/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220204.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 4, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 20
Headlines
20 ST. WHOLESALE: Abreu Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Warehousemen
3M COMPANY: Desert Sun Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
9F INC: Motion to Dismiss Pending in N.Y. State Court
ACCOLADE INC: Robbins' Suit over Subscription Practices Pending
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court to Review Settlement in March
ALTO TRUST: Motion to Void Filed in Clements Consumer Contract Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANDIS COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APEX HUMAN: Lincoln Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Registered Nurses
AUXLY CANNABIS: KSM Securities Must Face Investor Class Action
B&B RARE BOOKS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BACK MARKET: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 22 Deadline
BASS & ASSOCIATES: Vespo Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
BESTNEST INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BETTY DAIN: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG IP OPCO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BODY & POLE: Johnson Sues Over Interns' Unpaid Wages
BOFI HOLDING: March 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BOWMAN BEAUTY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRADY TRUCKING: Howell Seeks OT Pay for Truck Drivers Under FLSA
BULL HORN: Najera Seeks OT Wages for Truck Drivers Under FLSA
BUMBLE INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 25 Deadline
BUND INC: Morales Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff Under FLSA
CARESOUTH CAROLINA: Mixon Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
CHARTWELL BOOKSELLERS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLARIVATE PLC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action Suit
CLARIVATE PLC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 25 Deadline
COLONEL'S LIMITED: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Hopkins Alleges
COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Candys Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Coe Files ADA Suit in D. Kansas
CYTODYN INC: Amended Securities Suit Pending in W.D. Wash.
DIAMOND JIM'S: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIRECT DELIVERY: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIRECT RECOVERY: Thomas-Lawson Files Suit in M.D. Florida
E.MERGE TECH: Assad Securities Suit Underway in New York Court
ELAP SERVICES: South Broward Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ENFORCERS PROTECTIVE: Underpays Security Guards, Kelly Suit Says
EOS USA INC: Snipes Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Chaidez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Tentative Settlement Reached in Data Breach Suit
FARMERS NATIONAL: Faces Delhunty Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Pa.
FASTLY INC: California Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
FCA US: Maugain Files Suit in D. Delaware
FORD MOTOR: Chimicles Schwartz Investigates EcoBoost Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Fuel Efficiency Class Action Set to Head for Trial
FRITO-LAY INC: Faces FLSA Montgomery Class Suit in N.D. Texas
GENERATION LOVE: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Bakhtiar Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
GOPRO INC: Chimicles Schwartz Investigates Potential Class Action
GREENS MART: Hazary Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GWJ COMPANY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HEZE LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Lucas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Linkenberg Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
KAJABI LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES: Mabra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KODA HOLDINGS: Pays Day Rate Without OT Pay, Reherman Suit Alleges
LA FLOR PRODUCTS: Dardarian Files Suit in E.D. New York
LABTOX LLC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LEVAIN BAKERY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Underway
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Feb. 24 Hearing on Class Status Bid
MANNA PRO PRODUCTS: Perry Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Heavy Metals
MITEK SYSTEMS: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NATIONAL GRID: May 12 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
NATIONAL SEATING: Young Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NAVIENT CORP: March 17 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
NEW YORK: Mayor Issues Emergency Executive Order Over Absenteeism
NORTH OKLAHOMA: Maendele Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: 401(K) Fee Class Action Suit Revived
OAK STREET: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 14 Deadline
OSI SYSTEMS: May 12 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PEPSICO INC: Boone Sues Over No Artificial Preservatives Label
PL DEVELOPMENTS: Faces Class Action Over "Non-Drowsy" Claims
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butler's Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
PWCC MARKETPLACE: Court Dismisses Latham Suit With Leave to Amend
QUEST GLOBAL: Faces Herblet Class Suit Over No Poach Agreement
RENT-A-DAUGHTER CORP: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Caregivers
SANGRIA 71 EAST: Santos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Labor Suit Pending in Nevada
SLATE HEALTHCARE: Dupre Sues Over Unpaid OT for Traveling Nurses
ST. JOSEPH RESIDENCE: Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
STANDARD LITHIUM: Gloster Sues Over 18.84% Decline of Stock Price
STAR BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Pretzels
TALKSPACE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TD BANK: Norville Consumer Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
TEITEL BROS: Faces Greene Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
THEODOROS VASILPOULOS: Surls Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
TILRAY INC: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
TILRAY INC: Stockholders' Suit Shelved Pending Investigation
TOSHIBA CORP: Robbins Geller Wants Court to Revive Class Action
U.S. SPECIALTY: Wiley Rein Discusses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Reed Class Suit Over Upfront Pricing
UDR INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tenants' Pool Usage
UNITED STATES: Navy Seals Sue Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
WASTE PRO: Harris Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
WASTE PRO: McCLoud Seeks to Recover Compensation Under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: Class Settlement in Ryder Suit Wins Final Approval
WESTJET AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Baggage Fees
ZACHRY GROUP: Settles Class Action Over 401(k) Plan for $1.9MM
[*] European Parliament Approves Class Action Directive
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paddock Ent. Will Fund $610MM Asbestos Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pulte and J&J Pays $325K to Settle Abatement Work
*********
20 ST. WHOLESALE: Abreu Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Warehousemen
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOLIVAR ABREU and ARMANDO GARCIA-CASTILLO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 20 ST.
