/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220201.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 17
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Johnson Suit
AEGIS SENIOR: Salonga Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALEXION PHARMA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
ALLIED WASTE: Illegally Charges Card Fees, Chen Suit Alleges
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Partly Grants Schaeffer's Bid to Remand Suit
AMENTUM SERVICES: Weaver Employment Suit Goes to S.D. California
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought
APHRIA INC: Cunix, Alexander Seek to Certify Class Action
ARGOSY BOOK: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUTO SYSTEMS: Stephens Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
BESSEMER TRUST: Liable to 401(K) Plan Losses, Pecou Suit Alleges
BETTERER FOODS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Grader Says
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Hullet Says
BK VENTURE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
BNP PARIBAS: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Kashef Suit
BNY MELLON: Case Management Order Entered in Walden Class Suit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Adams Sues Over the Side Effects of Zantac
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Green Suit Over the Dangers of Zantac
BOSTON MARKET: Bid to Transfer Fitzpatrick Case to E.D.N.Y. Nixed
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Dickson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Technicians
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Scheduling Order Amended in Rios-Gutierrez
BUMBLE INC: Pension Fund Sues Over More Than 50% Drop of SPO Price
C PEPPER LOGISTICS: Disclosure of Expert Testimony Extended
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 25
CANADA: CBE Faces Class Action Over Sexual Behavior of Teacher
CENTRAL BUCKS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 28 in Marinello
CENTRAL BUCKS: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 28
CERAMIC AND METAL: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Elliott Says
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bait-and-Switch Claims to Go to Arbitration
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Deadline for Filing of Expert Report Extended
CITIBANK NA: Ct. Grants Head's Renewed Bid for class Certification
CITY NATIONAL: Fourth Circuit Affirms Arbitration Order in Noe Suit
CLARIVATE PLC: Faces Parot Suit Over 7.52% Decline of Stock Price
CMRE FINANCIAL: Walker Seeks to Certify Class
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Zaki FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker Seeks Feb. 15 Extension to File Reply
COXSACKIE TRANSPORT: Anderson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, AR: Faces Phillips USERRA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
CREDIT BUREAU: Bid to Stay Myers Case Nixed
CROWDERGULF LLC: Scheduling Order Amended in Palmisano Class Suit
DELAVAL INC: Parties in Bishop Suit to Submit Class Cert Briefing
DELTA STAR: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered in Wilson
DENNY'S INC: Estrada Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Stipulated Class Cert. Deadlines Nixed in Gile
DONALD HEALD: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Court Stays Jerue Case Pending Class Cert. Ruling
DUSTIN TALBOT: Bid to Certify Class in Brown Nixed
ECZEMA HONEY: Civil Case Management Plan & Sched Order Entered
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Hines Seeks to Certify Class Action
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: DiMercurio Wins Class Status Bid
ETHEREUMMAX: Venable Attorneys Discuss Crypto Endorsement Suit
FLUOR CORPORATION: Liable to Investment Plan Losses, Locascio Says
FORD MOTOR: Consumer Class Action to Proceed to Trial in Ontario
FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
FV COM: Faces Kargar Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
GENERAL MOTORS: Nauman Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners
GENWORTH LIFE: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Bahtiar Sues Over the Side Effects of Zantac
GOLDEN YEARS: Faces Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Virginia
GOOGLE LLC: Skadden Arps Discusses Data Breach Class Action Ruling
GRAND CANYON: Little Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
GROUPON INC: Macovski Sues Over More Than 44% Drop of Stock Price
HAIKU ASIAN BISTRO: Hong FLSA Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd
HANFORD SAND & GRAVEL: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HARBORSTONE CREDIT: Stipulated Bid to Stay Case Schedule OK'd
HBCC DEVELOPMENT: Faces Li Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Order on Class Cert. Discovery Entered
HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Ford Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Cal.
HOME DEPOT: Pimentel's Claims for Labor Code & UCL Violations Nixed
ICON BURGER: Court Wants Rosario to File 2nd Amended NYLL Complaint
ICON CLINICAL: Initial OK of Settlement Deal Sought
IMPERIAL FINE: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Class Cert Deadlines Entered in Randall
INTERFLEX ACQUISITION: Malone Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA, WWPCL
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Parties Stipulate Class Cert Briefing Sched
KEYCITY CAPITAL: Court Compels Discovery Responses in Starling Suit
KIRAGRACE INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LANDMARK REALTY: Filing of Class Cert. Response Extended
LANDMARK REALTY: Seeks Time Extension to Oppose Class Status Bid
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill FCRA Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Elleby Response Time to Stay Bid Extended
LIVING WELL: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Howard Says
MARRIOTT INT'L: Plaintiffs Must Add Column in Class Cert. Claims
MCGRATH RENTCORP: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Grogan Alleges
MEDFORD, MA: Faces Ayala Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Massachusetts
MERRILL LYNCH: Parties Must Confer on Prospects for Settlement
META MATERIALS: Faces McMillan Securities Suit Over Shares Drop
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Class Deal in Shields Suit Wins Prelim. OK
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Millerson FLSA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MIDLAND FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Woo-Padva Suit
MORTON & BASSETT: Spices Contain Heavy Metals, Matthews Claims
NATWEST MARKETS: Charles Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
NORTH AMERICAN: Briefing Schedule Modified in McGhee Class Suit
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Extension of Class Cert. Discovery Sought
OASIS CATERING: Mazaregos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
PARETEUM CORP: Court Names Kahn as Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
PARTY CITY CORP: Guzman Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Court Tosses Counterclaims in Paugstat Labor Suit
PORTLAND, OR: Police Face Class Action Suit Over Use of Force
PTT LLC: Wilson Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
RAUSCH STURM: Illegally Collects Debt from Consumers, Bogle Claims
REYES Y REYES: Quintanilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
ROOT INC: Robbins Named Lead Counsel in Kolominsky Securities Suit
ROSSY POWER: Chicas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
S.C. JOHNSON: Winans Suit Alleges Sale of Adulterated Sunscreens
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Stipulation to Extend Case Deadlines OK'd
SEDGWICK HOTEL: Estrada Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Hotel Staff
SHERATON NIAGARA: Workers File Wage-and-Tip Class Action
SIGNATURE AUDIO: Underpays Construction Workers, Tun Suit Alleges
SILVERSTONE MEMORY: Schuelke Sues Over Unpaid OT for Caregivers
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Filing of Lamb Report in Antitrust Suit Denied
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Kowal Sues Over Pretzels' Butter Snaps Label
SOUTHERN ORTHOPAEDIC: Console Attorney Discusses Data Breach
STANG LANDSCAPING: Garcia Seeks OT Wages for Laborers Under FLSA
SWEDISH HEALTH: Adan Seeks OT Pay for Nursing Staff Under FLSA
TD BANK NA: Norville Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
TJ INSPECTIONS: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Farmer Suit Claims
TOOTSIE ROLL: New Jersey Judge Dismisses Slack-Fill Class Action
TOTAL QUALITY: Loses Bid for Protective Order in Hudgins FLSA Suit
VACATIONS 4 YOU: Underpays Sales Representatives, Johnson Alleges
VAIL RESORTS: Settles Labor Class Action Lawsuits for $13.1 Million
WALMART INC: Lidocaine Products' Label "Deceptive," Bechtel Says
WESTERN FLYER: Jackson Sues Over Truth-in-Leasing Violations
[*] Queensland Lawyer Criticizes Australia's Class-Action Reform
*********
3M COMPANY: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Johnson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARROD JOHNSON,
Individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008-AT (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order that the
deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order entered in this action
and the proposed deadlines contained in the Parties' Proposed
Revised Scheduling Order are revised and replaced with the
deadlines contained in the following Revised Scheduling Order:
Event Deadline
-- Fact Discovery Closes: April 29, 2022
-- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures: April 29, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 2, 2022
Certification:
-- Deadline to Depose Plaintiff's June 15, 2022
Experts:
-- Defendant's Expert Disclosures: July 29, 2022
-- Defendants' Opposition to Aug. 26, 2022
Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Deadline to Depose Defendants' Sept. 16, 2022
Experts:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Oct. 6, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Oct. 17, 2022
-- Deadline to Depose Rebuttal Nov. 11, 2022
Experts:
-- Motions for Summary Judgment/ Jan. 20, 2023
Daubert Motions:
-- Responses to Motions for March 10, 2023
Summary Judgment/
Daubert Motions:
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care,
and consumer goods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u2EekV at no extra charge.[CC]
AEGIS SENIOR: Salonga Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREA SALONGA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AEGIS SENIOR COMMUNITIES, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21CV003128, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on January 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00525 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized statements, failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment, and unfair competition.
Aegis Senior Communities, LLC is a senior assisted living and
memory care provider based in Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
Parisa Khademi, Esq.
Carla S. Espinoza, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
Parisa.Khademi@lewisbrisbois.com
Carla.Espinoza@lewisbrisbois.com
ALEXION PHARMA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS
SINHA, DAVID BRENNAN, DAVID J. ANDERSON, LUDWIG N. HANTSON, and
CARSTEN THIEL, Boston Retirement System v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals
Inc et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02127-AWT (D. Conn.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. extending their time to Oppose Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification;
2. allowing them to obtain critical discovery from one of the
Lead Plaintiffs' third-party investment advisors.
Specifically, the Defendants respectfully seek a 60-day extension
of the current March 8, 2022 deadline, up through and including,
May 9, 2022.
In addition, Defendants request that the Court schedule a
telephonic status conference so that the parties may update the
Court of the status of the third-party discovery on or around April
7, 2022.
The Plaintiffs oppose this request for an extension, contending
that Defendants have unduly delayed, despite the fact that this
request is being made more than a month before Defendants'
opposition brief is currently due.
Alexion is an American pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts that specializes in orphan drugs to treat
rare diseases.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34f9kLe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Leonard Bell,
David L. Hallal, and Vikas Sinha, are:
Jane B. O'Brien, Esq.
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
Audra S. Soloway, Esq.
Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq.
Tamar Holoshitz, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7327
E-mail: jobrien@paulweiss.com
dkramer@paulweiss.com
asoloway@paulweiss.com
jhurwitz@paulweiss.com
tholoshitz@paulweiss.com
- and -
David A. Ring, Esq.
Robyn E. Gallagher, Esq.
WIGGIN & DANA
265 Church Street
P.O. Box 1832
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (860) 297-3703
E-mail: dring@wiggin.com
rgallagher@wiggin.com
ALLIED WASTE: Illegally Charges Card Fees, Chen Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
QIHAI CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.; REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00099-JO-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 25, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion, and violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their
agreements with the Plaintiff and the Class by charging their debit
and credit cards in the full amount of recurring fees despite the
interruption of services that occurred between December 2021 and
January 2022. The Defendants knew they could not perform services
due to a labor strike and continued to charge for services not
being provided for months.
Allied Waste Systems, Inc. is a provider of waste and recycling
services, with its principal place of business located at 18500
North Allied Way, Phoenix, Arizona.
Republic Services, Inc. is an American waste disposal company,
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramin R. Hariri, Esq.
HARIRI LAW GROUP
12707 High Bluff Drive, Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 363-2889
Facsimile: (619) 810-0791
E-mail: ramin@haririlaw.com
- and –
Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq.
KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP
12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 509-1550
Facsimile: (858) 509-1551
E-mail: daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff stipulated extending the class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
a. Motion to be filed by: April 25, 2022
b. Response to be filed by: June 7, 2022
c. Reply to be filed by: July 5, 2022
d. Hearing to occur on: July 28 2022
Allstate is an American insurance company, headquartered in
Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967. Founded
in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it was spun off in 1993.
The company also has personal lines insurance operations in
Canada.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H7w9Pu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Shane, Esq.
SHANE LAW
1000 Drakes Landing Rd. #200
Greenbrae, CA 94904-3027
Telephone: (414) 464-2020
Facsimile: (415) 464-2024
E-mail: dshane@shanelaw1.com
- and -
Brian Eldridge, Esq.
Steven Hart, Esq.
Jack Prior, Esq.
HART McLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE LLC
22 West Washington St., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 955-0545
Facsimile: (312) 971-9243
E-mail: beldridge@hmelegal.com
shart@hmelegal.com
jprior@hmelegal.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Partly Grants Schaeffer's Bid to Remand Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, APRIL SCHAEFFER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-01080-SPM
(S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
I. Background
The matter arises out of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") claims originally brought in the Third Judicial Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois, by Plaintiff Schaeffer,
individually and on behalf of the putative class, against
Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, Inc.
(collectively "Amazon"). Schaeffer asserts that Amazon's Alexa
device, a "virtual assistant," has recorded, stored, used, and
disclosed her voiceprint -- a biometric identifier -- without
complying with BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
Amazon removed the case to the Court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Schaeffer now
moves to remand all her claims under BIPA back to the Third
Judicial Circuit Court, stating that her claims lack standing for
suit in federal court because she only alleged bare procedural
violations, emphasizing that she excluded "claims related to the
unlawful collection and retention of her data and, instead, asserts
only claims related to Amazon's 'bare procedural violations' that
have caused her to be 'aggrieved' under BIPA."
In the Complaint, Schaeffer alleged that Amazon violated Section
15(a) of the statute because "Amazon did not develop a written
policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric
identifiers and biometric information." She further said that
"neither the Plaintiff nor the class members suffered any injury as
a result of the violations of BIPA Section 15(a) other than the
statutory aggrievement."
Schaeffer stated that Amazon violated Section 15(c) of the statute
"by selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information in its possession." She
further stated that Amazon violated her rights under Section 15(c),
but also makes clear, again, that she did not suffer an injury
because of the violation. Schaeffer claimed that Amazon violated
Section 15(d) of the statute "because Amazon disclosed,
redisclosed, or disseminated its customers' biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information in its possession without receiving
their consent."
Lastly, Schaeffer asserted that Amazon violated Section 15(e) of
the statute because "Amazon has failed to store, transmit, and
protect from disclosure the biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information in its possession using the reasonable standard of care
within the industry" and "in a manner that is the same as or more
protective than the manner in which the private entity stores,
transmits, and protects other confidential and sensitive
information."
II. Discussion
Judge McGlynn explains that application of the standard for a
concrete and particularized harm to Schaeffer's claimed violations
of BIPA in her Complaint is addressed by Bryant and its progeny. In
Bryant, bare procedural violations separated from any concrete harm
do not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. The violation of a
procedural right, conferred by a statute, may sufficiently
constitute an injury-in-fact. A statutory violation, however, must
present "an 'appreciable risk of harm' to the underlying concrete
interest the legislature sought to protect by enacting the
statute."
A. Section 15(a)
Section 15(a) requires covered private entities to "develop a
written policy, made available to the public, establishing a
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric identifiers and biometric information." It also requires
covered private entities to comply with that policy by retaining
and destroying biometric information in accordance with the law.
Because the first of these duties is focused on the public
generally, not to particular persons, a violation of just that part
of Section 15(a) is not an injury-in-fact under Article III because
the resulting harm is not particularized. Where a plaintiff has
been injured by a defendant's failure to comply with a policy,
however, the resulting "unlawful retention of biometric data
inflicts a privacy injury" sufficient to support the injury-in-fact
requirement for Article III standing.
Ms. Schaeffer alleged that Amazon "did not develop a written
policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric
identifiers and biometric information." She also states that she
did not suffer an injury. Through this pleading, Schaeffer made it
clear that she is only asserting a bare procedural violation -- the
duty to develop policy and guidelines along with making them
available to the public -- separate from the concrete or
particularized harm of non-compliance with a policy through, for
example, unlawful retention of her information. Therefore, Judge
McGlynn holds that her Section 15(a) claim does not satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing.
B. Section 15(c)
Section 15(c) restricts covered private entities in possession of
biometric information from selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise
profiting from that information. Like Section 15(a) claims, to show
an injury-in-fact under Section 15(c), a plaintiff must allege a
concrete and particularized injury separate from the statute's
general prohibition. Absent these or other concrete and
particularized harms, a plaintiff alleges "only a general,
regulatory violation."
Ms. Schaeffer stated that Amazon sold, leased, traded, or otherwise
profited from biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in
its possession. She also states that she did not suffer an injury.
While Schaeffer does generally claim that Amazon violated her
rights to biometric privacy, nowhere does she allege that Amazon
deprived her of an opportunity to profit from her information, sold
her data, or that the transmission or dissemination of her
biometric information amplified the invasion of her privacy. As a
result, her Section 15(c) claim does not satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement for Article III standing.
C. Section 15(d)
Section 15(d) restricts covered private entities from disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise disseminating biometric information
without consent. Unlike Section 15(a) and (c), Section 15(d) is
more akin to 15(b)'s informed-consent requirements in that it does
not impose duties owed only to the public generally, the violation
of which do not, without more, confer standing. Accordingly, Judge
McGlynn holds that Schaeffer's Section 15(d) claim does satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing.
D. Section 15(e)
Judge McGlynn explains that Section 15(e) provides that private
entities must "store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all
biometric identifiers and biometric information using the
reasonable standard of care and in a manner that is the same as or
more protective than the manner in which the private entity stores,
transmits, and protects other confidential and sensitive
information." Section 15(e) requires that when an entity in
possession of biometric data takes actions regarding retention
under Section 15(a) or disclosure under Section 15(d), it exhibits
reasonable care and protects that information, at minimum, in the
same way it protects other sensitive information. In this way,
Section 15(e) provides additional protective mechanisms for the
retention and disclosure regimes which are separate from duties
owed only to the public generally in the statute. Consequently,
Schaeffer's Section 15(e) claim does satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement for Article III standing.
III. Conclusion
Wherefore, Judge McGlynn granted in part and denied in part
Schaeffer's Motion to Remand. The claims under BIPA Section 15(a)
and (c) are severed and remanded to the Third Judicial Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois. Amazon's answer to the claims
under BIPA Section 15(d) and (e) in the Complaint are due on Feb.
11, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9au7du from Leagle.com.
AMENTUM SERVICES: Weaver Employment Suit Goes to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN V. WEAVER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMENTUM SERVICES, INC.; AECOM; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00049868-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on January 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00108-AJB-NLS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized statements, failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment, and unfair competition.
Amentum Services, Inc. is a provider of diversified commercial
services, headquartered in Maryland.
AECOM is an infrastructure consulting firm, headquartered in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq.
Lara P. Besser, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 573-4900
Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
E-mail: guillermo.escobedo@jacksonlewis.com
lara.besser@jacksonlewis.com
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GLENNON and THOMAS
E. OVERBY, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of this action and for
court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action, consent
form, and reminder notice;
3. directing the Defendant Anheuser-Busch, LLC to produce the
names, job titles, last known mailing addresses, home and
cell phone numbers, business and home email addresses,
dates of employment, locations of employment, last four
digits of Social Security Numbers, and dates of birth of
all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Court's
Order;
4. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute the Notice and Opt-
in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to
all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified
collective, with a reminder notice to be sent 45-days
after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative
plaintiffs; and
5. requiring the Defendant to post the Notice in a
conspicuous location at any place of employment where
putative plaintiffs work, and to enclose said Notice in
putative plaintiffs' paystubs.
Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GhCGpr
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-Mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
Ashley K. Collette, Esq.
Ivey Best, Esq.
THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
Arlington, VA 22206
Telephone: (202) 449-8527
Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
E-mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
rtucci@spigglelaw.com
acollette@spigglelaw.com
ibest@spigglelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq.
Joshua K. Sekoski, Esq.
Katherine I. Heise, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
2001 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 887-4000
Facsimile: (202) 887-4288
E-Mail: blian@akingump.com
jsekoski@akingump.com
kheise@akingump.com
APHRIA INC: Cunix, Alexander Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE APHRIA, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-11376-GBD(S.D.N.Y.), the
Lead Plaintiff Shawn P. Cunix and Plaintiff Elizabeth Alexander ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and
2. appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as Class
Representatives; and
3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel.
Aphria, headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, is an international
producer and distributor of medicinal and recreational cannabis.
The company operates through retail and wholesale channels in
Canada and internationally.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IPvfri
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
Max E. Weiss, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
aapton@zlk.com
mweiss@zlk.com
- and -
Alexander A. Krot III, Esq.
1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: akrot@zlk.com
ARGOSY BOOK: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Argosy Book Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Argosy Book Stores,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00733 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Argosy Book Stores -- https://www.argosybooks.com/ -- is a
six-story bookstore stocking an enormous array of antiquarian and
out-of-print volumes since 1925.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
AUTO SYSTEMS: Stephens Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE STEPHENS v. AUTO
SYSTEMS CENTERS, INC., d/b/a/ MIDAS, Case No. 2:21-cv-05131-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion for conditional certification
and approving the Parties' Proposed Notice and Consent, as
follows:
1. The Court conditionally certifies the following collective
action class (the "Putative Collective Class Members"):
"All current and former hourly non-exempt service center
employees of Defendant at any of its facilities who were
paid for 40 or more hours in any workweek during the three
years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing
through the final disposition of this case."
2. Within 14 days of the of the date of this Order, the
Defendant shall provide to Named Plaintiff's Counsel a
list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the
names, last known mailing addresses (including zip code)
and personal email addresses of the Putative Collective
Class Members.
3. Within 14 ays of receiving the list described above, Named
Plaintiff's Counsel will mail, via First Class U.S. Mail,
and email copies of the Notice and Consent to Join forms
to the Putative Collective Class Members.
4. The Plaintiff's earlier Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised
Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) is denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ADpzhb at no extra charge.[CC]
BESSEMER TRUST: Liable to 401(K) Plan Losses, Pecou Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUBRIL PECOU, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Bessemer Trust
Company 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiff v. BESSEMER TRUST
COMPANY and PROFIT SHARING PLAN COMMITTEE OF BESSEMER TRUST
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00377 (D.N.J., January 26,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties and failure to monitor fiduciaries under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to
administer the Bessemer Trust Company 401(k) and Profit Sharing
Plan in the best interest of participants and failed to employ a
prudent process for managing the plan. Instead, the Defendants have
managed the plan in a manner that benefits Bessemer Trust at
participants' expense, using the Plan as an opportunity to promote
Bessemer Trust's Old Westbury mutual fund business and maximize
profits in lieu of participants' best interests. By selecting and
retaining Old Westbury Funds as investment options within the plan
in lieu of superior alternative options utilized by similarly
situated fiduciaries, the Defendants have failed to act in the best
interest of participants and exercise appropriate care, costing
participants millions of dollars in excess fees and investment
underperformance, says the suit.
Bessemer Trust Company is a state chartered bank and depository
trust company located in Woodbridge, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (773) 598-5609
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
- and –
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (267) 609-1990
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: eciolko@lcllp.com
- and –
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Kai Richter, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Steven J. Eiden, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
krichter@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
seiden@nka.com
BETTERER FOODS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betterer Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Betterer
Foods doing business as: RightRice, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00502
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Betterer Foods, Inc. -- https://www.bettererfoods.com/ -- provides
food products. The Company produces rice products from grains and
vegetables.[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
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Grader Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORI GRADER and DARYL SWANSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00159-RBD-GJK (M.D.
Fla., January 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to adequately
protect and secure the personally identifiable information (PII)
and personal health information (PHI) of patients in its data
systems. On November 11, 2021, BioPlus learned that cybercriminals
had breached its data systems and potentially accessed all
patients' PII and PHI. As a result of the Defendant's omissions,
the Plaintiff and Class members face a lifetime risk of identity
theft due to the nature of the information lost, says the suit.
BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services, LLC is a pharmacy provider,
with its headquarters located at 376 Northlake Blvd., Alamonte
Springs, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
P.O. Box 3396
Tampa, FL 33601-3396
Telephone: (813) 229-1118
Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
E-mail: Kyanes@kmf-law.com
- and –
Gary Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW. Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: dlietz@masonllip.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gklinger@masonllip.com
- and –
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Hullet Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL HULLET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00147-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla., January 24,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, and breach of implied contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to adequately protect
and secure the personally identifiable information (PII) and
personal health information (PHI) of patients in its data systems.
On November 11, 2021, BioPlus learned that cybercriminals had
breached its data systems and potentially accessed all patients'
PII and PHI. As a result of the Defendant's alleged omissions, the
Plaintiff and Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft
due to the nature of the information lost.
BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services, LLC is a pharmacy provider,
with its headquarters located at 376 Northlake Blvd., Alamonte
Springs, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl.
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and –
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and –
Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
peterj@bsjfirm.com
BK VENTURE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BK VENTURE GROUP LTD dba
STARLET'S, KEVIN BURCH, DOE MANAGERS 1-3, and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00470 (E.D.N.Y., January 26, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wage, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, and
forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff worked as a dancer at Starlet's Gentlemen's Club,
located at 49-09 25th Avenue, Woodside, New York from January 1,
2016 to March 2019.
BK Venture Group Ltd, doing business as Starlet's, is an owner and
operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at
49-09 25th Avenue, Woodside, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Cho, Esq.
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
E-mail: pcho@cz.law
kristensen@cz.law
BNP PARIBAS: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Kashef Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF, et
al., v. BNP PARIBAS S.A., BNP PARIBAS S.A. NEW YORK BRANCH, and BNP
PARIBAS WHOLESALE HOLDINGS, CORP. (f/k/a BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA,
INC.), Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AJN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alison
J. Nathan entered an order setting the following revised deadlines
as agreed upon by the Parties:
Event Revised Date
-- Plaintiffs' Opposition Feb. 4, 2022
to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss for Forum Non
Conveniens (“FNC Motion")
filed by:
-- Defendants' Reply to March 4, 2022
FNC Motion filed by:
-- Completion of Fact Discovery: June 15, 2022
completed by:
-- Interrogatories (other than April 15, 2022
contention interrogatories)
served by:
-- Requests for admissions and May 13, 2022
contention interrogatories
served by:
-- Depositions Completed by: June 15, 2022
-- Completion of Expert Discovery Dec. 23, 2022
completed by:
-- Opening reports Served by: Aug. 2, 2022
-- Opposing reports Served by: Oct. 4, 2022
-- Reply reports served by: Dec. 2, 2022
-- Summary Judgment, Daubert,
and Class Certification Motions
-- Opening briefs filed by: Jan. 27, 2023
-- Opposing briefs filed by: April 14, 2023
-- Reply briefs filed by: June 2, 2023
BNP Paribas is a French international banking group.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r20mtB at no extra charge.[CC]
BNY MELLON: Case Management Order Entered in Walden Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE
WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON,
N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia
Reed Eddy entered a case management order as follows:
1. The parties shall move to amend March 1, 2022
the pleadings or add new parties
by:
2. The parties shall complete the June 14, 2022
first phase of discovery by:
3. The Plaintiffs' Expert Reports July 14, 2022
as to class certification are
due on or before:
4. The Defendant's Expert Reports Aug. 28, 2022
as to class certification are
due on or before:
5. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal Expert Sept. 30, 2022
Reports as to class certification
(if any) are due on or before:
6. Depositions of all experts shall Oct. 28, 2022
be on or before:
7. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Nov. 22, 2022.
