree. Indeed, the Plaintiffs support their
allegations with facts that make it plausible that they did work
for 24-hours a day. They have, therefore, shown that they worked
some uncompensated time in excess of the 40 hours.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
overtime claims for failure to state a claim is denied.
B. Spread-of-Hours Claims
Under the N.Y.L.L., employers are required to pay employees for an
additional hour every day they work more than 10 hours in a day.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' spread-of-hours claims
fail because they do not "identify any actual instance when
Defendants failed to pay them for a spread-of-hours situation."
Judge Torres disagrees. As she explained, the Plaintiffs plausibly
allege that they worked 24-hours a day every day. And, they allege
that the Defendants did not "provide them with 'spread of hours'
pay for the every-workday occurrence of working over 10 hours in a
day." These allegations are sufficient to support a spread-of-hours
claim under the N.Y.L.L.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
spread-of-hours claims is also denied.
2. Motion to Strike
Motions to strike are generally looked upon with disfavor [and] a
motion to strike class allegations is even more disfavored because
it requires a reviewing court to preemptively terminate the class
aspects of litigation, solely on the basis of what is alleged in
the complaint and before plaintiffs are permitted to complete the
discovery to which they would otherwise be entitled on questions
relevant to class certification. These motions "should be granted
only when there is a strong reason for doing so." Therefore, courts
frequently find "that a determination of whether the Rule 23
requirements are met is more properly deferred to the class
certification stage, where a more complete factual record can aid
the court in making this determination."
The Defendants first argue that the Court should strike the
Plaintiffs' class definitions because they include putative members
who have not suffered any injury or harm.
Judge Torres disagrees. Although she agrees that these definitions
may prove to be too broad to be certified as formulated, she cannot
make that determination based on the allegations contained in the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Indeed, she says, the
Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants' truck drivers work
under substantially similar conditions. Thus, although the facts
adduced during class discovery may show that some truck drivers
worked under different conditions from the Plaintiffs, Judge Torres
will not strike the Plaintiffs' class definitions "based on
assumptions of fact rather than on findings of fact."
The Defendants next argue that the Court should strike the
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Class A because the class
contains truck drivers to whom the N.Y.L.L. does not apply. Again,
Judge Torres disagrees. Even if she assumes, arguendo, that merely
being based in New York does not trigger the application of the
N.Y.L.L., she will not assume that these drivers do not perform
sufficient work in New York state to fall under the N.Y.L.L.'s
protections. In light of the allegations in the Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint, such a conclusion would be premature.
The Defendants also argue that the Court should strike the the
Plaintiffs' Class B definition because the class is not
ascertainable. This argument is based on the asserted difficulty of
determining which Knight-Swift drivers spent more than 40-hours in
a given week in New York state. Judge Torres finds that reaching a
conclusion regarding acertainability at this stage in the
proceedings would be premature because class discovery should
reveal whether or not membership in Class B is "truly
indeterminable." She cannot reach that conclusion based on the
allegations in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations is denied as well.
3. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss
When assessing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) that is
based solely on the allegations in the complaint, courts must
"determine whether the complaint alleges facts that affirmatively
and plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has standing to sue."
Courts must "accept as true all material factual allegations of the
complaint," and "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff." Moreover, "it is appropriate to defer standing
objections until after class certification where certification
issues are 'logically antecedent to Article III concerns.'"
The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because, as former
employees, they do not have standing to bring these claims. First,
it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring at
least some of their claims. And, if any proposed class includes
plaintiffs who are current employees of the Defendants, those
plaintiffs will have standing to bring claims for injunctive
relief. Thus, because the class certification process is logically
antecedent to the Article III concerns, Judge Torres will defer
consideration of the Defendants' standing objections until after
class certification.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief is denied without
prejudice.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Torres denied the Defendants'
motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending
motions at ECF No. 40.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35f53v5z from Leagle.com.
LAND O' LAKES: Deadline to File Dispositional Documents Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COOK, v. LAND O'
LAKES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00553-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order continuing deadline to file dispositional
documents.
The currently scheduled deadline to file dispositional documents
shall be continued, and the parties shall file either the required
dispositional documents or a status report on or before July 11,
2022, the Court said.
The Plaintiff John Cook, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, initiated this action on March 6, 2020. On
September 27, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and
request to vacate the class certification discovery deadline and
the class certification deadline.
In granting the request to vacate deadlines, the Court ordered the
parties to file dispositional documents pursuant to Local Rule 160
no later than 24 October 18, 2021. On October 20, 2021, pursuant to
the parties' stipulated request, the Court extended the deadline to
file dispositive documents until January 17, 2022.
Land O'Lakes, Inc. is an American member-owned agricultural
cooperative based in the Minneapolis-St. Paul suburb of Arden
Hills, Minnesota, United States, focusing on the dairy industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tCcinS at no extra charge.[CC]
LANDMARK REALTY: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA CHEATEM, v.
LANDMARK REALTY OF MISSOURI, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00958-BP (W.D.
MO.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an
unopposed motion and extending until January 28, 2022, the deadline
to file its suggestions in opposition to Plaintiff's pending Motion
for Class Certification.
Rhonda Cheatem filed a Motion for Class Certification on January 4,
2022. Landmark's suggestions in opposition to that motion are due
to be filed on or before January 18, 2022. By this motion, Landmark
requests a 10-day extension of time until January 28, 2022 to file
its suggestions in opposition.
This motion is not filed for any improper purpose, but solely to
allow sufficient time for Landmark and its counsel to review and
analyze the Motion for Class Certification and prepare an
appropriate response with supporting materials. The requested
extension is necessitated by the press of other business that
prevents the response from being prepared and filed sooner.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AaBYZH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan J. Stecklein, Esq.
Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
STECKLEIN & RAPP, CHARTERED
748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
Kansas City, KS 66101
- and -
Gina Chiala, Esq.
Amy Sweeny Davis, Esq.
HEARTLAND CENTER FOR JOBS AND FREEDOM
4047 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas J. Porto, Esq.
THE PORTO LAW FIRM
1600 Baltimore, Suite 200A
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 463-2311
Facsimile: (816) 463-9567
E-mail: nporto@portloaw.com
- and -
Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
KRIGEL & KRIGEL, PC
4520 Main Street, Suite 700
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 756-5800
Facsimile: (816) 756-1999
E-mail: sjmoore@krigelandkrigel.com
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Stay Class Discovery and Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOERELLA ELLEBY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY,
INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00093-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting its motion and staying class
discovery and class certification until resolution of the
contemporaneously-filed Motion for Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and LCvR 7.1, the Defendant moves to
stay class discovery and class certification, limiting any further
discovery (if any) to the individual claims of violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) asserted by Plaintiff
Elleby, pending the Court's decision on the central legal questions
raised in the contemporaneously-filed Motion for Summary Judgment.
In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Liberty violated the
TCPA. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a series of telephone
calls Liberty placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone in April
2021 regarding Liberty's online-course offerings. Plaintiff alleges
that the calls to her cell phone violated the TCPA because she did
not consent to receiving the calls and because she had placed her
number on the National Do-No-Call registry in March 2021.
The Plaintiff has already endeavored to engage in extensive and
unreasonable discovery regarding her class claims, which purport to
include all individuals who received similar calls from Liberty as
Plaintiff on their cellular phones for the previous four years.
Liberty has objected to such discovery on multiple grounds,
including that it is disproportionate and unduly burdensome --
noting that Liberty makes approximately 5,000,000 dialer calls and
8,000,000 "voiceblasts" per year to individuals who have submitted
their contact information and requested contact from Liberty via
requests for information forms on its website and in its
applications for admissions.
Liberty University is a private Evangelical university in
Lynchburg, Virginia. It was founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. and Elmer
L. Towns in 1971.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCxkyH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ted Lewis Johnson, Esq.
P.O. Box 5272
Greensboro, NC 27435
E-mail: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN, P.A.
400 NW 26 th Street
Miami, FL 33127
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert M. Kennedy, Jr., Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
4141 Parklake Avenue, Suite 530
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 789-5300
Facsimile: (919) 789-5301
E-mail: robert.kennedy@phelps.com
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Complete Discovery Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARY LEEPER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIGHTHOUSE
INSURANCE GROUP, Case No. 1:20-cv-02821-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time, up to and including February 28, 2022, to complete discovery.
The Parties also jointly move for an extension of time, up to and
including March 28, 2022, for Plaintiff to move for class
certification.
Both requests seek 30 day extensions of the current respective
deadlines. This extension is not sought to delay this matter, and
no parties will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Rather,
the modest thirty-day extensions will allow the Parties to complete
necessary depositions prior to briefing on class certification.
Lighthouse is a full-service insurance agency, offering
comprehensive solutions in personal protection, commercial
insurance, and employee benefits.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33GqW2j at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Harrelson, Esq.
HARRELSON & HARRELSON, LLP
9 W. Water Street
Troy, OH 45373
Telephone: (937) 552-9400
Facsimile: (937) 552-9361
E-mail: will@harelsonllp.com
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher B. Congeni, Esq.
MATASAR JACOBS LLC
1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 1355
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 453-8180
Facsimile: (216) 282-8600
E-mail: ccongeni@matasarjacobs.com
- and -
Matthew R. Duncan, Esq.
BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, LLC
75 East Market Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone: (330) 253-5060
Facsimile: (330) 436-8911
E-mail: mrduncan@bmdllc.com
LOUISIANA: Faces Suit Over Inmates' Inadequate Mental Healthcare
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial is underway in a Shreveport federal court in a lawsuit
brought by advocates for dozens of inmates at David Wade
Correctional Center.
The suit -- which alleges prison officials do not properly screen,
diagnose or provide treatment for mentally ill inmates -- was
granted class-action, meaning the plaintiffs can seek improvements
in conditions for several hundred people who allege inhumane
treatment at the prison in Claiborne Parish.
Some inmates at Wade have been held in solitary confinement for
months and sometimes years, causing or exacerbating mental health
problems, attorneys for the inmates said. Some have resorted to
self-mutilation and suicide attempts, they said.
State officials are fighting the suit.
The bench trial, being held virtually before U.S. District Judge
Elizabeth Foote, is expected to last up to a month.
The number of inmates seeking relief unclear, but Foote said there
were 366 people being held at the buildings in question in March
2020.
The suit was brought by the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice
Center and Disability Rights Louisiana. [GN]
MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Lawsuit in Puerto Rico Over Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Puerto Rican minor league pitcher Daniel Concepcion leads a
class action lawsuit against Major League Baseball (MLB) filed in
the Federal Court of San Juan and that alleges Major League
Baseball Commissioner's Office and its 30 teams collude to violate
labor laws from the United States and Puerto Rico.
The legal remedy also It seeks to challenge the exception to
federal antitrust laws that MLB has enjoyed for decades, which it
classifies as "a monopsony cartel," which refers to a commercial
situation where there is only one buyer for a certain product.
The exception argument has also been raised since last month by
several federal lawsuits by minor league teams against MLB in New
York.
Concepcion was a pitcher within the Kansas City Royals
organization. He played in its affiliates in Idaho, North Carolina
and Kentucky in the 2015 and 2016 seasons. Later he played for the
Criollos de Caguas of the Puerto Rico winter in the 2016-217
campaign.
In his lawsuit, Concepcion asks the court to certify the appeal as
a class action lawsuit on behalf of the other Minor League players
since 2012.
It alleges that former MLB commissioner Bud Selig, current MLB
commissioner Rob Manfred, and MLB franchises "have conspired and
agreed among themselves to eliminate competition for the
acquisition and non-competitive pay of minor league players,
salaries below the market value (wage settlement) in violation of
federal antitrust laws."
He added that "they have also conspired to pay and have paid
illegally low wages during the championship season, no wages for
overtime and no wages for work performed outside of the
championship season, in violation of federal law" known as the
"Fair Labor Standards Act" (FLSA) and the statutes of Puerto Rico.
Concepcion denounced that the defendants exploit minor league
players, taking advantage of the fact that they do not have union
representation.
It states that in order to "monopolize minor league players,
restrict and depress the wages of minor league players, and violate
the FLSA and the labor and minimum wage laws of Puerto Rico, the
MLB cartel inserted a provision (known as the reserve clause) into
player contracts to allow teams to retain contractual rights to
players and restrict their movement and ability to negotiate with
other teams for their services and the compensation they receive.
According to the lawsuit, the use of what is known as the "uniform
player contract" - required by MLB - they are only paid for the
five months of the season, not counting the work they are asked to
do the rest of the year, including spring camps. He adds that in a
calendar year, most of those players receive less than $16,000.
Likewise, the lawsuit denounced that MLB's decision last November
to eliminate 40 of the 160 teams in the Minors increases "its
monopsony power and further reduces competition in the payment of
minor league players."
Federal class action lawsuit against MLB in Puerto Rico by El Nuevo
Dia on Scribd
Last December, at least four Minor League teams argued that the
removal of their affiliations represents anticompetitive behavior
in violation of federal antitrust law, known as the "Sherman
Antitrust Act."
Like the Concepcion lawsuit, these teams seek to reverse a
precedent of the United States Supreme Court, known as "Federal
Baseball". The highest federal justice forum ruled that MLB was not
subject to that law because baseball games are a type of exhibition
that did not involve interstate commerce as defined by law.
For almost 100 years, multiple lawsuits in court have failed to
change the jurisprudence, which only baseball has had, since the
Federal Supreme Court did not extend the exemption to other
professional leagues.
However, in a recent NCAA college sports case, NCAA judges Neil M.
Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh expressed skepticism, so the
plaintiffs believe there is now a better environment to seek
change.
As a remedy, the lawsuit asks the court to pay the minimum and
overtime wages owed to the players under federal and Puerto Rico
law.
It also asks for an injunction asking the plaintiffs to pay damages
for uncompetitive wages and to stop the "illegal policies" alleged
in the lawsuit. In the same way, he requests that they be prevented
from continuing to use the "reserve clause", which prevents the
movement of players.
The new day He requested a reaction from MLB, but has not received
a response so far.
The 59-page lawsuit was submitted in San Juan by Mr. Rafael Baella
Silva, representing two law firms based in San Francisco and
Chicago. The case was assigned to federal judge Aida Delgado. [GN]
MANITOBA: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over 2011 Lake Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------------
To: Any person that owned real or personal property off reserve,
within a 30 kilometre radius of Lake Manitoba, which was damaged by
the flooding of Lake Manitoba in 2011:
A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Legal Rights
WINNIPEG, MB, Jan. 14, 2022 /CNW/
SETTLEMENT
A Settlement Agreement has been reached and approved by the
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench that settles litigation involving
the flooding of Lake Manitoba in 2011 which caused damage to areas
surrounding Lake Manitoba through the operation of Provincial Water
Control Works in 2011.
The Government of Manitoba has agreed to pay to Class Members
$85,500,000. This amount includes lawyer ("Class Counsel") fees and
expenses as well as costs of administration of the Settlement.
All persons who owned real or personal property off reserve that
was damaged by the flooding of Lake Manitoba in 2011 may make
claims for compensation.
Because payments under the Settlement Agreement will be based on
the number of people who come forward to make claims, it is not
possible to estimate the amounts that Eligible Claimants may
receive.