WHOLESALE INC. d/b/a ON TIME BEVERAGES and/or 20 ST. WHOLESALE SODA
& BEVERAGES, KHALIL IBRAHIM, ABDELRAHMAN IBRAHIM, and YAHYA
IBRAHIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00495 (E.D.N.Y., January 27,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hour premiums, failure to provide accurate
wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiffs Abreu and Garcia-Castillo worked for the Defendants as
non-exempt warehousemen and delivery workers from August 2018 until
December 5, 2021 and from October 2020 until December 4, 2021,
respectively.
20 St. Wholesale Inc., doing business as On Time Beverages, is an
owner and operator of a wholesale beverage distribution business,
with its headquarters located at 186 25th Street, Brooklyn, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
3M COMPANY: Desert Sun Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
--------------------------------------------------------
Desert Sun Dairy LLC, Derrell Hanson, Dean Van Dam, Darren Hanson,
And Steve Hanson, and other similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY,
f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC.,
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD INC. CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz
Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor
in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DYNAX CORPORATION, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE- FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor in interest
to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, and TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP, individually and as successor in interest to The Ansul Company,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00180-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 20, 2022), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of
PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 397-1000
Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
acroner@napolilaw.com
planciotti@napolilaw.com
- and -
Randy Knudson, Esq.
DOERR & KNUDSON, PA
212 West First Street,
Portales, New Mexico 88130
Phone: (575) 359-1289
Fax: (575) 359-1898
Email: lawyers@yucca.net
9F INC: Motion to Dismiss Pending in N.Y. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
9F Inc. disclosed in its Registration Statement on Form F-1/A,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13,
2022, that a decision on the company's motion to dismiss action is
currently pending.
Beginning in September 2020, the company and certain of their
current and former officers, directors and others were named as
defendants in various putative securities Class Actions captioned
In re "9F Inc. Securities Litigation," (Index No. 654654/2020, N.Y.
Sup.), amended Complaint filed Dec. 7, 2020) and Holland v. 9F Inc.
et al.," No. 2:21-cv-00948 (D. N.J., January 20, 2021).
Both actions allege that defendants made misstatements and
omissions in connection with their initial public offering in
August 2019 in violation of the federal securities laws.
On April 21, 2021, the company has completed briefing on
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the State Court Action, and a
decision is currently pending. Both cases remain in their
preliminary stages.
9F Inc. is an internet securities service platform and technology
company based in Beijing.
ACCOLADE INC: Robbins' Suit over Subscription Practices Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accolade Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit is pending against PlushCare, Inc., a company
acquired by Accolade Inc., over its subscription payment
practices.
On May 8, 2021, a class action complaint "Robbins v. PlushCare,
Inc. et al." was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc.
The complaint alleges that certain of PlushCare's subscription
payment practices violate the California Automatic Renewal Law and
the Federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, among other claims,
arising from allegations that PlushCare failed to provide adequate
disclosures to members.
The lawsuit seeks restitution of subscription fees, statutory
damages for each violation, subject to trebling, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Under the terms of the
agreement to purchase PlushCare, the selling shareholders will
indemnify Accolade for losses related to this matter, subject to a
cap. As a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the
company has recorded a contingent liability and corresponding
indemnification asset in November 30, 2021.
Accolade Inc. provides personalized, technology-enabled solutions.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court to Review Settlement in March
---------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period December 4, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2022, that a
hearing is scheduled for March 2022 during which the court will
review for approval the settlement in a class action lawsuit.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled "Martin
v. Safeway" was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA.
On January 8, 2020, Albertsons commenced mediation discussions with
plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.
Idaho-based Albertsons Companies, Inc. operates a chain of grocery
stores.
ALTO TRUST: Motion to Void Filed in Clements Consumer Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled JACQUELYN O. CLEMENTS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTO
TRUST CO. and ALTO SOLUTIONS, INC. (d/b/a ALTOIRA), Case No.
2:22-cv-00062, the Plaintiff filed a motion with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico on January 27, 2022 to void
standard form consumer contracts with numerous unenforceable
disabling civil dispute clauses.
The Plaintiff filed her demand for consumer arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) on August 20, 2021 based on
several claims including replevin/conversion; breach of fiduciary
duty; gross negligence, negligence, and comparative negligence; New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act violations; breach of contract; and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Alto Trust Co. is a financial services company, with its principal
place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Alto Solutions, Inc., doing business as AltoIRA, is a software
company, with its principal place of business in Nashville,
Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradford Clements, Esq.