Certification and any Motions for
Summary Judgment as to the Named
Plaintiffs' claims, Memoranda in
Support, and all supporting
evidence are due on or before:
8. The parties shall complete the June 30, 2022
ADR process they selected by:
BNY Mellon, is an American investment banking services holding
company headquartered in New York City. BNY Mellon was formed from
the merger of The Bank of New York and the Mellon Financial
Corporation in 2007.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u73yq0at no extra charge.[CC]
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Adams Sues Over the Side Effects of Zantac
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDA ADAMS, VIRGINIA ARAGON, GOLBENAZ BAKHTIAR, ANTRENISE CAMPBELL,
TERESA DOWLER, JONATHAN FERGUSON, KAREN FOSTER, MICHAEL GALLOWAY,
ALBERTA GRIFFIN, LORIE KENDALL-SONGER, MARVA MCCALL, CLIFTON
MCKINNON, RICARDO MORON, RICARD OBRIEN, CESAR PINON, JEFFREY
PISANO, RONALD RAGAN, TANGIE SIMS, MICHAEL, TOMLINSON, CHRIS
TROYAN, GUSTAVO VELASQUEZ, TERESA WATERS, and JOSHUA WINNANS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
CORPORATION, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION, BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PROMECO,
S.A. DE C.V., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00127-MPS (D. Conn.,
January 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, medical monitoring, and strict liability.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged manufacturing,
distribution, packaging, and marketing of Zantac, a branded name
for ranitidine used for heartburn and indigestion, without proper
expiration dates and appropriate packaging and their failure to
disclose material facts regarding the safety of Zantac and the
dangers and risks associated with its intended use. The Plaintiffs
have been exposed to unsafe levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA), a carcinogen, by using the Defendants' Zantac and other
ranitidine-containing products. The exposure has significantly
increased the Plaintiffs' risk of developing cancer. As a result,
the Plaintiffs and Class members need medical monitoring that is
different than routine medical treatment to permit early detection
of the subject cancers, as well as treatments and/or medications,
says the suit.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business located at 900
Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation is a pharmaceutical company, with
its principal place of business located at 900 Ridgebury Road,
Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business located at 900 Ridgebury Road,
Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business located in
Rheinland-Phalz, Germany.
Boehringer Ingelheim Promeco, S.A. de C.V. is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business located in Ciudad de
Mexico, Mexico. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church St., 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1681
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Green Suit Over the Dangers of Zantac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY GREEN JR., TINA CULCLAGER, TANGIE SIMS, GOLBENAZ BAKHTIAR,
RICHARD OBRIEN, VIRGINIA ARAGON, JEFFREY PISANO, ANGEL CORDERO,
ANGEL VEGA, CLIFTON MCKINNON, GUSTAVO VELASQUEZ, JEANNIE BLACK,
JOSHUA WINANS, MARVA MCCALL, MICHAEL TOMLINSON, RICARDO MORON, ROY
ARMSTRONG, SHARON TWEG, SONIA DIAZ, KATHY JEFFRIES, EARLENE GREEN,
DENISE GUY, HEATHER RE, VICKIE ANDERSON, REBECCA SIZEMORE, TERESA
DOWLER, CHARLES LONGFIELD, JANET ASBURY, ALBERTA GRIFFIN, IDA
ADAMS, JERRY HUNT, JODY BEAL, LAKISHA WILSON, BRAD HOAG, DONALD
NORTHRUP, JOHN SCHOLL, BEVERLY CROSBY, JOHN RACHAL, ANTRENISE
CAMPBELL, LORIE KENDALL-SONGER, GAYLORD STAUFFER, CESAR PINON, LYNN
WHITE, MARY MCMILLAN, MARY MORONSKI, SAYED ELDOMIATY, ERNESTO
SANCHEZ, GEORGE TAPIA, BENNY FAZIO, FRANCIS NEARY, JOSEPH MCPHETER,
MARY MCCULLEN, MIGDALIA KINNEY, RICHARD FROEHLICH, DENNIS ROBBINS,
PATRICIA FRAZIER, TERESA LEE, CHRIS TROYAN, MICHAEL GALLOWAY,
PATRICIA HESS, DEMARCO GRAYSON, KRISTI LEDBETTER, NICHOLAS HAZLETT,
GLORIA COLON, DALE HUNTER, KENNETH HIX, AGAPITO IT ALEMAN, GINA
MARTINEZ, LILIAN DEL VALLE, MARIA EAMES, SYLVIA YOSHIDA, RONDA
LOCKETT, MARIANELLA VILLANUEVA, TERESA WATERS, CHERYL BANKS, KAREN
FOSTER, DAN ZHOVTIS, DAVE GARBER, JONATHAN FERGUSON, and WENDY
QUEZAIRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM CORPORATION, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA
CORPORATION, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, and
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PROMECO, S.A. DE C.V., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00125-VLB (D. Conn., January 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment or quasi-contract,
breach of implied warranty, and violations of state consumer
protection and trade practices laws, state unfair competition laws,
state consumer fraud laws, and state false advertising laws.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged manufacturing,
distribution, packaging, and marketing of Zantac, a branded name
for ranitidine used for heartburn and indigestion, without proper
expiration dates and appropriate packaging and their failure to
disclose material facts regarding the safety of Zantac and the
dangers and risks associated with its intended use. The Plaintiffs
have been exposed to unsafe levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA), a carcinogen, by using the Defendants' Zantac and other
ranitidine-containing products. The exposure has significantly
increased the Plaintiffs' risk of developing cancer. As a result,
the Plaintiffs and Class members need medical monitoring that is
different than routine medical treatment to permit early detection
of the subject cancers, as well as treatments and/or medications,
says the suit.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business located at 900
Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation is a pharmaceutical company, with
its principal place of business located at 900 Ridgebury Road,
Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business located at 900 Ridgebury Road,
Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business located in
Rheinland-Phalz, Germany.
Boehringer Ingelheim Promeco, S.A. de C.V. is a pharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business located in Ciudad de
Mexico, Mexico. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church St., 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1681
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
E-mail: mjasinski@motleyrice.com
BOSTON MARKET: Bid to Transfer Fitzpatrick Case to E.D.N.Y. Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FITZPATRICK and
ARTHUR CAPUTO, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BOSTON MARKET CORP., Case No. 1:21-cv-09618-PAE
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an order:
-- denying the defendant's letter motion to transfer this case
to the Eastern District of New York as related to
Fitzpatrick v. Boston Market Corp., No. 21 Civ. 5868 (ENV)
(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), finding the cases not related; and
-- directing the parties, by February 1, 2022, to file a letter
setting out a briefing schedule for plaintiff's contemplated
motion for class certification, and a schedule for discovery
pertinent to class certification; and
The Court took notice that the parties disagree over whether
defendant has preserved its right to request a jury trial; with
consent of counsel, deferred resolution of that issue; and directed
counsel to notify the Court when either party believes the time is
ripe for that issue to be resolved.
The Court has approved and will issue the proposed case management
plan, which will set next conference in this matter for June 27,
2022, at 2 p.m.
Boston Market is an American fast casual restaurant chain
headquartered in Golden, Colorado.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AWAqDn at no extra charge.[CC]
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Dickson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOSWORTH COMPANY, LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-00010 (W.D. Tex., January 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Portal-to-Portal Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a helper and
technician from approximately October 2017 to March 2021.
The Bosworth Company, Ltd. is a provider of plumbing and electric
services, with its principal place of business located at 2205 W.
Industrial Avenue, Midland, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1980
Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Scheduling Order Amended in Rios-Gutierrez
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROBERTO
RIOS-GUTIERREZ, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC, et al.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J.
Gaitan, Jr. entered an order granting the parties' consent motion
to Extend Time and amending the scheduling order as follows"
1. Close of discovery: March 11, 2022
2. Motion to join additional December 10, 2021
parties:
3. Motion to amend pleadings: December 10, 2021
4. Motion for Conditional October 29, 2021
Certification:
5. Motion for Class April 8, 2022
Certification:
6. Asserting party's expert Dec. 1, 2021
report(s):
Defending party's expert Dec. 22, 2021
report(s):
Rebuttal report(s): Jan. 19, 2022
Challenges/Daubert motions: April 8, 2022
7. Status reports Dec. 1, 2021
The first phase of discovery in this action shall conclude March
11, 2022. Phase I discovery will include discovery of all issues
relating to plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification
under Rule 23, as well as issues related to the named plaintiff.
Phase II discovery will involve discovery relating to alleged
damages and completion of any other merits issues. To the extent
that issues overlap, the Court directs the parties to undertake
discovery within Phase I, Judge Gaitan says.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AB945v at no extra charge.[CC]
BUMBLE INC: Pension Fund Sues Over More Than 50% Drop of SPO Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
UA LOCAL 13 PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUMBLE INC., WHITNEY WOLFE HERD,
ANURADHA B. SUBRAMANIAN, ANN MATHER, CHRISTINE L. ANDERSON, R. LYNN
ATCHISON, SACHIN J. BAVISHI, MATTHEW S. BROMBERG, AMY M. GRIFFIN,
JONATHAN C. KORNGOLD, JENNIFER B. MORGAN, ELISA A. STEELE, PAMELA
A. THOMAS-GRAHAM, BLACKSTONE GROUP INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC and BLACKSTONE SECURITIES PARTNERS L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00624 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false, deceptive
and misleading registration statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission regarding Bumble's secondary public stock
offering (SPO) that took place on September 10, 2021. Specifically,
the registration statement failed to disclose the following
material facts: (a) that Bumble's paying user growth trends had
abruptly reversed in the third quarter of 2021 (3Q21) and the
company had actually lost tens of thousands of paying users during
the quarter; (b) that paying users had been more reluctant to sign
up for the Bumble app during 3Q21 because of the recent price hike
for paid services on the app; (c) that a material number of paying
users were leaving the Badoo app and/or could not make payments
through the Badoo app due, in substantial part, to problems arising
from the company's transition of its payment platform; and (d) as a
result of the foregoing, Bumble's business metrics and financial
prospects were not as strong as the registration statement had
represented.
Subsequent to the SPO, the price of Bumble Class A common stock
declined substantially. By January 24, 2022, Bumble Class A common
stock traded below $27 per share, a decline of more than 50 percent
from the SPO price.
Bumble Inc. is software company, with its principal place of
business at 1105 West 41st Street, Austin, Texas.
Blackstone Group Inc. is an American alternative investment
management company based in New York, New York.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services corporation, headquartered
in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Blackstone Securities Partners L.P. is an investment company based
in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Michael J. Asher, Esq.
Jacqueline A. Kelly, Esq.
ASHERKELLY
25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 746-2710
Facsimile: (248) 747-2809
E-mail: masher@asherkellylaw.com
jkelly@asherkellylaw.com
C PEPPER LOGISTICS: Disclosure of Expert Testimony Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Flinn v. C Pepper
Logistics LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02215 (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order on motion for extension of
time for Plaintiff to disclose expert testimony that will be used
in support of class certification motions to Feb. 21, 2022.
The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory.
C Pepper Logistics was founded in 2009. The Company's line of
business includes provides trucking and transfer services.[CC]
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, HENNESSEY
EVANS, ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS, MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR, and WALBURGER,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order
granting th Plaintiffs' request to modify the Preliminary
Scheduling Order.
The Class Certification briefing is modified as follows:
1. Class Certification Motion Feb. 25, 2022 (from
Filing Deadline: Feb.4, 2022)
2. Class Certification April 27, 2022 (from
Opposition: April 6, 2022);
3. Class Certification Reply: May 9, 2022 (from May
6, 2022);
The Class Certification motion hearing remains as set on May 16,
2022, at 1:30 p.m. in 24 Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Senior District
Judge Anthony W. Ishii. All other deadlines in the Preliminary
Scheduling Order remain in effect, says Judge McAuliffe. The
February 25, 2022 hearing on the motion to modify the schedule is
vacated.
The California State University is a public university system in
California. With 23 campuses and eight off-campus centers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KSPSVu at no extra charge.[CC]
CANADA: CBE Faces Class Action Over Sexual Behavior of Teacher
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Grant, writing for CBC News, reports that junior high
teacher Michael Gregory always had a few girls in his class who
were his favourites, and if you were a favourite, you were one of
the popular kids.
But there was a dark, open secret -- those "favourites" say they
were being sexually abused by Gregory.
New details on the scope of Gregory's abuses are outlined in court
documents filed at the Calgary courthouse as part of a proposed
class action lawsuit.
Former students now allege the Grade 9 teacher would wait until
girls in his classes turned 14 and then aggressively, sexually
pursue some of them.
In their sworn statements, several former students say Gregory told
them he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and would show them
what appeared to be a doctor's note prescribing orgasms as
treatment.
'Dangerous, demeaning and disrespectful acts'
Although the CBE denied knowledge of Gregory's predatory behaviour,
several former students say their parents complained to other
teachers, the principal or the guidance counsellor, but there were
no consequences.
Gregory worked at John Ware Junior High in Calgary from 1986 to
2006, when the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) revoked his
licence after he pleaded guilty to misconduct, admitting he had
"abused" children mentally and physically.
At the time, the ATA found that Gregory "participated in dangerous,
demeaning and disrespectful acts with his students."
Gregory took his own life in February 2021 just five days after he
was charged with 17 sexual offences against former students.
Since then, dozens of Gregory's former students have come forward
to report abuses to both police and lawyers connected to a proposed
$40-million lawsuit against the teacher's estate and the Calgary
Board of Education (CBE).
Both defendants say they had no idea about Gregory's behaviour, are
not responsible for it and have asked that the lawsuit be dropped.
20 more alleged victims come forward
When the claim was first filed in November by lawyers Jonathan
Denis and Mathew Farrell, there were three named plaintiffs.
Farrell says 20 more women and men have come forward to join the
suit.
In affidavits filed by former students, men and women detail the
abuses they suffered, other teachers who were told about Gregory's
behaviour and the life-long effects of the trauma.
There are no publication bans on the names of the students who have
come forward since November, but CBC News will identify them by
initials since some are alleged victims of sexual assault and have
not given express consent to be identified.
AL: Assaulted 'almost every day'
AL said Gregory's abuses were constant.
"I was assaulted by him almost every day from January to June of my
Grade 9 year," she said in her affidavit.
Gregory would get AL to lie in his lap and suck on his fingers
while he drove her around.
One of his "favourite tricks," she said, was to have her come to
the front of the room to look over her work while he touched her
with his hands concealed by a platform at the front of the room.
But the classroom and the car were not the only places where AL
said abuses took place.
'Worst abuses' were at the farm
Gregory was known to invite girls to his farm.
"Some of the worst abuses happened when I was there," she said,
describing "constant groping."
He was constantly trying to get AL to give him oral sex, according
to the affidavit.
Gregory told AL he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and one
of the prescribed treatments was oral sex.
She said he even showed her a letter from a doctor.
AR: 'I thought I was falling in love with him'
When AR lost her virginity in Grade 8, it was "well known" at the
school, she said.
That's when Gregory took an interest in her, she said.
Another regular at the teacher's acreage, AR said she was provided
alcohol and given the same story as AL: Gregory was dying of cancer
and the only way to prolong his life was to reach orgasm.
"I thought I was falling in love with him, so I agreed to help,"
said AR in her affidavit.
The two were having sex when she was 14 years old.
And they weren't hiding it. AR said it was "very obvious" and that
the two "flirted shamelessly" in front of other teachers and
students.
Teacher saw, 'walked away'
On one occasion, AR said, a gym teacher saw Gregory grope her.
"We made eye contact . . . He simply turned and walked away," reads
her affidavit.
On another occasion, a guidance counsellor walked into a room when
she was sitting on Gregory's lap.
AR said the counsellor left saying, "I'll give you two a minute."
By the time AR was 15 she was in trouble with the law. AR said she
has lived with severe anxiety and depression ever since and has
also dealt with drug and alcohol addiction.
DS: Questioned 'my own self-worth'
In her written statement, DS she said was regularly groped by
Gregory.
DS said Gregory would have her sit on the floor in the classroom
near his desk and would then touch himself through his shorts where
only she could see.
"I started to question my own self-worth based on my looks and how
sexual I was," she wrote in her affidavit.
One time, at Gregory's home, she said she pulled away after he
convinced her to lie with him on his sofa. He went cold after
that.
"I would still visit Gregory at the school, even then, trying to
recapture the feeling of being his favourite student, but it was
never the same," wrote DS.
Reported to principal, no action taken
The impact of the teacher's alleged abuse went far beyond DS's
junior high years.
"I was highly sexual at an early age thinking that this was
necessary in order to get men to like me," she said.
When DH's parents learned that Gregory had wrestled their daughter
to the ground and straddled her, they complained to the principal.
They told him about the teacher's habit of touching girls'
bellybuttons, talking about their bras and disclosed that he was
having a well-known sexual relationship with one of the Grade 9
students.
They even gave him the name of the girl.
No action was taken, DH said.
"The principal regarded my parents and me like we were being
ridiculous, and clearly discounted our concerns," said DH in her
affidavit.
She was ultimately pulled out of the school by her parents.
The boys
The boys in Gregory's classes were often targets of a different
kind of abuse, the affidavits allege.
They were often humiliated, belittled and sometimes physically
abused by Gregory, according to the documents.
In her sworn statement, AL said Gregory was hard on the boys in his
classes, often "belittling or humiliating them or being physically
rough with them."
In the mid-1990s, HD was on a canoe trip with fellow classmates and
Gregory. The teens were throwing duck poop at each other and HD
accidentally got some in his teacher's canoe.
HD: 'I lost all my friends'
HD said in his affidavit that Gregory picked him up and took him to
a pile of cow manure that he rubbed in the student's face.
Afterward, HD told his parents what had happened. When their
complaint to the school went nowhere, they filed a police
complaint.
After that, HD said, Gregory made his life miserable.
"I lost all my friends and was ostracized," he wrote.
HD said he was pulled out of outdoor education and ordered to work
with the school janitor, helping him clean.
Eventually his parents pulled him out of the school.
JR: Gregory said 'he would kill me'
A few years later, JR was a John Ware student.
He was on one of Gregory's canoe trips when he came across two
girls naked from the waist down and asked what was going on.
"Gregory wasted no time, grabbing me by the throat, slamming me
backwards and telling me that if I ever said anything about what I
saw, he would kill me and he would kill my family," wrote JR in his
affidavit.
JR said he told another teacher who advised him not to say
anything. That teacher told JR he didn't' have to go to Gregory's
class anymore but would still receive a passing grade.
"That's what I did," said JR.
There is no time limit on how long a victim has to report a sexual
assault in Canada.
Victims of sexual assault in the Calgary area can report it to
police by calling the non-emergency police number at 403-266-1234,
or 911 if they are in immediate danger.
The Luna Child and Youth Advocacy Centre helps young people and
their families in all phases of their healing journey. [GN]
CENTRAL BUCKS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 28 in Marinello
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN MARINELLO,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated female employees,
v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 2:21-cv-02587-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order on the
Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Motion for Class
Certification and/or Collective Action:
1. The deadline for motions for class certification and/or
collective action is February 28, 2022.
2. All other dates in the Amended Scheduling Order of
December 14, 2021, remain in effect.
The Central Bucks School District or CBSD is located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is the third largest school
district in Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o4s879 at no extra charge.[CC]
CENTRAL BUCKS: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA CARTEE-HARING, v.
CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01995-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order granting
the Parties' joint motion to extend deadline for motion for class
certification and/or collective action as follows:
1. The deadline for motions for class Feb. 28, 2022
certification and/or collective
action is:
2. All other dates in the Amended Scheduling Order of
December 14, 2021, remain in effect.
The Central Bucks School District or CBSD is located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is the third largest school
district in Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34g7slf at no extra charge.[CC]
CERAMIC AND METAL: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Elliott Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ELLIOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CERAMIC AND METAL COATINGS CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00308-MHC (N.D. Ga., January 25, 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 laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer from May
2019 until November 19, 2021.
Ceramic and Metal Coatings Corp. is a metal coatings company, with
its principal place of business located at 345 John Price Drive,
McDonough, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael David Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bait-and-Switch Claims to Go to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Dreid, writing for Law360, reports that all but one of the
named plaintiffs in a proposed class action against Charter
Communications Inc. will have to arbitrate their claims that that
the company tricked them with a "bait-and-switch scheme" that sold
them on Spectrum cable TV service that had hidden fees, a
Connecticut federal court has ruled. [GN]
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Deadline for Filing of Expert Report Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN FOX and BRIDGET
MCMAHON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
et al., v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., t/d/b/a CHIPOTLE, Case No.
2:20-cv-01448-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend deadline
for filing of expert report as to class certification, as follows:
1. The deadline for filing of expert March 14, 2022
report as to class certification
is extended until:
2. Rebuttal reports are due from April 14, 2022
the Defendant on or before:
3. Telephonic post-discovery status April 19, 2022
conference will be held on:
Chipotle is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the
United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France,
specializing in tacos and Mission burritos that are made to order
in front of the customer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G5L6Ab at no extra charge.[CC]
CITIBANK NA: Ct. Grants Head's Renewed Bid for class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine Head, v.
Citibank, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-08189-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Roslyn O. Silver entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel;
2. certifying the class, pursuant to Federal Rules of 21
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), as:
"All persons and entities throughout the United States (1)
to whom Citibank, N.A. placed a call in connection with a
past-due credit card account, (2) directed to a number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned
to a current or former Citibank, N.A. customer or
authorized user, (3) via its Aspect dialer and with an
artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from August 15, 2014
through the date of class certification;"
3. appointing the law firms of Meyer Wilson Co., LPA and
Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and
4. denying the Defendant's Supplemental Brief on Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion to
Exclude the Testimony of Carla Peak, to the extent that it
seeks to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's expert,
Carla Peak, on the subject of notice procedures pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c).
The Court finds Plaintiff has met the four Rule 23(a) requirements
and has shown the proposed class should be certified pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3).
Ms. Head seeks to certify a class of persons and entities within
the United States who received a call with an artificial or
prerecorded voice from Citibank, N.A. in connection with a past-due
credit card account even though the person or entity is
not a Citibank customer.
Head claims that Citibank's practice of using robocalls to
non-customers violates the 47 U.S.C. section 227, the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Citibank argues class certification is inappropriate because
individualized determinations would be required to establish
whether each person who received a Citibank robocall may properly
be considered a class member
Citibank is the consumer division of financial services
multinational Citigroup.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ocpTi9 at no extra charge.[CC]
CITY NATIONAL: Fourth Circuit Affirms Arbitration Order in Noe Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENDA C. NOE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF
WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1597 (4th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order granting, on remand, the Bank's motion to refer to
arbitration Noe's putative class action.
The action alleged several state law claims, including claims for
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and considered the parties'
arguments and found no reversible error. Accordingly, it affirmed
for the reasons stated by the district court. It dispensed with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2unpns6u from Leagle.com.
Jason E. Causey -- jcausey@bordaslaw.com -- BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC,
Wheeling, West Virginia; E. Adam Webb -- Contact@WebbLLC.com --
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia; Tiffany M. Yiatras,
Francis J. Flynn, Jr., CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC, in
Ellisville, Missouri, for the Appellant.
Dallas Floyd Kratzer, III -- dallas.kratzer@steptoe-johnson.com --
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Columbus, Ohio; Ancil H. Ramey --
ancil.ramey@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, in
Huntington, West Virginia, for the Appellee.
CLARIVATE PLC: Faces Parot Suit Over 7.52% Decline of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN PAROT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARIVATE PLC, JERRE STEAD, and RICHARD
HANKS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00394-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y.,
January 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding Clarivate's business, operations, and
compliance policies in order to trade Clarivate securities at
artificially inflated process between February 26, 2021 and
December 27, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose
that: (i) Clarivate maintained defective disclosure controls and
procedures as a result of a material weakness in its internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) the foregoing material
weakness was not limited to how the company accounted for warrants;
(iii) as a result, Clarivate failed to properly account for an
equity plan included in its acquisition of CPA Global; (iv)
accordingly, the company was reasonably likely to restate one or
more of its previously issued financial statements following its
acquisition of CPA Global; and (v) as a result, the company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Clarivate's ordinary share price fell $0.16
per share, or 0.65 percent, to close at $24.58 per share on
December 27, 2021. It further fell an additional $1.70 per share,
or 6.92 percent, to close at $22.88 per share on December 28, 2021,
a total decline of $1.86 per share, or 7.52 percent, over two
consecutive trading days, says the suit.
Clarivate PLC is an information services and analytics company,
with principal executive offices located at 70 St. Mary Axe, London
EC3A 8BE, United Kingdom. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
CMRE FINANCIAL: Walker Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Renee Walker, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. CMRE Financial Services,
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02218-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed
class:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom CMRE
Financial Services, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a
call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular
telephone service, but not assigned to a person with an
account in collections with CMRE Financial Services, Inc.,
(3) in connection with which Defendant used an artificial or
prerecorded voice, (4) from November 13, 2016 through the
date of class certification."
Ms. Walker also requests that the Federal Court appoint her as the
representative for the proposed class, and appoint Greenwald
Davidson Radbil PLLC as counsel for the proposed class.
All putative class members allegedly suffered the same injury -- a
receipt of at least one phone call by Defendant in violation of the
e Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Ms. Walker contends.
CMRE is a medical debt collector.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rajFBi
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 803-1578
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Zaki FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
NASSER ZAKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COGENT COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS INC., COGENT
COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH EAST INC., and COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20268 (S.D. Fla., January 24, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and breach of contract.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a global account
manager in Miami, Florida.
Cogent Communications Holdings Inc. is a multinational internet
service provider, with its principal place of business located at
2450 N. Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
Cogent Communications of South East Inc. is a multinational
internet service provider, with its principal place of business
located at 2450 N. Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
Cogent Communications Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cogent
Communications Holdings Inc., with its principal place of business
in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., Ste. 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker Seeks Feb. 15 Extension to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO
ALOHA, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation;
et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting their request a brief
extension of the deadline for their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification to February 15.
The Plaintiffs include Bruce Corker d/b/a Rancho Aloha; Colehour
Bondera and Melanie Bondera d/b/a Kanalani Ohana Farm, Robert Smith
and Cecelia Smith d/b/a SmithFarms, and SmithFarms LLC. Their
request for an extension is unopposed.
The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class Certification on December
22, 2021. In Response to the Motion, L&K presented declarations of
two experts, Richard Etkin and Paul Brewbaker. The Defendants
Mulvadi and MNS incorporated and/or joined with L&K's Motion and
supporting papers.
Under the current deadlines, Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of
the Motion is due February 4. L&K stated it has no objection to
making its two experts available for depositions on the
subject matter covered in their declarations.