MAKING A CLAIM
In order to make a claim for benefits under the Settlement, Class
Members must complete, sign and return a Claims Registration Form
to the Claims Administrator, along with necessary supporting
documents, no later than April 14, 2022. If a Class Member does not
timely and properly submit a Claims Registration Form, that Class
Member will not be able to participate in or share in the benefits
available under the Settlement.
A detailed instruction package on how to obtain, complete, and
submit a Claims Registration Form is available from the Claims
Administrator, Exchange Solutions Inc., using the contact
information below. [GN]
MASS GENERAL: Norton Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------
MARK NORTON, DASHKA LOUIS, CAROLINE MITCHELL, NANCY BARTLETT and
AZILDA CORDAHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE OF MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED and JOHN DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10045-AK (D. Mass., Jan. 13, 2022) is
a class action brought pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
Consolidated 403(b) Program of Mass General Brigham and Member
Organizations Plan's fiduciaries, which include Mass General
Brigham Incorporated and the Board of Directors of Mass General
Brigham Incorporated and its members during the Class Period, as
well as the Investment Committee of Mass General Brigham
Incorporated and its members during the Class Period for breaches
of their fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA Section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(21)(A),
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to
the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to
objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio
with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in
terms of cost; and (2) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping
costs.
Mass General Brigham Incorporated operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers patient care, rehabilitation,
medical research and discovery, teaching, specialty pharmacy, and
other health care services. Mass General Brigham serves patients in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Hellman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC
195 Church Street, 10th Floor
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 691-8762
Facsimile: (203) 823-4401
E-mail: jeff@jeffhallmanlaw.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
MAYFIELD CONSUMER: Factory Workers Sue Over Alleged Lay-Offs
------------------------------------------------------------
KSBW Action News 8 reports that the Mayfield, Kentucky, candle
factory leveled by a tornado last month is shutting down and 251
employees are being laid off, a company official said.
More than 100 people were working at the Mayfield Consumer Products
(MCP) factory on December 10 when the tornado hit, killing eight
people and making it one of the most devastated sites in an
outbreak of at least 30 tornadoes across six states in the Midwest
and South.
The facility had been "going 24/7" in part to meet Christmastime
candle demand, U.S. Rep. James Comer, who represents the area, told
CNN at the time.
In a letter to Kentucky's Office of Employer and Apprenticeship
Services, the candle factory plant manager said that the company,
"has determined that because of the recent devastating tornado . .
. it can no longer continue to operate."
"Although it can no longer operate in Mayfield, please know that
MCP plans to continue much of its operation in Kentucky," the
letter continues.
The company plans to transfer some of the affected employees to
another location about 10 miles away, but it can't relocate
everyone, the letter said.
"Those employees not offered a transfer to the new facility will be
laid off," the letter reads.
A total of 501 people worked at the candle factory, and 250 of
those jobs are being transferred, according to the letter. The rest
of the workers are being laid off, the letter said.
First responders rushed to the factory to help with rescue efforts
after the tornado. They set up lights, and people trapped inside
the debris began calling for help and telling rescuers their
location, Graves County commissioner Todd Hayden previously told
CNN.
Many rescuers climbed inside to find survivors, while Hayden and
others stayed on the outside to help people climb out of the
rubble.
Gov. Andy Beshear said the storm, which killed at least 70 people
in the state, was the "most severe tornado event in Kentucky's
history."
A class-action lawsuit was filed against the company last month on
behalf of candle factory workers alleging they were told they would
be fired if they left work ahead of the deadly tornadoes.
The lawsuit is based on the Kentucky equivalent of the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, statute,
said Amos Jones, the Washington, DC-based attorney who is
representing some of the workers. The complainants are seeking an
"unspecified amount" in financial compensation, he told CNN.
Mayfield Consumer Products did not respond to CNN's request for
comment about the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the company that owns
the factory previously said the company had spoken with supervisors
working that night, who all denied any employees were told they'd
be fired if they left. [GN]
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Manzo's Bid to Approve $2-Mil. Deal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GENNIFER MANZO, Plaintiff v. McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., AND DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-1175-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Helena M.
Barch-Kuchta of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and Private
Attorneys General Act Settlement, filed on Oct. 22, 2021.
I. Background
The Plaintiff filed the present action on Sept. 20, 2020. Asserting
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d), she brought claims for penalties under
California Labor Code Sections 226 and 2698, et seq., the Private
Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA").
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant. Her claims
were based on allegations that the Defendant's wage statements were
inaccurate in two ways. First, she alleged the wage statements "did
not identify the overtime rate as 1.5 times the regular rate of
pay," but instead reflected the rate of "one-half (0.5) the base
hourly rate of pay." Second, she alleged the wage statements failed
to identify the correct rates of pay and applicable number of hours
for "MQI True Up" wages. Though she does not explain "MQI True Up"
wages, she characterizes them as a form of overtime. The Plaintiff
contends these inaccuracies violate Labor Code Section 226 and
entitle her and the putative class to penalties under that section
and under the PAGA.
At the outset of the case, the Plaintiff sought to represent
non-exempt employees who, after April 6, 2019, were paid overtime
or "MQI True Up" wages.
The proposed settlement includes the following terms relevant to
the Order:
1. Settlement Class: The proposed settlement class includes
the following two groups:
a. The June 2, 2020 Settlement Subclass consists of all
California non-exempt employees who received wage statements that
included daily, weekly, or seventh day premium overtime and/or MQI
True Up wages at any time from June 2, 2020 through the Preliminary
Approval Date (June 2, 2020 Subclass Class Period) and who were
subject to the class settlement reached in Sanchez v. McDonald's
Restaurants of Cal., Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case
No. BC499888.
b. The April 6, 2019 Settlement Subclass consists of all
California non-exempt employees who received wage statements that
included daily, weekly, or seventh day premium overtime and/or MQI
True Up wages at any time from April 6, 2019 through the
Preliminary Approval Date (April 6, 2019 Subclass Class Period),
and who were not subject to the class settlement reached in Sanchez
v. McDonald's Restaurants of Cal., Inc., Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC499888.
There are approximately 5,500 class members and 57,000 wage
statements at issue.
2. Gross and Net Settlement Amounts
a. Gross Settlement Amount: The Gross Settlement Amount is $2
million. This amounts to an average of $35.09 per wage statement.
Should the actual number of wage statements "containing daily,
weekly, or seventh day premium overtime furnished to these groups
exceeds 57,000 during the" relevant subclass periods through June
30, 2021, "the Gross Settlement Amount will increase proportionally
on a per wage statement basis for the number of wage statements in
excess of 57,000." No portion of the Gross Settlement Amount will
be retained by or revert to the Defendant.
b. PAGA Penalties: The settlement allocates $100,000 of the
Gross Settlement Amount for PAGA penalties. From this amount, 75%
will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") and 25% will be distributed to the settlement class
members. Potential class members who opt out of the class action
settlement will receive $10 in settlement of their PAGA claims.
c. Estimate of Net Settlement Amount: The Plaintiff estimates
that the net settlement amount available for distribution to the
class members will be approximately $1,188,333,33, which would
amount to up to $216.06 on raw average.
d. Distribution of Penalties and Net Settlement Amount: The
settlement provides that both the PAGA penalties and the net
settlement amount are to be distributed according to the class
member's "proportionate share." The proportionate share is based on
the number of qualifying wage statements they received during their
applicable Subclass Class period as follows:
i. April 6, 2019 Subclass: The number of wage statements
that included daily, weekly, or seventh day premium overtime and/or
MQI True Up wages received by the Settlement Class Member at any
time during the April 6, 2019 Subclass Class Period divided by the
total number of wage statements that included daily, weekly, or
seventh day premium overtime and/or MQI True Up wages received by
all April 6, 2019 Settlement Class Members during the April 6, 2019
Subclass Class Period.
ii. June 2, 2020 Subclass: The number of wage statements
that included daily, weekly, or seventh day premium overtime and/or
MQI True Up wages received by the Settlement Class Member at any
time during the June 2, 2020 Subclass Class Period divided by the
total number of wage statements that included daily, weekly, or
seventh day premium overtime and/or MQI True Up wages received by
all June 2, 2020 Settlement Class Members during the June 2, 2020
Subclass Class Period.
No further description of individual settlement payment amounts is
provided.
II. Analysis
A. Obvious Deficiency
As Judge Barch-Kuchta mentioned, the settlement provides that the
Gross Settlement Amount may increase if the number of wage
statements during the relevant subclass periods exceeds 57,000.
Specifically, it provides: "if the actual number of wage statements
containing daily, weekly, or seventh day premium overtime furnished
to these groups exceeds 57,000 during the periods defined above in
Paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, through June 30, 2021, the Gross
Settlement Amount will increase proportionally on a per wage
statement basis for the number of wage statements in excess of
57,000."
Judge Barch-Kuchta says there seems to be a minor error in this
section, as Paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 do not exist in the
settlement agreement. Instead, Paragraphs 2.23.1 and 2.23.2 seem to
capture the relevant subclass periods. Because this issue could
potentially go to the calculation of the Gross Settlement Amount,
she says the parties must state the correct paragraph numbers or
specify the appropriate subclass periods in Paragraph 3.1.
B. Preferential Treatment
As part of the preliminary approval process, Judge Barch-Kuchta
examines whether the settlement agreement provides preferential
treatment to any class member or segment of the class. In the case,
she finds that the settlement provides that each class member will
receive their "proportionate share" of the PAGA allocation and Net
Settlement Amount. The proportionate share will be determined based
on the class member's subclass, i.e., the number of class member's
qualifying wage statements in the subclass period divided by the
total number of qualifying subclass wage statements. This
calculation results in a percentage, but the settlement lacks any
indication as to what that percentage is taken from.
Mathematically, the percentage cannot be taken directly from the
Net Settlement Amount, because each subclass's total recovery would
equal 100% of the Net Settlement Amount.
It is possible the individual proportionate share is intended to be
taken from a subclass allocation of the Net Settlement Amount;
however, no subclass allocation is mentioned in the settlement,
Judge Barch-Kuchta holds. Additionally, it seems there are other,
simpler ways of calculating a proportionate share that would appear
to treat all class members equally, such as dividing the
individual's number of qualifying wage statements by the total
number of qualifying wage statements received by both subclasses
and multiplying this percentage against the Net Settlement Amount.
Such a calculation would, theoretically, be an appropriate method
for determining payments.
It is also possible the parties intended some other calculation to
follow the determination of individual share percentages, Judge
Barch-Kuchta adds. Without clarification as to how the shares will
be used to determine actual payments, she cannot determine whether
the settlement grants preferential treatment to one group.
Moreover, the proposed class notice merely repeats the incomplete
description of how individual settlement payment amounts will be
calculated. The absence of a clear statement as to how the Net
Settlement Amount will be distributed renders the notice arguably
confusing and may interfere with class members' ability to
determine whether to object. Judge Barch-Kuchta must therefore deny
the motion for preliminary approval, without prejudice to a renewed
motion to correct and/or clarify this issue.
C. Notice Issues
Judge Barch-Kuchta has identified the following minor deficiencies
in the proposed class notice:
(1) On page 1 of the proposed notice (Doc. No. 15-2 at 3), in
the GO TO A HEARING row, the notice should advise potential class
members that they may appear in person or remotely.
(2) On page 2 of the proposed notice (Doc. No. 15-2 at 31), it
refers to the action as U.S. District of California for the Eastern
District of California Case No. 1:20-cv-01175-NONE-HBK instead of
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case No.
1:20-cv-01175-HBK.
(3) On page 2 of the proposed notice (Doc. No. 15-2 at 31
Section I), it states a `Settlement Class Member' means a member of
one or both of the June 2, 2020 Settlement Subclass and/or the
April 6, 2019 Subclass. The settlement seems to contemplate the
subclasses as two different groups with no overlap. The notice
should clarify whether an individual can be a member of both
subclasses.
(4) On page 6 of the proposed notice (Doc. No. 15-2 at 35
Section VII[C]), wherever it states that the potential class member
may appear, it should clearly state that the class member may
appear in person or by remote means. Where it states that the Court
will consider the class member's views, it should also state that
the Court can only approve or deny the settlement and cannot change
the terms of the settlement. Additionally, the reference to the
Action should restate the name and case number of this action.
(5) On page 6 of the proposed notice (Doc. No. 15-2 at 35
Section VII[D]), wherever it states that the potential class member
may appear, it should clearly state that the class member may
appear in person or by remote means.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons provided, Judge Barch-Kuchta denied the Plaintiff's
Motion without prejudice to the parties submitting a renewed motion
to correct and/or clarify the deficiencies noted. In order to
expedite the handling of the matter, Judge Barch-Kuchta requests
that such motion will be filed within five days of the date of her
Order.
If the Plaintiff files a renewed motion, she will also specify the
necessary number of days between the Court's anticipated issuance
of any preliminary approval order and the date of any final
approval hearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52ykbztv from Leagle.com.
MELTECH INC: $160K Class Settlement in Grove Suit Wins Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREA GROVE, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals; and CHRYSTINA WINCHELL, individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals; Plaintiffs v. MELTECH,
Inc.; H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., and SHANE HARRINGTON, Defendants, Case
No. 8:20CV193 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Memorandum and
Order granting:
a. the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for approval of a class
action settlement; and
b. Plaintiffs Andrea Grove and Chrystina Winchell's motion for
approval of a settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs,
as representative of a conditional collective class, and
Defendants Meltech, Inc., H&S Club Omaha, Inc., Shane
Harrington, and Brad Contreras.
I. Background
The settlement resolves the claims of the Plaintiffs and opt-ins
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.
("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act ("NWHA").
On Dec. 3, 2020, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and Neb. Rev. Stat. Section
48-1201 consisting of "all individuals who currently work and/or
previously worked at Club Omaha as exotic dancers and were
classified as independent contractors at any time in the three
years preceding Dec. 3, 2020." The Court ordered the Defendants to
provide the names and addresses of all such individuals and
authorized notice to potential class members to afford them an
opportunity to opt into the action to pursue their claims against
the defendant for overtime pay. Several present, or former,
employees opted into the collective action.
The parties have agreed to settle their FLSA and NWPCA claims and
those of the opt-ins as a result of two settlement conferences
before Magistrate Judge Michael Nelson. The Settlement Agreement
provides compensation in the total amount of $160,000 to the
settlement class, which is comprised of 16 individuals. The
agreement provides for an award of attorney's fees and costs in the
amount to $50,000.
The agreement also provides for service awards of $2,000 to
Plaintiff Grove and $3,000 to Plaintiff Winchell. Additionally,
Plaintiff Grove is to receive $10,000 in exchange for dismissal of
her claims pending before the NEOC, and Plaintiffs Grove and
Winchell will also receive $5,000 each in compensation for the
retaliation claims they have asserted in the case. The average
settlement share, based on the number of weeks the dancers worked
for the Defendants during the relevant time period, is over of
$5,000, with individual dancers receiving between $397 and
$14,565.
The Plaintiffs have shown that the collective class counsel's law
firm, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, is a Boston-based labor and
employment firm with a focus on wage and hour class actions.
Counsel Olena Savytska is a 2015 graduate of Columbia Law School,
and has worked at LLR since graduation, focusing on FLSA collective
actions. Counsel Harold Lichten, a founding partner at LLR, is a
1977 graduate of New York University School of Law and has been a
labor and employment attorney for over 40 years. Since 2005, Mr.