70 Rainey St. #1208
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (830) 992-9202
E-mail: Bac2007@caa.columbia.edu
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American
International Industries Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American
International Industries Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00827 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American International Industries -- https://www.aiibeauty.com/ --
is the leading manufacturer and distributor of innovative, quality
beauty and skin care products for men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ANDIS COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andis Company. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Andis Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00829
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Andis Company, Inc. -- https://andis.com/ -- is a leading designer
and manufacturer of electric clippers and other tools for
professional barbers and hair stylists.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
APEX HUMAN: Lincoln Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Registered Nurses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRET LINCOLN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEX HUMAN SERVICES LLC and MOHAMED SESAY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00341 (E.D. Pa., January 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated registered nurses
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Apex as a registered nurse beginning
in March 2019 and again from December 2019.
Apex Human Services LLC is a home health services provider, with
its principal place of business located at 332 Laurel Avenue,
Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Manes, Esq.
Prabhu Narahari, Esq.
MANES & NARAHARI, LLC
429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
Telephone: (412) 626-5570
E-mail: dm@manesnarahari.com
AUXLY CANNABIS: KSM Securities Must Face Investor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
KSM Securities Litigation Group on Jan. 24 disclosed that on
November 2, 2021, the Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court
denied Auxly Cannabis Group's motion to appeal the decision that
authorized an investor in a proposed class action styled as
Gowanlock v. Auxly Cannabis Group Inc., CV-19-00617136-00CP, to
proceed with a statutory cause of action pursuant to section 138.3
of the Ontario Securities Act.
The investor alleges that between November 12, 2018, and February
6, 2019, Auxly Cannabis Group Inc. (TSX: "XLY", OTCBB: "XLY", and
FRA: "3KF") released statements to the market that contained
misrepresentations by omitting that its cannabis production
facility it enjoyed an ownership interest with FSD Pharma, Inc.
(TSX: "HUGE") was materially behind schedule and that its
relationship with FSD Pharma Inc. was falling apart. The investor
further alleges that on February 7, 2019, Auxly Cannabis Group
released a statement that corrected the alleged misrepresentation
announcing that it was ceasing its relationship with FSD Pharma,
Inc.
The investor must amend the statement of claim to include the
statutory cause of action, certify the cause of action with common
issues for all investors, proceed into discovery of Auxly Cannabis
Group's books-and-records, and, ultimately, engage in a trial.
If granted class certification status, investors' shares purchased
between November 12, 2018, and February 6, 2019, will be protected
by this shareholder class action.
Please refer to our dedicated webpage for more information of this
shareholder class action at
www.investorcomplexlaw.com/auxly-cannabis-group-inc/
This notice is being released pursuant to section 138.14(a)(ii) of
the Ontario Securities Act.
Questions about this press release should NOT be directed to the
Court.
Contacts
Andrew Morganti
Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers, P.C.
info@investorcomplexlaw.com
(248) 787-6078 [GN]
B&B RARE BOOKS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B & B Rare Books Ltd.
The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. B & B Rare Books Ltd., Case No.
1:22-cv-00843 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
B & B Rare Books Ltd. -- https://www.bbrarebooks.com/ -- is an
antiquarian books dealer featuring rare first & signed editions,
plus collectible works.[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
BACK MARKET: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Back Market Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Back
Market Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00529 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Back Market -- https://www.backmarket.com/ -- is the leading
marketplace dedicated to refurbished devices.[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
BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (PRNewsfoto/Levi & Korsinsky, LLP)
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIDU)
between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Baidu, Inc. NEWS - BIDU NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: Goldman Sachs Group
Inc. and Morgan Stanley sold a large number of Baidu shares while
in possession of material non-public information. The defendants
knew that Archegos Capital Management would need to fully liquidate
its position in Baidu based on margin call pressures. The
defendants avoided billions in losses by selling the Company's
shares while in possession of this information. When the market
learned the truth about Baidu, investors suffered damages.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Viacom,
you have until February 14, 2022 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Baidu securities between
March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Its attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
BASS & ASSOCIATES: Vespo Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bass & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Vincent E. Vespo, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bass & Associates, P.C.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00175 (E.D N.D. Ohio, Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Bass & Associates -- https://www.bass-associates.com:8080/ -- is a
bankruptcy and collections law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Omar T. Sulaiman, Esq.
Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
BESTNEST INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BestNest Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BestNest Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00838
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bestnest Inc. -- https://www.bestnest.com/ -- is located in
Cincinnati, Ohio and is part of the Lawn and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BETTY DAIN: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betty Dain Creations,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Betty Dain Creations, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00835 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Betty Dain Creations -- https://bettydain.com/ -- is a Miami-based
beauty apparel and accessory powerhouse that designs and
manufactures products for the beauty professional.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BIG IP OPCO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big IP Opco, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Big IP Opco, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00834 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big IP Opco doing business as Babe Hair Extensions --
https://babehairextensions.com/ -- offer hand-crafted,
ethically-sourced, 100% human remy hair extensions for their
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BODY & POLE: Johnson Sues Over Interns' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON, REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v.
BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA JOHANNESEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022) is an opt-in collective action seeking
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and interest and attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
York Labor Law.