However, the earliest availability for those depositions is
February 2nd and February 9th, which is after the Reply deadline.
L&K confirmed it would not oppose a request to extend Plaintiffs'
Reply deadline to accommodate the schedules of its expert witnesses
and counsel.
Mulvadi and MNS have also been informed of the request and invited
to reach out to Plaintiffs if they object to an extension. Mulvadi
and MNS have expressed no opposition, the suit says.
Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r9mmD6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
Joshua M. Howard, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-1313
E-mail: npaine@karrtuttle.com
dhagen@karrtuttle.com
jhoward@karrtuttle.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
275 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
dseltz@lchb.com
- and -
Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com
COXSACKIE TRANSPORT: Anderson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanford Sand &
Gravel, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cary Anderson, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated v. Coxsackie Transport
Inc., Brittany Parks aka Brittany Bevilacque, Alma Parks, Mansion
Street Development LLC, Case No. 53/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Greene
Cty., Jan. 27, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Torts."
Hanford Sand and Gravel, Inc. -- https://hanfordsandandgravel.com/
-- is a family owned and operated concrete manufacturing
facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
TANNER JONES LAW FIRM P.C.
1270 Ave. of Americas 7th Flr.
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 258-0685
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, AR: Faces Phillips USERRA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN PHILLIPS and DOES 1-20, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRAIGHEAD COUNTY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00022-LPR (E.D. Ark., January 26, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
by failing to credit the Plaintiff's and similarly situated
servicemember employees' short-term military leave for the purpose
of calculating their pension/retirement contributions and
accumulations.
Mr. Phillips worked for the Defendant in the Craighead County Jail
since 2015.
Craighead County is a county located in Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Mitchell, Esq.
1020 N. Washington
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 327-2224
E-mail: bobmitchellaw@gmail.com
CREDIT BUREAU: Bid to Stay Myers Case Nixed
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD D. MYERS,
Bankruptcy trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Donna Jean
Lunsford, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE, Case
No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon entered an order denying the motion to stay or to deny
the summary judgment motion without prejudice, and granting an
extension of time in which to respond.
1. The Defendants' motions to stay are denied.
2. The Defendants' motion to deny plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment and permanent injunction without
prejudice and alternative motion for an extension of time
to respond is granted to the extent that defendants will be
granted three weeks in which to respond to the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment, and denied in all other
respects.
3. The plaintiff will have one week thereafter to reply,
after which the motions for summary judgment and for class
certification will be considered submitted.
CBS provides third party primary debt collection services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H6OVqe at no extra charge.[CC]
CROWDERGULF LLC: Scheduling Order Amended in Palmisano Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH PALMISANO, JAY
HAJESKI, SEAN WALL, WALTER EVERETT, and MATTHEW MANIBUSAN
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CROWDERGULF, LLC, BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., MAPLE LAKE, INC.,
R. KREMER AND SON MARINE CONTRACTORS, LLC, ABC CORPORATIONS
(1-100), DEF CORPORATIONS (1-500), and JOHN DOES (1-10), et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-09371-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Tonianne
J. Bongiovanni entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Plaintiffs to disclose any Expert Feb. 7, 2022
in support of Class Certification:
-- Fact Discovery: March 1, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class March 8, 2022
Certification
-- Plaintiffs' Expert Report in March 8, 2022
support of Class Certification,
and supporting back-up data:"
-- Defendants to disclose any March 15, 2022
Expert(s) in opposition to:
-- Deposition of Plaintiffs' Expert: March 29, 2022
-- Defendants' Response(s) to April 19, 2022
Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Motion:
-- Defendants' Expert Report in April 19, 2022
opposition to Class
Certification, and supportin
back-up data:
-- Defendants' Motion(s) to May 3, 2022
Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert.
-- Deposition(s) of Defendants' May 10, 2022
Expert(s):
-- Plaintiffs' Response(s) to any May 17, 2022
Motion(s) to Exclude Plaintiffs'
Expert:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support May 24, 2022
of Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion(s) to Exclude June 14, 2022
Defendants' Expert(s):
-- Defendants' Response(s) to any June 28, 2022
Motion(s) to Exclude Defendants'
Expert:
-- Cross-Motions for Summary July 12, 2022
Judgment:
-- Responses to Cross-Motions Aug. 9, 2022
for Summary Judgment:
-- Replies to Defendants' Opposition: Aug. 23, 2022
-- All Parties to electronically file Aug. 30, 2022
all motion papers via CM/ECF,
with courtesy copies mailed to the
Court:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34gVIyX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul A. DiGiorgio, Esq.
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
Paul A. DiGiorgio
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 00701
Telephone: (732) 855-6066
E-mail: pdigiorgio@wilentz.com
The Defendant, R. Kremer and Son Marine Contractors, LLC, Inc., are
represented by:
Raymond D. Bogan,Esq.
SINN, FITZSIMMONS, CANTOLI,
BOGAN & WEST, P.A.
526 Bay Avenue
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742
Tele phone:(732) 899-9500
E-mail: rbogan@lawyernjshore.com
The Defendants, Bil-Jim Construction Co., and Maple Lake, Inc., are
represented by:
Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 597-2500
E-mail: nbarrowclough@lowenstein.com
The Defendant, CrowderGulf, LLC is represented by:
Brian P. O'Neill, Esq.
CHIESA, SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI
1 Boland Drive, No. 2
West Orange, NJ 07052
Telephone: (973) 530-2017
E-mail: boneill@csglaw.com
Third-Party Defendant, Twp. of Brick, is represented by:
Michael S. Nagurka, Esq.
Jared James Monaco, Esq.
ROTHSTEIN, MANDELL, STROHM
HALM & CIPRIANI
150 Airport Rd, Suite 600
Lakewood, NJ 08071
Telephone: 732-363-0777
E-mail: jmonaco@rmshc.law
DELAVAL INC: Parties in Bishop Suit to Submit Class Cert Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishop, et al., v. DeLaval
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-06129 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen R. Bough entered an order directing the parties to submit
briefing up to ten pages in length on how, if at all, the First
Amended Class Action Complaint affects the pending motion for class
certification.
The parties shall submit their briefs on or before February 18,
2022, says Judge Bough.
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability -- Breach of
Contract.
Delaval operates as a equipment supplier of milk production.[CC]
DELTA STAR: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered in Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON v. DELTA STAR,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel
Beeler entered a case management and pretrial order as follows:
Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure
Deadline/Hearing Date
-- Updated joint case May 12, 2022
management conference
statement:
-- Further case management May 19, 2022
conference:
-- ADR completion date: TBD
-- Hearing on class certification May 25, 2023
motion:
-- Non-expert discovery Nov. 2, 2023
completion date:
-- Expert disclosures required Dec. 3, 2023
by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
-- Rebuttal expert disclosures: Jan. 3, 2024
-- Expert discovery completion date: Feb. 3, 2024
-- Last hearing date for May 2, 2024
dispositive motions and/or
further case management
conference:
-- Meet and confer re pretrial May 27, 2024
filings:
-- Pretrial filings due: June 13, 2024
-- Oppositions, objections, June 20, 2024
exhibits, and depo
designations due:
-- Final pretrial July 25, 2024
conference:
-- Trial: Aug. 5, 2024
-- Length of trial 10 days
Delta Star manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile
transformers, and mobile substations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u9TRqJ at no extra charge.[CC]
DENNY'S INC: Estrada Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DENNY'S INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV45037, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00572 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages including overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods;
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
pay wages upon ending employment; failure to reimburse employees
for necessary business expenditures; and unfair competition.
Denny's Inc. is an American table service diner-style restaurant
chain company, headquartered in South Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David L. Cheng, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com
- and –
Daniel R. Lyman, Esq.
FORD HARRISON LLP
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1650
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 852-6914
E-mail: dlyman@fordharrison.com
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Stipulated Class Cert. Deadlines Nixed in Gile
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GILE, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; RANDOLPH
GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; 16 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order denying the joint stipulation to continue class
certification and related deadlines as follows:
Class Certification Current New
Date Date
-- Non-expert Discovery Sept. 30, 2022 Dec. 29, 2022
Cut-off:
-- Expert Disclosure Sept. 30, 2022 Dec. 29, 2022
(Initial):
-- Expert Disclosure Oct. 17, 2022 Jan. 16, 2023
(Rebuttal):
-- Expert Discovery Oct. 31, 2022 Jan. 30, 2023
Cut-off:
-- Deadline to File a March 25, 2022 June 23, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a April 15, 2022 July 14, 2022
Opposition to the
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a May 6, 2022 Aug. 4, 2022
Reply
-- Hearing Dates on May 30, 2022 Aug. 29, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32CtDli at no extra charge.[CC]
DONALD HEALD: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald Heald, LLC.
The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Donald Heald, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00734 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Donald Heald -- https://www.donaldheald.com/ -- is a website
offering rare books.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Court Stays Jerue Case Pending Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerue v. Drummond Company,
Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00587 (M.D.Fla.), the Hon. Judge Thomas P.
Barber entered an order staying case pending ruling on the motion
for class certification.
Upon resolution, the Court will reset any remaining deadlines, says
Judge Barber.
Drummond Company is a privately owned company based in Birmingham,
Alabama, United States, involved in the mining and processing of
coal and coal products as well as oil and real estate.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Diversity-Torts to
Land.[CC]
DUSTIN TALBOT: Bid to Certify Class in Brown Nixed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Demitri Brown v.
Dustin Talbot, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00919 (W.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph HL Perez-Montes entered an order .
1. denying motion to certify class; and
2. denying motion to appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Mandamus & Other.[CC]
ECZEMA HONEY: Civil Case Management Plan & Sched Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v
ECZEMA HONEY CO, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09822-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
1. All fact discovery shall be May 24, 2022
completed no later than:
2. Initial requests for production Feb. 23, 2022
of documents to be served by:
3. Interrogatories to be served by: Feb. 23, 2022
4. Depositions to be completed by: April 22, 2022
5. Requests to Admit to be served May 6, 2022
no later than:
6. All expert discovery shall be July 8, 2022
completed no later than:
7. Next case management conference June 14, 2022
is scheduled for:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r1d9wz at no extra charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Hines Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE A. HINES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06701-RPK-RER
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying case as a class action on behalf of the class and
subclasses.
Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IHqSOV
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Mallon, Esq.
MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 759-3663
E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com
- and -
Robert S. Sola, Esq.
ROBERT S. SOLA, P.C.
1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 295-6880
E-mail: rssola@msn.com
- and -
James M. Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Telephone: (404) 373-1970
E-mail: jimfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
Mooreland Manor
7100 Execute Center Dr., Suite 110
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 370-9659
E-mail: micahadkins@itsyourcreditreport.com
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: DiMercurio Wins Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO DIMERCURIO, et al.,
v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the waiting time
penalties claims.
Accordingly, and together with the Court's order of August 30,
2021:
-- Plaintiffs' claims for (1) reporting time pay, (3) wage
statements, and (4) unfair business practices are certified
as to the following class:
"All Operators working at the refinery of Equilon
Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US in Martinez,
California, who were scheduled for standby at any time from
June 4, 2015, four years prior to the filing of this
complaint, up to and continuing through January 31, 2020;"
-- Plaintiffs' claim for (2) waiting time penalties is
certified as to the following sub-classes:
2016-2019 Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class
"All Class Members who have been employed and separated from
employment (either by involuntary termination or
resignation) at the refinery of Equilon Enterprises LLC dba
Shell Oil Products US in Martinez, California, at any time
from June 4, 2016 through June 3, 2019, and who, upon
separation from employment, did not timely receive all
wages owed as a result of reporting obligations practices
are certified as to the following class:
2019-2020 Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class
"All Class Members who have been employed and separated from
employment (either by involuntary termination or
resignation) at the refinery of Equilon Enterprises LLC dba
Shell Oil Products US in Martinez, California, at any time
from June 4, 2019 through January 31, 2020, and who, upon
separation from employment, did not timely receive all wages
owed as a result of reporting obligations.
The Court also appoints Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld A.P.C. and
Leonard Carder LLP as class counsel.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), except as to the waiting
time penalties claim. The Court further concluded that the
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met.
The Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") alleges that "[by February 1,
2020 all members of the Class were separated from employment" due
to the sale of the refinery. The Plaintiff Malcolm Synigal
voluntarily separated from employment in June 2019, while the
Plaintiffs Marco DiMercurio, John Langlitz, and Charles Gaeth were
discharged when the refinery was sold on or about January 31, 2020.
The SAC alleges that "members of the Class who have separated from
Shell's employment were not paid required reporting time pay within
24 hours after a discharge, or 72 hours after a resignation, as
applicable."
Equilon Enterprises is an oil refining and marketing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G8kE9d at no extra charge.[CC]
ETHEREUMMAX: Venable Attorneys Discuss Crypto Endorsement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Boone, Esq., and Melissa Landau Steinman, Esq., of
Venable LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that a class action
lawsuit filed against Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather, and former
professional basketball player Paul Pierce earlier this month
underscores the need for celebrity endorsers to take care when they
approach any endorsement activity in the cryptocurrency space.
The lawsuit alleges that the celebrities collaborated with Ethereum
Max, a company offering ERC-20 cryptocurrency tokens (EMAX Tokens),
and its executives to engage in a "pump-and-dump" scheme promoting
investments in the company's tokens. The complaint alleges that the
three celebrity influencers misleadingly promoted EMAX Tokens to
potential investors, touting the ability of investors to make
significant returns due to the favorable "tokenomics" of the EMAX
Tokens, when in fact the tokens were practically worthless. The
class action alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, aiding and
abetting, and unjust enrichment/restitution.
According to the complaint, EthereumMax's entire business model
relies on marketing and promotional activities, and the celebrity
promoters received EMAX Tokens and/or other compensation in return
for promoting the tokens. (EthereumMax "has no connection" to
Ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency, the lawsuit said, adding
that its branding appears to be an effort to mislead investors into
believing the token is part of the Ethereum network.) The
promotional activities at issue included, among other things,
making social media posts, wearing EMAX-branded shirts, and
promoting the cryptocurrency at a conference.
Following the celebrity influencers' endorsements, EMAX Tokens
reportedly rose by 1,370% in value. However, shortly after reaching
its top price, the value crashed by 98%. According to the
complaint, the promotional activities generated the trading volume
needed for the celebrity promoters to offload their EMAX Tokens for
substantial profits, leaving investors with a "practically
worthless digital asset" -- in other words, a classic
"pump-and-dump" scheme.
Only Kardashian disclosed the receipt of any payment or
consideration, making a small "#AD" disclosure in the bottom right
of a June 2021 post to her 250+ million followers. In a subsequent
speech, the head of the UK's Financial Conduct Authority said the
post "may have been the financial promotion with the single biggest
audience reach in history."
In the past, celebrity promoters of cryptocurrency investments have
also been the target of enforcement actions by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). In 2018, the SEC charged Mayweather and
DJ Khaled for promoting Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) on social
media without disclosing that the companies offering the securities
were compensating them for the publicity. The SEC also charged film
producer Ryan Felton and rapper Clifford Harris, Jr. in September
2020 for promoting and participating in two unregistered and
fraudulent ICOs.
Celebrities and others seeking to promote cryptocurrency offerings,
exchanges, and similar transactions should do their due diligence
on the projects they support and ensure they are complying with the
requirements of the FTC's Endorsement Guides, for example, by
making the required clear and conspicuous disclosures of any
compensation or other connection at the beginning of or early in
any social post.
In addition, endorsers -- whether celebrity or otherwise -- should
review whether and/or how U.S. securities laws will apply when
discussing cryptocurrency online and on social media. As
blockchain, cryptocurrency, and NFT projects continue their immense
growth, and more celebrity promoters join these projects, class
action and regulatory enforcement risks are likely to rise in
tandem with this growth. [GN]
FLUOR CORPORATION: Liable to Investment Plan Losses, Locascio Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH LOCASCIO and DAVID SUMMERS, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the FLUOR CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS INVESTMENT PLAN,
Plaintiffs v. FLUOR CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FLUOR
CORPORATION, THE FLUOR CORPORATION BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, THE FLUOR CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE and DOES No. 1-30, whose names are currently unknown,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00154-X (N.D. Tex., January 24, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Fluor Corporation Employees' Savings
Investment Plan by: (1) failing to fully disclose the expenses and
risk of the Plan's investment options to participants; (2) allowing
unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants; and (3)
selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratifying high-cost and
poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent
alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily
available at the time the Defendants selected and retained the
funds at issue and throughout the Class Period. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plan has suffered millions of dollars
in losses.
Fluor Corporation is a global engineering, procurement,
construction and maintenance company, headquartered in Irving,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony L. Vitullo, Esq.
FEE, SMITH, SHARP & VITULLO LLP
Three Galleria Tower
13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (972) 934-9100
Facsimile: (972) 934-9200
E-mail: lvitullo@feesmith.com
- and –
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and –
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and –
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd.
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: kctang@millershah.com
FORD MOTOR: Consumer Class Action to Proceed to Trial in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Eñano, writing for Law Times, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and its subsidiaries will
proceed to trial after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
ordered the issuance of a certification notice to all customers who
purchased or leased 2013 or 2014 model year Ford vehicles across
Canada.
In January 2016, a class action was filed against Ford Motor
Company, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited and Yonge-Steeles
Ford Lincoln Sales Limited. The class action alleged that Ford had
made false, misleading, and deceptive representations to the public
which understated the fuel consumption of new 2013 and 2014 model
year Ford vehicles, thereby violating both the Competition Act and
Ontario's Consumer Protection Act. It sought damages for all class
members which include individuals and corporations who purchased or
leased the said vehicles.
In December 2018, the Superior Court certified the class action.
Following the certification order, the court ordered the issuance
of a certification notice to all the class members. The
certification notice seeks to inform every class member about the
class action initiated on their behalf and give them the
opportunity to opt out of it.
According to class counsel, Robins Appleby LLP and McKenzie Lake
Lawyers LLP, the court may determine the following disputed issues
common to the class:
Whether Ford breached the Competition Act and the Ontario's
Consumer Protection Act;
Whether class members are entitled to damages.
"Class members who want to participate in the class action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time,"
Robins and McKenzie said. "A class member who opts out will not be
entitled to participate in the class action."
But "his or her right to pursue a claim in a separate proceeding
will not be affected," Robins and McKenzie added. [GN]
FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER GARZA, on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FUSION
INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
1. granting conditional certification;
2. approving his Proposed Notice Plan and the proposed
notices and consent forms contained; and
3. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send notice and consent
forms to the Class Members.
Fusion Industries supports oil and gas industry with power,
utilities, generation & electrical expertise needed for oil and
liquids rich plays.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 26,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rWcnQP
at no extra charge.[CC]
FV COM: Faces Kargar Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
SABINA KARGAR and SERGIO PEREZ DIAZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UMITJON KAMOLOV,
FARIDA GABBASSOVA-RICCIARDELLI, FV COM CORPORATION d/b/a Farida,
and UMKA PUFF PIES, FARIDA ONLINE KITCHEN a/k/a FARIDA AUTHENTIC
DELICIOUS FOOD 24/7, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00664 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, failure to
provide wage notice, failure to provide wage statements, unlawful
withholding of gratuities, hostile work environment, sexual
harassment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs Kargar and Diaz performed work for the Defendants at
their Central Asian/Uzbek restaurant known as Farida, located in
Manhattan, New York from July of 2020 to April of 2021 and from
October of 2020 to April of 2021, respectively.
FV Com Corporation, doing business as Farida, is an owner and
operator of Central Asian/Uzbek restaurant known as Farida, located
at 498 9th Avenue, New York, New York.
Farida Online Kitchen, also known as Farida Authentic Delicious
Food 24/7, is an owner and operator of Central Asian/Uzbek
restaurant known as Farida, located at 498 9th Avenue, New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcus A. Nussbaum, Esq.
Ilya Fishkin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ILYA FISHKIN, P.C.
169 Commack Road, Ste. H371
Commack, NY 11725
Telephone: (201) 956-7071
Facsimile: (347) 572-0439
E-mail: marcus.nussbaum@gmail.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Nauman Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM NAUMAN, individually
and on Case No.: 3:21-cv-05150-BHS behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-05150-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff 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, or 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 and was purchased or leased in the State of
Washington;"
2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative;
3. appointing Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC; DiCello Levitt
Gutzler LLC; and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles P.C. as Class Counsel.
According to the complaint, each of the Class Vehicles suffer from
the same piston ring defect that causes an abnormal and improperly
high rate of oil consumption, far in excess of industry standards
(the "Oil Consumption Defect"). This excessive oil consumption
results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity, and
corresponding internal engine component damage. GM knew that its
engine was defective well before it sold them to Plaintiff and the
other Class members, but it continued selling and leasing Class
Vehicles without ever disclosing the Oil Consumption Defect.
The Plaintiff claims GM fraudulently omitted information related to
the Oil Consumption Defect and violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act. Both claims turn on GM's concealment of a uniform
defect, and neither requires an affirmative showing of
individualized reliance.
Beginning in model year 2007, GM introduced the Generation IV 5.3L
V8 Vortec 5300 engines (the "Gen IV 5.3Ls"). The Gen IV 5.3Ls
suffered from the Oil Consumption Defect throughout the entire Gen
IV lifespan, from its earliest model in 2007 until its last model
in 2014. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption problem with its Gen
IV 5.3Ls, as early as 2008, and throughout the relevant period. Yet
GM never informed Class members about its internal findings
regarding oil consumption in the Class Vehicles, the complaint
adds.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ILXCGX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.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, Alabama 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATSY H. MCMILLAN,
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00091-MC (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an
order extending the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for
class certification by 120 days.
The current deadlines and requested new deadlines are as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Feb. 25, 2022 June 27, 2022
Class Certification
and any Class
Certification Expert
Report
-- Defendant's Opposition April 29, 2022 Aug. 29, 2022
to Motion for Class
Certification and any
Class Certification
Expert Report:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in July 1, 2022 Oct. 28, 2022
support of Motion
for Class
Certification and any
rebuttal Class
Certification Expert
Report:
-- Conferral as to Alternate Aug. 5, 2022 Dec. 2, 2022
Dispute Resolution Report
pursuant to LR 16-4(c):
Genworth operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34hfyKs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert B. Miller, Esq.
KILMER, VOORHEES & LAURICK, P.C.
E-mail: bobmiller@kilmerlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
Kathy J. Huang, Esq.
Patrick J. Gennardo, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP ALSTON & BIRD LLP
E-mail: tom.evans@alston.com
kathy.huang@alston.com
Patrick.gennardo@alston.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Bahtiar Sues Over the Side Effects of Zantac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GOLBENAZ BAHTIAR, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00323 (E.D. Pa., January 25, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligent
product containers, negligent storage and transportation, medical
monitoring, and strict liability.
The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, distribution,
packaging, and marketing of Zantac, a branded name for ranitidine
used for heartburn and indigestion, without proper expiration dates
and appropriate packaging and their failure to disclose material
facts regarding the safety of Zantac and the dangers and risks
associated with its intended use. The Plaintiffs have been exposed
to unsafe levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a carcinogen, by
using the Defendants' Zantac and other ranitidine-containing
products. The exposure has significantly increased the Plaintiffs'
risk of developing cancer. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class
members need medical monitoring that is different than routine
medical treatment to permit early detection of the subject cancers,
as well as treatments and/or medications, the suit alleges.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal
place of business located at Five Crescent Drive, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
500 Grant St., Suite 2900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 346-4104
E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com
- and –
Tracy A. Finken, Esq.
ANAPOL WEISS
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-1130
E-mail: tfinken@anapolweiss.com
- and –
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
E-mail: efile@pmkm.com
- and –
Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 384-7269
E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com
- and –
Adam Pulaski, Esq.
PULASKI KHERKHER, PLLC
2925 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1725
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 664-4555
E-mail: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com
- and –
Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan, Esq.
MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI
1222 Troy-Schenectady Road
PO Box 15141
Albany, NY 12212
Telephone: (518) 862-1200
E-mail: Rosemarie.bogdan@1800law1010.com
- and –
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT, LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and –
Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG LAW, PLLC
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-4662
E-mail: mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
- and –
Ashley Keller, Esq.
KELLER | LENKNER
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-5222
E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
- and –
Frederick Longer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: flonger@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.
CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
600 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (888) 480-1123
E-mail: luhana@chaffinluhana.com
- and –
Francisco R. Maderal, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
E-mail: frank@colson.com
- and –
Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
E-mail: RMartinez-Cid@Podhurst.com
- and –
Lauren S. Miller, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Ave S
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
E-mail: lmiller@corywatson.com
- and –
Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
6 Harbor Park DrivePort
Washington, NY 11050
Telephone: (516) 466-6500
E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com
- and –
Daniel A. Nigh, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (888) 435-7001
E-mail: dnigh@levinlaw.com
- and –
Carmen S. Scott, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9160
E-mail: cscott@motleyrice.com
- and –
Mikal C. Watts, Esq.
WATTS GUERRA LLP
4 Dominion Drive
Building 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78257
Telephone: (800) 294-0055
E-mail: mcwatts@wattsguerra.com
- and –
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
- and –
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
- and –
Frank Woodson, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Frank.Woodson@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
GOLDEN YEARS: Faces Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA MITCHELL and PAMELA BOONE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDEN YEARS ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00009 (E.D. Va.,
January 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
Plaintiffs Mitchell and Boone were employed by the Defendant as a
nurses' aide and a medical technician, respectively.
Golden Years Assisted Living Facility, Inc. is a residential care
facility for the elderly, with its principal place of business in
Hampton, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
Andrew J. Dean, Esq.
PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.
12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Telephone: (757) 223-4580
Facsimile: (757) 249-1627
E-mail: Jshoemaker@pwhd.com
adean@pwhd.com
GOOGLE LLC: Skadden Arps Discusses Data Breach Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angus Goalen, Esq., Sym Hunt, Esq., Bruce Macaulay, Esq., and
Eve-Christie Vermynck, Esq., of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that The U.K. Supreme
Court, in its much-anticipated decision in Lloyd v Google, held
that "opt-out" representative (class) actions cannot proceed unless
the plaintiff proves material damage and shows that each class
member is seeking the same compensation.
The unanimous judgment limits the potential for in terrorem claims
involving significant sums that create settlement pressure.
Representative actions remain viable, however, where harm is
quantifiable on a common basis across the class, i.e., where
monetary loss need not be assessed on an individualized basis.
Antitrust "opt-out" class actions, which are expressly provided for
by statute, are not affected by Lloyd, and have gained momentum
following the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Merricks v
Mastercard in late 2020.
The class action landscape in the U.K. is quickly evolving, with
the availability of "opt-out" class actions taking center stage.