Lichten has developed a particular specialty in the field of the
misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Mr.
Lichten and Ms. Savytska currently serve as lead or co-lead counsel
in many labor and employment class and collective action cases in
federal courts around the country, including unpaid overtime cases
similar to the case.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for approval of a class action settlement. Plaintiffs Grove and
Winchell seek approval of a settlement agreement between the
Plaintiffs, as representative of a conditional collective class,
and the Defendants.
II. Discussion
The record shows that the action was stayed for a time to enable
the parties to explore court-sponsored mediation. The parties
participated in mediation with Judge Nelson on June 22 and 23,
2021. Before the first mediation session, the Defendants provided
information on the Plaintiffs and opt-ins shifts at Club Omaha, and
the Plaintiffs prepared detailed damages estimates based on that
information. The June mediation did not result in a settlement and
for several weeks thereafter the parties exchanged written
discovery and the plaintiffs and opt-ins were deposed. The parties
then participated in a second mediation session and agreed to
settle the claims.
The Plaintiffs' counsel represents to the Court that the settlement
reached by the parties is an excellent result for the collective
class for the FLSA and NWHA misclassification, unpaid minimum wage
and overtime, and unlawful tip-out claims. The Plaintiffs' counsel
considered a variety of factors in assessing the fairness and
reasonableness of the settlement, including the Defendants'
financial condition, the ongoing challenges posed to the
Defendants' business by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the various
contested legal issues in the case.
The Plaintiffs' counsel also states that the Settlement Agreement
offers significant advantages over the continued prosecution of the
contested case, since the Defendants continue to maintain that the
Plaintiffs and the opt-ins were properly classified as independent
contractors and thus were not subject to the FLSA's minimum wage
and overtime protections. The Defendants also argue that the
collective claims must be pursued in individual arbitration, that
the Plaintiffs and opt-ins are not entitled to recover the fees and
tips they paid to defendants under the FLSA, and that the dancers'
earnings exceeded minimum wage on many occasions. If the Defendants
were to prevail on any of these arguments, recovery would be
severely limited.
The Plaintiffs have shown that the counsel expended 409.4 hours at
rates between $350 and $600 per hour for attorneys and $150 per
hour for paralegals to prosecute the case, incurring fees over
$137,000. They also incurred expenses litigating the case in the
amount of $2,594.98.
Judge Bataillon first finds that the members of the conditionally
certified class are similarly situated and the class members may
proceed as a formal settlement class. He next finds that the
parties' settlement is a reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute in contested litigation. The settlement class alleges that
the Defendant failed to pay wages required under the FLSA and they
deny any wrongdoing and maintain they complied at all times with
the FLSA.
In view of the circumstances, Judge Bataillon finds the settlement
agreement should be approved, especially in the light of the
contentiousness of the parties' positions, the benefits to the
Settlement Class members, the discovery and investigation prior to
the parties' settlement, and the complexity, expense, risk, and
probable protracted duration of further litigation. He also finds
that the consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement
constitutes reasonable and fair value given in exchange for the
release of claims against the defendants considering the disputed
issues, circumstances, defenses, and the potential risks and
likelihood of success of pursuing litigation. He finds the
settlement represents a significant recovery for the Plaintiffs and
opt-ins. Judge Bataillon approves the settlement in accordance with
the FLSA.
The parties have shown in the case that a full and fair compromise
at this juncture is more beneficial to the class members and the
defendants, given the time, expense, and uncertainty of further
litigation, Judge Bataillon holds. He says, the Settlement
Agreement obviates the real risks to both parties that are inherent
the continued litigation of the matter.
The parties have shown the Settlement Agreement is the product of
arm's-length negotiations by experienced counsel and it provides
meaningful monetary relief to the Settlement Class. The Settlement
Agreement offers class members a settlement payment amount that is
proportionate to the time they spent working for the defendants.
Also, the Defendants do not dispute that the collective class
representatives materially assisted in the initiation of the action
and provided valuable assistance to collective class counsel.
Judge Bataillon finds Plaintiffs Grove and Winchell have played an
instrumental role in the case, and have been closely involved in
the litigation throughout the past year and a half. The Plaintiffs
have provided documents, participated in the mediation sessions,
and maintained regular correspondence with the class counsel.
Hence, service awards of $2,000 and $3,000 are appropriate in
recognition of efforts to pursue the claims on behalf of the
settlement class. Further, in view of the size of the attorney fee
amount, an award of fees and costs in the amount of $50,000 is
reasonable and necessary in the litigation.
III. Conclusion
Judge Bataillon granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
approval of the parties' collective class settlement. He certified
a collective settlement class consisting of all individuals who
currently work and/or previously worked at Club Omaha as exotic
dancers and were classified as independent contractors at any time
in the three years preceding Dec. 3, 2020.
The parties Settlement Agreement is approved and is incorporated in
the Memorandum and Order as if fully set forth.
Service awards of $2,000.00 to Plaintiff Grove and $3,000 to
Plaintiff Winchell are approved.
Attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $50,000 are approved.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
agreement.
A judgment in accordance with the Memorandum and Order will be
entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/56mmjz9x from Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Over Misuse of User Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hypebeast reports that Meta has been hit with a $3.2 billion USD
class action lawsuit, The Guardian reported. The suit alleges that
the company breached competition law by exploiting the data of 44
million Facebook users in the U.K. between 2015 and 2019.
The suit was filed by legal specialist Dr. Liza Lovdahl Gormsen
with the litigation firm Innsworth. As the main social network in
the U.K. and owner of other social networks such as Instagram and
Whatsapp, Lovdahl Gormsen said that Facebook tracked the habits of
users across websites and "abused its market dominance to impose
unfair terms and conditions on ordinary Britons giving it the power
to exploit their personal data."
"They are exploiting users by taking their personal data without
properly compensating them for taking that data," Lovdahl Gormsen
said in a statement provided to The Guardian. "I don't think the
users are entirely clear when they click on the terms and
conditions how unfair that deal is."
As an "opt-out" class action suit, users don't have to join the
case and will receive damages if it's successful, unless they
choose to opt-out.
Meta was notified of the case by lawyers working with Lovdahl
Gormsen.
"People access our service for free. They choose our services
because we deliver value for them and they have meaningful control
of what information they share on Meta's platforms and who with. We
have invested heavily to create tools that allow them to do so," a
Meta spokesperson said, per The Guardian.
In other tech news, CASETiFY has teamed up with BE@RBRICK for a
tenth anniversary capsule. [GN]
MOMENTIVE GLOBAL: Monteverde & Associates Probes Zendesk Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Momentive Global Inc. (MNTV), relating to its sale to Zendesk, Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, MNTV shareholders will receive
0.225 shares of Zendesk per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/momentive-global-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Smith Class Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-2049 (N.D. Ohio), Judge J.
Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion
to remand the action to state court.
I. Background
Defendant Nationwide removed the putative class action to federal
court based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d). Plaintiff Smith sues for breach of contract, contending
that her auto insurer was required to account for sales tax as part
of a payment for loss, and moves to remand.
On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff's 2015 Lincoln MKZ FWD sustained
loss or damage, leading her to file a claim for property damage
with Nationwide, which insured the vehicle. The Plaintiff alleges
that Nationwide paid only the adjusted value of the vehicle
($25,690) less the $500 deductible and failed to include sales tax
in payment for the loss. She brings a single breach of contract
claim and seeks to pursue the action on behalf of a class of Ohio
insureds dating from Sept. 24, 2013.
The case is the second lawsuit Abra brings against Nationwide based
on her claim under the auto insurance policy at issue. Previously,
she filed suit in Case No. 1:20-cv-00108 then voluntarily dismissed
after reassignment of the case. Rather than commence suit in
federal court a second time, Plaintiff instead filed a new action
in State court.
The Defendant timely removed. It moved to dismiss, to which the
Plaintiff responded by filing an amended complaint. Because the
Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it does not consider
the merits of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Nor do the
allegations in the amended complaint affect determination of the
amount in controversy, as the Defendant recognizes.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiff seeks remand, contending that the Defendant has not
provided evidence of the amount in controversy. Because the
Plaintiff calls into question the Defendant's invocation of federal
jurisdiction, "both sides submit proof and the Court decides, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy
requirement has been satisfied." Instead of doing so, the Defendant
relies on the allegations on the face of the complaint to reach
CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional threshold.
But both Dart Cherokee and the Sixth Circuit preclude a removing
party from resting on the allegations of the complaint in the face
of a challenge to the amount in controversy, citing Halsey v. AGCO
Corp., 755 F. App'x 524, 526-27 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Hayes v.
Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560, 572 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Instead of applying the applicable governing legal standard set
forth above, which the Defendant fails even to acknowledge, it
relies on various authorities to assert that it may invoke federal
jurisdiction based solely on the allegations in the complaint.
Judge Calabrese holds that these authorities all pre-date the
Supreme Court's decision in Dart Cherokee, which the Defendant does
not even cite. Dart Cherokee reads Section 1446(c)(2)(B) as
requiring evidence where, as in the present case, there is a
dispute over the amount in controversy require evidence. Judge
Calabrese holds that the Defendant's failure to come forward with
any evidence to establish CAFA's jurisdictional
amount-in-controversy threshold is fatal to its effort to invoke
federal jurisdiction.
Even if the allegations of the complaint constitute "evidence"
within the meaning of Section 1446, Judge Calabrese holds that the
Defendant's argument fails. He says, the Defendant points to
allegations that the putative class spans eight years and includes
"thousands of individuals" and "likely numbers in the tens of
thousands." Then, it uses the sales tax at issue in the Plaintiff's
individual claim (just over $2,000) as representative of each class
claim for jurisdictional purposes.
Calculations based on these numbers are wholly speculative, Judge
Calabrese states. Perhaps, they might suffice in the absence of a
challenge to the amount in controversy. But the allegations of the
number of potential class members in particular amount to little
more than a guess, too indefinite to reach any firm conclusion
about the amount in controversy.
Moreover, the Defendant presents no evidence that any of these
figures on which it relies in the complaint bears any relationship
to the facts in the case. Presumably, Nationwide has some basis to
determine the potential number of class members. Although more than
a year has passed since the Plaintiff filed her first lawsuit in
the Northern District, Defendant provides none. That silence speaks
volumes. In any event, although the Defendant's burden to establish
the amount in controversy is not daunting, it still requires
evidence. The Defendant presents none. And the allegations in the
complaint are simply too indeterminate to support federal
jurisdiction in the face of the Plaintiff's challenge to the amount
in controversy.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claim for
injunctive relief provides a sufficient basis for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts a single claim for
breach of contract. In the relief requested, the last item seeks
"injunctive and other further forms of relief as this Court deems
just and proper." That's it.
Judge Calabrese holds that where a plaintiff seeks an injunction,
the value of the injunction for purposes of determining the
jurisdictional amount in controversy turns on the value of the
object of the litigation or the cost of compliance with the
injunction. He says, the Defendant's argument fails for two
reasons. First, it is unlikely that Plaintiff could obtain an
injunction on her breach-of-contract claim under Ohio law. Perhaps
for that reason, the Plaintiff includes the request as a formulaic
throw-away at the end of the complaint. Second, even if she could,
Nationwide again presents no evidence from which the Court can
determine compliance costs or the value of the injunction by
another metric.
III. Conclusion
Judge Calabrese concludes that the Defendant complains that the
Plaintiff's motion to remand amounts to little more than the worst
sort of forum shopping. On this record, that is a reasonable view.
But the law gives the Plaintiff that right. Had the Defendant
presented evidence to support its contentions regarding the amount
in controversy, as the governing legal standard has long required
when that amount is disputed, its own forum-shopping effort, which
is also entirely reasonable under the law, might have proved
successful. For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Calabrese granted
the Plaintiff's motion to remand and remanded the case to State
court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48v2mr4f from Leagle.com.
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Emissions Class Suit Pending in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action is case number 0:21-cv-01480-SAL, pending
before Judge Sherri A. Lydon in the U.S. District Court of South
Carolina (Rock Hill).
The EPA's litigation against New-Indy is case number
0:21-cv-02053-SAL, pending before Judge Sherri A. Lydon in the U.S.
District Court of South Carolina (Rock Hill).
This information is provided by Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in
the New-Indy emissions litigation:
Chase T. Brockstedt of Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC, Philip C.
Federico of Schochor Federico & Staton, P.A., Richard A.
Harpootlian of Richard A. Harpootlian Law Firm, P.A. and T. David
Hoyle of Motley Rice LLC
The legal team appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is
co-counsel with:
Gary V. Mauney of Mauney PLLC, Thomas E. "Tommy" Pope and Ben P.
Leader of Elrod Pope Law Firm P.A. and Leon E. Stavrinakis of
Stavrinakis Law Firm LLC
Key documents are available at:
https://www.newindyclassaction.com/documents [GN]
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("NRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NRXP, NRXPW) in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NRx securities between
June 1, 2021 and November 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until March 21, 2022 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
NRx is a clinical-stage small molecule pharmaceutical company that
develops various therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous
system disorders and life-threatening pulmonary diseases. The
Company's products include, among others, ZYESAMI, an
investigational pre-commercial drug for COVID-19 related
respiratory failure.
In June 2021, NRx announced that it filed an application with U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") requesting Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA") for ZYESAMI (Aviptadil-acetate) to treat
critically ill COVID-19 patients suffering with respiratory failure
(the "ZYESAMI EUA Application").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ZYESAMI EUA Application
contained insufficient data regarding the potential benefits and
risks of ZYESAMI; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve
the ZYESAMI EUA Application in its present form; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 4, 2021, NRx issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has declined to issue an [EUA] for ZYESAMI(R)
(aviptadil). The FDA stated that it was unable to issue the EUA at
this time due to insufficient data regarding the known and
potential benefits of the medicine and the known and potential
risks of ZYESAMI in patients suffering from Critical COVID-19 with
respiratory failure."
On this news, NRx's stock price fell $2.27 per share, or 25.45%, to
close at $6.65 per share on November 5, 2021.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired NRx shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Suit For Freezing Customer Accounts & Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Three PayPal users who've allegedly had their accounts frozen and
funds taken by the company without explanation have filed a federal
lawsuit against the online payment service. The plaintiffs -- two
users from California and one from Chicago -- are accusing the
company of unlawfully seizing their personal property and violating
racketeering laws. They're now proposing a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of all other users who've had their accounts frozen before
and are seeking restitution, as well as punitive and exemplary
damages.
Lena Evans, one of the plaintiffs who'd been a PayPal user for 22
years, said the website seized $26,984 from her account six months
after it got frozen without ever telling her why. Evans had been
using PayPal to buy and sell clothing on eBay, to exchange money
for a poker league she owns and for a non-profit that helps women
with various needs.
Fellow plaintiff Roni Shemtov said PayPal seized over $42,000 of
her money and never got an acceptable reason for why her account
was terminated. She received several different explanations when
she contacted the company: One customer rep said it was because she
used the same IP and computer as other Paypal users, while another
said it was because she sold yoga clothing at 20 to 30 percent
lower than retail. Yet another representative allegedly said it was
because she used multiple accounts, which she denies.