For years, Defendants have recruited unpaid interns for a so-called
"Work-Study Program," notes the complaint. Promising them an entree
into an exclusive profession, the Defendants coax their
"Work-Studies" into performing 15 hours a week (or more) of unpaid
janitorial, maintenance and clerical work. Defendants get their
interns to provide, for free, the labor that Defendants otherwise
would have to pay $15 per hour to hire, adds the complaint.
The Plaintiffs Meghan Piper Johnson, Rebecca Pardue and Rodenellie
Pluviose were all employed in the Work-Study Program. They each did
hundreds of hours of janitorial, maintenance and clerical work for
Defendants, but received no wages, the complaint says.
Body & Pole is a boutique fitness company in Manhattan that offers
classes in pole dancing and aerial fitness to the general public.
Its day-to-day operations are controlled by its founder, Defendant
Kyra Johannesen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
48 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 524-6001
E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
ag@g-s-law.com
BOFI HOLDING: March 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 15-cv-2324-GPC-KSC
Class Action
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
This notice is for all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the publicly traded common stock of BofI Holding, Inc.
(now known as Axos Financial, Inc.), as well as purchasers of BofI
call options and sellers of BofI put options, between September 4,
2013 through and including October 13, 2015.
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
YOU MAY BE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE A PART
OF THE CLASS, YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE WITH A WRITTEN
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California, that the above-captioned
action ("Action") against BofI Holding, Inc. ("BofI", now known as
Axos Financial, Inc.) and Gregory Garrabrants, Andrew J.
Micheletti, Paul J. Grinberg, Nicholas A. Mosich, and James S.
Argalas (collectively, "Defendants") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and
entities that are excluded from the Class as set forth in the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"). Lead
Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension System has been
appointed by the Court to represent the Class as the Class
Representative. By certifying the Class and issuing the Notice, the
Court is not suggesting that the Class Representative will win or
lose this case; the Class Representative will instead attempt to
prove its claims in proceedings that have not yet occurred.
Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing asserted in this
Action, and deny any liability whatsoever to any member of the
Class.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THIS LAWSUIT. The printed Notice is currently being mailed to known
Class Members. If you have not yet received a printed Notice, you
may obtain a copy from the website for the Action,
www.BofISecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Notice
Administrator at (888) 921-1538.
If you did not receive the Notice by mail, and you believe you are
a member of the Class, please send your name and address to the
Notice Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated
in connection with the Action, you will receive them.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:
Richard M. Heimann, Katherine Lubin Benson, and Michael K. Sheen
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 956-1000
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in BofI
securities. You will automatically be included in the Class, and
you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all
past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and do not wish
to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude
yourself from the Class.
If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class,
you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money that might
be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion postmarked no later than March 21, 2022, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the printed Notice. If at a
later date the parties decide to settle before trial, then you will
have another opportunity to opt out or exclude yourself from the
case. Absent settlement, however, you will not be able to exclude
yourself from the Class or subsequent orders and judgments if you
do not request exclusion in response to this notice. If you do not
exclude yourself from the class, regardless of the outcome of the
Action, you will not be able to sue Defendants -- as part of any
other lawsuit -- regarding the factual circumstances and legal
claims asserted in this case.
Please Do Not Call or Write the Court or the Defendants with
Questions.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]
BOWMAN BEAUTY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowman Beauty &
Barber Supply, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bowman Beauty &
Barber Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00836 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bowman Beauty & Barber Supply -- https://www.wbbarber.com/ -- is
one of the beauty and barber supply companies in the industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BRADY TRUCKING: Howell Seeks OT Pay for Truck Drivers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Howell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Brady Trucking, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00073-JHR-KK
(D.N.M., Feb. 1, 2022) is a civil action brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act ("FLSA") seeking
damages for the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek while working for the Defendant.
The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former oilfield truck driver employees who worked for Defendant and
who like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their
respective rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each
seven-day workweek for the time period of three years preceding the
date this lawsuit was filed and forward.
This civil action is also brought as a Rule 23 class action under
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") for Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated class members time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on February 15, 2018. The
Plaintiff stopped working for Defendant on December 5, 2019. The
Plaintiff was paid on commission totaling approximately $900 per
week.
Brady provides transportation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: Eimnmarbuckle@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
BULL HORN: Najera Seeks OT Wages for Truck Drivers Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Najera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bull Horn, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00074-KRS-CG (D.N.M.,
Feb. 1, 2022) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (the "FLSA") seeking
damages for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half
the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven-day workweek while working for the Defendant.
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiff files this
lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of
all similarly situated current and former oilfield truck driver
employees who worked for Defendant and who like Plaintiff, were not
paid time and one-half their respective rates of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek for the time period of
three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward.
This civil action is also brought as a Rule 23 class action under
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") for the Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated class members time
and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek.