Lloyd v Google, the latest landmark judgment from the U.K. Supreme
Court (UKSC), serves as a reminder of the hurdles plaintiffs face
in bringing opt-out representative actions, the U.K.'s primary
counterpart to American class actions. However, the Lloyd judgment
has left the door open for such actions where damages can be
quantified on a common basis across the putative class members.
Background: Data Protection Claims and Representative Actions
In the U.K., increased regulatory enforcement of data protection
obligations has not been accompanied by successful "opt-out"
representative class actions arising from breaches of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). The courts have not yet been asked
to adjudicate representative actions under the Data Protection Act
2018 (DPA 2018, successor to the DPA 1998) or the U.K. General Data
Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).
Representative actions under U.K. civil procedure rules (CPR 19.6)
may be pursued on an opt-out basis, meaning that the claim is
brought on behalf of every individual falling within the class
unless they expressly opt out. Framed this way, with classes
defined very broadly, the potential damages can be enormous,
generating significant pressure on defendants to settle.
In Lloyd v Google, Richard Lloyd brought a representative action on
behalf of over four million data subjects, seeking damages for an
alleged breach of data protection law. Mr. Lloyd claimed that, by
placing a "Safari workaround" on iPhones, Google was able to track
users' data without their knowledge or consent and create user
profiles for targeting advertising. Mr. Lloyd sought a uniform
amount of approximately £750 in damages for each class member --
over £3 billion in total.
Under CPR 19.6, a representative action cannot be brought unless
all class members share the "same interest" in the claim. Given the
facts of Lloyd, any claim for personal distress or pecuniary loss
would have been inherently individual. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd sought
damages for loss of control over personal data, contending that
each class member had suffered this damage equally, with the
quantum based on the lowest common denominator of damage across the
class.
Google prevailed in the High Court, but the decision there was
overturned in the Court of Appeal. When that decision was appealed,
the UKSC was required to decide two principal issues:
whether damages could be recovered under the DPA 1998 for loss of
control of personal data, even if no material damage had been
proven; and whether each class member had the "same interest" in
the claim.
On the first issue, the UKSC decided damages could not be awarded
purely for the loss of control of personal data, as explained in
our November 2021 Privacy & Cybersecurity Update. Below, we discuss
the "same interest" issue.
No 'Same Interest' Where Damages Must Be Calculated on an
Individual Basis
The UKSC unanimously found that the class members did not have the
"same interest" in the claim. The Safari workaround's impact was
not uniform because the plaintiffs were profiled to differing
extents, based on various aspects of their personal data, depending
on their use of Safari. Damages could therefore only be calculated
on an individualized basis, and therefore the "same interest"
requirement was not met. The argument that each user had suffered a
lowest common denominator of damage was rejected, too, on the
grounds that this level of damage would be trivial.
The UKSC accepted that representative actions may be appropriate
where all class members have suffered equal damage -- for instance,
where each class member is wrongly charged a fixed fee or suffers
an identical reduction in value arising from the same defect in a
product. Furthermore, the UKSC confirmed that representative
actions may be viable where damages can be ascertained on a
top-down basis (i.e., without needing to evaluate the losses
suffered by individual class members). Alternatively, proceedings
could be brought on a bifurcated basis: a representative action
seeking a declaration of breach, followed by individual claims for
compensation, relying on the declaration.
The Implications of Lloyd
The judgment restricts the availability of "opt-out" class actions,
which now appear to be limited to antitrust claims or claims where
individualized assessments of loss are not necessary. While the
findings in Lloyd were expressly confined to the DPA 1998 and are
therefore untested against the DPA 2018 and UK GDPR, the decision
made clear that it will be difficult to bring representative
actions for breaches of any such laws.
To the extent that class members have suffered universal losses, or
their losses need not be calculated on an individualized basis,
representative actions may still be brought. Hence, there is some
potential for in terrorem suits alleging significant sums in
damages.
While Lloyd leaves open the possibility of bifurcated proceedings
where individualized assessments of harm are necessary -- with
liability established as a preliminary step and individuals'
damages then proven separately -- such proceedings face major
hurdles, not least because of the economics of litigation funding.
Such financing is integral to representative actions, and funders
require the prospect of a monetary award in order to obtain a
return on their investment. In bifurcated proceedings, the first
stage -- seeking a declaration of breach -- would not generate any
monetary award. The second stage may generate such awards, but
requires individual claims for relatively small sums. That may be
uneconomical and would make it very difficult to forecast at the
outset how much could ultimately be sought and awarded. For
litigation funders, who must underwrite the litigation costs and
potentially pay the defendants' expenses if the suit fails,
bifurcated proceedings may be commercially unattractive, perhaps
even prohibitively so.
Claimant law firms and litigation funders may still pursue group
litigation claims under CPR 19.11, where class members need only
show that their claims give rise to common or related issues of
fact or law. However, such claims can only be brought on an
"opt-in" basis, where class members must affirmatively choose to
participate. Absent a large class opting in (which has been rare),
these may not be commercially viable, either.
Finally, the UKSC's 2021 ruling in Merricks v Mastercard provided a
strong endorsement for antitrust cases, where collective actions
are expressly provided for by statute. In Merricks, the UKSC
considered the claims suitable for collective proceedings, finding
that it was relatively more appropriate to litigate the claim
collectively rather than individually. These collective proceedings
may be brought by businesses or consumers, on either an opt-out or
opt-in basis. (See our January 7, 2021, client alert "Merricks v
Mastercard -- UK Supreme Court Clarifies Low Bar for Class Action
Certification.") [GN]
GRAND CANYON: Little Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carson Little, v. Grand
Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00795-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification;
-- The Court will certify Plaintiff's breach of contract
claims but will not certify his unjust enrichment
claims;
2. striking Plaintiff's First Notice of Supplemental
Authority, from the docket; and
3. amending the class definition.
The Court finds that a class action is superior to other forms of
adjudication to fairly and efficiently resolve this controversy for
the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims. "The policy at the very
core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that
small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to
bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights."
In light of this policy and the Rule 23 factors, it is clear that a
class action is the most efficient way to manage this controversy.
Otherwise, roughly 20,000 students would need to individually
litigate their breach of contract claims against GCU, and students
would likely not be able to collect enough in damages in order to
bring suit on their own. Litigating the claims as a class also
allow the Court to resolve common questions of law and fact in one
case and avoid inconsistent results. Thus, the Court finds that a
class action is superior to other forms of adjudication. Therefore,
Plaintiff has satisfied the Rule 23(b)(2) claims for his breach of
contract claims.
On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against GCU alleging that the university failed to provide proper
refunds of housing expenses, meal plans, and student fees after GCU
sent students home in response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the
Spring 2020 semester.
The Plaintiff's Complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of two
classes: (1) those who paid room and board fees to GCU and (2)
those who paid fees during the Spring 2020 semester. The Complaint
brought claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
conversion.
On January 29, 2021, the Court ruled on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. In its ruling, the Court allowed
Plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims to
proceed while dismissing the conversion claim.
The Plaintiff is a GCU student who paid the cost of room and board
and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. While Plaintiff lists in his
Complaint fees which students pay, he did not specify which ones he
paid for the 2019–2020 academic year.
Grand Canyon University is a private for-profit Christian
university in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rl0xkd at no extra charge.[CC]
GROUPON INC: Macovski Sues Over More Than 44% Drop of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAZAR MACOVSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUPON, INC., RICH WILLIAMS, and MELISSA
THOMAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02581 (N.D. Ill., August 12,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections (10)b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the success of its customer
engagement program called Groupon Select between July 30, 2019 and
February 18, 2020, the Class Period. The program was designed to
attract customers that repeatedly turned to Groupon for experiences
offered by its Local segment, as opposed to purchasing a one-off,
discounted restaurant meal. During the Class Period, the Defendants
repeatedly touted the purported success of Groupon Select in
boosting purchase frequency and generating incremental profits, and
suggested that this customer engagement strategy was on the cusp of
returning the company to profit growth. However, the Defendants
failed to disclose until after the Class Period, throughout the
Class Period, the highly touted Select program was in fact
over-indexing to Groupon's Goods segment, customers had been using
Select primarily to make repeat low-margin Goods purchases, rather
than higher-margin Local purchases, says the suit.
When the truth emerged, Groupon shares fell by $1.35 per share, or
more than 44 percent on February 19, 2020, on trading volume that
was more than 25 times Groupon's average daily trading volume. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff and the Class purchased Groupon securities at
artificially inflated prices and were damaged thereby.
Groupon, Inc. is an online store company, with executive offices
located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Christopher Fallon, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
cfallon@glancylaw.com
- and –
Ira M. Press, Esq.
Andrew M. McNeela, Esq.
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
telrod@kmllp.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
lcludwig@pomlaw.com
HAIKU ASIAN BISTRO: Hong FLSA Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HAIKU @ WP
INC. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; JP WHITE PLAINS, INC.
d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; and SOONWAH LEE a/k/a
Michael Lee, Case No. 7:19-cv-05018-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Nelson S. Roman entered an order granting in part and denying in
part plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- The Court grants the motion with respect to the
conditional certification of delivery drivers employed at
Haiku in White Plains, New York on or after May 31, 2016.
-- The Court denies the motion with respect to the
conditional certification of the other non-managerial
employees.
Accordingly, On or before February 11, 2022, Defendants shall
produce to Plaintiff a spreadsheet, in Excel if possible,
containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known
telephone numbers, last known email addresses, last known WhatsApp,
WeChat and/or Facebook usernames, dates of employment, and
positions of all delivery drivers employed at Haiku in
White Plains, New York on or after May 31, 2016; and
On or before February 18, 2022, the parties shall, after meeting
and conferring, prepare and submit to the Court, for approval, a
revised form of notice (and related consent form) incorporating the
Court's rulings delineated elsewhere in this order.
The Plaintiff Hong, a former deliveryman, brought this putative
collective and classaction against the Defendants, alleging wage
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New
York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Haiku operates a restaurant.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KTgWE0 at no extra charge.[CC]
HANFORD SAND & GRAVEL: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanford Sand &
Gravel, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Hernandez, Jr.,
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Hanford Sand & Gravel,
Inc., Hanford Ready-Mix, Inc., Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No.
34-2022-00314657-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
27, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Hanford Sand and Gravel, Inc. -- https://hanfordsandandgravel.com/
-- is a family owned and operated concrete manufacturing
facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
HARBORSTONE CREDIT: Stipulated Bid to Stay Case Schedule OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO PAREDES GARCIA, v.
HARBORSTONE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:21-cv-05148-LK (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting parties'
stipulated motion to stay case schedule.
The Court said, "The parties shall file a notice updating the Court
on settlement discussions within 45 days of the entry of this
Order. If settlement discussions fail, the parties shall file a
motion within seven days to reset the class certification briefing
schedule."
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address, says Judge King.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KRT9US at no extra charge.[CC]
HBCC DEVELOPMENT: Faces Li Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
HAI DONG LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HBCC DEVELOPMENT CORP. D/B/A HBCC
DEVELOPMENT LLC; JC BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT GROUP CORP. D/B/A JC
BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT; BESTWAY DEVELOPMENT CORP, ALLEN CHEN, JERRY
WU, and YIN LING CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00443
(E.D.N.Y., January 25, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours premiums, failure to provide wage notice at the
time of hiring, failure to provide paystubs, failure to timely pay
wages, and failure to reimburse expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker in Flushing, New York from March 13, 2021 to November 12,
2021.
HBCC Development Corp., doing business as HBCC Development LLC, is
a construction company based in Flushing, New York.
JC Brothers Development Group Corp., doing business as JC Brothers
Development, is a construction company based in Flushing, New
York.
Bestway Development Corp. is a construction company based in
Flushing, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: yliu@hanglaw.com
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Order on Class Cert. Discovery Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVINS, et al., v.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00928 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Skahill entered
an order regarding class certification discovery, including the
issues raised in the letter from counsel for plaintiff:
-- Counsel shall meet and confer regarding the discovery
issues discussed on the January 27, 2022 conference call by
February 10, 2022.
-- By February 17, 2022 counsel shall either file a letter
with the court confirming the issues are resolved with a
proposed schedule for class certification briefing or a
joint letter setting forth the specific issue(s) with the
position of each party including any factual or legal
support for that position.
-- The court will hold a conference call on March 7, 2022 at
1:30 p.m. to address any letter it receives.
-- The deadline to file for class certification and to file
dispositive motions is adjourned pending resolution of this
issue.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
HRRG is a debt collection agency, specializing in the collection of
medical debt.[CC]
HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Ford Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NORTH AMERICA LLC
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV03063 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 26, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime
wages, failure to provide meal period, failure to provide rest
period, failure to provide accurate wage statement, failure to
timely pay wages, and unfair competition.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in
Santa Fe Springs, California.
Heraeus Precious Metals North America LLC is a manufacturer of
precious metals based in Santa Fe Springs, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and –
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (818) 456-6168
Facsimile: (888) 505-0868
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Pimentel's Claims for Labor Code & UCL Violations Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR PIMENTEL, as an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-03051 ODW (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II,
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
grants Home Depot's motion to dismiss.
Home Depot seeks dismissal of Pimentel's third and sixth causes of
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Pimentel's sixth cause of action is for violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Home Depot moved to dismiss
Pimentel's third cause of action for its failure to include all
compensable hours worked on employee wage statements, in violation
of California Labor Code section 226.
I. Background
Plaintiff Pimentel brings the representative class action against
Defendant Home Depot for various labor law violations. Pimentel
worked for Home Depot as a non-exempt employee, and his duties
including stocking, selling, and providing customer service. Home
Depot required him and the other employees to report seven minutes
prior to their shift for an inspection. The inspections lasted an
average of five to ten minutes, and employees were only compensated
for four of those minutes and were precluded from logging
additional time. As a result, Pimentel's wage statements lacked an
accurate indication of the total number of hours he worked.
On May 28, 2021, Pimentel filed the operative Second Am. Compl.
("SAC"), alleging seven causes of action against Home Depot: (1)
failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to pay wages, including
minimum wages; (3) failure to provide and maintain accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to pay for necessary expenses; (5) failure
to pay timely wages upon termination; (6) unlawful business
practices; and (7) violation of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
Home Depot now moves to dismiss Pimentel's third cause of action
for Home Depot's failure to include all compensable hours worked on
employee wage statements in violation of California Labor Code
section 226. It argues that in asserting this cause of action,
Pimentel seeks an impermissible double recovery and fails to allege
a requisite injury. Home Depot also argues that Pimentel's seventh
cause of action -- the PAGA claim -- should be dismissed to the
extent it seeks penalties based on the violations alleged in the
third cause of action. Finally, Home Depot moves to dismiss
Pimentel's sixth cause of action for failure to plead sufficient
facts.
II. Discussion
Judge Wright begins with Pimentel's sixth cause of action for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Home
Depot asserts that Pimentel must establish an inadequate remedy at
law before securing an equitable remedy under the UCL and that
because Pimentel failed to establish an inadequate remedy at law,
the cause of action should be dismissed. In his opposition to the
Motion, the Plaintiff states that it "does not dispute the motion
as the Sixth Cause of Action, leaving the Third Cause of Action as
the subject of the motion." Thus, Judge Wright will grant Home
Depot's Motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action.
Turning to Pimentel's third cause of action, California Labor Code
section 226(a) lists nine categories of information that employers
must include on employee wage statements, including, in relevant
part, "(1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the
employee and (5) net wages earned." Penalties for violating
section 226 are available to employees who suffer "injury as a
result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer" to
include the required information.
Mr. Pimentel alleges Home Depot violated section 226 by providing
wage statements that failed to include the total hours worked. He
alleges Home Depot prevented employees from logging their pre-shift
inspection time and as a result of omitting that time "failed to
provide wage statements that included each employee's applicable
total compensable hours worked." Home Depot argues that Pimentel's
third cause of action must be dismissed as an impermissible attempt
at a double recovery.
Judge Wright holds that Pimentel's section 226 cause of action is
derivative of Pimentel's second cause of action, which seeks to
recover wages for time spent performing pre-shift inspections.
Pimentel is alleging that, because Home Depot failed to allow him
to log his pre-shift inspection hours, his wage statement fails to
include the "total hours worked by the employee" as required by
section 226(a)(2). However, it is not the kind of omission that
constitutes a wage statement violation. It is not a case where, for
example, employees are alleging that they logged their pre-shift
inspection hours, but the employer later omitted those logged hours
from the wage statement, rendering the "hours worked" total on the
wage statement inaccurate.
Mr. Pimentel never logged his pre-shift inspection hours, and his
wage statements correspondingly never included pre-shift inspection
hours. The case presents neither of the concerns the California
Legislature had in mind when enacting section 226, which include
(1) keeping employees "adequately informed of compensation
received," and (2) preventing employees from being "shortchanged by
their employers." Permitting Pimentel to recover on the derivative
wage statement causes of action would lead to an impermissible
double recovery. Judge Wright will therefore grant Home Depot's
Motion to Dismiss the third cause of action.
Next, Judge Wright turns to Pimentel's PAGA claim, which relies in
part on the now-dismissed third cause of action. PAGA is a
statutory mechanism whereby "an 'aggrieved employee' may bring a
civil action personally and on behalf of other current or former
employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations.'"
Because a PAGA claim is based on violations of discrete provisions
of the Labor Code, courts regularly order partial dismissal of PAGA
claims when certain predicate Labor Code violations are
implausible, ill-pled, or otherwise not viable. Therefore, Judge
Wright will also grant Home Depot's Motion to dismiss Pimentel's
PAGA claim, the seventh cause of action, to the extent it relies on
the now-dismissed third cause of action.
Finally, Judge Wright finds that providing Pimentel with leave to
amend would be futile and will therefore grant dismissal of the
aforementioned claims without leave to amend. He says, Pimentel's
claims are dismissed on the following bases: (1) Pimentel does not
dispute that he cannot establish an element of his UCL claim; (2)
Pimentel's third cause of action is derivative of his second cause
of action, constituting impermissible double recovery; (3)
Pimentel's PAGA claim relies to some extent on his impermissible
third cause of action. Pimentel could not remedy any of these
deficiencies by amending his complaint. Accordingly, Judge Wright
will grant Home Depot's Motion without leave to amend.
III.
Judge Wright concludes that California law does not recognize the
type of wage statement error Pimentel alleges as a violation of
Labor Code section 226. He, therefore, granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5k9s28m from Leagle.com.
ICON BURGER: Court Wants Rosario to File 2nd Amended NYLL Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ICON BURGER ACQUISITION LLC
d/b/a SMASHBURGER, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-4313 (JS) (ST)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's letter motion
asking the Court to vacate the stay of motion practice instituted
at the parties' recent pre-motion conference.
I. Background
Plaintiff Rosario initiated the class action against the Defendant
alleging claims under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") arising out
of the payment of his wages while he was employed at the
Defendant's restaurant.
The Defendant owns a chain of Smashburger restaurants that employs
thousands of manual workers in the state of New York. The Plaintiff
is a New York citizen who was employed by the Defendant as a
cook/cashier from December 2019 to May 2020 at a Smashburger
located in Staten Island. According to the Amended Complaint, at
least 25% of the Plaintiff's job responsibilities at Smashburger
involved manual labor.
At issue is how the Defendant paid the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff
alleges the Defendant paid him every other week, rather than
weekly, during the entirety of his employment. As a result, the
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated NYLL Section 191, which
obligates employers to pay manual employees on a weekly basis. To
vindicate the rights of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees under NYLL Section 198(1-a).
On Nov. 4, 2021, the Defendant filed its pre-motion conference
("PMC") letter seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss. On Nov.
11, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his opposition. In its PMC letter,
the Defendant sought leave to dismiss the Amended Complaint for
lack of Article III standing.
Specifically, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff lacks Article
III standing, because he cannot allege a concrete injury in fact
beyond mere violation of the NYLL. In essence, the Defendant argued
that the Plaintiff must allege that the Defendant's violation of
the NYLL by failing to pay him weekly caused some concrete injury
in addition to the violation of the statute. In response, the
Plaintiff pointed to a recent decision by the Honorable Rachel P.
Kovner, wherein she concluded that "the late payment of wages is a
concrete harm" sufficient to confer standing on the plaintiff
seeking relief under NYLL Section 191 (the "Caul Order").
At the Dec. 20, 2021 PMC conference, the Defendant advised the
Court that it had sought interlocutory appeal of the Caul Order.
Accordingly, the Court stayed motion practice pending resolution of
the interlocutory appeal of said Caul Order.
On Jan. 3, 2022, the Plaintiff advised the Court that in the Caul
case, Judge Kovner had denied the defendant's motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal the Caul Order. Thus, the Plaintiff asks the
Court to lift its motion practice stay and deny the Defendant's
motion to dismiss on the basis of its PMC letter. To date, the
Defendant has not responded.
II. Discussion
Article III standing requires the plaintiff to show "(1) an 'injury
in fact,' (2) a 'causal connection' between that injury and the
conduct at issue, and (3) a likelihood 'that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.'" The issue in the case is the
injury-in-fact requirement.
To demonstrate injury in fact, a plaintiff must show the invasion
of a [1] legally protected interest that is [2] concrete and [3]
particularized and [4] actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical. At issue is the requirement the Plaintiff show a
concrete harm.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant liable for failing to pay
him weekly as required by the NYLL. As stated at the PMC, the Court
agrees with Judge Kovner that the late payment of wages can
constitute a concrete harm sufficient to confer standing on a
plaintiff who seeks relief under Sections 191 and 198 of the NYLL.
In the present action, Judge Seybert finds that the Plaintiff's
barebones Amended Complaint contains no facts from which the Court
could plausibly conclude that the Plaintiff actually suffered the
sort of harm that would entitle him to relief. The Amended
Complaint simply alleges that the "Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the Class on a timely basis as required by the NYLL,"
so the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages, which is
insufficient. Absent factual allegations that the Plaintiff
forewent the opportunity to use the money to which he was legally
entitled, he cannot plausibly claim he suffered a harm sufficiently
concrete to establish Article III standing.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Seybert granted the Plaintiff's
letter motion to vacate the stay. Upon sua sponte reconsideration,
the Plaintiff is directed to file a second amended complaint no
later than 30 days from the date of the Order, i.e., Feb. 21, 2022.
The Defendant will answer or otherwise respond to the second
amended complaint within 21 days from the date that it is filed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2jemsdcw from Leagle.com.
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Alec Mitchell Leslie,
Esq. -- aleslie@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A., in New York
City, for the Plaintiff.
Daniel Sergio Gomez-Sanchez, Esq. -- dsgomez@littler.com -- Matthew
R. Capobianco, Esq. -- mcapobianco@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., in Melville, New York, for the Defendant.
ICON CLINICAL: Initial OK of Settlement Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS O. NESBETH, AMIT
GODAMBE, JENNY GALLERY, MISTY HOWELL and MICAH WEBB, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ICON CLINICAL
RESEARCH, LLC, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH,
LLC, THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE OF ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH, LLC and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:21-cv-01444-PD (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting their unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement agreement entered into with the
defendants;
2. preliminary approving class notice, and approving plan of
allocation; and
3. scheduling a fairness hearing.
Icon provides clinical research services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rad4GJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, 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
donr@capozziadler.com
IMPERIAL FINE: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Fine Books,
Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Imperial Fine Books,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00735 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Imperial Fine Books, Inc. -- https://www.imperialfinebooks.com/ --
is the leading specialist in leather-bound books, sets, and fine
bindings in all fields.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Class Cert Deadlines Entered in Randall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Randall v. Integrated
Communication Service Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-05438 (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order setting
deadlines pursuant to joint status report:
-- Class Certification Motion due by: Sept. 30, 2022
-- Dispositive motions due by: April 29, 2023
-- Trial date TBD
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Integrated Communication Services Inc was founded in 1981. The
company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
electronic parts and electronic communications equipment.[CC]
INTERFLEX ACQUISITION: Malone Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA, WWPCL
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MALONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. INTERFLEX ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00099 (Jan.
26, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.
The Defendant allegedly operated (and continues to operate) an
unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic
timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and
post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of
said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the
FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.
In approximately August 2016, the Defendant hired Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Warehouse
Material Handler working at Defendant's direction, on Defendant's
behalf, for Defendant's benefit, and/or with Defendant's knowledge
in the State of Wisconsin.
The Defendant designs and manufactures packaging material.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Parties Stipulate Class Cert Briefing Sched
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO
VASQUEZ, JUAN AGUILAR, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff stipulate
with defendant Jan-Pro that Defendant may have up to and including
March 4, 2022 to file its oppositions to two motions filed by
plaintiffs on January 21, 2022: specifically, Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In turn, the Plaintiffs would have up to and including March 29,
2022 to submit any replies and, if convenient for the Court, the
parties would come before the Court for hearing on April 14, 2022
(the 2d Thursday of the month) at 8:00 a.m.
Jan-Pro provides professional commercial cleaning services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KR12tU at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Clint D. Robison, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Rosin, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 1050
Woodland Hills, CA, 91367
Telephone: (213) 306-1610
Facsimile: (213) 306-1615
KEYCITY CAPITAL: Court Compels Discovery Responses in Starling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY STARLING, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. KEYCITY CAPITAL, LLC and TIE LASATER, Civil
Action No. 3:21-CV-818-S (N.D. Tex.), Judge Karen Gren Scholer of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses.
I. Background
The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the
Defendants based on the Defendants' alleged prerecorded
telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other consumers in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227, et seq., and the Texas Business & Commerce Code. The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants made prerecorded solicitation
messages inviting her to a free dinner on Feb. 24, 2021, in
Southlake, Texas, at which the Defendants would pitch their
services and investments ("Southlake Event").
Though the Plaintiff only received messages relating to the
Southlake Event, she claims that other putative class members were
sent nearly identical prerecorded messages inviting them to similar
events as part of the same general marketing campaign. The
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants made prerecorded
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and other individuals who had
registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry in violation of the TCPA.
The Plaintiff proposes four putative classes, which are defined in
relation to different provisions of the TCPA and Texas Business &
Commerce Code allegedly violated by Defendants:
1. Since April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff and all persons within
the United States to whose telephone number Defendant KeyCity
placed (or had placed on its behalf) a prerecorded or artificial
voice telemarketing call;
2. Since April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff and all persons within
the United States to whose telephone number Defendant KeyCity
placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more telemarketing
calls in a 12-month period when the telephone number to which the
telephone calls were made was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
at the time of the calls;
3. Since April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff and all residents of the
State of Texas to whose telephone number Defendant KeyCity placed
(or had placed on its behalf) a telephone solicitation when
Defendant KeyCity did not hold a registration certificate as
required by Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section 302.101; and
4. Since April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff and all residents of the
State of Texas to whose telephone number Defendant KeyCity: (1)
placed (or had placed on its behalf) a call in violation of 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b) or (2) Defendant KeyCity placed (or had
placed on its behalf) a call in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section
227(c).