Shbadan Akylbekov, the third plaintiff, said PayPal seized over
$172,000 of his money without giving him any explanation why the
account got limited in the first place. Akylbekov used the account
of a company his wife owns to sell Hyaluron pens, which are
needle-less pens that inject hyaluronic acid into the skin. After
the money disappeared from the account following a six-month
freeze, PayPal allegedly sent his wife a letter that says she
"violated PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
by accepting payments for the sale of injectable fillers not
approved by the FDA." It also said that the money was taken from
her account "for its liquidated damages arising from those AUP
violations pursuant to the User Agreement."
PayPal has long angered many a user for limiting accounts and
freezing their funds for six months or more. One high-profile case
was American poker player Chris Moneymaker's who had $12,000 taken
from his account after six months of being limited. Moneymaker was
already in the process of asking people to join him in a class
action lawsuit before his funds were "mysteriously returned."
Part of the complaint reads:
"Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendant PAYPAL, INC.
("PayPal") to recover damages and other relief available at law and
in equity on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf of the
members of the class defined herein. . . This action stems from
Defendant's widespread business practice of unilaterally seizing
funds from its clients' financial accounts, without cause and
without any fair or due process.
PayPal places a "hold" on Plaintiffs' own funds in their own PayPal
accounts. PayPal has failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the
class of the reason(s) for the actions PayPal has taken, even
telling Plaintiffs and members of the class that they will "have to
get a subpoena" to learn the simple information as to why PayPal
was holding, and denying Plaintiffs, access to their own money."
[GN]
PFNY LLC: Faces Ross Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PFNY, LLC, PFNY HOLDINGS, LLC, JAMES
INNOCENTI, and JEFFREY INNOCENTI, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00314-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 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 timely
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, and failure to
provide proper wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by Planet Fitness as a member service
representative from December 2020 until March 16, 2021.
PFNY, LLC is an owner and operator of fitness clubs in New York.
PFNY Holdings, LLC is an owner and operator of fitness clubs in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Hunter G. Benharris, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Court Dismisses COPOMIAO's Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF MAJOR ITALIAN AMERICAN
ORGANIZATIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and
MAYOR JAMES F. KENNEY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-1609 (E.D.
Pa.), Judge C. Darnell Jones, II, of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants'
Motions for Dismissal.
I. Background
At its core, the case is about the City of Philadelphia and its
Mayor, James Kenney, issuing an Executive Order ("Executive Order
2-21") that allegedly discriminates against Italian Americans by
designating that the City holiday known as "Columbus Day" will be
known as "Indigenous Peoples' Day" in the City of Philadelphia.
Plaintiffs Philadelphia City Councilmember, Mark Squilla, Jodi
Della Barba, the 1492 Society, Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Sons
and Daughters of Italy, and Conference of Presidents of Major
Italian American Organizations, Inc., bring the present action
against the Defendants, the City of Philadelphia and Mayor James F.
Kenney, alleging violations of: the Equal Protection Clause under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983; the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter; the
separation of powers doctrine; the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act; and
the Home Rule Act. They also seek declaratory judgments to find
that Italian Americans are a protected class, and that Executive
Order 2-21 violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Columbus Day has been recognized as a national government holiday
since at least 1934. Italian immigrants and Italian Americans have
historically embraced, and continue to celebrate, Christopher
Columbus as a symbol of the voyage their families endeavored when
immigrating from Italy to the United States. The Plaintiffs state
that Columbus Day was recognized, at least in part, due to the
discrimination Italian Americans faced.
The Plaintiffs claim that both Christopher Columbus and Italian
Americans are facing persecution throughout the country.
Specifically, in Philadelphia, Italian Americans became concerned
when the city began discussing whether to cancel Columbus Day. In
early 2018, the Plaintiff and City Councilmember, Mark Squilla,
enlisted Robert F. Petrone, Esq., a renowned Christopher Columbus
expert, to research Columbus's true historical record.
After conducting his investigation, Petrone provided Philadelphia
City Council with two (2) reports detailing his findings, which
found no evidence that Columbus mistreated Indigenous People.
Rather, his reports indicate that Columbus repeatedly protected
tribal people. Despite Philadelphia City Council having been
provided with Petrone's reports, Mayor Kenny issued Executive Order
2-212 on Jan. 27, 2021 designating the formerly known as Columbus
Day as Indigenous Peoples' Day.
In addition to changing the name of Columbus Day, the Plaintiffs
allege that Mayor Kenney has repeatedly taken steps that form a
pattern of racial discrimination against Italian Americans. In
addition to his comments, the Plaintiffs suggest that Mayor Kenney
participated in a chain of discriminatory conduct, beginning with
the removal of the Frank L. Rizzo statue from the steps of the
Municipal Services Building. After removing the Rizzo statue, Mayor
Kenney prepared to remove the Christopher Columbus statue from
Marconi Plaza.
In a more recent discriminatory action, the Plaintiffs claim that
Mayor Kenney purposefully delayed COVID-19 vaccine distribution to
Italian American communities. When Philadelphia released the first
20 Philadelphia zip codes eligible to receive the COVID-19
vaccines, he skipped over those with the largest concentration of
Italian Americans.
On April 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced the present action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On April 12, 2021, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Sons and
Daughters of Italy filed a Motion to Intervene, which this Court
granted on April 27, 2021.
On May 12, 2021, the Defendants filed the present Motions to
Dismiss for both lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
They argue that, not only are the Plaintiffs' allegations
frivolous, but they lack standing to bring the present Complaint.
The Plaintiffs filed Responses in Opposition on May 26, 2021,
arguing not only that the Government cannot treat ethnic groups
differently, but also that all the Plaintiffs have standing either
as Italian Americans themselves or as advocates on behalf of
Italian Americans. With these filings, the Defendants' Motions are
ripe for the Court's review.
II. Discussion
A. Standing
1. Standing Based on Discrimination
Each Plaintiff alleges to have standing, at least in part, because
they either are or are affiliated with Italian Americans, and they
state that Executive Order 2-21 discriminates against them by
replacing it with a holiday designated to a similarly situated
group (Indigenous People). The Defendants state that any alleged
discrimination is about messaging from changing the holiday's name,
not treatment, and it only conveys a generalized grievance, not a
particularized and concrete harm. The Plaintiffs respond that the
act of changing the name of Columbus Day is an affirmative action
that results in taking from one group and giving to another at the
former's expense.
Having reviewed the filings, Judge Jones agrees with the
Defendants. He says, just because a plaintiff disagrees with the
Government's actions, does not equate to discriminatory treatment.
Similarly, he finds that the Plaintiffs fail to identify any
discriminatory impact they have personally experienced from
Executive Order 2-21.
Though the Plaintiffs repeatedly reiterate that they have
experienced alleged discrimination from Executive Order 2-21, Judge
Jones holds that their filings are completely devoid of any
particularized discriminatory impact or injury to a legally
protected interest. Accordingly, any allegation that all the
Plaintiffs possess standing because discrimination, itself, is a
cognizable injury is entirely insufficient.
2. Standing Based on Columbus Day Parade and Celebrations
In addition to the generalized grievances of discrimination, the
Plaintiffs, specifically Plaintiff Della Barbra, the 1492 Society's
Columbus Day parade organizer, the 1492 Society, and the Grand
Lodge appear to imply further injury because of Executive Order
2-21's alleged impact on their Columbus Day parade/celebrations.
The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs do not, and cannot,
claim that Executive Order 2-21 will prevent them from organizing a
parade or further celebrations honoring Christopher Columbus and/or
Italian American Heritage. Because the Plaintiffs' Complaint is
void of any alleged inability to still celebrate Christopher
Columbus or Italian American ancestry with the holiday's new name,
such an implication is also insufficient to warrant standing.
Judge Jones finds that the Plaintiffs fail to suggest any impending
harm from Executive Order 2-21 because they can still celebrate
Christopher Columbus under the holiday's new name. Nothing in
Executive Order 2-21 prevents Italian Americans from organizing a
parade to honor Columbus and/or Italian American heritage, and the
Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, suggest that it does. It is within
the Plaintiffs' own control whether and how they choose to
celebrate the holiday formerly known as Columbus Day, so any
implication that such is controlled by Executive Order 2-21 is
false and cannot afford standing.
3. Standing Based on Miscellaneous Discriminatory Acts
In addition to their primary complaints over Executive Order 2-21,
the Plaintiffs also list numerous, miscellaneous grievances against
Defendants. Because the removal of the Frank L. Rizzo statue and
attempted removal of the statue of Christopher Columbus are being
handled as separate lawsuits, the Court looks to whether Plaintiffs
have standing for: The manner in which the City distributed COVID
relief vaccinations; the reassignment of one Police Captain from
his assignment in the First Police District; the Mayor's statement
that Italian Americans gathering at the Columbus statue were
"vigilantes"; and Mayor Kenney's statement in 2016 in which he
"stereotyped" Italian Americans.
Again, the Plaintiffs do not explain, and Judge Jones fails to see
how any such allegations amount to "an injury that is both concrete
in nature and particularized to them." Even with these allegations,
he says, the Plaintiffs have still failed to state a single basis
on which the Court may find standing to consider their Equal
Protection claim.
B. Arguendo Equal Protection Violations
1. Government Speech
Assuming arguendo that any of the Plaintiffs had standing to bring
the present action, a conclusion that Judge Jones does not find,
Counts I-III of the Complaint must still be dismissed because the
Defendants' actions are protected by the government speech
doctrine. The parties have failed to cite, and Judge Jones has
failed to find, any cases determining whether holiday names
constitute government speech.
Because Executive Order 2-21 constitutes government speech, the
Plaintiffs, even if they had standing, could not bring a successful
Equal Protection violation. The Third Circuit has held that, "the
Equal Protection Clause does not apply to government speech,"
citing Fields v. Speaker of Pa. H.R., 936 F.3d 142, 161 (3d Cir.
2019). This is because "private citizens have no personal interest
in government speech on which to base an equal protection claim."
Thus, even if the Plaintiffs had standing to bring an Equal
Protection violation, Judge Jones holds that Counts I-III of their
Complaint would still require dismissal.
2. Prima Facie Equal Protection Claim
Assuming arguendo that Executive Order 2-21 was not government
speech, a conclusion Judge Jones does not support, the Plaintiffs
still fail to put forth a prima facie Equal Protection claim. The
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment directs that no
state will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." "The Clause announces a fundamental
principle: The State must govern impartially." "Thus, an equal
protection claim arises when a person 'receives different treatment
from that received by other persons similarly situated.'" "In order
to prove a claim of discrimination in violation of Equal
Protection, 'a plaintiff must show not only that the state action
complained of had a disproportionate or discriminatory impact but
that also the defendant acted with the intent to discriminate.'"
In the case, Judge Jones finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state any discriminatory impact they have personally experienced
from the renaming of Columbus Day. They do not provide the Court
with any details as to how their lives have changed because of the
renaming of the holiday. Without such proof, any Equal Protection
allegation is futile. If the Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
discriminatory treatment, they would still fail to establish a
prima facie Equal Protection claim because they have not plausibly
shown discriminatory intent. Based upon the above, the Plaintiffs
have failed to plausibly plead a prima facie Equal Protection
violation. Accordingly, Counts I-III warrant dismissal.
C. Pennsylvania State Court Violations
Following the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection claims,
what remains are allegations under the Philadelphia Home Rule
Charter, the Separation of Powers, the Sunshine Act, and the Home
Rule Act. Such claims must be dismissed without prejudice, Judge
Jones rules. He says, no "particular prejudice," nor much
additional expense, would result from any additional delay because
the Plaintiffs can easily file similar briefs in state court.
Because the Plaintiffs raise many claims that closely impact the
citizens of Philadelphia, state court is a more appropriate venue
to address their supplemental state law claims, so Counts IV-VII
are dismissed without prejudice.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jones granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint and the
Interpleader action in their entirety. An appropriate Order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p85rhj8 from Leagle.com.
PLACE FOR ROVER: Rainey Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLAIRE RAINEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. A PLACE FOR ROVER, INC. dba ROVER.COM;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV39459, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00403 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure
to provide meal and rest breaks and/or pay premiums in lieu
thereof, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
timely pay wages during employment and upon termination of
employment, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and
unfair competition.
A Place for Rover, Inc., doing business as Rover.com, is an
operator of an online community for finding pet sitters,
headquartered in Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John P. Lecrone, Esq.
Vandana Kapur, Esq.
Lorraine Wang, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: johnlecrone@dwt.com
vandanakapur@dwt.com
lorrainewang@dwt.com
PRET A MANGER: Fingerprinting Class Action Suit Reaches Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A suit initially filed in November of 2020 in the Northern District
of Illinois Eastern Division reached a settlement. Plaintiff Kayla
Quarles, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, had filed suit against her former employer, Pret A Manger
(USA) Limited (Pret), after they allegedly violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The initial suit alleged that the defendant had violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) when they
fingerprinted their employees without "complying to the statute's
informed consent regime or adhering to a publicly-available policy
governing the retention and destruction of this highly-sensitive
data."
Fingerprints are considered biometric data, meaning that they are a
form of personally identifiable information that cannot be changed
like a credit card number. This means that a greater level of
protection needs to be given to biometric data like fingerprinting.
In an effort to protect biometric information, Illinois passed BIPA
in 2008 as a way of providing "heightened protections for biometric
privacy rights." Under BIPA, employers are required to provide
information about their intentions with biometric data and obtain a
signed written release from any employee they are collecting from
prior to the collection.
The plaintiff worked for the defendant in 2018 and 2019, during
which time the defendant required her to use a biometric
timekeeping system that required a fingerprint scan. She asserts
that all new hires had to be fingerprinted so that they could use
the timekeeping system. The complaint argued that the fingerprint
timekeeping system kept by Pret violated BIPA since they failed to
implement and adhere to a "publicly-available policy governing the
retention and destruction of its employees' biometric data."
Further, they maintained a database of employees' biometric
information without the necessary disclosures or consent forms.
Quarles filed the motion for preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement that had been reached between the class and the
defendant, Pret A Manger. The settlement will provide relief to the
797 former Pret employees who make up the class in the form of
$677,450.00. The money will go into a non-reversionary Settlement
Fund and all class members will "receive an equal, pro-rata
distribution without the need to file a claim or take any other
action."
Regarding the settlement, Judge Manish S. Shah stated that "the
settlement appears to be a reasonable compromise of a complicated
case with risk on both sides." The plaintiff was represented in the
litigation by Keogh Law, while Pret A Manger was represented by
O'Hagan Meyer Law Firm and Jones Day. [GN]
PRIMOHOAGIES FRANCHISING: Delp Slams Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Delp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Primohoagies Franchising, Inc., Defendants, Case
22-cv-00238 (D. N.J., January 19, 2022) seeks damages, restitution
and injunctive relief arising from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Primohoagies Franchising is a fast-food chain restaurant. To
promote its services, it engages in unsolicited marketing by
sending telemarketing text messages to cellular telephone number
without the subscribers' prior express consent, says the complaint.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Jan. 20 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata") (NASDAQ: RETA).