The Plaintiff and the Class/Collective Action Members seek all
damages available under the FLSA and NMMWA, including back wages,
liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in August 2016 as a truck
driver in connection with its oilfield services company. His
primary job duties involve driving large trucks containing water or
oil. He stopped working for Defendant on April 2020. He was paid a
weekly salary of approximately $800.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
BUMBLE INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 25 seeking to represent
purchasers of Bumble Inc. (NASDAQ: BMBL) Class A common stock
directly in Bumble's secondary public stock offering which took
place on or about September 10, 2021 (the "SPO"). Commenced on
January 24, 2022, the Bumble class action lawsuit - captioned UA
Local 13 Pension Fund v. Bumble Inc., No. 22-cv-00624 (S.D.N.Y.) -
charges Bumble, certain of its top executives and directors, the
underwriters of the SPO, and Blackstone Group Inc. ("Blackstone")
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Bumble class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Bumble class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than March 25,
2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Bumble is an operator of two online dating
platforms: (i) the Bumble app; and (ii) the Badoo app. In February
2021, controlling shareholder defendant Blackstone took Bumble
public through an initial public offering in which Bumble raised
more than $2.4 billion from investors in gross offering proceedings
(the "IPO"). Following its IPO, Bumble claimed that it was
experiencing significant growth in its paying user count.
The Bumble class action lawsuit alleges, unbeknownst to investors,
during the third quarter of 2021 ("3Q21"), ending September 30,
2021, Bumble's previous favorable paying user growth trend had
abruptly reversed. Despite these adverse facts, on or about
September 10, 2021, just days before the end of its 3Q21, Bumble
undertook another registered public stock offering without
disclosing the problems plaguing its dating apps or the abrupt
slowdown in Bumble's paying user growth - allowing Blackstone to
sell 20.7 million shares of Bumble Class A common stock at $54 per
share, generating more than $1.1 billion in gross proceeds.
Specifically, the Bumble class action lawsuit alleges that the
SPO's registration statement contained inaccurate statements of
material fact because they failed to disclose that: (i) Bumble's
paying user growth trends had abruptly reversed in 3Q21 and Bumble
had actually lost tens of thousands of paying users during the
quarter; (ii) 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; (iii) 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
Bumble's transition of its payment platform; and (iv) as a result,
Bumble's business metrics and financial prospects were not as
strong as the registration statement had represented.
On November 10, 2021, Bumble announced its 3Q21 financial results,
disclosing that, rather than growing paying users, Bumble's total
paying user count had actually declined to 2.86 million, well below
Bumble's 2.9 million reported paying users as of June 30, 2021 as
highlighted in the registration statement. 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% from the SPO price.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Bumble Class
A common stock directly in the SPO to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Bumble class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Bumble class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Bumble class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Bumble class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
BUND INC: Morales Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Morales, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, v. The Bund Inc., David Kong, and Jim Nguyen, Case No.
1:22-cv-00512 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022) seeks unpaid wages from
defendants for overtime work for which the Plaintiff and other
current and former employees did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Morales further complains that he is entitled to back wages for
overtime work for which defendants willfully failed to pay overtime
premium pay as required by the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Plaintiff Marco Morales is an adult individual residing in Queens,
New York.
The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant in Queens that
operated under the name The Bund. Mr. Morales was employed at The
Bund from November 2020 through May 2021. Mr. Morales was employed
as a chef's assistant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 308-3444
E-mail: dstein@steinllp.com
CARESOUTH CAROLINA: Mixon Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Summer Mixon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CareSouth Carolina Inc., Case No.
2021-CP-16-00887 was removed from the Darlington County Court of
Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Jan. 28, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00269-RBH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
CareSouth Carolina -- https://www.caresouth-carolina.com/ -- is a
private, non-profit health and human services provider located in
the Pee Dee region of South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
Eric Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM LLC
32 Ann Street, Unit B
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Paul J Doolittle, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
23 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: paul@j-dlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Arthur E Justice, Jr., Esq.
Jon Rene Josey, Esq.
TURNER PADGET GRAHAM AND LANEY
PO Box 5478
Florence, SC 29502
Phone: (843) 662-9008
Fax: (843) 667-0828
Email: ajustice@turnerpadget.com
rjosey@turnerpadget.com
CHARTWELL BOOKSELLERS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chartwell
Booksellers, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Chartwell
Booksellers, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00844 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chartwell Booksellers -- https://www.chartwellbooksellers.com/ --
is a Stalwart bookshop focusing on the writings of Sir Winston
Churchill, plus other rare & new titles.[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
CLARIVATE PLC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Clarivate Plc ("Clarivate" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CLVT) in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Clarivate securities between February 26,
2021 and December 27, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until March 25, 2022 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Clarivate is an information services and analytics company.
On October 1, 2020, the Company acquired 100% of the assets,
liabilities, and equity interests of CPA Global, an intellectual
property software and tech-enabled services company.