The Plaintiff is required to file a motion seeking class
certification by April 1, 2022.
According to the Plaintiff, the putative class definitions include
everyone who received prerecorded messages from the Defendants
soliciting attendance at dinners and other marketing events.
Specifically, she claims that the Defendants obtained individual
contact information and made ringless calls and automated voicemail
messages inviting these individuals to dinner events at which
Defendants would pitch their financial services, including the
Southlake Event for which the Plaintiff was solicited. The
Defendants allegedly used an identical process to obtain contact
information and solicit individuals to several other dinner events
in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in addition to an event in Naples,
Florida, at which Defendants would similarly pitch their services
("Other Events"). The Plaintiff thus claims that putative class
members include recipients of calls regarding the Southlake Event
and the Other Events.
At issue for purposes of the Motion is Nos. 11-13 of the
Plaintiff's Requests for Production ("RFPs") and Nos. 1 and 5 of
the Plaintiff's Interrogatories, which seek documents and
information relating to all telephone calls placed to the proposed
class members, including the telephone numbers called, the dates
and times of the calls, and the results of the calls. Although the
Plaintiff's Motion seeks call data for all calls placed to putative
class members during the four-year statute of limitations period
applicable to TCPA claims, the Plaintiff has since agreed to limit
the time period for the requested discovery to the period beginning
Jan. 1, 2021, to the present.
While it is undisputed that the Defendants have produced call data
and contact information for over 5,000 individuals relating to the
specific Southlake Event for which the Plaintiff herself was
solicited ("Southlake Calls"), the Plaintiff claims this
information should also be produced for individuals who received
calls or messages relating to the Other Events ("Other Calls")
because they are also included in the four putative class
definitions. She asserts that discovery regarding the Other Calls
is critical to showings she must make in her motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Plaintiff further contends that the TCPA's prohibition on calls
delivering prerecorded voice messages does not relate to the
content of the message itself, and that the Defendants improperly
restrict the scope of permissible discovery by limiting their
production to call data regarding the Southlake Calls. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff requests that the Defendants' objections be overruled
and class data for recipients of the Other Calls be produced.
The Defendants contend that the requested discovery regarding the
Other Calls is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the
case at the precertification stage. They further assert that the
Plaintiff's requests amount to a fishing expedition and seek to
prematurely identify potential members of classes that should not
be certified. Finally, the Defendants object on the basis that the
requests seek confidential and proprietary information.
II. Discussion
A. Relevance of Plaintiff's Requests
Judge Scholer finds that, subject to the Plaintiff's agreement to
limit the temporal scope of her requests to calls made in 2021, the
requested discovery regarding the Other Calls is relevant and
proportional to the needs of the case. This information directly
concerns class certification issues such as numerosity of class
members, commonality of the issues, and predominance. Call lists
and individual contact information for all putative classes will
reveal whether "the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable." Further, information regarding the
substance of the Defendants' calls in connection with other
marketing campaigns and whether other individuals on the
Do-Not-Call Registry received those calls directly informs whether
potential claims "depend on a common contention" and which issues
will predominate should the classes be certified.
B. Defendants' Specific Objections
Finding that the requested information is both relevant and
proportional to the needs of the case, Judge Scholer turns to the
Defendants' objections. As discussed, the interrogatories and
requests for production at issue effectively seek information
regarding the Other Calls made to individuals in each of the four
classes, including personal identifiable information for
individuals on the call list, dialing data, and information on the
substance of the call, such as the prerecorded message itself or a
call script.
While the Defendants argue in their Response to the Plaintiff's
Motion that producing this information would be unduly burdensome,
premature, and outside the scope of precertification discovery,
they do not assert these objections in their written discovery
responses. Rather, the only objection the Defendants assert to the
disputed RFPs is that the requests seek information that is
"proprietary and a trade secret." The Defendants object to
Interrogatory 1 as unduly burdensome and object to Interrogatory 5
as overbroad and not relevant. Having already decided that the
information sought is relevant and sufficiently tailored to class
certification issues, the Defendants' objections to Interrogatory 5
are overruled.
The Defendants' remaining objections are undercut by their own
prior production. Though the Defendants object to all of the
disputed requests as seeking "information that is proprietary and a
trade secret," they admit that they have already produced "call
logs providing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of more than
9,000 recipients who received the same prerecorded voice message as
the Plaintiff."
Judge Scholer opines it is unclear how producing contact
information for recipients of the Other Calls would implicate
confidentiality concerns where production of the same exact
information for the Southlake Calls did not. To the extent the
Defendants are concerned about privacy or proprietary data, she
says, they may produce call data and dialing information separately
from individual contact information as described during the
hearing. Accordingly, the Defendants' confidentiality-based
objections to RFPs 11-13 and Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 5 are
overruled, and the Defendants are ordered to produce the requested
information for the Other Calls.
Finally, the Defendants object that identifying the telephone calls
made to putative class members in response to Interrogatory No. 1
would be unduly burdensome. However, the Defendants' counsel
clarified at the hearing that Defendants did not intend to make an
argument regarding undue burden. But to the extent the Defendants'
objection is rendered moot by counsel's representation, it is
overruled.
III. Conclusion
Judge Scholer granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses. To the extent they have not already done so,
the Defendants are ordered to produce the requested information for
calls made regarding the Southlake Event and Other Events for the
period beginning Jan. 1, 2021 to the present. They will comply by
Feb. 7, 2022. All relief not expressly granted is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwbpk2c5 from
Leagle.com.
KIRAGRACE INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KiraGrace Inc. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
KiraGrace Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00490-RPK-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KiraGrace -- https://www.kiragrace.com/ -- is an e-commerce
platform that offers yoga clothing and activewear.[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
LANDMARK REALTY: Filing of Class Cert. Response Extended
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheatem v. Landmark Realty
of Missouri, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00958 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Beth Phillips entered an order granting motion for extension of
time to file response to motion to certify class.
Suggestions in opposition/response due on or by Feb. 4, 2022 unless
otherwise directed by the court, says Judge Phillips.
The nature of suit states Torts – Diversity-Fraud.[CC]
LANDMARK REALTY: Seeks Time Extension to Oppose Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 its unopposed
motion extending until February 4, 2022, the deadline for it to
file its suggestions in opposition to Plaintiff's pending Motion
for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff Rhonda Cheatem filed a Motion for Class Certification
on January 4, 2022. Landmark's suggestions in opposition to that
motion originally were due to be filed on or before January 18,
2022. The Court previously granted an extension of this deadline to
January 28, 2022. By this motion, Landmark requests a further
seven-day extension of time until Febrary 4, 2022 to file its
suggestions in opposition.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KWkC7V at no extra
charge.[CC]
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
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill FCRA Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Theresa Hill, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00560, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on Jan. 27, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00046-JAG to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/ -- is a
global data and analytics company that provides data and technology
services, analytics, predictive insights and fraud prevention for a
wide range of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
Amy L. Wells, Esq.
KEOGH LAW LTD.
55 W. Monroe Street,Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 726-1092
Fax: (312) 726-1093
Email: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
WSweetnam@Keoghlaw.com
AWells@KeoghLaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
Alan J. Stecklein, Esq.
STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED
748 Ann Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913) 371-0727
Fax: (913) 371-0727
Email: msr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cindy D. Hanson, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS - ATLANTA
600 Peachtree St., N.E., Ste. 5200
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
Phone: (404) 885-3830
Email: cindy.hanson@troutman.com
- and -
Julie Diane Hoffmeister, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP (RICHMOND)
1001 Haxall Point, Suite 1500
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 697-1200
Email: julie.hoffmeister@troutmansanders.com
- and -
Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 622-2700
Email: ron.raether@troutman.com
- and -
William R. Bay, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
1 US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Fax: (314) 552-7000
Email: wbay@thompsoncoburn.com
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Elleby Response Time to Stay Bid Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOERELLA ELLEBY v. LIBERTY
UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00093-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge David C. Keesler entered an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for extension of time.
The Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 17, 2022 to
respond to both "Liberty University, Inc.'s Motion For Summary
Judgment" and "Liberty University, Inc.'s Motion To Stay Class
Discovery And Class Certification," says Judge Elleby.
Liberty University is a private Evangelical university in
Lynchburg, Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o0YS12 at no extra charge.[CC]
LIVING WELL: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Howard Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Howard, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Living Well Homes LLP, Living Well Homes LP, Living
Well Homes II LP, Living Well Homes III LP, Living Well Homes IV
LP, Living Well Homes GP Inc., Living Well Homes GP II Inc., Living
Well Homes GP III Inc., Living Well Homes GP IV Inc., and John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-00150-MHB (D. Ariz., Jan. 26, 2022) is a
collective action complaint seeking all available remedies under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Allegedly, the case is about LWH's knowing and willful failure to
pay its hourly employees for all hours worked, including overtime,
as required by the FLSA.
Howard routinely worked from 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., including a 30
minute meal break, on each weekday. Furthermore, Howard's pool
maintenance work, administrative tasks, and other duties required
him to work an additional four to six hours each weekend. Howard
sometimes worked up to seven days per week. Howard often worked
sixty or more hours per week. LWH was aware or should have been
aware that Howard regularly worked over 40 hours per week and was
entitled to compensation, including lawful overtime premiums, for
all hours worked, says the suit.
LWH allegedly failed to pay Howard one-and-one-half times his
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty per workweek.
LWH did not pay Howard or other hourly employees for all hours
worked. Also, LWH did not pay Howard or other hourly employees for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and did not pay
proper overtime premiums.
Mr. Howard was employed by Living Well Homes as a Service Manager
from June 2021 to August 2021.
Howard's primary duties as Service Manager were to oversee
move-outs, to schedule preventative maintenance work and work
conducted by contractors, to maintain the complex's common areas,
and to perform certain administrative tasks such as scheduling,
bidding, and submitting work proposals, added the suit.
Living Well Homes operates as a centralized enterprise that
maintains and operates approximately 30 apartment complexes across
several states. Living Well Homes employs hundreds of non-exempt
hourly employees, such as Plaintiff and members of the proposed
Collective, to carry out the day-to-day operations of its
properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
dthornton@bm.net
- and -
Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
4647 N. 32nd. Street, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Plaintiffs Must Add Column in Class Cert. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Marriott International, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:19-md-02879
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm entered an order directing
the Plaintiffs in Consumer Track to add an additional column to the
Joint Bellwether Class Certification Claims and Defenses
Spreadsheet.
The Court said, "This additional column shall correspond with the
"Affirmative Defenses and Defendants' Elements" column in the
original submission and address whether Plaintiffs concede that the
affirmative defenses cited by Defendants are applicable to the
causes of actions for which Plaintiffs seek class certification."
The Plaintiffs correctly noted in their first footnote in ECF No.
958 that while Defendants submitted their information after having
reviewed what Plaintiffs submitted, Plaintiffs did not have the
opportunity to respond to Defendants' submissions., the Court
added.
I agree that they should be afforded the opportunity to do so,
provided it is done succinctly. Further, Plaintiffs may not cite
more than three cases in support of any information they provide
regarding a particular affirmative defense they wish to address.
Plaintiffs shall file a revised Bellwether Class Certification
Claims and Defenses Spreadsheet, with the information allowed in
this Paperless Order as an additional column, by Friday, February
11, 2022, says Judge Grimm.
Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties. It is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.[CC]
MCGRATH RENTCORP: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Grogan Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GROGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCGRATH RENTCORP, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00490-AGT (N.D. Cal., January 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California's Consumer Records Act and the Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to implement
reasonable security measures to safeguard employees' personally
identifying information (PII) following a data breach in July 2021.
Moreover, despite discovering the data breach and quickly restoring
its customer operations, the Defendant did not immediately inform
its employees that their PII was compromised in a security breach.
Instead, the Defendant investigated the breach for five months and
kept its employees in the dark about its loss of control over their
PII. As a result of the Defendant's alleged failure to prevent the
data breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered and
will continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost
time, anxiety, and emotional distress.
McGrath Rentcorp is a rental company, headquartered at 5700 Las
Positas Road, Livermore, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
- and –
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@bparonichlaw.com
MEDFORD, MA: Faces Ayala Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOEL AYALA, ANTONIO ALVIA, JOHN BAILEY, RON BAKER, JR., GERARD
CONTALDI, RINO DESTEFANO, ERIC DICESARE, DENNIS DONEHEY, JOHN M.
FANTASIA, UGO FIORENZIO, JEFFREY GANGI, STEPHEN HARTE, MICHAEL
HARVEY, KYLE HEATH, MATTHEW INSOGNA, JR., RICHARD ECKERT, HEATH D.
JOHNSTON, NICK KERGER, PETER KERGER, MARK E. LITTLEFIELD, SALVATORE
LONGO, MICHAEL J. NESTOR, WILLIAM OGONOSKY, JOSEPH PALLADINO, JOHN
PELLEGRINI, DAVID PELRINE, MICHAEL POLINCHACK, ANTHONY POMPEO,
COSME PORTILLO, LORENZO PUCCIO, NUNO ROQUE, PHILIP J. SANTOS,
VINCENT SCARAMUZZO, BRENDAN SELUTA, WILLIAM STANFORD, JOSEPH SOUSA,
WILLIAM SPIRITO, DWIGHT TAYLOR, STEPHEN TENAGLIA, JAMES TOBIN,
ISIDRO VALENTIN, JR., DOUGLAS S. WELTON, and LEROL ZEPHYR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF MEDFORD, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10115
(D. Mass., January 25, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Massachusetts Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendant in the Medford
Department of Public Works.
City of Medford is an independent body politic located in Medford,
Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
HARRINGTON & RICE, P.C.
738 Main Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (781) 964-8377
E-mail: dwr@harringtonrice.com
MERRILL LYNCH: Parties Must Confer on Prospects for Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH VALELLY, on behalf
of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie
Caproni entered an order that:
-- The parties must confer regarding their prospects for
settlement and notify the Court, by way of joint letter, if
they would like a referral to Magistrate Judge Wang for a
settlement conference. In that letter, the parties must
also indicate whether they want to stay the below class
certification motion schedule pending settlement
discussions.
-- If the parties do not move forward with a settlement
conference, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
due by March 4, 2022. If, after Plaintiff files her motion,
Defendant believes it needs expert discovery in order to
respond, Defendant should notify the Court. Otherwise,
Defendant's opposition is due April 1, 2022, and
Plaintiff's reply is due April 15, 2022.
Merrill Lynchoperates as an investment advisory firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34mlK3O at no extra charge.[CC]
META MATERIALS: Faces McMillan Securities Suit Over Shares Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH SCOTT MCMILLAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. META MATERIALS INC. F/K/A TORCHLIGHT ENERGY
RESOURCES, INC., GEORGE PALIKARAS, KENNETH RICE, GREG MCCABE, and
JOHN BRDA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00463 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2022) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company
between September 21, 2020 and December 14, 2021, both dates
inclusive seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
On September 21, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Torchlight And Metamaterial Announce Planned Business
Combination," which announced the Business Combination.
META has an extensive intellectual property portfolio, a global
presence and multiple R&D and product development agreements with
government agencies and private enterprises. The combined entity
will continue to service a clientele of world-class OEM customers
for a range of applications in the automotive, aerospace and
defense, energy, consumer electronics and medical markets.
On December 14, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Metamaterial And Torchlight Sign Definitive Agreement For Business
Combination" which stated the following regarding Metamaterial's
commercialization, products, and production.
On August 13, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2021 (the "2Q21
Report"). Attached to the 2Q21 Report were certifications pursuant
to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") signed by Defendants
Palikaras and Rice attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all
fraud.
On November 15, 2021, after market hours, the Company filed with
the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2021 (the "3Q21 Report"). The 3Q21 Report announced
the SEC subpoena. On this news, Meta's shares fell 3.9% to close at
$4.58 per share on November 16, 2021, damaging investors.
On December 14, 2021, during market hours, market researcher
Kerrisdale Capital released a report (the "Report") alleging, among
other things, that "Meta has habitually made outlandish and
misleading claims about the feasibility, development, and
commercial potential of various technologies only to repeatedly
move the goalposts or retrospectively alter its claims, often just
quietly dropping entire projects they had previously touted as
pivotal." On this news, Meta's shares fell 5.8% to close at $2.91
per share on December 14, 2021, further damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the decline in the market value of the Company's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was economically
damaged thereby.
Meta purports to be a developer of high-performance functional
materials and nanocomposites. Before the Company's business
combination with Metamaterial Inc., which closed June 28, 2021, the
Company was known as "Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc."
Meta is incorporated in Nevada with its headquarters in Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia, Canada. Meta's common stock is listed on the NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "MMAT." Prior to the merger, the Company's
shares traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "TRCH." The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Class Deal in Shields Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TASHAL SHIELDS and LLOYD HACHAT individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and METROPOLITAN GROUP
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00222-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss.), Judge Glen H. Davidson of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi,
Aberdeen Division, granted the Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement,
Certification of the Settlement Class, and Scheduling a Final
Approval Hearing.
Plaintiff Shields and Plaintiff Hachat, on behalf of themselves and
each of the Class Members, and Defendants Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Co. and Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty
Insurance Co., all acting by and through their respective counsel,
have agreed, subject to Court approval, to settle the litigation
upon the terms and conditions stated in the Class Action
Stipulation of Settlement Agreement filed with the Court on Jan.
18, 2022. The Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel have filed an
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement,
Certification of the Settlement Class, and Scheduling a Final
Approval Hearing.
Upon considering the Motion and exhibits thereto, the Agreement and
exhibits thereto, the record in these proceedings, the
representations and recommendations of the counsel, and the
requirements of law, Judge Davidson finds, for settlement purposes,
that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23(e) factors are
present and that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is
appropriate under Rule 23.
The following Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes
only: All Class Members within the Illinois Settlement Class,
Kentucky Settlement Class, Mississippi Settlement Class, Ohio
Settlement Class or Tennessee Settlement Class (except for those
explicitly excluded below), which are defined as follows:
a. Illinois Settlement Class means all policyholders, (except
for those explicitly excluded), under any property insurance policy
issued by Metropolitan, who made: (i) a Structural Loss claim for
property located in the State of Illinois between June 12, 2019 and
Nov. 16, 2020; and (ii) that resulted in an ACV Payment from which
Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that would have resulted
in an ACV Payment, but for the withholding of Nonmaterial
Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable
deductible.
b. Kentucky Settlement Class means all policyholders, (except
for those explicitly excluded), under any property insurance policy
issued by Metropolitan, who made: (i) a Structural Loss claim for
property located in the State of Kentucky between April 1, 2019 and
Nov. 16, 2020; and (ii) that resulted in an ACV Payment from which
Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that would have resulted
in an ACV Payment, but for the withholding of Nonmaterial
Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable
deductible.
c. Mississippi Settlement Class means all policyholders,
(except for those explicitly excluded), under any property
insurance policy issued by Metropolitan, who made: (i) a Structural
Loss claim for property located in the State of Mississippi between
Dec. 17, 2016 and Nov. 16, 2020; and (ii) that resulted in an ACV
Payment from which Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that
would have resulted in an ACV Payment, but for the withholding of
Nonmaterial Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the
applicable deductible.
d. Ohio Settlement Class means all policyholders, (except for
those explicitly excluded), under property insurance policy issued
by Metropolitan, who made: (i) a Structural Loss claim for property
located in the State of Ohio between April 14, 2019 and Nov. 16,
2020; and (ii) that resulted in an ACV Payment from which
Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that would have resulted
in an ACV Payment, but for the withholding of Nonmaterial
Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable
deductible.
e. Tennessee Settlement Class means all policyholders, (except
for those explicitly excluded), under any property insurance policy
issued by Metropolitan, who made: (i) a Structural Loss claim for
property located in the State of Tennessee between Dec. 17, 2018
and Nov. 16, 2020; and (ii) that resulted in an ACV Payment from
which Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that would have
resulted in an ACV Payment, but for the withholding of Nonmaterial
Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable
deductible.
Plaintiff Shields and Plaintiff Hachat are preliminarily appointed
as the representatives of the Settlement Class (Representative
Plaintiffs).
The following attorneys for the Plaintiffs are appointed as the
counsel for the Settlement Class (Class Counsel): Erik D. Peterson
James Brandon McWherter ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC McWHERTER
SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 249 E. Main St. 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite
230, Suite 150, Franklin, TN 37067, Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone:
615-354-1144 Telephone: 800-614-1957 Facsimile: 731-664-1540
erik@eplo.law brandon@msb.law Thomas Joseph Snodgrass LARSON KING
LLP, 30 East 7th Street, Suite 2800, St Paul, MN 55101 Telephone:
651-312-6500 Facsimile: 651-312-6618 jsnodgrass@larsonking.com
Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. is preliminarily
appointed to serve as the third-party administrator (the
Administrator) for the Proposed Settlement and to perform such
duties as may be ordered by this Court pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement.
The Parties have prepared the Class Notice, Claim Form, and
Postcard Notice which have been submitted to the Court as Exhibits
B, C, and E to the Agreement. The counsel for the Parties, along
with the Administrator, are authorized to complete any missing
information and to make any non-substantive revisions to these
documents, as necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Agreement.
As soon as practicable after the entry of the Order, but in any
event no more than 15 days after entry of the Order, the Defendants
will conduct a reasonable search of its records and provide to the
Administrator for each Person reasonably believed to be a potential
Class Member, the following information, if reasonably available:
full name, last known mailing address, date of Covered Loss during
the Class Period, policy number, claim number for the Covered Loss,
as well as any other information reasonably required to administer
the Settlement.
Prior to mailing the Class Notice and Claim Form, the Administrator
will run these addresses through the National Change of Address
Database for a more current name and/or address for each potential
Class Member. Upon completion of the updating efforts, the
Administrator will use its best efforts to complete the mailing of
the Class Notice and Claim Form to the potential Class Members not
less than 75 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
If any Class Notice and/or Claim Form mailed to any potential Class
Member is returned to the Administrator as undeliverable, the
Administrator will promptly log each Class Notice and/or Claim Form
that is returned as undeliverable and provide copies of the log to
the Defendants' Counsel and the Class Counsel, as requested. If
such a mailing is returned with a forwarding address, the
Administrator will forward the returned mailing to that address.
For other returned mailings, the Administrator will run the name
and address one time through a single commercial database chosen by
the Administrator, and should the commercial database show a more
current address, the Administrator will re-mail the returned Class
Notice and Claim Form to the more current address.
No later than 30 days before the Claim Deadline, the Administrator
will mail a reminder Postcard Notice in the form attached as
Exhibit E, containing the following information: The Claim Form
submission deadline, the Settlement Website, and how to request a
copy of the Claim Form. The Postcard Notice will be mailed to each
Class Member who has not submitted a Claim Form and who has not
timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class.
Judge Davidson finds that the procedures set forth in the preceding
paragraphs constitute reasonable and best notice practicable under
the circumstances, and an appropriate and sufficient effort to
locate current addresses of the Class Members such that no
additional efforts to do so will be required. Upon request, the
Defendants and the Administrator will provide the Class Counsel
reasonable access to the notice process as they may need to monitor
compliance with the notice campaign.
In addition to the Class Notice, Claim Form, and Postcard Notice
mailed in accordance with the proceeding paragraphs, the
Administrator will establish an automated Toll-free Number that
will contain information about the Settlement, including
information about how to obtain a Claim Form. The Administrator
will also establish a Settlement Website containing: the Agreement,
this Order, the Class Notice, the Claim Form, and Spanish
translations of the Class Notice and Claim Form. A completed Claim
Form may also be uploaded and submitted on the Settlement Website.
At or before the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties will file a
proof of mailing the Class Notice, Claim Form, and Postcard Notice
from the Administrator.
The costs of providing notice and effectuating all other settlement
administration will be borne by the Defendants as provided in the
Agreement.
On May 25, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., a date which is not less than one
hundred and 120 days after entry of the Order, at the United States
Courthouse, Oxford, Mississippi, or at the sole discretion of the
Court, via telephone or video conference to accommodate any
restrictions relating to the Covid 19 pandemic, the Court will hold
a Final Approval Hearing.
All briefs and materials in support of an order for final approval
and judgment and for a service award to the Representative
Plaintiffs and payment to the Class Counsel for its attorneys' fees
and costs will be filed with the Court no later than seven days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
Class Members who wish to opt out from the Settlement Class must
mail the Administrator a written request for exclusion, pursuant to
the instructions in the Agreement and on the Settlement Website,
postmarked no later than 30 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing. Class Members who do not request exclusion from the
Settlement Class may object to the Proposed Settlement by filing
with the Clerk of the Court and mailing a copy to the Administrator
a written notice of intent to object as provided in the Agreement,
postmarked no later than 30 days before the Final Approval Hearing.
Any Class Member who does not file and mail a timely and complete
written notice of intent to object in accordance with the
instructions in the Agreement and on the Settlement Website waives
the right to object or to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing
and is barred from objecting to the Proposed Settlement.
The Administrator will provide the Defendants' Counsel and the
Class Counsel with copies of any and all objections or opt out
forms received by the Administrator.
At or before the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel will
file with the Court an affidavit from the Administrator providing:
(i) the number of Class Members who timely excluded themselves from
the Settlement Class, (ii) the number of Class Members who timely
submitted an objection to the Proposed Settlement, and (iii) the
identity of all individuals within the proceeding sections (i) and
(ii). Class Members will be provided an opportunity to submit Claim
Forms in the form attached to the Agreement as Exhibit C,
requesting Claim Settlement Payment in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement.
The Proposed Settlement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class
Members. The Parties and the Administrator are directed to
implement the terms of the Proposed Settlement in accordance with
the Agreement.
Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may extend any of the
deadlines set forth in the Order without further notice to the
Settlement Class.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Approval Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2hthjum9 from Leagle.com.
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Millerson FLSA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA MILERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, MANHATTAN AND BRONX
SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00688 (S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for untimely payment of overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a staff analyst II at 2
Broadway, New York, New York from approximately May 1997 through
the present.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a public benefit
corporation, with its principal place of business located at 2
Broadway, New York, New York.
New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) is an affiliate of the MTA
that operates public transportation within New York, New York.
Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority is a
subsidiary of the NYCTA that provides public bus transit in the
Bronx and Manhattan, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia L. Boland, Esq.
COLLERAN O'HARA & MILLS LLP
100 Crossways Park Drive West, Suite 200
Woodbury, NY 11797
Telephone: (516) 248-5757
Facsimile: (516) 742-1765
E-mail: plb@cohmlaw.com
MIDLAND FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Woo-Padva Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER WOO-PADVA, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES
1 to 10; Defendants, Civil Action Docket No. BER-L-3625-17 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.), Judge Robert C. Wilson of the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, granted the Defendant's
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.
I. Background
The matter arises from an alleged unlawful purchase and assignment
of an account that had been extended to Woo-Padva by HSBC. The
Plaintiff was the account holder of a credit card account with
Chase Bank. She subsequently defaulted on the credit card account.