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Reata securities, and/or sold Reata put options,
between November 9, 2020 and December 8, 2021, inclusive.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/reata-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=22304&wire=5
Allegations against RETA include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Food and Drug Administration had raised concerns regarding
the validity of the clinical study designed to measure the efficacy
and safety of bardoxolone for the treatment of chronic kidney
disease caused by Alport syndrome; (2) as a result, there was a
material risk that Reata's New Drug Application would not be
approved; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you suffered a loss in Reata you have until February 18, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
RENOVATE AMERICA: Homeowners' Lawsuit Over PACE Program Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Mills, writing for Akron Beacon Journal, reports that a
program meant to help Summit County residents get financing for
energy efficiency improvements to their homes is "stalled" and
unlikely to move forward.
The Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) residential financing
program was announced in June 2019 and expected to launch in March
2020.
California-based private lender Renovate America was the lending
partner working with the Development Finance Authority of Summit
County to finance the program.
Renovate America filed for bankruptcy protection after tighter
regulations and lawsuits chased it out of the business of
assessments for energy improvement financing, The Wall Street
Journal reported in December 2020.
Bloomberg reported last April that Renovate America was facing more
than 50 lawsuits when it declared bankruptcy, including a class
action brought by homeowners in Los Angeles County, which ended its
PACE program in May 2020, citing "increasing criticism and concern"
over consumer protections.
"Residential PACE has met some -- it has struggled to gain
traction, I guess that's the safest way to put it," said Brian
Nelsen, chief of staff to Summit County Executive Ilene Shapiro.
"There have been a number of consumer issues in other states that
have made us -- us being the administration at the county and
others -- become a little more uncomfortable with the whole
residential PACE side of this and the way it's currently been
delivered."
Nelsen said that if there were a local partner for a future
residential financing program, the county "would be more likely to
move forward with it."
"But at this point, it's stalled, and I'm not sure it's gonna
actually get implemented here in Summit County," he said.
How residential PACE was designed to operate
The program was meant to allow residents to apply for financing,
either through Renovate America or local contractors, for projects
like roofing, windows and doors, HVAC and furnace or insulation
upgrades.
Property owners would have financed the upfront costs of energy
improvements by making a voluntary assessment on their tax bill and
paying back the costs over time. Renovate America said it would
provide 100% financing using private dollars, with no taxpayer or
ratepayer money used.
PACE financing has previously been used for commercial projects in
the county, including the Cascade Plaza project in Akron, a Crystal
Clinic facility in Bath Township and the Akron Rubber Development
Laboratory in Barberton.
The Development Finance Authority of Summit County continues to
offer PACE financing for businesses, nonprofits and governments to
fund energy improvements, like lighting upgrades and roof and
window replacements, financed through voluntary special assessments
on properties.
Before using PACE, a community has to create or be part of an
Energy Special Improvement District. DFA, in collaboration with
Summit County, is the administrator of the Akron-Summit County
ESID. The member communities are Akron, Barberton, Bath Township,
Boston Heights, Copley Township, Coventry Township, Cuyahoga Falls,
Fairlawn, Green, Hudson, Lakemore, Macedonia, Mogadore, New
Franklin, Northfield Center Township, Norton, Richfield village,
Springfield Township, Stow, Tallmadge and Twinsburg.
How commercial, residential approaches differ
Nelsen said there's a key difference between the commercial program
and a potential residential one.
"Most commercial entities that enter into this have finance and
legal professionals that work for them. When you look at the
residential side, particularly when you look at senior citizens,
not so much the case," he said.
"The number of times that there have been reports in other states
of somebody signing up for something they don't still even with all
the disclosures fully understand what they're signing up for, then
the tax bill comes. They don't know what it is. Their children,
caretakers, whoever are asking them why their tax bill went through
the roof," Nelsen said.
"It's a problem. And it's one of those that I don't care how good
the financial disclosures are, it can still happen, and it's still
a tough situation," he said.
"I think that's really, in a nutshell, the stumbling block that we
haven't been able to get over that hurdle to feel comfortable with
pushing that program out." [GN]
RETAIL SERVICES: Asabre MCEMA Suit Removed to D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EVA ASABRE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RETAIL SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
TOTAL WINE & MORE, Case No. C-15-CV-21-000459, was removed from the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland on January 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No.
8:22-cv-00148-GLS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act by sending e-mail
communications to the Plaintiff and others that contained
misleading subject lines.
Retail Services & Systems, Inc., doing business as Total Wine &
More, is a retailer of alcoholic beverages, with its principal
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Murphy, Esq.
John J. Connolly, Esq.
Alicia Shelton, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
100 E. Pratt St., Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 332-0444
Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
E-mail: wmurphy@zuckerman.com
jconnolly@zuckerman.com
ashelton@zuckerman.com
RIVIANA FOODS: Kutzback Sues Over Unpaid OT for Machine Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KUTZBACK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIANA FOODS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02025-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn., January 20, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated machine operators overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a machine operator for the
Defendant from July 2015 to the present.
Riviana Foods, Inc. is a processor, marketer, and distributor of
branded and private label rice products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 251-1399
E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Robinhood
Markets, Inc. ("Robinhood" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: HOOD) issued
in connection with its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") conducted on
or about July 30, 2021.
If you purchased Robinhood common stock issued in connection with
the IPO, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff
by no later than February 15, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Robinhood investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, text
or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Robinhood Securities Class Litigation
Robinhood, headquartered in Menlo Park, California, provides a
platform through which investors can buy and sell stocks, exchange
traded funds, and cryptocurrencies.
The action alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's IPO made representations
that were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete
because they failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO,
Robinhood's revenue growth was slowing significantly and were
masked by transitory boosts of revenues from cryptocurrency
transactions; and the Company's purported investments in increasing
its platform's reliability were in fact inadequate, leaving
Robinhood vulnerable to security breaches and disruptions in
services.
On October 26, 2021, after markets closed, Robinhood revealed that
(1) its total net revenue for the third quarter of 2021 was only
$365 million, falling short of analysts' estimates by nearly $73
million, and that its monthly active users ("MAUs"), funded
accounts, assets under custody, and average revenue per user had
all declined; (2) third quarter revenues from cryptocurrency
transactions had fallen $182 million from the previous quarter; (3)
net losses increased $11 million to $1.32 billion because of a
$1.24 billion stock-based compensation expense; and (4) the Company
reduced its full year revenue guidance to "less than $1.8 billion,"
amounting to maximum growth of 85% for the year, which fell short
of analysts' estimates of 111% growth. On this news, the price of
Robinhood stock fell $4.13 per share, or 10.43%, from its closing
price of $39.57 on October 26, 2021, to close at $35.44 per share
on October 27, 2021, on extremely heavy trading volume.
On November 8, 2021, after the markets closed, the Company
announced that on November 3, 2021 it had experienced a "data
security incident," wherein an "unauthorized third party" had
obtained email addresses for approximately five million Robinhood
users, the full names of about two million users, and additional
personal information of 310 other users, including names, dates of
birth, and zip codes, with ten of those users suffering breaches
that were even "more extensive." On this news, the price of
Robinhood stock fell $1.28 per share, or 3.37%, from a closing
price of $37.98 on November 8, 2021, to close at $36.70 per share
on November 9, 2021, on elevated trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is an
internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the
rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the
nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. Law360 has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide
for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting
that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of
the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world."
Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10
Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
SAMSARA INC: Karling Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Karling, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Samsara Inc., Case No. 2021-CH-06258,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan.
18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00295 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Samsara Inc. -- https://www.samsara.com/ -- is an American IoT
company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SITEL WORLDWIDE: Underypays Customer Care Agents, Stanback Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIRSTEN STANBACK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SITEL WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, and SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00025 (M.D. Tenn., Jan.
14, 2022) is brought against the Defendants as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current
and former employees, and for breach of contract under various
states' laws, including Tennessee, to recover unpaid contractual
wages.
The Plaintiff, a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, worked for the
Defendants as a home-based customer care agent from August 2019 to
the present.
Sitel is a privately owned contact center company headquartered in
Miami, Florida. It provides outsourced sales, technical support,
customer service, and other business processes for large
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Telephone: (615) 851-1776
Facsimile: (615) 859-7033
E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com
SS CARPENTRY: Espinoza Sues Over Assistant Carpenters' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEOVANNY ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SS CARPENTRY & REMODELING INC. and
STEFANIE SUAREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20227 (S.D. Fla.,
January 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated assistant carpenters overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an assistant
carpenter from June 16, 2016 until December 30, 2021.
SS Carpentry & Remodeling Inc. is a provider of carpentry and
remodeling services, with its principal place of business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
STATE FARM: Chiu Suit Removed to W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yuen To Chiu, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Roger K. Tyler, Case No. CT-06-00021, was
removed from the Shelby County Circuit Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Jan. 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02021 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
State Farm Insurance -- http://www.statefarm.com/-- is a large
group of insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Mary Wu Tullis, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ-Memphis
165 Madison Ave., Ste. 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 577-8180
Fax: (901) 577-0746
Email: mtullis@bakerdonelson.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Giron Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Renee Giron, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2021CH05971 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department - Chancery Division to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan.
5, 2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00075.
The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and a putative class,
that Subaru has violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act, ("BIPA"), based on technology the Plaintiff characterizes as
the DriverFocus Distraction Mitigation system, a suite of safety
and convenience features Plaintiff alleges are installed in certain
cars Subaru distributes through authorized retailers. The Plaintiff
further alleges she and the members of the putative class are
entitled to several remedies against Subaru, including: (1)
statutory damages of up to $5,000 per alleged violation, (2)
punitive damages, (3) attorneys' fees and costs, and (4) an
injunction compelling Subaru to refrain from capturing, collecting,
using, storing, disclosing, or disseminating Plaintiff's and class
members' biometric identifiers or biometric information without
obtaining their express consent and permanently destroying
Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 995-6333
Fax: (312) 995-6330
Email: lkiser@kslaw.com
SUPERLATIVE RM: Plotnik Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superlative RM. The
case is styled as Moshe Plotnik, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Superlative RM, Case No.
7:22-cv-00431 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Superlative RM -- https://superlativerm.com/ -- is an account
receivables management company that works for creditors to assist
them with recovering past due balances from consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM J. FISHBEIN
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Phone: (516) 791-4400
Fax: (516) 791-4411
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Talis
Biomedical Corporation ("Talis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TLIS)
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's February 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
All investors who purchased the shares of Talis Biomedical
Corporation, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the
action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in Talis Biomedical Corporation you
may, no later than March 8, 2022, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in Talis
Biomedical Corporation.
In February 2021, Talis completed its IPO, selling 15,870,000
shares of common stock at a price of $16.00 per share.
On March 8, 2021, Talis announced that it had withdrawn its EUA
application for the Talis One COVID-19 test. In a press release,
the Company revealed that "[i]n late February, the FDA informed the
company that it cannot ensure the comparator assay used in the
primary study has sufficient sensitivity to support Talis's EUA
application." As a result, Talis "intends to initiate its
previously planned clinical validation study in a point-of-care
environment" to submit its EUA application "early in the second
quarter of 2021." This study "was designed with a different
comparator study, which Talis believes will address the FDA's
concerns."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.80, or 12%, to
close at $12.85 per share on March 8, 2021.
Then, on August 10, 2021, Talis revealed that its "development
timelines have been extended by delays in the launching of
[Talis's] COVID-19 test and manufacturing scale." As a result,
Talis "expect[s] to see [its] first meaningful revenue ramp in
2022."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.58, or 6%, to close
at $8.39 per share on August 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, Talis announced that
its Chief Executive Officer, Brian Coe, had "stepped down" as
President, CEO, and Director. On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $1.00, or 11%, to close at $8.06 per share on August 31,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On November 15, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser was
appointed as President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of
Talis effective December 1, 2021. However, a week after his
appointment, on December 8, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser
had stepped down from his positions. On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $0.55 per share, or more than 11%, to close at
$4.28 per share on December 8, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
TALK TO ME: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Talk To Me
Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Talk To Me
Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00263 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Talk To Me Technologies -- https://www.talktometechnologies.com/ --
offers speech-generating devices for children and adults, with the
widest variety of access options available - from keyguards, head
mouse, switch scanning and eye-tracking to auditory scanning and
auditory fishing.[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
TALKSPACE INC: Allegedly Misleads Investors Over SPAC Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Olsen at mobihealthnews.com reports that Teletherapy company
Talkspace is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it misled
investors about the company's financials in the run-up to its
merger with a special purpose acquisition company.
The suit, filed Jan. 7, alleges investors weren't informed that
Talkspace was seeing significantly increased advertising costs in
its direct-to-consumer business, and it was seeing lower conversion
rates from those ads. The class action also claims the company had
increased customer acquisition costs and lower demand in its
consumer business than was revealed to investors, and it had
overvalued income from its deals with health plans.
"Talkspace, as a public company, does not discuss ongoing
litigation. However, we have reviewed the allegations in the
complaint(s) and do not believe they have any merit. We will defend
the company vigorously," a Talkspace spokesperson wrote to
MobiHealthNews.
Why It Matters
In January 2021, Talkspace announced plans to go public via a
merger with a blank check company, Hudson Executive Investment
Corp. The deal closed six months later, providing the company with
$250 million in growth capital.
But the mental health company has struggled financially since then.
Its opening day stock price was listed at $8.90; today's prices are
hovering around $1.50 per share.
Talkspace's cofounder and CEO Oren Frank and cofounder and head of
clinical services Roni Frank stepped down from their roles in
November as the company announced "disappointing" third quarter
results.
About a week later, president and chief operating officer Mark
Hirschhorn resigned following an internal review of his conduct in
connection with a company offsite event.
The Larger Trend
Virtual mental and behavioral health is a hot space in digital
health, drawing plenty of investor attention. There are a variety
of companies that aim to rethink mental healthcare in the digital
age, including Headspace Health, SonderMind, Lyra Health, Modern
Health and a variety of other players.
Hitting the public markets via SPAC is also a trend among digital
health and health tech companies. Last year, digital prescription
therapeutic company Pear Therapeutics, baby tech company Owlet,
digital health chatbot Babylon, clinical trial platform Science 37
and consumer genetics company 23andMe all hit the public markets
through SPAC deals.
However, many health tech companies aren't performing well after
going public, according to a report by Silicon Valley Bank. It
noted that de-SPAC performance was -23% in the healthcare industry
overall, and -44% in the health tech sector.
"The aggressive valuation premiums we have seen in the health tech
private market have not translated to the public market," the
report's authors wrote.[GN]
TARGET CORPORATION: Gouwens Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is styled as Jessica Gouwens, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
3:22-cv-50016 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American big
box department store chain headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[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
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Greene Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charles M. Greene, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Terminix International Company,
L.P. was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on Jan. 14, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-20199-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Terminix International Company, L.P. -- http://www.terminix.com/--
is one of the largest pest control companies in the world,
operating in 47 states in the United States and 22 countries around
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara Fernandez, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33156-2741
Phone: (305) 358-7747
Fax: (305) 577-1063
Email: bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com
THAKOON HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Slade Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THAKOON HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00357 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, thakoon.com, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers.
Thakoon's commercial website offers products and services for
online sale. The online store allows the user to browse women's
clothing and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of
other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: shakedLawGroup@gmail.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: RAV4 Fuel Tank Class Settlement Awaits Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hanson, ESQ, writing for Legal Scoops, reports that current or
former owners of certain 2019, 2020, and 2021 RAV4 Hybrid vehicles
need to pay close attention to their rights. The court has been
requested to approve a class action settlement preliminarily.