Before and after its acquisition of CPA Global, Clarivate assured
investors of the core effectiveness of its financial controls and
procedures. For example, even after Clarivate disclosed in April
2021 that it had a material weakness in its financial controls
related to accounting for certain warrants issued in connection
with a 2019 business combination, the Company specifically cabined
the scope of that material weakness to its accounting for the
warrants at issue, while assuring investors that the remainder of
its controls and procedures were effective.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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.
On December 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that "[o]n December 22,
2021, Clarivate . . . concluded that the financial statements
previously issued as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020,
and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, and
September 30, 2021, should no longer be relied upon because of an
error in such financial statements[.]" Specifically, Clarivate
reported that "[t]he error relates to the treatment under U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles ('GAAP') relating to an
equity plan included in the CPA Global business combination which
was consummated on October 1, 2020 ('the CPA Global
Transaction')[,]" and that "[i]n the affected financial statements,
certain awards made by CPA Global under its equity plan were
incorrectly included as part of the acquisition accounting for the
CPA Global Transaction."
Later that same day, an hour before market trading hours closed,
StreetInsider.com published an article on Clarivate entitled
"Clarivate Plc (CLVT) PT Lowered to $29 at Stifel on Accounting
Error." That article reported, in relevant part, that "Stifel
analyst Shlomo Rosenbaum lowered the price target on Clarivate . .
. to $29.00 (from $32.00)" following the Company's disclosure that
"it discovered an accounting error related to equity awards that
CPA Global had issued under its equity plan." That article quoted
the Stifel analyst, who commented, in relevant part, that "[t]he
timing of this discovery is poor, less than a month after the prior
CFO left, though we are told that the items are not related, and
this error was discovered [,]" and that "[t]his error should not
impact Revenue, Adjusted EBITDA or Adjusted FCF [free cash flow],
but it is likely to impact the GAAP EBITDA and earnings, and the
reported FCF."
Following Clarivate's SEC filing and the StreetInsider.com article,
Clarivate's ordinary share price fell $0.16 per share, or 0.65%, to
close at $24.58 per share on December 27, 2021. As the market
continued to digest the SEC filing and StreetInsider.com article,
Clarivate's ordinary share price fell an additional $1.70 per
share, or 6.92%, to close at $22.88 per share on December 28,
2021—a total decline of $1.86 per share, or 7.52%, over two
consecutive trading days.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
CLARIVATE PLC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Clarivate Plc ("Clarivate" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CLVT; CLVT-PA) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-00394, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate
securities between February 26, 2021 and December 27, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by 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 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Clarivate securities during the Class Period, you have until March
25, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Clarivate is an information services and analytics company.
On October 1, 2020, the Company acquired 100% of the assets,
liabilities, and equity interests of CPA Global, an intellectual
property software and tech-enabled services company.
Before and after its acquisition of CPA Global, Clarivate assured
investors of the core effectiveness of its financial controls and
procedures. For example, even after Clarivate disclosed in April
2021 that it had a material weakness in its financial controls
related to accounting for certain warrants issued in connection
with a 2019 business combination, the Company specifically cabined
the scope of that material weakness to its accounting for the
warrants at issue, while assuring investors that the remainder of
its controls and procedures were effective.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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.
On December 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that "[o]n December 22,
2021, Clarivate . . . concluded that the financial statements
previously issued as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020,
and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, and
September 30, 2021, should no longer be relied upon because of an
error in such financial statements[.]" Specifically, Clarivate
reported that "[t]he error relates to the treatment under U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles ('GAAP') relating to an
equity plan included in the CPA Global business combination which
was consummated on October 1, 2020 ('the CPA Global
Transaction')[,]" and that "[i]n the affected financial statements,
certain awards made by CPA Global under its equity plan were
incorrectly included as part of the acquisition accounting for the
CPA Global Transaction."
Later that same day, an hour before market trading hours closed,
StreetInsider.com published an article on Clarivate entitled
"Clarivate Plc (CLVT) PT Lowered to $29 at Stifel on Accounting
Error." That article reported, in relevant part, that "Stifel
analyst Shlomo Rosenbaum lowered the price target on Clarivate . .
. to $29.00 (from $32.00)" following the Company's disclosure that
"it discovered an accounting error related to equity awards that
CPA Global had issued under its equity plan." That article quoted
the Stifel analyst, who commented, in relevant part, that "[t]he
timing of this discovery is poor, less than a month after the prior
CFO left, though we are told that the items are not related, and
this error was discovered [,]" and that "[t]his error should not
impact Revenue, Adjusted EBITDA or Adjusted FCF [free cash flow],
but it is likely to impact the GAAP EBITDA and earnings, and the
reported FCF."
Following Clarivate's SEC filing and the StreetInsider.com article,
Clarivate's ordinary share price fell $0.16 per share, or 0.65%, to
close at $24.58 per share on December 27, 2021. As the market
continued to digest the SEC filing and StreetInsider.com article,
Clarivate's ordinary share price fell an additional $1.70 per
share, or 6.92%, to close at $22.88 per share on December 28,
2021—a total decline of $1.86 per share, or 7.52%, over two
consecutive trading days.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
COLONEL'S LIMITED: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Hopkins Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIKKI HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLONEL'S LIMITED, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S
PIZZA, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00085 (E.D. Va., January 27,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
reasonably reimburse automobile expenses and its illegal
application of the tip credit in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver at
Papa John's Pizza store located in Dundalk, Maryland from April
2017 to April 2020.