Midland purchased the Plaintiff's defaulted Chase Account. The
Defendant's attorney then filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on
March 29, 2011, to collect on the debt. The Plaintiff was served
with the complaint on April 12, 2011. The Court then entered a
judgment against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2011. The Plaintiff made
payments to the Defendant pursuant to the judgment in that matter
until the Plaintiff satisfied the judgment. She was also the
account holder on an HSBC credit card. The Plaintiff incurred debt
on the HSBC card. She alleges that her accounts were not properly
assigned to the Defendant and therefore she suffered damages by
paying the Defendant.
The Defendant purchases and takes assignment of defaulted credit
agreements originally extended by other creditors, which it then
enforces against borrowers through collection letters, lawsuits,
and post-judgment collection efforts. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant's enforcement of the HSBC Account was unauthorized and
unlawful because it did not have a license to engage in business as
a "sales finance company" or a "consumer lender" pursuant to the
CFLA, at N.J.S.A. 17:11C-3.
On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint,
including three counts: (1) declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief; (2) violations of Consumer Fraud Act; and (3) unjust
enrichment about HSBC and Chase Bank debts seeking relief for
herself and the proposed class.
On Jan. 5, 2018, she filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint
including three counts: (1) declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief for the Class; (2) Damages under the Consumer Fraud Act on
behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass; and (3) unjust enrichment and
engorgement on behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass.
The proposed class was "All natural persons with addresses in the
State of New Jersey who are listed as the borrower or purchaser in
an account assigned to Midland Funding LLC at any time prior to
Jan. 6, 2015." The proposed Subclass was "All members of the class
who paid any money to or from whom Midland Funding LLC collected
any money on the Defendants in the six-year period preceding the
filing of the Complaint."
On March 2, 2018, the case was dismissed based on the entire
controversy doctrine. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed,
and the Appellate Division entered a partial remand on Aug. 5,
2019.
On May 19, 2020, the Defendant asked for the Court to reopen the
case so that all remanded issues may be litigated. On Aug. 4, 2020,
the Court entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to
strike the portion of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
alleging class claims. The Plaintiff requested that the Appellate
Division grant her leave to file an interlocutory appeal to review
the Court's decision. The Appellate Division rejected Plaintiff's
request on Sept. 25, 2020.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery. All written discovery
has been completed at this time. On June 2, 2021, the Court denied
the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its complaint as to the class
action claims. It held that the Plaintiff's claims directly
contradicted the August 2020 Opinion, which was the law of the
case.
At this point, the Plaintiff claims concern only the HSBC Account.
After the Court previously dismissed the action, the dismissal was
affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Appellate Division.
The reversal related to the claims concerning the HSBC Account. The
Plaintiff and the Defendant responded by filing the Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment.
II. Discussion
A. Defendant is Not a Consumer Lender
The Plaintiff's theory of recovery is based on the incorrect
premise that the Defendant was obligated to obtain a consumer
lending license under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act
(the "NJCFLA"). The NJCFLA states that no person will engage in
business as a "consumer lender" without first obtaining a license.
The Defendant does not provide loans and is not a consumer lender
and therefore does not require a license. The Plaintiff argues that
the NJCFLA covers a debt buyer since it includes any person buying
debts of less than $50,000 under the statute.
However, Judge Wilson opines that the NJCFLA does not define a
consumer lender as one that buys debts. Rather, the plain words
only include within its definition those "in the business of
buying, discounting or endorsing notes." Courts have long
considered the distinction between "notes" and "debts."
New Jersey statutes establish a distinction between a "note" and
the credit card debt at issue in the case. N.J.S.A. Section
12A:3-118 explicitly provides the statute of limitations for "an
action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note." while
N.J.S.A. Section 2A:14-1, a separate and distinct section of New
Jersey law, provides the statute of limitations to enforce claims
based on a breach of contract that generally apply to credit card
debts.
The Plaintiff uses the word "buying" to aid in her claims. However,
the NJCFLA uses the word "buying" to modify the word "notes." The
NJCFLA therefore applies only when a party is buying "notes," not
buying debts, and does not apply to the Defendant.
B. Plaintiff's Consumer Fraud Act Claim Fails
Even assuming that Midland was required to have a license, Judge
Wilson holds that the Plaintiff's claims still fail. He explains
that the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") applies only to conduct that
rises to the level of deception, fraud, or misrepresentation in
connection with the sale of merchandise or services. To satisfy
this requirement, the misrepresentation has to be one which is
material to the transaction made to induce the buyer to make the
purchase."
The Plaintiff's CFA theory focuses on two acts by the Defendant:
(1) purchasing the Plaintiff's HSBC Account without a license, and
(2) collecting on the HSBC Account. Neither constitute a sale of
merchandise or of a service to support a claim under the CFA.
First, Judge Wilson finds that the Defendant purchased the
Plaintiff's HSBC Account on Dec. 14, 2010, pursuant to a private
contractual agreement. The Defendant did not offer to sell the
Plaintiff any services or merchandise and the Plaintiff did not
agree to purchase anything from the Defendant. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's claims are not covered by the CFA.
Second, Judge Wilson says the Plaintiff's claim that the
Defendant's efforts to collect on the credit card debt violated the
CFA also fail. The Appellate Division has expressly held that
efforts to collect a debt are not "in connection with the sale of
merchandise" and thus not governed by the CFA. Since there is no
sale of merchandise or services, the efforts to collect on a credit
card debt do not violate the CFA.
Third, the Plaintiff's CFA claims fails for another reason, namely,
that there is no ascertainable loss. The record is clear that
neither the Defendant nor Pressler & Pressler, LLP ("Pressler")
collected anything more than the amount the Plaintiff owed to HSBC
Bank for the credit card account. The Plaintiff, thus, has not
suffered any loss. To the extent the Plaintiff argues that she
suffered a loss when she paid the Defendant as opposed to HSBC
Bank, a loss would only exist if the correct entity later seeks
payment. The Plaintiff, however, admits that after the HSBC Account
was sold to Defendant, HSBC Bank did not seek payment of the credit
card account. Thus, the record establishes that the Plaintiff has
not suffered any harm. Without an ascertainable loss, the
Plaintiff's CFA claim fails.
III. Conclusion
As such, and for the reasons he set forth in his decision, Judge
Wilson granted the Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/26axwkzw from Leagle.com.
Yongmoon Kim, Esq. appearing on behalf of Plaintiff Jennifer
Woo-Padva (from Kim Law Firm LLC).
Han Sheng Beh, Esq. -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- appearing on behalf
of Defendant Midland Funding LLC (from Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP).
MORTON & BASSETT: Spices Contain Heavy Metals, Matthews Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNE MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORTON & BASSETT SPICES, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00497-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, fraud, and violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its spices.
The Defendant failed to disclose that its spices contain heavy
metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead, at levels above what
is considered safe for children and adults. Had the Plaintiff and
Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the
spices, says the suit.
Morton & Bassett Spices is a manufacturer of spices and seasonings,
with its principal place of business at 1400 Valley House Drive,
Suite 100, Rohnert Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1168
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 640-1168
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
NATWEST MARKETS: Charles Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NatWest Markets PLC,
et al. The case is styled as Robert Charles Class A, L.P.,
individually on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. NatWest Markets PLC, NatWest Markets Securities Inc. formerly
known as: RBS Securities Inc., John Does 1-50, Case No.
1:22-cv-00479 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
NatWest Markets -- https://www.natwest.com/corporates.html -- is
the investment banking arm of NatWest Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 782-4880
Email: afata@caffertyclobes.com
NORTH AMERICAN: Briefing Schedule Modified in McGhee Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGhee v. North American
Bancard, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00586 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Karen S. Crawford entered an order modifying the briefing schedule
on plaintiff's motion to certify class as follows:
-- The Defendant's opposition must be Feb. 2, 2022
filed no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's reply must be Feb. 14, 2022.
filed no later than:
The nature of suit states contract -- diversity action.
North American Bancard is a payments technology company founded in
1992 by CEO/President Marc Gardner, it is headquartered in Troy,
Michigan.[CC]
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Extension of Class Cert. Discovery Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH VILLAFAN, a single
man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but
separated man, v. NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order that the
deadline for the completion of discovery on class certification
issues is continued to April 5, 2022, and the deadline for motions
related to class certification is continued to May 12, 2022.
On November 4, 2021, the Court entered an order setting February 4,
2022, as the deadline for the parties to complete class discovery,
and March 10, 2022, as the deadline for the parties to complete
motions related to class certification.
The parties have diligently attempted to complete all class
certification discovery by February 4, 2022, but there remain
outstanding issues pertaining to such discovery that 13 the parties
are attempting to cooperatively resolve. Those issues relate
primarily to electronically stored data. The parties have conferred
regarding these issues and continue to confer about
The parties presently anticipate and expect that the remaining
class certification discovery issues can be resolved cooperatively
by April 5, 2022.
The parties anticipate and expect that any motions related to class
certification can be completed by May 12, 2022.
These new dates are based on the party's reasonable belief that
they will be able to resolve any discovery disputes by April 5,
2022.
The Defendants include HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington limited
liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING, residents
of Montana, and the marital community composed thereof; NORTHWEST
MOTORSPORT, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD FORD and JANE
DOE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community composed
thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital communities
composed thereof; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation.
Founded in 1995, Northwest Motorsport operates car dealerships in
various locations in Washington state. It offers new and used
trucks, cars, and SUVs.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Vgd4s at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., PS
144 Railroad Ave., Suite #308
Edmonds, WA 98020
Telephone: (425) 582-8165
Facsimile: 888-527-2710
E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com
- and -
Guy Beckett, Esq.
BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP
1708 Bellevue Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 441-5444
E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul S. Smith, Esq.
Martin J. Pujolar, Esq
FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S.
901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 689-8500
Facsimile: (206) 689-8501
E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law
psmith@foum.law
OASIS CATERING: Mazaregos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
YONI MAZAREGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OASIS CATERING, INC. d/b/a TRADITIONS EATERY
and SCOTT FAGAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00417 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours premiums, failure to provide wage notice, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer and
cook in New York from March 2016 until March 2021.
Oasis Catering, Inc., doing business as Traditions Eatery, is a
restaurant owner and operator, with its principal executive office
at 302 Central Avenue, Lawrence, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
PARETEUM CORP: Court Names Kahn as Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PARETEUM SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-09767-AKH-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of
Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel.
Judge Hellerstein has reviewed the Motion filed by Lead Plaintiff
the Pareteum Shareholder Investor Group ("PSIG"), the response, the
reply, if any, the authorities cited therein, the evidence, and
arguments of counsel.
The action is certified to proceed as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PSIG, comprised of Kevin Ivkovich, Stephen Jones, Keith Moore,
Nicholas Steffey, and Robert E. Whitley, Jr., are appointed as
Class the Representatives; and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, as the Class
Counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4hmwfsmn from Leagle.com.
PARTY CITY CORP: Guzman Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RADHAMES GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00666 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to timely pay wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Party City as a sales associate at
its store located at 171 W. 230th Street, Bronx, New York from
around October 2020 through November 2020. He was again hired to
work as a sales associate at the Party City store located at 660
Columbus Avenue from October 22, 2021 until November 16, 2021.
Party City Corporation is an owner and operator of franchised party
supply stores, with its principal executive offices located at 25
Green Pond Road, Suite 1, Rockaway, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (718) 971-0326
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Court Tosses Counterclaims in Paugstat Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Paugstat, Plaintiff v. Pepperidge Farm,
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00508 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion
to Dismiss the Counterclaim.
I. Background
Mr. Paugstat filed a collective and class action Complaint
asserting claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and Ohio's overtime compensation statute. The Complaint
alleges that Pepperidge Farm has employed Paugstat as a Sales
Development Associate since March 2007. It also alleges that
Pepperidge Farm misclassifies Paugstat as an independent contractor
and consequently fails to pay Paugstat overtime in violation of the
FLSA and Ohio law.
Pepperidge Farm filed an answer stating that Paugstat is an
independent contractor and has been since March 2007. It also filed
a declaratory judgment counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment
that the parties' Consignment Agreement is rescinded and voided,
for lack of an essential element, if the Court holds that
Pepperidge Farm misclassified Paugstat as an independent
contractor. Stated otherwise, Pepperidge Farm requests a judicial
determination, contingent on Paugstat prevailing on his
misclassification claims, of the continuing validity of the
parties' contract."
Mr. Paugstat filed a Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction
or, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) arguing that the
counterclaim improperly seeks to circumvent the FLSA's
requirements. In response, Pepperidge Farm clarifies that, by
filing the counterclaim, the company does not seek to retain the
value of Paugstat's distributorship investment under the
Consignment Agreement, and argues that the Court's jurisdiction is
present and proper, and its declaratory judgment counterclaim is
actionable.
II. Analysis
As an initial matter, to the extent that the parties dispute the
timeliness of Paugstat's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim, Judge
Barrett considers the merits of the Motion to Dismiss. He addresses
Paugstat's jurisdictional argument first.
Mr. Paugstat contends that the Court should dismiss Pepperidge
Farm's declaratory judgment counterclaim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because the counterclaim is not ripe. Pepperidge Farm
argues that the Court should deem this ripeness argument waived or,
in the alternative, that the counterclaim is ripe. Judge Barrett
considers the merits of Paugstat's ripeness argument, as a party
cannot waive a defect in the Court's jurisdiction.
Rule 12(b)(1) permits the court to dismiss a case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and "the doctrine of ripeness is a
jurisdictional limitation on federal courts." "The Constitution
does not extend the 'judicial power' to any legal question,
wherever and however presented." "A claim is not ripe for
adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not
occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." "To
determine whether a case is ripe for judicial resolution, the Court
generally asks two questions: (1) is the dispute fit for a judicial
decision in the sense that it arises in a 'concrete factual
context' and involves 'a dispute that is likely to come to pass';
and (2) what is the hardship to the claimant if the federal court
withholds consideration?"
Judge Barrett finds that Pepperidge Farm's declaratory judgment
counterclaim is contingent on a future event, i.e., Paugstat
prevailing on his FLSA and Ohio overtime claims. Paugstat has not
yet prevailed, and he might not do so. The declaratory judgment
counterclaim, and injury alleged therein, is hypothetical and
contingent, and it is not clear if it will likely come to pass.
Additionally, Pepperidge Farm has not articulated a hardship that
it "would suffer from the Court withholding consideration of the
counterclaim until after the Court resolves the FLSA
employee/employer issue."
Judge Barrett finds that Pepperidge Farm's declaratory judgment
counterclaim is not ripe, as the dispute is not yet concrete and
there is no hardship to Pepperidge Farm if the Court withholds
consideration of the declaratory judgment counterclaim at issue. He
will dismiss Pepperidge Farm's declaratory judgment counterclaim
without prejudice, it may refile the counterclaim if the Court
finds that Paugstat is an employee for FLSA and Ohio law purposes.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett granted Paugstat's Motion to
Dismiss the Counterclaim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p94kdan from Leagle.com.
PORTLAND, OR: Police Face Class Action Suit Over Use of Force
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Levinson and Conrad Wilson, writing for OPB, report that a
"campaign of widespread violence" by the Portland Police Bureau
violated thousands of protesters' constitutional rights during the
city's 2020 racial justice demonstrations, according to a motion
filed on Jan. 19 in federal court on behalf of protesters.
Specifically, the filing alleges the police and City of Portland
consistently fired crowd control weapons such as tear gas, flash
bang grenades and impact munitions indiscriminately into crowds,
even when large numbers of people were not violating any laws.
"Advocating for police reform, defunding, and abolition, in support
of the movement for Black Lives, is core protected speech," the
court filing states. "The campaign of violence by PPB would chill a
person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the
protected activity."
In addition to First Amendment free speech violations, the
plaintiffs allege the city violated protesters' Fourth Amendment
rights against excessive use of force.
"The Portland Police Bureau engaged in the practice of using force
against people who were simply refusing to leave the streets -- or
engage in what we call passive resistance. And that's unlawful,"
said Jesse Merrithew, one of the attorneys representing
protesters.
The filing requests a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class
action. If that's granted, anyone subjected to officers' use of
force while passively resisting would be represented. The
plaintiffs are seeking to change how Portland police respond to
protests. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages for the
class.
Policy violations
The Jan. 19 filing alleges the police bureau used tear gas nearly
300 times on 20 different days between May 29, 2020 and Sept. 5,
2020.
"In total, PPB engaged in over 6,000 uses of force over the
duration of the protests," the court filing states. "Yet the City
found almost all uses of force were consistent with policy and
training."
That included two incidents that U.S. District Court Chief Judge
Marco Hernandez found the city in contempt over, saying it violated
a temporary restraining order he issued to limit officers' use of
tear gas to "situations in which the lives or safety of the public
or the police are at risk."
On June 2 alone the lawsuit claims police used more than 67
canisters of tear gas and did little to differentiate between
people who were violent toward police and those passively
resisting, based on use of force reports reviewed by attorneys for
the plaintiffs, which include the local civil rights nonprofit
Don't Shoot Portland and five other named protesters. The lawsuit
was first filed June 5, 2020.
The city declined to comment on the pending litigation, but will
have the opportunity to respond in a court filing of its own in
February. The Portland Police Bureau did not respond to requests
for comment.
Officers' inability or unwillingness to differentiate between
violence or threats and lawful protest is part of a larger pattern
resulting from poor training, oversight failures and
unconstitutional directives, according to the filing.
"[Portland Police] did this to thousands of people who, like
plaintiffs, were doing nothing more than standing in the street
after being ordered to leave," the motion states. "PPB's unlawful
conduct is a result of a multitude of failures within the bureau
and the City, many of which were known to the City early on, and
either intentionally ignored or glossed-over."
The motion alleges officers were trained how to justify force after
the fact rather than avoid unconstitutional uses of force. In other
instances, the protesters' court filing alleges, the city trained
officers based on case law higher courts had overturned.
In one allegedly unconstitutional use of force, an unnamed police
officer described shoving a protester two to three times because
she and two others were not moving fast enough -- a legal protest
tactic known as passive resistance.
In a separate incident, another unnamed officer appears to not
understand the difference between passive and active resistance.
That officer wrote in their report that a protester "was not
leaving the area with any urgency or purpose."
"His wandering, as slow as he apparently could move, was an
indication that he was trying to provoke an altercation with me and
inhibit our objective of clearing the park. I took this to be
active physical resistance against police," the unnamed officer
wrote in their report.
The protesters' court filing notes each of the dozens of use of
force incidents highlighted were approved by supervisors.
By the end of May 2020, barely two days into protests which saw the
Multnomah County Justice Center set on fire, stores looted and
multiple acts of vandalism throughout downtown, PPB recognized that
use of force reports were piling up and making it difficult to
catch errors and incomplete or problematic reports, according to
the deposition of PPB Cpt. Robert Simon referenced in the filing.
As the weeks wore on, the plaintiffs allege the city took no action
to address the fact that many of the reported uses of force were
clearly unconstitutional, according to the filing. Of 41 force
reports reviewed, lawyers claim to have identified 12 incidents of
pepper spray used on passive resisters, eight incidents of
unjustified impact munitions fired at protesters, and 25
unjustified baton strikes or pushes. The filing is specific to
Portland police and does not mention federal law enforcement
officers who were deployed in June.
The Jan. 19 filing echoes a February 2021 U.S. Department of
Justice report by lawyers overseeing the 2014 use of force
settlement agreement between the city and DOJ. The Justice
Department's report found that Portland officers regularly violated
the bureau's use of force directives during the summer of 2020.
"PPB members used force, some beyond policy," the DOJ stated.
"Supervisors approved that force, some without required critical
assessment."
Justice Department lawyers said the incomplete force reports and
lack of supervisor assessments meant the accountability system
would be hamstrung.
Training materials
On Jan. 14, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's office sent a press
release notifying the public that a 2018 presentation given to new
members of Portland police's now-disbanded Rapid Response Team
concluded with a slide celebrating and encouraging violence against
"dirty hippies."
"And so I shall send among you, my humble servants with hat and
with bat; that they may christen your heads with hickory, and
anoint your face with pepper spray," the slide reads, over a
picture of what appears to be a riot gear-clad police officer
beating a protester.
The slide, which was first uncovered in September, "strongly
suggests that the campaign of police violence that began on May 29,
2020 was motivated by the goal of silencing advocates for police
reform, defunding, and abolition," according to the
Jan. 19 court filing.
In a statement released on Jan. 14 along with the slide, Wheeler
and Portland Police Chief Chuck Lovell condemned the message, and
said an internal affairs investigation is ongoing.
"I am disgusted that this offensive content was added to a training
presentation for our police officers," Wheeler said in a
statement.
According to a deposition given Sept. 23 by former RRT commander
Lt. Franz Schoening, the presentation was also shown to Salem
police officers, Oregon State Police troopers and Multnomah County
sheriff's deputies.
A separate PPB training slide from 2019 erroneously told officers a
federal court ruled it was lawful to use pepper spray against
passively resisting anti-logging protesters. The Ninth Circuit
court of appeals had overturned that ruling -- something Schoening
said he only learned the day before he was deposed.
Federal prosecutors overseeing Portland's settlement agreement were
made aware of the offensive material, soon before it was sent to
the media, according to a blistering letter the prosecutors sent to
Lovell and City Attorney Robert Taylor.
Prosecutors Jonas Geissler and Jared Hager wrote the 2018 RRT
training slides "have varying degrees of offensive content,
incorrect guidance, and false or misleading information related to
PPB's crowd management policies and practices."
Had the city provided the training materials to the Justice
Department when they were developed, as required by the settlement
agreement, the DOJ would not have approved the training and would
have provided "substantial edits."
"The existence of these RRT training materials might have
materially impacted our assessments of the City's compliance with
the Agreement," the letter states.
Lovell said the message in the slide is not representative of the
police bureau.
The motion filed on Jan. 19, however, paints a different picture.
History of political bias
The filing cites a dozen examples from the past decade of the
police bureau treating anti-police and anti-war protests more
harshly than far-right protests. They include 2017 anti-Trump
demonstrations when police used tear gas and less lethal munitions
against demonstrators and journalists.
"Throughout this time, the Proud Boys' open threats and calls for
violence at their demonstrations continued unabated," the lawsuit
reads. "[Patriot Prayer's Joey] Gibson also continued to advocate
for the assault of antifascist demonstrators and opined that
Portland's 'streets need to be cleaned up.'"
Those open calls for violence didn't lead PPB to treat the
far-right groups as a threat, the lawsuit alleges.
The city's track record of harsh policing against anti-war and
anti-police demonstrators dates back to well before events of the
past five years.
The lawsuit draws on historical examples of the city's apparent
sympathies for far-right viewpoints, including recently retired
police Capt. Mark Kruger, who built a memorial to Nazi soldiers in
Rocky Butte Park. The filing also cites an incident in 1936, when
officers arrested anti-fascist protesters who planned to
demonstrate against a visiting German navy warship.
According to an Oregon Historical Society article, the warship was
welcomed by Portlanders jubilantly exchanging "heil Hitler" salutes
with the swastika clad warship Kreuzer Emden.
"The night before the Emden arrived in Portland, the local chapter
of the American League Against War and Fascism held a well-attended
meeting to plan a protest against the ship's mooring," the article
reads. "An actual protest materialized, but police arrested the
organizers, apparently for failing to obtain a license for their
gathering. They remained in jail for the duration of the Emden's
stay."
In addition to the five named plaintiffs, the Jan. 19 83-page
motion pulls from more than 150 witness declarations that describe
dozens of violent police encounters including, "peacefully chanting
by the fence erected outside the courthouse when the police started
gassing the protesters and shooting them with rubber bullets,"
being shot while attending to an injured person, and being "trapped
in tear gas" as police threw more tear gas in the direction
protesters were told to disperse.
It will now be up to Hernandez, the federal judge overseeing the
case, to determine if the lawsuit should be certified as a class
action. That decision is expected by the summer. [GN]
PTT LLC: Wilson Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PTT LLC doing business as: High 5
Games, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. In Re: Meta
Platforms Inc, Regarding subpoena directed to Meta Platforms, Inc.,
Case No. 5:21-mc-80284, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 27, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00091-RSL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
PTT, LLC doing business as High 5 Games --
https://www.high5games.com/ -- operates as an independent casino
games provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
Todd M. Logan, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 212-9300
Fax: (415) 373-9435
Email: bsilverkorn@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
tlogan@edelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LA/CA)
333 S Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 220-7396
Email: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
RAUSCH STURM: Illegally Collects Debt from Consumers, Bogle Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TANO BOGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RAUSCH STURM LLP, CASCADE CAPITAL LLC, and
JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-60171 (S.D. Fla., January
24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida's
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged collection of debt
from the Plaintiff without a license to operate as a consumer
collection agency in Florida. The Defendants' debt collection
activities against the Plaintiff constitute a criminal misdemeanor
under Florida law.
Rausch Sturm LLP is a law firm, with its principal place of
business located in Clearwater, Florida.
Cascade Capital LLC is a finance company, with its principal place
of business located in Petaluma, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
REYES Y REYES: Quintanilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REYES Y REYES CONSTRUCTION LLC;
ALEXANDER REYES; and JOSE REYES, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00080-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., January 24, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and for wrongful, retaliatory
discharge, intimidation, and coercion of an employee in violation
of the Florida Statute.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker from approximately February 17, 2021, until his wrongful
termination on or about October 24, 2021.
Reyes Y Reyes Construction LLC is a construction company with its
main place of business in Duval 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
Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
ROOT INC: Robbins Named Lead Counsel in Kolominsky Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ILIA KOLOMINSKY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ROOT, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-CV-01197 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A.
Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, appointed Plumbers Local #290 Pension
Trust Fund as the Lead Plaintiff and approved its selection of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as Lead Counsel.
I. Background
The matter is before the Court for consideration on six Motions for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel by the
following parties: Plaintiff Bryan Anderson, Movant Wenxuan Guo,
Movant Patrick Thane, Movant IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan, Movant
Plumbers Local #290 Pension Trust Fund, and Movant Efrat
Investments LLC. All movants except Plumber's Local subsequently
filed notices of non-opposition and effectively withdrew their
motions to allow Plumber's Local to move unopposed for appointment
as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel.
The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Root
securities between Oct. 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021 or (b) Root
Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on Oct. 28, 2020. The Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Root provides auto insurance products and services to person and
entities in the United States. On Oct. 5, 2020, Root filed a
registration statement with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which, after several amendments, was declared effective on Oct. 27,
2020. On Oct. 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling 26.8
million shares of the Company's Class A common stock to the public
at $27 per share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43 million.
On Oct. 29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the
SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part
of the Registration Statement.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. They
claim that the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Root
would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least
several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company
would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its
cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants touting of
Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the
Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant
competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia,
telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the
Offering Documents and the Defendants' public statements throughout
the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed
to state information required to be stated therein.