The plaintiffs in the settled lawsuit allege that Toyota advertises
the fuel tank in certain 2019, 2020, and 2021 RAV4 Hybrid vehicles,
a crossover SUV, as having a capacity of 14.5 gallons and a range
of 580 miles. But even when nearly empty, owners cannot add over 10
gallons of fuel before the automatic shut-off engages and stops the
pump from filling the tank further.
Current or former owners should know that California's lemon law
and other state and federal laws may force Toyota to "buy the
vehicle back" or provide further meaningful compensation for those
experiencing this defect.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be
repurchased, which can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your
loan or lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid
for the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down
payments, tax, finance charges, license, registration, etc. You
could even qualify for two times your money back.
What Toyota would have to buy it for has nothing to do with its
current worth. There is a formula in the law that starts with you
getting all your money back and then taking certain deductions and
exclusions away from your payment. Those refunds and exclusions are
difficult to understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable
consumer attorneys.
Watch the mail, watch your email, and contact a consumer lawyer for
advice.
Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Class Action Lawsuits
Pulkrabek, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, Case No.
2:20-cv-00036-JRG-RSP, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 13, 2020.
Plaintiffs brought it on behalf of a class of owners and lessees of
certain 2019, 2020, and 2021 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid vehicles and 2021
RAV4 Prime vehicles who reside in Missouri and California but were
recently amended to include owners of all such cars nationwide.
In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation, 3:20-cv-00337-EMC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on January 15, 2020. In Re Toyota Rav4
Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation was brought by a different group of
plaintiffs on behalf of a class of owners and lessees of certain
2019, 2020, and 2021 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid vehicles and 2021 RAV4
Prime vehicles but challenging the actual fuel capacity of these
vehicles.
The class action lawsuits were brought on behalf of residents of
certain states under the laws of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The Pulkrabek lawsuit is being settled. However, that Settlement
Agreement does not resolve or provide a release for claims related
to the actual capacity of the vehicles' fuel tanks, which
allegations are included in the cases consolidated in In re Toyota
RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litig.
You may soon have the option of participating in that settlement or
bringing your own claim and "opting out" of that settlement or the
litigation.
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Status of the RAV4 Class Action Litigation
In Pulkrabek, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, the court denied
Toyota's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint on
March 30, 2021. On May 13, 2021, Toyota filed an answer to the
amended complaint. A motion for class certification was to be filed
by August 20, 2021, with a hearing set for November 15, 2021, at
09:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The parties
stipulated to Plaintiffs filing a Second Amended Complaint on June
17, 2021, and a motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement was filed on June 21, 2021.
Rav4 class action lawsuits
The Plaintiffs in In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation
filed objections to that settlement, which objections were resolved
when on October 14, 2021, they filed a Third Amended Complaint and
clarified their position that the settlement does not challenge
claims of the actual fuel tank capacity of those vehicles asserted
in In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation. Those objections
have now been withdrawn, and the court has an amended motion for
preliminary approval pending before it, with no objections.
Under the schedule proposed to the court, dissemination of the
Class Settlement Notice will be within 45 calendar days from the
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the deadlines for
objections and opt-outs will be 160 calendar days after Preliminary
Approval Order, and the court will schedule the Final Approval
Hearing no sooner than 210 days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order.
In In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation, the court granted
consolidation of cases and appointed interim class counsel on
August 13, 2020. The court granted and partly denied Toyota's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint in April
2021. On August 6, 2021, Toyota filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which was filed on
June 9, 2021. The court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss on December
10, 2021, dismissing some claims and granting Plaintiffs leave to
amend to address specific issues, such as the effectiveness of
Toyota's voluntary repair program and their requests for injunctive
relief. Plaintiffs will be filing an amended complaint in January
2022.
Discovery has not been completed. No trial date has been set in
either case.
For a free lemon law consultation, fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
What are Your Options as a Class Member in the Settlement?
If the class is certified by the court in a class-action lawsuit,
the lawyers who bring the class action represent you. You will
receive notice if the court approves the case to proceed as a class
action and your right to opt-out of the class by a specific
deadline. If they prevail, you receive whatever relief is awarded
by the judge or jury. But if they lose, you may not litigate claims
over the issues raised.
As with most litigation, the vast majority of class action cases
settle. According to court records, the Pulkrabek parties have
settled and have requested preliminary approval of that settlement.
The court has not preliminarily approved the settlement, but all
objections have now been withdrawn.
Under the settlement, Toyota will offer an Extended Customer
Support Program ("Extended Program") to all class members. The
Extended Program includes the RAV4 Hybrid model years 2019-21. The
Extended Program provides all class members who believe that their
fuel tank is experiencing the fuel tank capacity issue: (1) free
inspections of the fuel tank and fuel sender gauge unit; (2) if a
problem exists, repair and replacement of the fuel tank and fuel
sender gauge unit with a new, improved fuel tank or fuel sender
gauge unit; and (3) a complimentary Loaner Vehicle, if the repair
exceeds six hours or the Subject Vehicle, must remain at the
dealership overnight. The Extended Program will increase the
original Customer Support Program by seven (7) years and 50,000
miles for a total coverage period of 15 years from the date the
Subject Vehicle was initially sold/leased or 150,000 miles,
whichever occurs first, on original parts.
Toyota will also pay all settlement administration costs, including
class notice and any award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and Class
Representative service awards.
Approximately 45 days after the court preliminarily approves the
settlement, you will receive a class notice describing your
options. Those options will be: (a) do nothing, in which case you
may get nothing but be bound by the settlement, (b) submit a claim
form if requested and get whatever relief is provided, and the
settlement also binds you, or (c) opt-out and pursue your own
claims, in which case you are not bound by the settlement but
cannot participate in the relief being offered to class members.
A class action settlement may provide significant benefits for many
people and require little effort to participate. It also comes with
no risk, as the claims have been resolved. But for others,
particularly where they may have had significant damages, opting
out and pursuing individual claims may provide them an opportunity
to receive a better recovery in a shorter time, but with no
guarantee, they will get anything in a settlement.
rav4 fuel tank lawsuitsWith vehicles, what to do can be a
complicated decision, as it can depend on many factors. These
factors include:
How old is your car?
Has the defect occurred in your car?
Have you taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion?
Do you still own the car?
Is the vehicle still under warranty?
Where do you live?
Are you willing to consider the opportunity of getting a more
significant recovery as compared to taking what is offered in the
settlement?
We are available to help you sort through these questions and make
an informed decision.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Class Action FAQ
When and where were the RAV4 class-action lawsuits filed?
Pulkrabek, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, Case No.
2:20-cv-00036-JRG-RSP, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 13, 2020. This
lawsuit is being settled.
In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation, 3:20-cv-00337-EMC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on January 15, 2020. This case is still
pending and has not been settled.
What do consumers allege in the RAV4 hybrid class action lawsuits?
The plaintiffs in both cases allege that Toyota advertises the fuel
tank in RAV4 Hybrid vehicles, a crossover SUV, as having a capacity
of 14.5 gallons and a range of 580 miles. But even when nearly
empty, owners cannot add over 10 gallons of fuel before the
automatic shut-off engages and stops the pump from filling the tank
further. Defendants further represented the RAV4 Hybrid to have an
average 41/38/40 mpg rating (city/highway/combined).
The driving range is a significant factor for these vehicles, and
the RAV4 Hybrid should have a driving range between 551 and 594
miles on a full tank based on Toyota's representations as to the
expected range. Because of this defect, the range is less than
between 330 and 480 miles and has a lower fuel capacity than the
gas-only versions. The actual capacity claims are not being
resolved in the Pulkrabek settlement and addressed In Re Toyota
RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation.
What are the affected Toyota RAV4 models in the class action
lawsuits?
In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation was brought by
plaintiffs on behalf of a class of owners and lessees of certain
2019, 2020, and 2021 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid vehicles and 2021 RAV4
Prime vehicles, under the laws of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Pulkrabek, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales was brought on behalf of
the same models for owners and lessees living in Missouri and
California. However, the Third Amended Complaint asserts claims on
behalf of all owners of these vehicles located nationwide.
How many RAV4 vehicles are affected by this alleged defect?
According to publicly available data, the total number of Class
Vehicles sold is approximately 186,000 vehicles.
What do the class action lawsuits claim caused the fuel tank
defect?
Plaintiffs allege that Automotive News reported in 2020 that when
Toyota redesigned the RAV4 for the 2019 model year, Toyota changed
the design of its fuel tank from "a longitudinal 14.8-gallon tank
roughly shaped like a Native American papoose to a latitudinal,
saddle-shaped design with 14.5-gallon capacity, according to parts
diagrams" to accommodate the location of the electric motor's
battery. The defect of the redesigned fuel tank causes the affected
vehicles to have a markedly lower driving range than designed.
rav4 lawsuitsPlaintiffs claim that Toyota knew of the defect. In a
statement to Automotive News, Toyota confirmed that it is
"investigating a fuel tank shape issue on certain RAV4 Hybrid
vehicles. In these cases, variations in fuel tank shape may prevent
a full refill by up to several gallons. This condition may affect
the vehicle's total available driving distance. As a best practice,
customers should refuel before or when the low fuel light
illuminates, to prevent running out of fuel." Toyota dealers
similarly reported to Automotive News that "they were aware of the
issue."
The defect of the redesigned fuel tank causes the affected vehicles
to have a driving range markedly lower than designed and diminished
value.
For a free lemon law consultation, fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Does the alleged fuel tank defect violate the RAV4 vehicle
warranty?
Toyota provides RAV4 purchasers with an express warranty, including
a "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" for 36 months or 36,000 miles,
whichever occurs first. The New Vehicle Limited Warranty covers
"repairs and adjustments needed to correct defects in materials or
workmanship of any part supplied by Toyota.
The Federal Emissions Control Warranty covers the fuel tank for the
RAV4 Hybrid. The Plaintiffs allege that Toyota evades its warranty
obligations by claiming that the defect is not a defect but a
normal operating condition. Based on that position, it declines any
warranty coverage to bring the Subject Vehicles in line with
Toyota's representations regarding the fuel tank capacity.
What has Toyota done to resolve the alleged fuel tank defect?
Due to the issues with the fuel tank, Toyota has announced a
Customer Support Program (the "CSP") for specific 2019 - 2020 Model
Year RAV4 HV (CSP 20TE04) and certain 2020 Model Year RAV HV (CSP
20TE05). However, this remedy applies only to RAV4s that accept 12
gallons or less.
In addition, if the settlement in Pulkrabek et al. v. Toyota Motor
Sales is preliminarily and finally approved, Toyota will offer an
Extended Customer Support Program ("Extended Program") to all class
members. The Extended Program includes the RAV4 Hybrid model years
2019-21.
The Extended Support Program provides all class members who believe
that their fuel tank is experiencing the fuel tank capacity issue:
(1) free inspections of the fuel tank and fuel sender gauge unit;
(2) if a problem exists, repair and replacement of the fuel tank
and fuel sender gauge unit with a new, improved fuel tank or fuel
sender gauge unit; and (3) a complimentary Loaner Vehicle, if the
repair exceeds six hours or the Subject Vehicle, must remain at the
dealership overnight. The Extended Program will increase the
original Customer Support Program by seven (7) years and 50,000
miles for a total coverage period of 15 years from the date the
Subject Vehicle was initially sold/leased or 150,000 miles,
whichever occurs first, on original parts.
Toyota will also pay all settlement administration costs, including
class notice and any award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and Class
Representative service awards.
Are RAV4 vehicles with the fuel tank defect unsafe?
Any car that gives an inaccurate fuel reading, and where Toyota
advises that customers "should refuel before or when the low fuel
light illuminates, to prevent running out of fuel," may be
considered unsafe.
For a free lemon law consultation, fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
What is the status of the class action lawsuits?
In Pulkrabek, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, the court denied
Toyota's motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint on
March 30, 2021. On May 13, 2021, Toyota filed an answer to the
amended complaint. A motion for class certification was to be filed
by August 20, 2021. The parties stipulated to Plaintiffs filing a
Second Amended Complaint on June 17, 2021, and a motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was filed on June
21, 2021.
The Plaintiffs in In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation
filed objections to that settlement, which objections were resolved
when on October 14, 2021, they filed a Third Amended Complaint and
clarified their position that the settlement does not challenge
claims of the actual fuel tank capacity of those vehicles asserted
in In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation. Those objections
have now been withdrawn, and the court has an amended motion for
preliminary approval pending before it, with no objections.
In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation, the court granted
consolidation of cases and appointed interim class counsel on
August 13, 2020. Toyota has filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which was filed on
June 9, 2021. The court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss on December
10, 2021, dismissing some claims and granting Plaintiffs leave to
amend to address specific issues, such as the effectiveness of
Toyota's voluntary repair program and their requests for injunctive
relief. Plaintiffs will be filing an amended complaint in January
2022.
Discovery has not been completed. No trial date has been set in
either case.
Have the RAV4 hybrid class action lawsuits been settled?
rav4 settlementIn Pulkrabek, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, the
parties announced in August 2021 they had settled. Under the
proposed settlement, Toyota will offer an Extended Customer Support
Program ("Extended Program") to all Class Members. It will pay all
settlement administration costs, including Class Notice and any
award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and Class Representative
service awards.
The Extended Program provides all Class Members who believe that
their fuel tank is experiencing the fuel tank capacity issue: (1)
free inspections of the fuel tank and fuel sender gauge unit; (2)
if a problem exists, repair and replacement of the fuel tank and
fuel sender gauge unit with a new, improved fuel tank or fuel
sender gauge unit; and (3) a complimentary Loaner Vehicle, if the
repair exceeds six hours or the Subject Vehicle, must remain at the
dealership overnight. The Extended Program will increase the
original Customer Support Program by seven (7) years and 50,000
miles for a total coverage period of 15 years from the date the
Subject Vehicle was initially sold/leased or 150,000 miles,
whichever occurs first, on original parts. The Extended Program
includes the RAV4 Hybrid model years 2019-21.
Plaintiffs have moved to request preliminary approval of the class
action settlement. Counsel for Plaintiffs in In Re Toyota, RAV4
Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation, filed objections to that settlement,
which have since been withdrawn as the parties have clarified that
Settlement Agreement does not resolve or provide a release for
claims related to the actual capacity of the vehicles' fuel tanks,
which allegations are included in the cases consolidated in In re
Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litig.
On October 14, 2021, the plaintiffs in Pulkrabek filed a Third
Amended Complaint. They clarified their position that the
settlement does not challenge claims of those vehicles' actual fuel
tank capacity asserted in In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank
Litigation. The objections to the settlement have now been
withdrawn, and the court has an amended motion for preliminary
approval pending before it, with no objections. The court should
rule shortly on that motion.
Under the schedule proposed to the court, dissemination of the
Class Settlement Notice will be within 45 calendar days from the
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the deadlines for
objections and opt-outs will be 160 calendar days after Preliminary
Approval Order, and the court will schedule the Final Approval
Hearing no sooner than 210 days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order.
The In Re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litigation has not been
resolved.
Is there anything I need to do now?
If the court grants preliminary approval of the settlement in
Pulkrabek, you will receive notice of the proposed settlement. The
notice program will begin 45 days after the settlement has
preliminarily been approved but will continue for several months
after that. After you receive notice, you will need to select
whether to participate in the settlement or opt out of the
settlement. The notice of this settlement will list your deadlines
to act.