Colonel's Limited, LLC, doing business as Papa John's Pizza, is an
operator of numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores, with its
principal place of business at 150 Elden St., Ste. 140, Herndon,
Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara Tighe, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
4250 North Fairfax Drive, Ste. 635
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: (571) 357-7598
E-mail: ttighe@forthepeople.com
- and –
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
JPavlos@forthepeople.com
COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Candys Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Psychiatry
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lashaunta Candys, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Psychiatry
Management, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00314705-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
Community Psychiatry -- https://www.communitypsychiatry.com/ --
improves access to exceptional mental health care in the
communities that serve across California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Coe Files ADA Suit in D. Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cross-Lines
Retirement Center, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Donald Coe,
Linda Smith, Edward Yost, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Cross-Lines Retirement Center, Inc., Young
Management Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02047-TC-ADM (D. Kan.,
Feb. 1, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cross-Lines Retirement Center is a retirement home in Kansas City,
Kansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Taylor, Esq.
Jenilee V. Zentrich, Esq.
Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
BELL LAW, LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (417) 631-8374
Email: at@belllawkc.com
jz@belllawkc.com
ms@belllawkc.com
bryce@BellLawkc.com
CYTODYN INC: Amended Securities Suit Pending in W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cytodyn Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2022, that an amended
complaint was filed by lead plaintiffs brought on behalf of an
alleged class of those who purchased the company's common stock.
On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington against Cytodyn and certain current and former officers.
The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as a
potential treatment for COVID-19.
On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021.
On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the
lawsuit. On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those
who purchased Cytodyn's common stock between March 27, 2020 and May
17, 2021.
The amended complaint generally alleges that Cytodyn and certain
current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
purportedly false or misleading statements concerning, among other
things, the safety and efficacy of "leronlimab" as a potential
treatment for COVID-19, the Cytodyn's CD10 and CD12 clinical
trials, and its HIV BLA. The amended complaint also alleges that
the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act
by selling shares of the Cytodyn's common stock purportedly while
in possession of material nonpublic information. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the case may
proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.
Cytodyn Inc. is a late-stage biotechnology company focused on the
clinical development and potential commercialization of leronlimab
(PRO 140), a CCR5 antagonist to treat HIV infection, and multiple
other potential therapeutic indications.
DIAMOND JIM'S: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Jim's Casino,
et al. The case is styled as Jose Zavala Diaz, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Diamond Jim's Casino, Wizard
Gaming, Inc., Case No. BCV-22-100250 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Diamond Jim's Casino -- https://diamond-jims-casino.com/ -- is a
casino in Rosamond, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara R. Yousif, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
DIRECT DELIVERY: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Delivery
Service Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jason Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Direct Delivery Service Inc., Does 1-100,
Case No. 34-2022-00314236-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Jan. 20, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Direct Delivery Service, Inc. (DDS Inc.), is a direct service
provider for Amazon Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
DIRECT RECOVERY: Thomas-Lawson Files Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Recovery
Services LLC. The case is styled as Amy Thomas-Lawson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Direct Recovery
Services LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00174 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Direct Recovery Services LLC --
https://www.directrecoveryservices.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency in Two Harbors, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
E.MERGE TECH: Assad Securities Suit Underway in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.Merge Technology Acquisition Corp. disclosed in its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
18, 2022, that a putative securities class action lawsuit is
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against E. Merge Technology Acquisition Corp.
On August 20, 2021, a purported stockholder of the company filed a
putative class action and derivative complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
E.Merge Technology Acquisition, the Sponsor, the company's
directors, executive officers and advisors, captioned "Assad v.
E.Merge Technology Acquisition Corp., et al.", (Case No.
1:21-cv-07072, S.D.N.Y.), alleging breach of certain provisions of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.
The Complaint generally asserts E.Merge Technology Acquisition is
subject to the Investment Company Act because, among other
allegations, the company invested the proceeds of its initial
public offering in securities of the United States government and
shares of money market mutual funds. Stemming from this assertion,
the complaint alleges that the contracts pursuant to which certain
Defendants purchased the company's securities and the company's
Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that
creates the rights of the Class B common stock violate the
Investment Company Act, and that certain of the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Investment Company Act by paying
themselves disproportionate "compensation."
The complaint also asserts that E.Merge Technology Acquisition
advisors breached certain provisions of the Investment Advisors
Act. The complaint generally seeks, among other things, a
declaratory judgment stating that the Company is an investment
company under the Investment Company Act and that the company's
advisors are investment advisers within the meaning of the
Investment Advisors Act and the Investment Company Act, rescission
of contracts whose formation and performance are alleged to violate
the Investment Company Act or Investment Advisor Act, enjoining the
conversion of any Class B common stock into Class A common stock,
and voiding and requiring the return of all Class B common stock,
awarding the company damages for all compensation paid to the
Defendants and awarding costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the action.