On March 9, 2021, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or
1.46%, to close at $12.17 per share, representing a total decline
of 54.93% from the Offering price. It stock price has continued to
trade below the $27 per share Offering price, damaging investors.
The Plaintiffs bring the action under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o), and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC (17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5) to recover losses and damages associated with
Root's alleged wrongful acts and omissions.
II. Analysis
The most significant procedural change effected by the PSLRA is the
requirement that the Court appoint, at the initial stages of
litigation, a "lead plaintiff." Specifically, the PSLRA states that
the court will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of
the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.
A. Subsection (aa)
The PSLRA creates a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate
plaintiff "is the person or group of persons that has either filed
the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice." The
statutory notice in the case was published, and Plumber's Local
filed its motion for selection as lead counsel, in satisfaction of
the PSLRA's 60-day requirement.
B. Subsection (bb)
Second, Judge Sargus considers which person or group of persons has
the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.
He says, it is undisputed that Plumber's Local has a substantial
interest in the relief sought by the class, having suffered more
than $294,623 in losses as a result of the alleged wrongdoing.
C. Subsection (cc)
Third, the PSLRA directs consideration of whether the party
"otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure." Two of the four requirements in Rule 23
are applicable to class representatives: Whether the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class and whether the representative party will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
III. Conclusion
In light of the circumstances highlighted, Judge Sargus granted
Local Plumber's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Selection of Lead Plaintiff, and denied as moot the
other motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Selection of Lead Counsel. He appointed Plumbers Local #290 Pension
Trust Fund as the Lead Plaintiff in the case and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd as the Lead Counsel for the proposed class.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3d7stksk from Leagle.com.
ROSSY POWER: Chicas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Electricians
--------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON CHICAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROSSY POWER ELECTRIC LLC, ARLEN CASTILLO,
and MARIA R. ORELLANA-GARCIA, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00251
(S.D. Tex., January 25, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated electricians overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mr. Chicas worked for the Defendants as an electrician from
February of 2020 until November of 2021.
Rossy Power Electric LLC is an electric services company based in
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
S.C. JOHNSON: Winans Suit Alleges Sale of Adulterated Sunscreens
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND WINANS JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. and SUN
BUM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00451 (E.D.N.Y., January 26,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Sun Bum
sunscreen and after-sun products. The Defendants do specifically
list both the active and inactive ingredients of these products but
fail to disclose that the products contain benzene, a known human
carcinogen. The Plaintiff and Class members lost the entire benefit
of their bargain when what they received was a sunscreen product
contaminated with a known carcinogen. Had the Plaintiff and Class
members known the truth, they would not have purchased the
products, says the suit.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. is a manufacturer of household cleaning
supplies and other consumer chemicals, with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Racine, Wisconsin.
Sun Bum, LLC is a manufacturer of personal care products, with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Encinitas,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and –
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Stipulation to Extend Case Deadlines OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE DEMARTINI and WILLIE
AUSTIN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., an Ohio Corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05952-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order approving stipulation
to extend case deadlines:
1. The Parties shall meet and confer regarding a mutually
agreeable private mediator:
2. The January 31, 2022 deadline for the Parties to attend
private mediation is extended to March 31, 2022.
3. The February 7, 2022 deadline for the parties to file a
status report with the Court is extended to April 7, 2022.
4. The April 15, 2022 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
Motion for Class Certification is extended to June 24,
2022.
5. The May 27, 2022 deadline for Defendant to file its
Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is
extended to August 5, 2022.
6. The June 24, 2022 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification
is extended to September 2, 2022.
7. The July 29, 2022 hearing date for Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification is vacated and rescheduled for 9:00
a.m., October 7, 2022.
Safelite was founded in 2004. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of paint, glass, and wallpaper.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GbvJ9J at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Hawkins, Esq.
Christina Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-Mail: christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
- and -
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
Victoria Rivaplacio, Esq.
Charlotte E. James, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
kyle@bamlawca.com
aj@bamlawca.com
piya@bamlawca.com
victoria@bamlawca.com
charlotte@bamlawca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Leah Cameron, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-3233
Facsimile: (415) 981-3246
E-Mail: lcameron@cdflaborlaw.com
- and -
Daniel J. Clark, Esq.
Adam J. Rocco, Esq.
Michael J. Shoenfelt, Esq.
Eric E. Leist, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008
Columbus, OH 43216-1008
Telephone: (614) 464-5497
Facsimile: (614) 719-4760
E-mail: DJClark@vorys.com
AJRocco@vorys.com
MJShoenfelt@vorys.com
EELeist@vorys.com
SEDGWICK HOTEL: Estrada Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Hotel Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK HOTEL CORP; 4600 HOLDINGS
LLC; 505 WASH LLC; VINOD CHADHA; SOHAN CHADHA; and RAM CHADHA,
Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00645 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee
from March 2020 until December 18, 2021.
Sedgwick Hotel Corp. is a hotel operator, with its principal place
of business at 731 Main Street, New Rochelle, New York.
4600 Holdings LLC is a hotel operator, with its principal place of
business at 1 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor, New York, New York.
505 Wash LLC is a hotel operator, with its principal place of
business at 731 Main Street, New Rochelle, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
SHERATON NIAGARA: Workers File Wage-and-Tip Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Handson, writing for Law360, reports that two former hourly
Sheraton Niagara Falls hotel workers have filed a proposed class
action against the hospitality venue in western New York federal
court, claiming that the companies that control the hotel failed to
pay them the appropriate minimum wage or tip them properly. [GN]
SIGNATURE AUDIO: Underpays Construction Workers, Tun Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MIGUEL TUN and ROBERTO TUN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIGNATURE AUDIO DESIGN,
LLC and ERICH STEGICH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00677
(S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide accurate
wage notices, unlawful deductions from wages, and failure to timely
pay wages.
Plaintiffs Jose Miguel Tun and Roberto Tun worked for the
Defendants as construction workers from October 17, 2020 to October
29, 2021 and from June 2021 to October 29, 2021, respectively.
Signature Audio Design, LLC is a provider of construction and
renovation services, located at 14 West 11th Street, New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
Mirian Albert, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
albert@pechmanlaw.com
SILVERSTONE MEMORY: Schuelke Sues Over Unpaid OT for Caregivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN SCHUELKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERSTONE MEMORY CARE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00100-WCG (E.D. Wis., January 26, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for unpaid regular wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked as a caregiver at the Defendant's facility in
Grand Chute, Wisconsin from July 2021 until January 2022.
Silverstone Memory Care, Inc. is a memory care facility, with its
principal office located at 5100 Schroth Lane, Grand Chute,
Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Filing of Lamb Report in Antitrust Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 12-995 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the
Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a
supplemental expert report by Russell Lamb.
I. Background
The antitrust class action involves the allegedly artificially
inflated pricing of the brand drug Lamictal, manufactured by
Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corp., d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK"),
and its generic competitor lamotrigine, manufactured by Defendants
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD and its subsidiary Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively "Teva").
GSK and Teva were involved in a patent lawsuit over GSK's brand
drug, Lamictal, and Teva's generic version of the drug,
lamotrigine. They reached a settlement which involved GSK promising
to refrain from launching its own competing authorized generic
version of Lamictal (the "No-AG Promise") until Lamictal's patent
for lamotrigine expired.
The Plaintiffs in the present action claim that absent the No-AG
Promise, Teva's generic drug would have faced pricing competition
from GSK's authorized generic drug. Thus, the Plaintiffs conclude,
the lack of competition that resulted from the No-AG Promise forced
the Plaintiffs to purchase both Lamictal and lamotrigine at
artificially inflated prices.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs were not harmed because
GSK lowered the prices of Lamictal through a contracting strategy,
and Teva, upon learning of this contracting strategy, preemptively
lowered the price of lamotrigine.
On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the following
class: "All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories who purchased Lamictal Tablets directly from GSK, or
who purchased a generic version of lamotrigine tablets directly
from Teva, at any time during the Class Period from Feb. 17, 2008
until Jan. 22, 2009."
Following briefing on the issue, Judge Walls certified the class.
The Defendants appealed, challenging only the certification of
class members who purchased generic lamotrigine from Teva
("Generic-Only Purchasers"). The Defendants did not challenge class
certification as to the 32 direct purchasers of brand Lamictal. The
Third Circuit vacated Judge Walls's decision and remanded with
instructions to perform a rigorous analysis in determining whether
to certify the class of Generic-Only Purchasers. On remand, the
Court found that the Plaintiffs had not shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that they could prove antitrust injury through common
evidence as to the Generic-Only Purchasers and thus denied class
certification of this group.
Following the Court's decision, the Plaintiffs requested leave to
file a supplemental expert report from their expert economist Dr.
Russell Lamb in support of a revised, smaller class "that includes
at least 40 members: (a) all 32 direct purchasers of brand Lamictal
and (b) at least eight generic-only purchasers -- the eight that
Defendants have not claimed were uninjured."
II. Analysis
The Plaintiffs state that their proposed supplemental expert report
would address (1) whether the proposed class satisfies the
numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) due to impracticability of
joinder, and (2) whether antitrust injury as to eight of the 32
Generic-Only Purchasers can be proven with predominantly common
evidence, which bears on whether the predominance requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.
A. Impracticability of Joinder
The Plaintiffs represent that Dr. Lamb's proposed supplemental
report would address two factors relevant to the impracticability
of joinder analysis: The putative class members' ability and
motivation to litigate as joined plaintiffs and the geographic
dispersion of class members. As to the first factor, Dr. Lamb would
calculate the individual class members' damages claims and
demonstrate that a number of class members have "negative value"
claims, for which the cost of bringing an individual action would
exceed the potential relief. The Plaintiffs contend that "Dr. Lamb
did not previously conduct this analysis because the original class
of 65 members was well above the level at which impracticability of
joinder is presumed." As to the second factor, Dr. Lamb would
provide a revised list of class members showing their locations
across the United States to demonstrate the geographic dispersion
of the revised proposed class.
Judge Vazquez finds that supplementation on this basis is improper.
He says, the Plaintiffs do not claim that Dr. Lamb's initial report
was incomplete or incorrect, or that new information has come to
light that would compel filing a supplemental expert report.
Indeed, Dr. Lamb's initial report already contains the information
that the Plaintiffs propose, including the geographic dispersion of
the class members.
Critically, by the Plaintiffs' own admission, Dr. Lamb could have
addressed the issue of individual damages in his initial report but
chose not to because the Plaintiffs presumed that impracticability
of joinder would not be an issue with the originally proposed
class. Notably, the Plaintiffs chose not to have Dr. Lamb engage in
this analysis even though the Defendants briefed the
impracticability of joinder issue and submitted expert calculations
and testimony regarding individual damages in support, and Dr. Lamb
subsequently relied upon those calculations.
Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs present no compelling
reason as to why Dr. Lamb's individual damages analysis could not
have been included in his initial report. He denies the request to
supplement as to Dr. Lamb's proposed impracticability analysis.
B. Predominance
The Plaintiffs also seek to supplement Dr. Lamb's expert report to
address whether antitrust injury to the eight Generic-Only
Purchasers, who the Defendants did not claim were uninjured, can
meet the predominance requirement. The Plaintiffs contend that
analysis by the Defendants' own expert showed that three of these
purchasers did not pay a reduced price due to GSK's contracting
strategy, and one purchaser had a price drop of $0.01 due to the
contracting strategy. They continue that the Defendants offered no
evidence that the prices paid by the four remaining Generic-Only
Purchasers were preemptively lowered due to the contracting
strategy.
The Plaintiffs essentially seek to relitigate the issue of class
certification of the Generic-Only Purchasers. The Court previously
denied class certification of the Generic-Only Purchasers,
including the eight purchasers for which the Plaintiffs now seek to
offer supplemental expert opinions. The Plaintiffs cannot
relitigate this issue, Judge Vazquez holds. The Plaintiffs did not
raise this alternate argument, although it was clearly available to
them, at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Hence, the
Plaintiffs' request to file a supplemental expert report on this
basis is also denied.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vazquez denied the Plaintiffs'
request for leave to file a supplemental expert report.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/285n2nk2 from Leagle.com.
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Kowal Sues Over Pretzels' Butter Snaps Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN KOWAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SNYDER'S-LANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00441 (N.D. Ill., January 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
and State Consumer Fraud Acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Butter Snaps Pretzels in yellow-colored packaging under the
Snyder's of Hanover brand. The representation as "Butter Snaps
Pretzels" is false, deceptive and misleading because the product
lacks an appreciable amount of butter. A review of the ingredients
shows that instead of containing real butter, the product contains
"Natural Flavor (Enzyme Modified Butterfat)." As a result of the
Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members
have been damaged. Had the Plaintiff and proposed Class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would
have paid less for it, says the suit.
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is a bakery food products manufacturer, with a
principal place of business in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SOUTHERN ORTHOPAEDIC: Console Attorney Discusses Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Console, Jr., Esq., of Console and Associates, P.C., in an
article for JDSupra, reports that data breaches put sensitive
consumer information in the hands of unknown third parties, who may
use them to commit identity theft or for other criminal purposes.
While it's common for the victim of a data breach not to notice
anything wrong with their accounts at first, it is essential that
they still give the situation the seriousness it deserves, as data
breaches can lead to significant financial losses.
In recent news, Southern Orthopaedic Associates announced a data
breach involving sensitive information of more than 106,000
individuals. On December 20, 2021, the company sent data breach
notifications to all affected parties, informing them that the
event resulted in an unauthorized third party gaining access to
their sensitive information, including their names and Social
Security numbers.
Anyone in receipt of a Southern Orthopaedic Associates data breach
letter has reason to be concerned. Too often, consumers disregard
these letters because they have yet to see any signs of fraudulent
activity. However, over the past two years, the rate of identity
theft crimes has increased dramatically. In many of these cases,
the information used to commit identity theft was obtained through
a data breach. If you recently received a data breach letter from
Southern Orthopaedic Associates, it is imperative that you protect
yourself. You may also be eligible for financial compensation
through a data breach lawsuit if evidence emerges that Southern
Orthopaedic Associates mishandled your data leading up to the
breach.
Is Southern Orthopaedic Associates Financially Responsible for the
Data Breach?
When you entrusted Southern Orthopaedic Associates with your
personal information, you hoped that the company would take your
privacy seriously. And you certainly assumed that the company would
take the necessary steps to prevent your private information from
ending up in the hands of criminals, hackers or other bad actors.
However, given the recently announced breach, it raises questions
about the data-security measures Southern Orthopaedic Associates
had in place at the time of the breach.
Companies like Southern Orthopaedic Associates have a legal
obligation to protect consumers' personal, identifying and
financial information. While this requires companies to devote time
and money to develop security measures, these are merely the costs
of doing business in an environment where cyberattacks are rampant.
If a business or organization fails to protect consumers' sensitive
information, it may be liable through a data breach class action
lawsuit. Of course, data breach laws are complex, and it is too
early to tell if Southern Orthopaedic Associates was negligent in
how it handled consumer data. However, our data breach law firm is
currently investigating whether there is a possible class action
data breach lawsuit against Southern Orthopaedic Associates. If you
have questions about whether you can bring a Southern Orthopaedic
Associates class action lawsuit, it is important you reach out to a
data breach attorney as soon as possible.
What to Do if You Received a Data Breach Letter from Southern
Orthopaedic Associates
If Southern Orthopaedic Associates sent you a data breach
notification letter, it is important you take a moment and reflect
upon what it means. Essentially, Southern Orthopaedic Associates is
informing you that an unauthorized person -- possibly a criminal --
gained access to and may have accessed, viewed, and retained your
information. While Southern Orthopaedic Associates cannot tell why
the third party sought out your information, the situation
justifies a certain level of precaution on your part. Below are a
few ways to protect yourself from identity theft and the other
possible financial risks that can step from a data breach:
-- Carefully read the Southern Orthopaedic Associates data breach
letter to determine what information of yours was accessible;
-- Make a copy of the letter for your records;
-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by
Southern Orthopaedic Associates;
-- Change all your passwords and security questions for any online
accounts;
-- Enable two-factor authentication, where it is available;
-- Regularly review your credit card and bank account statements
for any signs of suspicious activity;
-- Monitor your credit report for any unexpected changes that may
be a sign of identity theft;
-- Contact one of the major credit bureaus to request they add a
fraud alert to your profile; and
-- Notify your banks and credit card companies of the data breach.
About Southern Orthopaedic Associates
Southern Orthopaedic Associates is a physicians' group of
orthopaedic surgeons who practice in the southern states. The group
consists of practicing surgeons in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
The organization's stated mission is to foster art and science of
medicine in the specialty of orthopaedic surgery by providing
education materials and access to seminars for members. Southern
Orthopaedic Associates also publishes the Journal of Surgical
Orthopaedic Advances.
The Details of the Southern Orthopaedic Associates Consumer Data
Breach
According to the most recent data breach letter, on July 7, 2021,
Southern Orthopaedic Associates noticed unusual activity pertaining
to an employee's email account. The company enlisted the help of an
outside computer forensics firm, which determined that an
unauthorized party accessed several employee email accounts between
June 24, 2021 and July 8, 2021.
While Southern Orthopaedic Associates has no knowledge of what
emails and what information the unauthorized party accessed, the
company reviewed all emails in the affected employees' email
accounts. In total, the reviewed emails contained the names and
Social Security numbers of 106,910 individuals. On December 20,
2021, the company sent data breach notifications to all affected
parties, informing them of the breach and what they can do to
protect themselves.
Below is a copy of the data breach letter issued by Southern
Orthopaedic Associates (the actual notice sent to consumers can be
found here):
Dear [Consumer],
Southern Orthopaedic Associates d/b/a Orthopaedic Institute of
Western Kentucky ("SOA") is writing to notify you of an incident
that may affect the security of some of your personal information.
While we are unaware of any actual or attempted misuse of your
information, we take this incident very seriously. This letter
provides details of the incident and the resources available to you
to help protect your information from possible misuse, should you
feel it is appropriate to do so.
What Happened? On or about July 7, 2021, SOA became aware of
suspicious activity relating to an employee email account. We
immediately launched an investigation to determine what may have
happened. Working together with an outside computer forensics
specialist, we determined that an unauthorized individual accessed
several employee email accounts between June 24, 2021 and July 8,
2021. Because we were unable to determine which email messages in
the accounts may have been viewed by the unauthorized actor, we
reviewed the entire contents of the affected email accounts to
identify what personal information was accessible. This review was
complete by October 21, 2021. Once we identified the individuals
who may have been impacted, SOA worked to confirm current mailing
addresses for the impacted individuals and prepare an accurate
written notice of this incident.
What Information Was Involved? Although we cannot confirm whether
your personal information was actually accessed, viewed, or
acquired without permission, we are providing you this notification
out of an abundance of caution, because such activity cannot be
ruled out. The following types of your information were located in
an email or attachment that may have been accessed or acquired by
an unauthorized actor: your name and [Extra2].
What We Are Doing. Upon learning of this incident, we changed all
employee email account passwords and took steps to secure the
impacted accounts. We are currently implementing additional
technical safeguards as well as training and education for
employees to prevent similar future incidents.
What You Can Do. Although we are unaware of any fraudulent misuse
of your information, we have arranged to have Experian provide
complimentary credit monitoring to you for [Extra3] months as an
added precaution. Please review the instructions contained in the
enclosed "Steps You Can Take to Protect Your Information" to enroll
in and receive these services. SOA will cover the cost of this
service; however, you will need to enroll yourself in the credit
monitoring service.
For More Information. We recognize that you may have questions not
addressed in this letter. If you have additional questions, please
contact our dedicated assistance line at (855) 414-6050, Monday
through Friday, 8 am - 10 pm Central, or Saturday and Sunday, 10 am
- 7 pm Central (excluding major U.S. holidays). You may also write
to us at 200 Clint Hill Boulevard, Paducah, KY 42001. [GN]
STANG LANDSCAPING: Garcia Seeks OT Wages for Laborers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIR GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. STANG LANDSCAPING CORP. and MARK E. STANG, Case No.
2:22-cv-00457 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2022) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff premium overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants pursuant
to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA
limitations period who suffered damages as a result of the
Defendants alleged willful violations of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a landscape laborer
from 2018 to January 2022.
The Plaintiff's regular rate of pay ranged from $18.00 per hour at
the beginning of his employment to $20.75 per hour at the end of
his employment. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly
worked six days per week, Monday through Saturday. The Plaintiff
began each workday at 7:30 a.m. The time that Plaintiff finished
work each workday varied from workday to workday. Plaintiff often
worked until 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., or later. Throughout his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a single workweek, the lawsuit says.
The Defendants provide landscape services at cemeteries located
throughout Suffolk County. The Defendants also provide garbage
collection and removal services on Fire Island in the summer and
snow removal at various commercial and public properties located
throughout Suffolk County in the winter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
SWEDISH HEALTH: Adan Seeks OT Pay for Nursing Staff Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAHAN ADAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES d/b/a SWEDISH MEDICAL GROUP and
PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, Case No. 2:22-cv-00078 (W.D. Wash.,
Jan. 26, 2022) is a class and collective action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who have worked
for Swedish as medical assistants, nursing staff, nurse aides,
nurse assistants, and other non‐exempt hourly employees who were
denied payment for all hours worked, denied bonafide meal periods,
and/or were subject to Swedish's policy and practice of
automatically deducting time from their recorded hours worked for
meal periods at any time beginning three years before the filing of
this complaint until resolution of this action.
Throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated Collective and Class members have been allegedly denied
proper payment for all hours worked, including overtime, and were
denied meal and rest periods in compliance with Washington law.
This case implicates Swedish's longstanding policy and practice of
failing to properly compensate non‐exempt employees for work
performed during meal periods and for all overtime hours worked.
The Defendants' conduct violated and continues to violate the Fair
Labor Standards Act because of the mandate that non‐exempt
employees, such as Plaintiff and the Collective members, be paid at
one and one‐half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 within a single workweek, the suit says.
The Defendants' conduct violated and continues to violate
Washington state law because the Washington Minimum Wage Act (RCW
49.46) requires employers to pay hourly employees like Plaintiff
and the Washington Class members no less than minimum wage for the
first forty hours of work in a week and no less than one and
one‐half times the regular rate of pay, for any hours worked in
excess 40 in a week. The Defendants' conduct further violated and
continues to violate Washington meal and rest period statutes,
Washington's requirement that all wages be paid upon separation of
employment, Washington's prohibition on unlawfully withholding
wages, and Washington's record keeping requirements, added the
suit.
Plaintiff Adan is an individual residing in Federal Way,
Washington. Ms. Adan was employed as a medical assistant by
Defendants at various clinics that are part of Swedish Health
Services.
Swedish operates a network of hospitals and clinics that provide
healthcare services throughout the greater Seattle, Washington
area, including five hospital campuses and a network of more than
100 primary care and specialty clinics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
enusser@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421‐7100
Facsimile: (415) 421‐7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Michael K. Burke, Esq.
Jordyn D. Rystrom Emmert, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338‐2560
Facsimile: (415) 421‐7105
E-mail: mburke@schneiderwallace.com
jemmert@schneiderwallace.com
TD BANK NA: Norville Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jasmine Norville, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-09167,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on Jan. 27, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00416 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
TD Bank, N.A. -- https://onlinebanking.tdbank.com/ -- is an
American national bank and subsidiary of the Canadian multinational
Toronto-Dominion Bank.[BN]
TJ INSPECTIONS: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Farmer Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KOREY FARMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TJ INSPECTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00066 (W.D. Tex., January 25, 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
pipeline inspectors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Farmer was employed by TJ Inspections as a pipeline inspector
from mid to late 2021.
TJ Inspections, Inc. is a pipeline inspection company in Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
TOOTSIE ROLL: New Jersey Judge Dismisses Slack-Fill Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilana Drescher, Esq., Lori Lustrin, Esq., and Alexa Tirse, Esq., of
Bilzin Sumberg, ina n article for JDSupra, report that over the
past several years, federal courts have rarely allowed slack-fill
class actions to survive beyond the motion to dismiss phase.
Whether the plaintiffs allege that the packaging is misleading or
that the slack-fill is "non-functional," courts across the country
routinely reject class actions premised on theories that are
increasingly being viewed as antithetical to basic common sense and
consumer experience.1
Most recently, in October 2021, Judge Anne Thompson of the District
of New Jersey dismissed Iglesia v. Tootsie Roll Indus., a putative
class action alleging various fraud, breach of warranty, and
misrepresentation claims against Tootsie Roll Industries.2 The
plaintiff asserted that Tootsie Roll Industries packaged their
Junior Mints and Sugar Babies products in a manner that contained
"an unlawful amount of empty space, or 'slack-fill.'"3
Specifically, the putative class representative maintained that he
did not get what he paid for when he purchased a box of Junior
Mints and "understood the size of the box and product label to
indicate the amount of candy contained therein was commensurate
with the size of the box[.]"4 He further claimed that he -- and the
putative class of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies purchasers he
sought to represent -- would not have purchased the box of candy
had they been aware that the box contained slack-fill that had no
lawful purpose or function.5
The court dismissed Plaintiff's fraud claims, finding the
allegations about the Products' packaging and labeling did not
"'victimize the average consumer'" because "the Products contain a
disclosure that the Products are sold by weight, and not volume,
which addresses the very information that Plaintiff alleges was
misrepresented."6 The court cited a 2018 Southern District of New
York case holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by
the slack-fill in a box of Junior Mints because "a consumer 'can
easily calculate the number of candies contained in the Product
boxes simply by multiplying the serving size by the number of
servings in each box, information displayed in the nutritional
facts section on the back of each box.'"7 The court also found that
the plaintiff failed to prove that the candy he received was worth
less than he paid for it.8
Finally, the court dismissed Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim
with prejudice. The court found that since the plaintiff bought his
candy from an Albertson's and not directly from Tootsie Roll, he
could not "rightfully expect any remuneration from defendant" when
he "never directly conferred a benefit on defendant."9 The court
granted the plaintiff a thirty-day leave to amend the complaint as
to the fraud claims, but the plaintiff elected to voluntarily
dismiss the case without prejudice instead.10
Iglesia marks the latest in a growing trend of unsuccessful
slack-fill class action litigations.11 The Bilzin Sumberg team will
continue to provide updates on slack-fill litigation trends as they
develop.
[1] See Critcher v. L'Oreal, 959 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2020) (affirming
motion to dismiss where class alleges that the net weight labels on
certain L'Oreal products were misleading); see also Buso v. ACH
Food Cos., Inc., 445 F. Supp.3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (dismissing
class action with prejudice where consumers claim that they were
misled by "non-functional" slack-fill in boxes of cornbread mix).
[2] Iglesia v. Tootsie Roll Indus., LLC., No. 3:20-cv-18751, ECF
No. 23 (Order) (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2021).