If the court does not preliminarily approve the settlement, there
is nothing for you to do.
At this point, neither case has been formally settled or has been
certified to proceed as a class action. If you want to bring your
own claim, you can do so now and opt-out when you receive notice.
Or the class will be defined as those people who have not sued or
settled their claims, and you will be automatically opted out of
the settlement.
To discuss your options with us, please call us at (855) OPT-OUT1
(855-678-6881).
What happens if I don't opt out of the class action lawsuit or
settlement?
It depends on how the settlement is structured, but generally, you
will be bound by its terms if you do not opt out of the settlement.
You will receive any benefits offered in the settlement, either
automatically or by submitting a claim form. However, you cannot
bring any individual claim for damages caused by the defect, except
possibly for personal injury claims.
For a free lemon law consultation fill out the form below or call
us at 1-855-OPT-OUT1 (855-678-6881).
Why opt out of any certified class action lawsuit or settlement?
For many people, a class action provides them significant benefits
without the need to spend any money or do much other than complete
a claim form. And because the matter is settled, if the court
approves the settlement, you will get the relief described in the
class notice.
However, other people may decide that the relief offered as part of
the class action settlement is inadequate, that they do not want to
wait to get relief, or that they think they will get more if they
do not participate in the class action settlement. This depends on
a variety of factors, such as how old is your car, can you document
the defect that occurred in your car, have you taken it in for
repairs on more than one occasion, do you still own the vehicle, is
it still under warranty and where do you live. Depending on the
answers to those questions, while there is no guarantee you will
receive any recovery, if you opt-out, you may have the opportunity
to receive significant relief, including a vehicle repurchase and
penalties.
What is the Song-Beverly Warranty Act?
The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code Section
1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires manufacturers
to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
What is "reasonable" is not part of hard and fast rules - safety
defects should be fixed immediately, for example. The defects must
be significant, and must "substantially impair the vehicle's use,
value, or safety." Civil Code Section 1793.22(e)(2). Under Civil
Code Section 1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers must promptly offer
repurchase or replacement of the vehicle they cannot fix in a
reasonable time frame. In addition, Civil Code Section 1794(c) and
Section 1793.2(d) provide that customers may have a civil penalty
up to two times actual damages if manufacturers acted "willfully"
(meaning knowingly but not necessarily with wrongful or malicious
intent) in ignoring or failing its obligation under Song-Beverly.
Finally, under Civil Code Section 1794(d), manufacturers must pay
the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs as part of the
settlement. The Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer fee-shifting
statute.
May I have additional rights if I am an Armed Forces member?
Under Cal. Civil Code 1795.8, if a person is a member of the Armed
Forces, the protections of the Song-Beverly Act may apply, even if
you purchased your vehicle outside of California, so long as the
manufacturer sells cars in California. The Armed Forces member
would need to show they were stationed in or a resident of
California when they purchased the vehicle or when they filed a
claim against the manufacturer.
What relief could I get if I opt out and bring an individual lemon
law lawsuit?
Current or former owners should be aware that the California lemon
law and other state and federal laws may force Toyota to "buy the
vehicle back," or provide other important compensation. Under
California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be bought back,
which can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan or
lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid for the
vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down payments,
tax, finance charges, license, registration, etc. You could even
qualify for two times your money back.
What Toyota would have to buy it for has nothing to do with its
current worth. There is a formula in the law that starts with you
getting all your money back and then taking certain deductions and
exclusions away from your payment. Those refunds and exclusions are
difficult to understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable
consumer attorneys. Don't settle for small-dollar payments or more
possible fixes without speaking to a qualified consumer attorney
with your individual best interest in mind. Watch the mail, watch
your email, and contact a consumer lawyer for advice when and if
the case settles.
Free Lemon Law Consultation
There is a lot to consider in deciding whether to pursue an
individual lemon law claim.
The Hanson Law Firm is available to help you sort through these
questions and make an informed decision. [GN]
TRAINA DRIED: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traina Dried Fruit,
Inc. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Traina
Dried Fruit, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00232 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Traina Foods -- https://www.trainafoods.com/ -- produces the
world's finest sun dried fruit, serving manufacturers, ingredient
companies and distributors.[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
TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Appeal From Order in Rosa FLSA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE L. ROSA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROPICANA ATLANTIC CITY CORP.
d/b/a TROPICANA CASINO RESORT, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06909
(D.N.J.), Judge Christine P. O'Hearn of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey denied Tropicana's appeal from the
decision of Magistrate Judge Williams granting Plaintiff Bonnie
Pasquale's Motion to Amend the Complaint and substitute the lead
plaintiff.
I. Background
On June 5, 2020, Pasquale filed a Complaint alleging collective
action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against
Defendant Tropicana on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated. Pasquale's deposition was scheduled on Feb. 25, 2021;
however, the deposition was not able to be completed as she became
emotionally overwhelmed and was unable to continue with her
deposition.
Thereafter, on March 26, 2021, Pasquale filed a motion seeking to
amend the Complaint to substitute Jorge L. Rosa as the named
plaintiff in the case, and Pasquale sought to revert to an opt-in
plaintiff. Tropicana opposed the Motion to Amend on three primary
grounds.
Tropicana argued that (1) the amendment was untimely given the time
period to amend the pleadings set forth in the Court's Scheduling
Order; (2) the amendment was futile as it would deprive the Court
of jurisdiction over the case since conditional certification has
not yet been granted; and (3) Tropicana would be unduly prejudiced
as it focused its entire defense on Pasquale and details related to
her department and position of employment. Magistrate Judge
Williams rejected each of these arguments and granted the Motion to
Amend.
On Oct. 19, 2021, Tropicana filed its Appeal of the Order. The
Court did not hear oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule
78.1.
II. Analysis
Tropicana appeals from the Magistrate Judge's decision granting the
Motion to Amend. Motions to amend are governed by Rule 15 which
provides that leave to amend will be freely given when justice so
requires. The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint
is "a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district
court." A court may exercise its discretion to deny a motion to
amend "if it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party
has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2)
the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice
the other party." As noted by the Magistrate Judge, while Pasquale
brought the Motion to Amend under Rule 21, the same standard
applies under either Rule 15 or Rule 21.
A. Timeliness
As to Tropicana's argument that the Magistrate Judge erred in
granting the Motion to Amend because the time period to amend the
pleadings set forth in the Scheduling Order had passed, Judge
O'Hearn finds that the Magistrate Judge's analysis and decision
finding good cause to permit the amendment under Rule 16 was sound
and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. There are no facts to
suggest that the Pasquale or her counsel knew or should have known
she would be unable to complete a deposition. As such, no further
discussion on this issue is warranted.
B. Futility
As to Tropicana's argument that the Magistrate Judge erred in
granting the Motion to Amend because any such amendment would be
futile, Judge O'Hearn finds the Magistrate Judge's decision was not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
In determining whether a proposed amendment would be futile, Judge
O'Hearn applies the same standard as when evaluating a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). As framed by the Magistrate Judge,
"the issue before the Court comes down to whether the amendment to
substitute the named Plaintiff, who wishes to relinquish the title,
is appropriate in this collective action that has not been
conditionally certified."
Tropicana argues the Magistrate Judge's decision determining that
the proposed amendment was not futile was clearly erroneous. It
relies upon Beery v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-00231, 2013 WL
3441792 (D.N.J. July 8, 2013), a decision from a sister court in
this District which is not binding upon the Court.
Nevertheless, the critical distinction that Judge O'Hearn finds in
this case, that was not present in Beery, is that at the time of
the Motion to Amend, Pasquale remained a viable plaintiff in the
case. Pasquale's claim had not been dismissed by the Court or
otherwise extinguished. Unlike the plaintiffs in Beery, where the
named plaintiffs' claims had already been dismissed from the case
upon a motion to compel arbitration and there was never a motion to
amend or other attempt to substitute prior thereto, the time of the
Motion to Amend in this case, Pasquale had a live, justiciable
claim.
Judge O'Hearn does not find Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,
569 U.S. 66 (2013) to be binding under the facts of the case as
that case too involved circumstances where the named plaintiff's
claim became moot. Further, the cases relied upon by the Magistrate
Judge in permitting the substitution, Castillo v. United Rentals
(N.A.), Inc., No. 17-1573, 2018 WL 3429936 (W.D. Wash. July 16,
2018) and Thorn v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, No. 12-768, 2013 WL
2456336 (S.D. Ohio June 6, 2013), are more persuasive and factually
similar to the present case.
Finally, Judge O'Hearn agrees that Rule 1 further supports the
grant of the amendment in the case.
C. Prejudice
As to Tropicana's argument of prejudice, Judge O'Hearn gives
deference to the Magistrate Judge's decision in this respect given
her familiarity with the allegations and discovery to date in the
case. While Tropicana criticizes the Magistrate Judge's ruling that
the prejudice was not significant to warrant the denial of the
amendment, Tropicana provided no certifications or details to
support any claimed prejudice. Rosa was already an opt-in plaintiff
in the case, documents related to Rosa's employment have already
been produced in discovery, and Tropicana already intended to
depose Rosa. The Magistrate Judge's finding that any prejudice was
not substantial enough to warrant denial of the amendment was not
clearly erroneous.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, Judge O'Hearn denied Tropicana's Appeal
of the Magistrate Judge's Order. An appropriate Order accompanies
her Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yckzc6vf from Leagle.com.
MARK JUSTIN GOTTESFELD -- mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- R. ANDREW
SANTILLO -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, Twining Office Center, in Dresher, Pennsylvania, on behalf of
the Plaintiff.
COURTNEY JANAE PETERSON -- courtney.peterson@bclplaw.com -- Bryan
Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP, in New York City, on behalf of the
Defendant.
UDR INC: Apartments' Pool Access Ads "Deceptive," Lee Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.K. LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UDR, INC., COLUMBUS SQUARE 808, LLC,
COLUMBUS SQUARE 795, LLC, COLUMBUS SQUARE 775, LLC, COLUMBUS SQUARE
801, LLC, and COLUMBUS SQUARE 805, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00505 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the New York General
Business Law, common law fraud, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unfair
and deceptive advertising and marketing of their apartments located
at 808, 795, 775, 801, and 805 Columbus Avenue in New York, New
York. Apartments in these buildings are advertised as including
daylong access to a swimming pool located at 808 Columbus Avenue.
But residents are in fact deprived of such access because the pool
is rented out to non-residents for a substantial part of the
day—and during hours when many residents, and most child
residents, could most readily avail themselves of the pool. The
Defendants therefore aggrandize themselves through the fees charged
to non-residents by violating the promises they made to residents
when inducing them to sign a lease, the suit alleges.
UDR, Inc. is a provider of apartment homes, with its principal
place of business located at 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200,
Highlands Ranch, Colorado.
Columbus Square 808, LLC is an operating company of UDR, Inc. for
the building it owns at 808 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York.
Columbus Square 795, LLC is an operating company of UDR, Inc. for
the building it owns at 795 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York.
Columbus Square 775, LLC is an operating company of UDR, Inc. for
the building it owns at 775 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York.
Columbus Square 801, LLC is an operating company of UDR, Inc. for
the building it owns at 801 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York.
Columbus Square 805, LLC is an operating company of UDR, Inc. for
the building it owns at 805 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rony Guldmann, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 661-0052
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: rony@leelitigation.com
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: March Hearing Scheduled for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Dodge, writing for MLive, reports that University of
Michigan President Mark Schlissel was fired for breaking the same
rule he announced and implemented this summer.
At the July Board of Regents meeting, he announced an overhaul of
sexual misconduct policy changes, particularly the prohibition of
relationships between subordinates and supervisors. There would be
zero tolerance for someone in a leadership position to "solicit a
personal or romantic relationship with someone they have a
supervisory authority or career influence over," he said at the
time.
"That's exceptionally important because of the power dynamic," he
said on July 15. "It makes it difficult sometimes for folks to
effectively say no, then you put an employee in a very difficult
circumstance."
On Saturday, Jan. 15, the regents removed Schlissel for cause as
president after investigating an inappropriate relationship he had
with a university employee. The irony was not lost on members of
the UM community, particularly survivors of sex abuse, lawyers
litigating against UM and student leaders.
"When you're covering something up, it's hard to clean the past,"
said Jon Vaughn, a former UM football player who is part of the
lawsuit by survivors of the late Dr. Robert Anderson against UM.
The regents took the appropriate action, said UM Central Student
Government President Nithya Arun. She also remembers when Schlissel
announced the policy change and found this development "shocking,"
but ultimately the correct action.
"It's come full circle," she said.
Meanwhile, Vaughn found Schlissel to be "inconsistent" as a
leader.
"Attitude reflects leadership," he said.
Legal and policy ramifications
Vaughn and hundreds of survivors, many identified as John Doe,
filed a federal lawsuit in June 2020 over UM's alleged role in
Anderson's abuse. Almost 1,200 rapes reported to UM last year were
related to Anderson's abuse, according to a campus safety report.
The case has been in "court-guided mediation" since October 2020.
Some attorneys expressed that Schlissel's removal is a step in the
right direction.
His inappropriate relationship shined a light on UM's "deception"
into "thinking they are decades beyond the Anderson era of sexual
abuse," said Parker Stinar, an attorney representing 200 Anderson
survivors.
"In 2021, in the heat of Schlissel's sexual misconduct, in which
the regents were made aware, they tried to manipulate the public
into thinking the culture at UM has changed by implementing new sex
abuse policies," he said, adding that UM 'hasn't changed."
The regents announced Schlissel's removal while releasing 118 pages
of emails between him and the subordinate. In the board's letter to
Schlissel, they acknowledge the hypocrisy of his conduct versus his
misconduct reform efforts.
Read more: 'You can give me a private briefing.' Emails detail
ousted University of Michigan president's inappropriate
relationship
"Your conduct . . . is particularly egregious considering your
knowledge of and involvement in addressing incidents of harassment
by UM personnel," the letter states, "and your declared commitment
to work to 'free' the University community of sexual harassment or
other improper conduct."
The board's response saw praise from some in the UM community,
including prominent author and UM athletics historian John Bacon.
"Kudos to UM's PR response so far," Bacon wrote on Twitter. "Wise
to release enough emails to show why Regents fired Pres. Schlissel
immediately. Yes, dicey issues, but (probably) did him a favor. If
not spelled out, conspiracy theories run wild: embezzlement, fraud,
assault, etc.? Actual reason far more basic."
Even Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a UM alumna, weighed
in, offering both a critique of Schlissel's conduct, as well as his
methods of flirtation revealed in the emails.
"Abusing one's position of power to engage in a romantic
relationship with a subordinate is never appropriate," she wrote on
Twitter. "But also, 'Can I lure you to visit with the promise of a
knish?' is likely the worst pick-up line of all-time."
That exchange references an October 2019 email interaction between
Schlissel and the subordinate.
A class-action lawsuit headed by UM senior Josephine Graham aims
for federal courts to force UM to implement further sexual
misconduct policy changes. Attorneys representing Graham declined
to comment on how the Schlissel development changes negotiations,
but that it emphasizes the need for reforms.
"This further highlights the need for institution-wide changes
around these issues that involves input from all stakeholders,"
said Annika Martin, co-lead counsel representing survivors and
students in the class-action lawsuit.