[3] Iglesia v. Tootsie Roll Indus., LLC., No. 3:20-cv-18751, ECF
No. 13 (Amended Complaint) at paragraph 3.
[4] Id at paragraph 6.
[5] Id.
[6] Id at 12.
[7] Id. at 13.
[8] Id at 14-5; The court dismissed the claims related to Sugar
Babies for lack of standing because the named plaintiff did not
allege that he had purchased Sugar Babies. Order at 6. The court
also rejected the plaintiff's claim of breach of express warranty,
stating that "[a]n express warranty based on the size of the box
alone is, in essence, an implied express warranty, which the law
does not permit."
[9] Order at 18.
[10] Id at 21; Iglesia v. Tootsie Roll Indus., LLC., No.
3:20-cv-18751, ECF No. 25 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).
[11] See Jackson v. General Mills, Inc., 2020 WL 5106652 *5 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) (finding that the plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint also fails to support "the conclusion that the slack-fill
in the box of cereal she bought was non-functional slack-fill as
defined by statute."); see also Buso v. ACH Food Cos., Inc., 445 F.
Supp.3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (dismissing class action with
prejudice, claiming that a reasonable consumer would not be
deceived by the packaging that discloses the products net weight,
number of servings, and the "rough estimate" of cornbread that
could be made from the box); see also Berni v. Barilla S.P.A., 964
F.3d 141, 143 (2d Cir. 2020) (overturning a class settlement
granting injunctive relief to past purchasers of Barilla pasta
explaining,"[n]o matter how ubiquitous Barilla pasta may be, there
is no reason to believe that all, or even most, of the class
members -- having suffered the harm alleged -- will choose to buy
it in the future."). [GN]
TOTAL QUALITY: Loses Bid for Protective Order in Hudgins FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN HUDGINS, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOTAL QUALITY
LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-7331 (N.D. Ill.),
Magistrate Susan A. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied TQL's Motion for
Protective Order.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs allege TQL violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by improperly classifying TQL's Logistics Account
Executives ("LAEs") and Logistics Account Executive Trainees
("LAETs") as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. Two
central issues in the suit are: 1) whether TQL's alleged violation
was "in good faith and that it had reasonable grounds for believing
that his act or omission was not a violation of the FLSA," 29
U.S.C. Section 260; and 2) whether TQL's alleged violations were
willful.
During discovery, the following requests and responses were
propounded by the Plaintiffs and TQL, respectively:
"If the Defendant has been sued or investigated by any
individual(s) or the U.S. Department of Labor or has received a
claim by or demand from any employee regarding minimum wage or
overtime compensation, state the name of the claimant(s) for the
suit, claim and/or investigation and describe in detail the
claimant's position or title, factual basis of the suit, claim
and/or investigation. Identify any such claim by claim number or
case number, case or claim caption and venue where proceedings took
place. RESPONSE: No such documents exist.
If Defendant has been sued or investigated by any
individual(s) or the U.S. Department of Labor or has received a
claim by or demand from any employee regarding minimum wage or
overtime compensation, state the name of the claimant(s) for the
suit, claim and/or investigation and describe in detail the
claimant's position or title, factual basis of the suit, claim
and/or investigation. Identify any such claim by claim number or
case number, case or claim caption and venue where proceedings took
place.
ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome because
it seeks all information from unrelated lawsuits regardless of
whether such documents are relevant to any claim or defense in this
litigation. Defendant further objects on the grounds such
information is available by undertaking a relatively simple public
records search."
The Plaintiffs took TQL up on its suggestion and issued a Freedom
of Information Act ("FOIA") request for records from the United
States Department of Labor ("DOL") relating to TQL. Approximately
six weeks before this case was set to go to trial, the Plaintiffs
received a response from the DOL, which indicated that the DOL had
investigated TQL's Columbus, Ohio branch in 2017 to determine
whether LAEs were properly classified as exempt employees, and
TQL's Tampa, Florida branch in 2018 to determine whether LAEs and
LAETs were properly classified as exempt employees.
In the Tampa Investigation, TQL maintained that LAEs and LAETs are
exempt employees under the administrative exemption, executive
exemption, or highly compensated employee exemption. The DOL denied
the administrative exemption, did not reach the executive
exemption, and found that no more than 10 employees were likely to
qualify for the highly compensated employee exemption. The DOL Wage
and Hour Investigator recommended that the investigation be
considered "for review for vetting processes" with the Regional
Office or Regional Office of the Solicitor. In the Columbus
Investigation, the DOL dropped the investigation and made no
findings regarding exemptions due to the private class action
lawsuit already pending that would determine the same exemptions.
Upon reviewing the DOL FOIA materials, the Plaintiff filed a motion
for sanctions against TQL, based on TQL's representation that no
documents existed in its response to RFP 47. That motion was
referred to the Court by the District Judge. Following a hearing,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to subpoena the DOL "for records
relating to the relevant investigation as soon as possible" and
also ruled that the "Plaintiffs are also permitted to serve written
discovery on Defendant related to the relevant DOL investigation
and Defendant's knowledge thereof."
Pursuant to the Court's order, the Plaintiff's served discovery
requests on TQL related to the DOL investigations. In response, TQL
filed the instant motion for protective order. TQL argues that it
should not have to respond to the discovery requests because: 1)
they seek irrelevant information; 2) they seek documents and
communications protected by the attorney-client privilege; and 3)
the documents and communications they seek are protected by Federal
Rule of Evidence 408.
II. Discussion
Judge Cox rejects these arguments.
A. Relevance
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits the discovery of
all relevant, non-privileged material, provided it is "proportional
to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues
at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit." Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency
to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows the Court
to enter a protective order to protect a party from undue burden,
expense, or annoyance.
Judge Cox opines that the documents and communications relating to
the DOL investigations are clearly relevant to the objective
reasonableness of TQL's classification of the LAEs and LAETs, and
should be produced. In order to prove its good faith defense, TQL
need not only prove that it subjectively believed that its
classifications were correct, but that the classifications were
objectively reasonable. The DOL investigators' explanations of the
job duties of LAEs and LAETs analysis of the potential exemptions
would help a jury determine whether TQL's reading of the FLSA
exemptions was objectively reasonable.
In other words, Judge Cox says, these documents have the tendency
to make it more or less probable that TQL's decision to classify
LAEs and LAETs as exempt employees was objectively reasonable --
i.e., they are relevant. Although the filings did not discuss the
issue very much, she also finds that the likely relevance of the
proposed discovery outweighs the burden of production. The
documents are very important to the issue of whether TQL's belief
that LAEs and LAETs were exempt from the FLSA's overtime
requirements was objectively reasonable, which TQL must prove to
sustain its good faith defense. The burden and expense of
production appears to be fairly limited and she finds that a
protective order is not appropriate in this instance.
B. Privilege
Next TQL argues the Court should grant the motion to protective
order because the Plaintiffs' discovery requests seek documents and
communications protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Judge Cox denies the motion without prejudice on procedural
grounds. She states, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state
that a party seeking to withhold information due to the
attorney-client privilege must expressly claim the privilege and
then "describe the nature of the documents, communications, or
tangible things not produced or disclosed--and do so in a manner
that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected,
will enable other parties to assess the claim." In other words, the
appropriate move here was for TQL to make its production, assert
privilege over the documents it believes are privileged, and
produce a privilege log that complies with Rule 26(b)(5). The
motion is denied without prejudice until TQL does so.
Judge Cox notes that according to TQL, the Plaintiffs claimed
during the meet and confer process that TQL's assertion of the good
faith defense waived its right to assert the attorney-client
privilege. However, TQL has specifically disclaimed an "advice of
counsel" defense in thie case, which is the only way in which the
good faith defense would constitute a waiver of the attorney-client
privilege. Judge Cox does not believe that TQL waived the
attorney-client privilege, and it may withhold privileged documents
from its production.
C. FRE 408
TQL also claims that it entitled to a protective order because the
proposed discovery seeks documents and communications protected by
Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Federal Rule of Evidence 408 only
concerns the admissibility of settlement communications, not their
discoverability. As such, it is not relevant in the case and not a
valid basis for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(c)(1).
D. Attorneys' Fees
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(3) states that Rule 37(a)(5)
applies to awarding expenses for a motion for protective order.
Rule 37(a)(5)(B) states: "If the motion is denied, the court must,
after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the
attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent
who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing
the motion, including attorney's fees," unless "the motion was
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of
expenses unjust."
Judge Cox ordered the parties to address the issue of attorneys'
fees in their upcoming briefing on the motion for sanctions; that
briefing will constitute TQL's opportunity to be heard pursuant to
Rule 37(a)(5). The Court notes that the discovery at issue was
specifically permitted by the Court in its minute order of July 14,
2021.
Moreover, the District Judge was so concerned by TQL's failure to
identify the DOL investigations or produce documents related to
them that she stopped proceedings and referred the motion for
sanctions to this Court only a few weeks before trial was set to
begin. Instead of obeying the Court's order permitting discovery,
TQL filed the extremely thin motion presently before the Court,
thereby delaying resolution of this suit by several months. Judge
Cox does not prejudge the issue, but notes that TQL will have a
very difficult time persuading the Court that the instant motion
was substantially justified.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Cox denied Defendant TQL's Motion
for Protective Order. She ordered the Defendant to respond to the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests within 14 days of the Order.
Judge Cox sets the following briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Sanctions: The Defendant's response brief is due Feb.
11, 2022; the Plaintiff's reply is due Feb. 25, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jahhhxc from
Leagle.com.
VACATIONS 4 YOU: Underpays Sales Representatives, Johnson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VACATIONS 4 YOU LLC and GREGORY MINOR,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00049 (M.D. Tenn., January 24, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a sales representative
from November 23, 2020 through December 5, 2021.
Vacations 4 You LLC is a company that provides travel agency
services, headquartered in Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Bennett Hunter, Esq.
Ashley Shoemaker Walter, Esq.
COLLINS & HUNTER PLLC
7000 Executive Center Drive
Building Two, Suite 320
Brentwood, TN 37027
Telephone: (615) 724-1996
Facsimile: (615) 691-7019
E-mail: anne@collinshunter.com
heather@collinshunter.com
ashley@collinshunter.com
- and –
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
VAIL RESORTS: Settles Labor Class Action Lawsuits for $13.1 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Duncan, writing for VailDaily, reports that Vail Resorts has
extended a $13.1 million offer to settle five wage and labor
lawsuits filed in California, a step that could have implications
for a similar lawsuit filed in Colorado and for anyone who has
worked on mountains owned by Vail Resorts in recent years.
The California lawsuits are similar in many ways to a putative --
or proposed -- class action lawsuit filed in Colorado District
Court back in Dec. of 2020. Both allege that Vail Resorts violated
state and federal labor laws in failing to pay reimbursements for
equipment, as well as compensation for time staff spent training,
in meetings or on meal breaks, getting on the mountain and gearing
up before shifts.
However, plaintiffs' attorneys in the suit filed in Colorado say
they would have asked for more than $13.1 million spread across a
class of 100,000 people, and they would have asked for policy
changes.
Vail Resorts called the settlement offer "appropriate and fair" in
an October statement and, in recently filed court documents,
attorneys for the California plaintiffs said it was an "excellent
monetary result" for eligible employees across the country.
One part-time ski instructor at Vail Mountain, however, said he
does not plan to cash his settlement check if and when the time
comes that he receives it in the mail.
"Obviously it's low, I mean, from my perspective," said Matt
Elston, who is also an inactive member of the California bar
association. "It really depends on how they view some of this stuff
going forward. Are they going to be paying for what they really
should be paying for going forward?"
The deal offers $13.1 million to "settle all claims" against Vail
Resorts, but upwards of $4.36 million in legal fees would be taken
off the top of this amount, according to court documents obtained
by the Vail Daily.
"The (legal fees) are in line with market rates, and are
appropriate under the percentage-of-recovery method," Jennifer Liu,
lead attorney for the California plaintiffs, said in a request for
preliminary approval of the settlement filed earlier this month.
All California plaintiffs agreed to this amount of legal fees,
according to the document.
Another $500,000 -- 3.9% of the settlement fund or "gross fund"
-- will go to complaints made using the Private Attorneys General
Act, and 75% of that ($375,000) will be paid to the California
Labor & Workforce Development Agency for assisting in facilitating
that process.
If the remaining $8.24 million were to be distributed evenly across
the 100,000 "class members," it would shake out to about $82 per
person.
"We do not comment on settlement details, and Vail Resorts believes
the settlement is appropriate and fair," Jamie Alvarez, director of
corporate communications for Vail Resorts, said in a written
statement provided to the Vail Daily in early October. "Moreover,
it is being submitted to a judge who will be asked to ensure that
it is fair and reasonable to everyone affected."
"We dispute the accuracy of the claims raised by the plaintiffs,
however, to avoid the time-consuming and costly nature of further
litigation, the parties involved have negotiated a tentative
settlement and will seek court approval to finalize and ensure the
outcome is a fair resolution to all," Alvarez said.
Vail Resorts and its attorneys have not responded to requests for
comment on the ongoing lawsuits since this statement issued
Oct. 5.
"A hundred bucks or less for past underpayment really doesn't cover
the damages," Elston said. "To me, the damages would be more than
that, but I think a lot of (ski) instructors would probably feel
like, 'Hey, if we improve things going forward, that's
acceptable.'"
What happens now?
The nature of the settlement offer is such that any and all
employees who cash settlement checks they receive in the mail give
up their legal rights to bring forward complaints of state or
federal labor law violations against Vail Resorts, specifically
those that occurred over the last three to four years depending on
which state they live in.
Some class action settlements require class members to "opt in" to
receive settlements, but this one requires that class members "opt
out" by filling out a form or by choosing not to deposit the check
they receive.
This method of opting into a settlement is known as a
"back-of-check release." The two parties chose to facilitate the
settlement in this way to encourage more participation, according
to the preliminary approval document.
"This approach will provide greater total compensation to the class
because participation rates are typically much higher with
back-of-check releases than when settlements are claims-made," Liu
wrote in the document.
This will also likely mean more people giving up their legal rights
to bring their own claims forward or join other lawsuits like the
one filed in Colorado.
"You get a check in the mail, what do you do? You cash it, right?
You don't necessarily read the fine print. You're like, 'Oh, Vail's
sending me 90 bucks, great,'" Elston said. "Particularly if (the
settlement) is covering people beyond California, they should have
to opt-in as opposed to opting out."
Typically, only about 15% to 30% of eligible "class members" opt in
to benefit from settlements reached in Fair Labor Standards Act
"collective" or class action lawsuits such as this one, according
to the preliminary approval document.
Where did this number come from?
To determine a reasonable settlement offer, the California
plaintiffs' attorneys first calculated the "maximum theoretical
damages" that eligible Vail Resorts employees could have incurred
over the three- to four-year time period covered by the
settlement.
The maximum theoretical damages -- the most money the company could
owe its employees if everyone opted in and all claims were proven
in court -- was calculated at $108.1 million.
This calculation assumed that "class members in snow positions
worked five unpaid hours per week, 25% of which was overtime,
missed three meal and rest breaks per week, and incurred $700 in
unreimbursed but required business expenses per year, and that
class members in non-snow positions worked 1.25 unpaid hours per
week, 25% of which was overtime, and missed two meal and rest
breaks per week," according to the preliminary approval document.
"The $13.1 million settlement therefore represents approximately
12.1% of the class's maximum theoretical damages," according to the
document.
Attorneys for Vail Resorts made it clear that they intended to
challenge many of the claims brought against them if the cases went
further into the litigation phase which, in the case of proposed
class action lawsuits, is often lengthy and costly for everyone
involved. Given this, both parties concluded that the $13.1 million
settlement would be "an outstanding result for the class."
"Plaintiff's counsel believes that the proposed settlement
represents an excellent monetary result for the class, particularly
in light of the risks of continued litigation," according to the
preliminary approval document. "This is not the opinion of merely a
single law firm. This is the collective conclusion of seven
different law firms, all of whom independently evaluated whether
the settlement was in the best interests of the class."
Jennifer Liu and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, the attorneys who filed
the preliminary approval papers on behalf of the California
plaintiffs, also did not respond to a request for comment.
A bit of background
Plaintiffs' attorneys in the proposed class action lawsuit filed in
Colorado -- also known as the Quint et al. case -- have argued that
the claims made in their case are stronger and could lead to a
larger settlement, according to court filings. If the California
settlement is granted final approval, it will hurt their case as
any employees who opt-in to the settlement will no longer be
eligible to join the Quint et al. case.
Edward Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston, attorneys for the plaintiffs
in the Quint et al. case, have declined to comment on the
progression of the lawsuits.
Dietrich and Galdston moved to intervene in the California
proceedings with an explicit intention to try to have the lawsuits
dismissed so their case can move forward instead, but a state court
judge issued a tentative ruling denying their request.
"I mean, it's expensive to do a class action suit, right? If you
shrink the class down to only people who have opted out or opted
not to cash a check they got in the mail, then your class is so
much smaller and it just may not have the economies of scale worth
pursuing it," said Elston, who has been looking into the lawsuits
filed in the two states.
In early November, a federal judge granted a motion filed by Vail
Resorts to pause the Quint et al. case while the California
settlement deal moves forward.
Dietrich and Galdston said the motion was part of a plan by Vail
Resorts to squash all the lawsuits for the least amount of money
possible and without having to change its compensation policies.
Earlier this month, the California plaintiffs' attorneys filed
preliminary approval papers outlining the settlement deal they
negotiated with attorneys for Vail Resorts in California state
court in El Dorado County.
Settlement negotiations began over the summer. Since then, a total
of five wage- and labor-related lawsuits filed in California were
consolidated into one case and moved into California state court.
It wasn't until early January that a settlement amount was made
public through the filing of the preliminary approval papers.
If approved, Vail Resorts has argued that settling the California
lawsuits should "resolve and release all outstanding claims against
Vail Resorts," including the Quint et al. case filed in Colorado.
The Quint et al. case "must be allowed to continue in order to end
Vail Resorts' egregious treatment of ski instructors and other
hourly employees," one of the Colorado plaintiffs in the case wrote
in a declaration opposing the motion to stay the case.
"They have already changed a few things, which I think is
positive," Elston said in a January interview. However, "what
they're trying to do, from my perspective, is they're trying to
make the changes on the books but hoping people don't really change
the practices of the way they're reporting their hours."
As an example, Elston said he recently asked his supervisor about
whether he can log the hours he spends reading company emails
outside of ski lessons. The supervisor informed him that he could
log that time on his timecard, but Elston said most of his fellow
instructors likely are not aware of this if they haven't directly
asked about it.
Vail Resorts also recently began allowing employees to log the time
it takes them to put on, and take off, their equipment in the
employee locker room at the start and end of each shift, which
resolves one of the claims made in the lawsuits filed against the
company.
However, they are only able to log the time it takes them to put on
their ski or snowboard gear, not the time it takes to don and doff
their snow pants and jacket, Elston said. Even this first piece
they are not able to record if they skied or snowboarded before or
after work, he said.
"So, the assumption is if someone doesn't record it, they must have
skied before or after work, but it could be that they just didn't
bother putting it down on the timecard because they didn't know
that we could start putting it down," Elston said.
"I really do think if you had competition, you probably wouldn't
have had the wages lawsuit because Vail would have had to compete
against someone else and they wouldn't have done some of these
practices that they got comfortable doing because they have no
competition and no regulation," he said.
Who is eligible to receive settlement funds?
If the deal is approved, remaining settlement funds (after the
deduction of fees) would be distributed between the "named
plaintiffs" -- the plaintiffs who filed the California cases -- and
the rest of the "class" outlined in the lawsuit.
Named plaintiffs will each receive $10,000 in settlement money,
except for plaintiff Anna Gibson who will be awarded $50,000 due to
additional claims she raised against the company.
"Separate from the (main settlement fund), the parties agreed to
settle Plaintiff Gibson's sexual harassment, gender discrimination,
and retaliation claims for $50,000," attorneys wrote in the
preliminary approval papers.
Attorneys and spokespersons for Vail Resorts did not respond to
questions from the Vail Daily regarding the settlement deal nor
Gibson's claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and
retaliation.
Eligible class members include "all non-exempt employees who, at
any time during the covered period, worked for and were employed by
Vail in the United States and worked primarily at one of its resort
locations or mountain facilities," according to the preliminary
approval papers.
The "covered period" begins in different years depending on the
state of employment and extends four years after that date for
California employees and three years beyond it for employees of any
other state.
The coverage period for Wyoming employees begins on October 21,
2010. For Vail Resorts employees employed in Indiana, Ohio,
Washington, Minnesota, Vermont, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Nevada, and Colorado, it begins on October 21, 2014.
For those employed in Missouri, it begins on October 21, 2015. For
those employed in California, Pennsylvania, and Utah, it is October
21, 2016. For people employed in New Hampshire, the date is October
21, 2017. For anyone else, the covered period begins on October 21,
2016.
Specifically excluded from the class are employees who worked
primarily at corporate or non-resort distribution locations.
How will the settlement funds be allocated?
The settlement funds will not be doled out evenly across class
members, but rather will use an "allocation formula" to determine
how much each employee should receive based on how long they have
worked for Vail Resorts, when and where they worked and the
position or positions they worked in.
The formula gives twice as many "points," and therefore a higher
share of the settlement, to current or former employees who worked
in "snow positions." This is defined as "all job titles for which
skiing and/or snowboarding was an essential function of the job"
and includes "Mountain Safety, Ski School, Lift Maintenance, Lift
Operations, Mountain Host, Mountain Dining, Snowmaking, and Epic
Mix."
This was done to "reflect the fact that plaintiff(s) alleged that
class members in snow positions spent significantly more time
traveling up and down the mountain, were subject to (putting on and
taking off equipment) on premises, and purchased ski and snowboard
equipment that should have been reimbursed," according to the
preliminary approval document.
Non-snow positions include Vail Resorts employees working in the
areas of "Base Area Operations, Food and Beverage, Lodging
Operations, Resort Operations, and Transportation."
Employees who worked in California and Colorado would also be given
a higher share of the goods for two reasons. First, "both
California and Colorado state law provide greater statutory
protections, and higher damages and penalties, than the other
(states)."
"Second, Vail's resort locations and mountain facilities in
California and Colorado are generally much larger than in the other
class states . . . and the named plaintiffs therefore alleged that
California and Colorado class members engaged in more uncompensated
travel time than in states with smaller resorts and facilities,"
according to the document. [GN]
WALMART INC: Lidocaine Products' Label "Deceptive," Bechtel Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY BECHTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00430-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Equate Maximum Strength Lidocaine Pain Relieving Patch and Equate
Maximum Strength Pain Relief Cream lidocaine products. The
Defendant's "Maximum Strength" representation is false and
deceptive because its products contain only 4 percent of lidocaine
compared to its competitors which contain 5 percent. The Plaintiff
and Class members were damaged because they would not have
purchased the products had they known the truth.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation, with
its principal place of business located at 702 S.W. 8th St.,
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Nick Suciu, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and –
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
WESTERN FLYER: Jackson Sues Over Truth-in-Leasing Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN FLYER EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00068-J (W.D. Okla., January 24, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Truth-in-Leasing
regulations.
According to the complaint, Western Flyer does not comply with the
requirements in the Truth-in-Leasing regulations with respect to
escrow funds pursuant to its Maintenance and Mechanical Breakdown
Program. Western Flyer does not return amounts deducted from
contractor drivers' earnings pursuant to the program after the
termination of their employment and those amounts do not accrue
interest, alleges the suit.
Mr. Jackson was a contractor driver for Western Flyer from
approximately July 2021 to November 2021.
Western Flyer Express, LLC is a trucking company, with corporate
offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Midlothian, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Ste. 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 221-7100
Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and –
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
[*] Queensland Lawyer Criticizes Australia's Class-Action Reform
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Wootton, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the Morrison government's class-action reform will leave
regional Australians worse off, is "a direct interference into an
already regulated industry" and should be "scrapped in its
entirety," a Queensland lawyer has told the Senate.
Senators across the political spectrum ordered the
Attorney-General's department to explain the constitutional basis
for the bill in committee hearings, in which Bundaberg-based lawyer
Tom Marland appeared.
Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has tried to claim public interest
immunity over sharing legal advice regarding why the government has
the constitutional right to legislate over class actions, and is
refusing to even reveal what heads of power she plans to rely on.
Under the proposed changes, the share of class action payouts that
litigation funders and lawyers could claim would be capped at 30
per cent and common fund orders would be limited.
Mr Marland, the principal of Marland Law, slammed the proposed
changes as overreaching and an example of the government
interfering with the courts.
"The bill is a direct interference into an already regulated
industry which has significant oversight by the courts," he said in
his submission to the Senate. It was "ironic" that a government
that "supposedly supports" free markets would propose such laws.
"It is not for the legislature and politicians, who have very
little practical or commercial understanding of how class actions
actually operate on a day-to-day basis, to seek to override a
process which is already working."
Costs and commissions
Mr Marland said the courts and judges were better placed than the
Parliament to decide what costs and commissions were reasonable,
given they could see the conduct of both parties during the case.
He warned that the bill would not improve payouts for plaintiffs,
as most class actions would no longer run because it was
commercially and practically unfeasible for lawyers and funders to
run cases for just 30 per cent of the damages awarded.
Marland Law is working on two major proposed class actions against
the Queensland government over its alleged mismanagement of
Paradise Dam and a Linc Energy gas plant.
Mr Marland said the bill risked the cases' viability, which would
leave "over 1000 landholders and farmers in Queensland without
recourse against the negligence of their own state government".
"Neither of these cases could be run without litigation funding, as
the financial risk placed upon an individual plaintiff, or even a
number of plaintiffs, up against a well-resourced and
taxpayer-funded state government is too much of a burden."
The parliamentary committee chaired by Andrew Wallace, the likely
next speaker of the house, supported the bill.
Although the Banksia Securities class action has been cited by the
government as proof that more regulation is needed -- that case had
lawyers Norman O'Bryan, SC, Michael Symons and Mark Elliott
overcharge the claimants $12 million -- Mr Marland said this
instead showed "a system already working in the best interests of
plaintiffs".
He pointed to the fact the lawyers were ordered to pay back the
fees, charged $10 million in costs, and that Mr O'Bryan and Mr
Symons were disbarred and faced criminal fraud investigations.
Mr Marland also noted that the bill did not incorporate proposals
put forward by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its
wide-reaching review of the class action industry in 2019, calling
for it to be thrown out.
"It is dumbfounding that almost none of the recommendations from
the ALRC report have been adopted in the current bill and, in fact,
the bill directly contradicts many of the recommendations," he
said.
"The fact that the . . . recommendations have not only been
completely ignored but in fact directly contradicted, without any
justification, is reason enough to scrap the bill in its entirety."
[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 ***