A federal judge is scheduled to decide if that case goes to oral
arguments in a March hearing.
Future conversations with a new leader
One method to dislodge the legal stalemate in the Anderson
litigation has included Vaughn camping in front of Schlissel's
house since Oct. 8, 2021 in an effort to force a personal
conversation with the now-former president.
Even though Schlissel will soon not live at the South University
Avenue dwelling, Vaughn will continue a relay system so at least
one survivor is at the encampment. Vaughn hopes interim President
Mary Sue Coleman will speak to him at least once, something
Schlissel refused due to the mediation.
"Can you implode the entire structure of what is supposed to be the
offices that ensure student safety?" Vaughn said he wants to ask
Coleman. "Because they all completely failed. Also, just start
having a real dialogue with students and student groups, professors
and community survivors."
Coleman, who was the university's president for 12 years ending in
2014, will serve in an interim role until at least this summer.
Arun acknowledged the interim status likely limits the amount of
reform Coleman can do, but offered a few basic priorities to
consider.
"The most glaring issue is sexual misconduct reform," Arun said.
"That is exemplified by the reason for which President Schlissel
got fired. We really need to uproot our current system of
supporting survivors to better serve their needs."
Coleman should also speak with Vaughn and survivors, Arun said, as
well as remove Tamiko Strickman from her role as Equity, Civil
Rights and Title IX Office Director. Based on evidence provided in
a federal lawsuit still under deliberation, a judge ruled that
Strickman showed "deliberate indifference" in a sexual harassment
case during her time at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
"(Strickman) has not done a good job of supporting survivors," Arun
said, "and if we have evidence of that, then she should not
continue in her current position."
Schlissel previously expressed complete confidence in Strickman
even after the Jan. 5 court ruling. A UNL spokeswoman said that the
university will present its evidence to counter these claims at a
future hearing.
There is no scheduled media availability for Coleman at this time,
said UM spokesman Rick Fitzgerald. The next UM Board of Regents
meeting is Feb. 17, where Schlissel's official removal will be
finalized, the regents announced on Jan. 15. [GN]
UPFIELD US: Clemmons Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upfield US Inc. The
case is styled as Duval Clemmons, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Upfield US Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00355 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Upfield -- https://upfield.com/ -- are the largest plant-based
consumer products company in the world.[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
VALVE CORP: Briefing Schedule on Bid to Toss Dark Catt Suit Revised
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARK CATT STUDIOS HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DARK CATT STUDIOS INTERACTIVE LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00872-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington entered an Stipulated Order modifying
briefing schedule on Valve's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc., and Dark Catt Studios
Interactive LLC and Defendant Valve, by and through their
undersigned counsel of record, stipulated and agreed to modify the
briefing schedule and noting date for Valve's Motion to Dismiss,
which is currently pending before the Court.
The parties jointly proposed the following schedule:
1. The Plaintiffs will have until March 11, 2022, to file
their Opposition to Valve's Motion to Dismiss;
2. Valve will have until April 8, 2022, to file its Reply in
Support of its Motion to Dismiss; and
3. Valve's Motion to Dismiss will be re-noted on the Court's
motion calendar for April 8, 2022.
The parties believed that good cause exists for these
modifications, principally that the matter is a complex antitrust
class action and that this schedule will allow them adequate time
to prepare their submissions. Accordingly, the parties respectfully
requested that the Court enters the Stipulated Order modifying the
briefing schedule as agreed by them.
Judge Coughenour so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2022 Stipulated Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5xjjndrk from Leagle.com.
Stephanie L. Jensen -- sjensen@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, P.C., Seattle, WA, Kenneth R. O'Rourke --
korourke@wsgr.com -- Scott A. Sher -- ssher@wsgr.com --- Allison B.
Smith -- allison.smith@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, P.C., Washington, DC, W. Joseph Bruckner (pro hac vice),
Joseph C. Bourne -- jcbourne@locklaw.com -- Leona B. Ajavon --
lbajavon@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.,
Minneapolis, MN, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studios
Holdings, Inc., and Dark Catt Studios Interactive LLC, and Putative
Class.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 15, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Volkswagen AG ("Volkswagen" or the "Company")
(OTC: VWAGY) American depositary receipts ("ADRs") between March
29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Volkswagen investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/volkswagen-ag/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On March 29, 2021, Volkswagen published a draft press release
announcing its American subsidiaries' supposed name change to
"Voltswagen." Media outlets reported that they confirmed with the
Company that the name change was real. As reported by CNBC,
"Volkswagen accidentally posted a press release on its website a
month early announcing a new name for its U.S. operations,
Voltswagen of America, emphasizing the German automaker's electric
vehicle efforts." On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price sharply
rose.
On March 30, 2021, however, The Wall Street Journal published an
article titled "No, Volkswagen Isn't Rebranding Itself Voltswagen:
German car maker says announcement by its U.S. operation was
supposed to be an April Fools' gag." The article noted that
"[i]nvestors have been clamoring for shares of companies involved
in electric vehicles and have recently been pouring money into the
stocks of established car makers with solid EV plans." Other
outlets reported that the Associated Press was repeatedly assured
by Volkswagen that its U.S. subsidiary planned a name change, which
was false.
On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price fell more than 5% over
the next two trading days, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the name "Voltswagen" was never going to be used by the
Company's U.S. subsidiary; (2) the Company and its spokespeople
purposefully misled reporters, even after the reporters' inquiries
about whether the name change was an April Fools' joke; and (3) as
a result, Defendants' public statements and statements to
journalists were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Volkswagen ADRs during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 15, 2022
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Volkswagen AG ("Volkswagen" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS:
VWAGY) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, and docketed under 22-cv-00045, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
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.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired ADRs
of Volkswagen during the Class Period, you have until March 15,
2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
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. Defendant Volkswagen AG 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 AG is a German corporation with its principal executive
offices in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. Volkswagen's ADRs
trade over-the-counter under the ticker symbol "VWAGY." Defendant
Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG directly controls
and directs the actions of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which
acts as its agent in the United States.
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.
On March 29, 2021, Volkswagen 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 complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
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:
(i) the name "Voltswagen" was never going to be used by the
Company's U.S. subsidiary; (ii) the Company and its spokespeople
purposefully misled reporters, even after the reporters' inquiries
about whether the name change was an April Fool's joke; and (iii)
as a result, Defendants' public statements and statements to
journalists were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, still two days before April Fool's Day
on April 1, The Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that a
spokesman for the Company in Wolfsburg, Germany stated that "[t]he
whole thing was just a marketing action to get people talking about
the ID.4." The WSJ also quoted a Company's official back in
Germany: "[t]here will be no name change."
On March 31, 2021, Agence France-Presse ("AFP") quoted Volkswagen
AG's spokesman, Deputy Head of Corporate Communication, Christoph
Ludewig: "Volkswagen of America developed . . . a national US
marketing campaign, with a wink, to draw attention to Volkswagen's
e-offensive. From the start, the goal was to generate attention for
an important corporate and industry topic in the USA. The large
amount of positive feedback on social media shows we achieved this
goal. At the same time, we regret if in the eyes of some, we
overshot the mark of the campaign." AFP also reported that
"[r]eporters reacted angrily to the stunt, with some pointing out
that it was tone-deaf coming from a company still recovering from
the 2015 ‘dieselgate' scandal, when Volkswagen was forced to
admit it had for years used cheating software in cars to dupe
emissions tests." Phil Chetwynd, Global News Director of AFP, wrote
to the Company to protest against the deception, stating: "We
understand when a spokesperson is not in a position to confirm or
comment on a piece of information. But we never expect them to make
false statements. We strongly think serious journalists and news
outlets should not be used by companies like Volkswagen for
marketing and advertising purposes. For us it is a very grave
breach of trust which must not be repeated."
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.
On April 1, 2021, Forbes published an article, entitled
"Volkswagen's April Fools' Stunt Misses the Mark -- and an
Opportunity to Earn Back Trust," which similarly criticized
Volkswagen AG's purported name change.
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.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
WALMART INC: Female Drivers Sue Over Alleged Ill-Fitting Uniform
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khristopher J. Brooks, writing for CBS News, reports that the
uniforms Walmart requires its truck drivers to wear amount to
"blatant sex discrimination" against female workers because they
only fit male bodies, a lawsuit alleges.
In a class-action suit filed on Jan. 11 in Alabama, Walmart truck
driver Diana Webb said her ill-fitting driver uniform led her to
buy garments that closely resembled the retailer's mandatory
clothing, according to court documents. Webb, who joined Walmart in
July 2020 as a delivery driver, asked to be reimbursed for the
clothes, but the company declined, the complaint states.
"This request was denied by her supervisors and [Webb] was told
that if she was reimbursed, Walmart would have to reimburse all
female drivers and that they declined to do so," the lawsuit
states.
Webb's suit argues that Walmart is breaking federal law by not
offering uniforms that properly fit women.
"Female drivers are therefore required to either suffer discomfort
or purchase and launder their own pants, out of their own pocket,
with no option for reimbursement in order to fulfill Walmart's
employment requirements," the complaint argues.
The retail giant does not require its drivers to wear
company-provided pants, Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove said in a
statement on Jan. 15 to CBS MoneyWatch. Webb has the garments
needed to perform her job duties, he added.
"Months before the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Webb was fitted for
company-provided pants, which she now has," Hargrove said. "We
continue to review our clothing offerings for male and female
drivers. We take these allegations seriously and will respond in
court as appropriate."
The company is one of a number of major retailers that has hired
tens of thousands of new workers during the coronavirus pandemic.
During the hiring spree, Walmart officials have said they are
aiming to employ more women and people of color. The company
employs more than 2 million people globally.
Women represent roughly 54% of Walmart's 1.5 million U.S. workers,
according to the company's most recent data. The data does not
break down how many of those women drive trucks.
Webb, 19, has repeatedly raised her concerns about the driver
uniform at work, but Walmart continues to offer gear tailored only
to men, according to the suit, which alleged that drivers can be
fired for declining to wear the mandatory clothing.
Webb has also filed a gender discrimination complaint with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the complaint, she
argues that Walmart's uniform practices amount to special treatment
for male employees.
"I believe Walmart is discriminating against women truck drivers
and possibly other female employees who are required to wear
uniforms," Webb wrote. "Walmart is providing and cleaning uniform
bottoms for the men, while the women are expected to either wear
men's bottoms or purchase and clean women's bottoms on their own.
[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Healy Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patrick Healy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Does 1 through
5, Case No. 3:20-cv-01838, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 14, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00226-KAW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an
American multinational financial services company with corporate
headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters
in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States
and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
Babak Semnar, Esq.
SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP
41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
Phone: (619) 500-4187
Fax: (888) 819-8230
Email: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
bob@sandiegoconsumeerattorneys.com
- and -
Yana A Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Fax: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
Andrew D. Atkins, Esq.
William C. Mayberry, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 South College Street, Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 998-4102
Email: amy.williams@troutman.com
andrew.atkins@troutman.com
bill.mayberry@troutman.com
- and –
Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 509-6044
Fax: (858) 509-6040
Email: jessica.lohr@troutmansanders.com
- and –
Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 477-5700
Fax: (415) 477-5710
Email: kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
WEWORK INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Possible Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against WeWork,
Inc. (NYSE: WE), Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA), Lucid Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LCID), and Nuvei Corporation (NASDAQ: NVEI). Our
investigations concern whether these companies have violated the
federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business
practices. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
WeWork, Inc. (NYSE: WE)
On December 1, 2021, WeWork disclosed in a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filing that "[i]n connection with the
preparation of the financial statements as of September 30, 2021,
WeWork Inc. (the 'Company') reevaluated its application of
Accounting Standards Codification ('ASC') 480-10-S99,
Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, to its accounting
classification of the Class A common stock subject to possible
redemption (the 'Public Shares') issued as part of the units sold
in the initial public offering by the Company's predecessor, BowX
Acquisition Corp. ('BowX'). The Company had previously classified a
portion of the Public Shares in permanent equity. Upon further
evaluation, the Company determined that the Public Shares include
certain redemption features not solely within the Company's control
that, under ASC 480-10-S99, require such shares to be classified as
temporary equity in their entirety." Accordingly, WeWork advised
that certain of its previously issued financial statements should
not be relied upon and would be restated. In addition, WeWork
disclosed that its management has concluded that, that in light of
the classification error described above, there was a material
weakness in internal control over financial reporting relating to
the interpretation and accounting for certain complex features of
the Public Shares."
The stock dropped more than 5% in extended trading after the
disclosure.
For more information on the WeWork investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/WE
Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA)
On January 1, 2022, an article from the New York Times called into
question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests, alleging that
positive results on tests are incorrect about 85 percent of the
time, and that patients who receive a positive result are supposed
to pursue follow-up testing, which "can cost thousands of dollars,
come with a small risk of miscarriage and can't be performed until
later in pregnancy."
On this news, Natera's stock declined as much as 3.5% during
intraday trading on January 3, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
For more information on the Natera investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NTRA
Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID)
On December 6, 2021, Lucid disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that "[o]n December 3,
2021, [Lucid] received a subpoena from the [SEC] requesting the
production of certain documents related to an investigation by the
SEC. Although there is no assurance as to the scope or outcome of
this matter, the investigation appears to concern the business
combination between the Company (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. IV)
and Atieva, Inc. and certain projections and statements."
On this news, Lucid's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on December 6, 2021.
For more information on the Lucid Group investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LCID
Nuvei Corporation (NASDAQ: NVEI)
On December 8, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce
Point") published a short-seller report on Nuvei. Citing "a
forensic financial and accounting review," the Spruce Point report
alleged that Nuvei "has covered up a pattern of business failures,
lack of organic growth, and a web of relationships with individuals
connected to major Ponzi Schemes and alleged fraudulent
activities[.]"
Following pulication of the Spruce Point report, Nuvei's stock
price fell $39.38 or 40.45%, to close at $57.97 per share on
December 8, 2021.
For more information on the Nuvei investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NVEI
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B.
Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com
[GN]
WINSTON BOX: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Winston Box, LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Winston Box, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00456 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Winston Box -- https://www.thewinstonbox.com/ -- provides a big
and tall clothing subscription box including 2-3 handpicked items
from their signature label right at the door each month.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WISE EARTHCARE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wise Earthcare, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Wise
Earthcare, Inc. doing business as: Elims, Case No. 1:22-cv-00230
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wise Earthcare, Inc. doing business as Elims --
https://thisiselims.com/ -- is the future of sustainable oral care,
putting people and planet first, crafted by dentists and
biotechnologists.[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
ZENGA INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zenga Inc. The case
is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Zenga Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00451
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zenga Inc. -- https://zenga.com.vn/ -- makes games & apps which
help people increase their motivation, develop good habits, achieve
high levels of success.[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
ZMB ENTERPRISES: Brown Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZMB Enterprises LLC.
The case is styled as Tasha Brown, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ZMB Enterprises LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00054-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
ZMB Enterprises LLC is a leading import company in USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Rafael Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: astraus@milberg.com
ZOGENIX INC: Monteverde & Associates Probes UCB Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Zogenix, Inc. (ZGNX), relating to its proposed acquisition by UCB
S.A. Under the terms of the agreement, ZGNX shareholders are
expected to receive $26.00 in cash plus a contingent value right
for a potential cash payment of $2.00 per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zogenix-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***