E.Merge Technology Acquisition Corp. is a company based in
Delaware.
ELAP SERVICES: South Broward Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as South Broward Hospital District doing business
as: Memorial Healthcare System, on its own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated healthcare facilities, Plaintiff; MBA
Benefit Administrators, Non-Party Petitioner v. ELAP Services,
Group & Pension Administrators, Case No. 2:21-mc-00677, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
Feb. 1, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-mc-60226-RAR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
ELAP -- https://www.elapservices.com/ -- is a leading healthcare
solution provider with 10 years of experience reducing employer
health plan costs with its metric-based pricing solution.[BN]
The Plaintiff and Petitioner are represented by:
Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq.
Eric Samuel Kay, Esq.
Frank Anthony Florio, Esq.
Gail Ann McQuilkin, Esq.
Michael Robert Lorigas, Esq.
Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Ste. 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 372-1800
Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
ekay@kttlaw.com
fflorio@kttlaw.com
gam@kttlaw.com
mlorigas@kttlaw.com
tjl@kttlaw.com
- and -
Danya Pincavage, Esq.
Douglas Wolfe, Esq.
Omar Mazien Ali-Shamaa, Esq.
WOLFE PINCAVAGE, LLP
2937 SW 27th Avenue, Suite 203
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (786) 409-0800
Email: danya@wolfepincavage.com
doug@wolfepincavage.com
Omar@wolfepincavage.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Irene Bassel Frick, Esq.
AKERMAN SENTERFITT
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-7333
Fax: (813) 223-2837
Email: Irene.Bassel@akerman.com
- and -
Irene Oria, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
199 E. FLAGLER ST., #550
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (786) 536-2838
Fax: (786) 536-2838
Email: irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com
- and -
Robert Thomas Wright, Jr. , Esq.
STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN
200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 310
Wachovia Financial Ctr.
Miami, FL 33131-2385
Phone: (305) 789-9337
Fax: (305) 789-9302
Email: RWright@stroock.com
ENFORCERS PROTECTIVE: Underpays Security Guards, Kelly Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENFORCERS PROTECTIVE SERVICE LLC and LANAR
BRISCOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00334-JPB (N.D. Ga., January
27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated security
guards overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard from
October 2017 through the present.
Enforcers Protective Service LLC is a limited liability company,
with its principal place of business located at 4361 Thorngate
Lane, Acworth, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
EOS USA INC: Snipes Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOS USA, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Brenda Snipes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EOS USA, Inc. doing business as:
EOS CCA, U.S. Asset Management, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00144-UNA
(D. Del., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
EOS -- https://www.eos-usa.com/ -- is one of America's largest
customer care and receivables management companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Chaidez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esurance Insurance
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Alfredo Felix Chaidez,
individually and on behalf of a, class of similarly situated
persons and the general public, as applicable v. Esurance Insurance
Services, Inc., Case No. CGC22597929 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 31, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. -- https://www.esurance.com/ --
is an American insurance company. It sells auto, home, motorcycle,
and renters insurance direct to consumers online and by phone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 925-300-4455
Email: jsmith@bursor.com
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Tentative Settlement Reached in Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Loudon, writing for The Daily Record, reports that a
settlement has been reached with Excellus Health Plan Inc.,
affiliate companies and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association in the
class action lawsuit resulting from a 2015 cyber-attack that led to
a data breach. [GN]
FARMERS NATIONAL: Faces Delhunty Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARISSA DELHUNTY and RENEE FOUST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF
EMLENTON, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00030-SPB (W.D. Pa., January
27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act, common law breach of contract, and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiffs Delhunty and Foust worked for the Defendant as branch
managers and mortgage loan officers in Pennsylvania at any time
between 2011 and 2021.
Farmers National Bank of Emlenton is a financial institution
offering personal and business banking and lending services, with
its headquarters at 612 Main Street, Emlenton, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 227-0763
Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
FASTLY INC: California Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY), the world's fastest global edge cloud
network provider, on Jan. 24 announced a complete dismissal of a
shareholder class action lawsuit and a related shareholder
derivative lawsuit.
In November 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed the shareholder class action
complaint, captioned In re Fastly Securities Litigation, in its
entirety. In light of this strong ruling in Fastly's favor, the
plaintiff abandoned their claims entirely and voluntarily dismissed
the case with prejudice, waiving their right to any and all
appeals. Similarly, the plaintiffs in the related shareholder
derivative lawsuit, captioned In re Fastly Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, voluntarily dismissed all claims and that
court terminated the action.
"From the beginning, we maintained our belief that these lawsuits
were without merit and committed to vigorously defending against
them," said Paul Luongo, Fastly's Chief Legal and Trust Officer.
"The order by the court and the subsequent voluntary dismissals
support and validate our position. We could not be more pleased
with the outcome."
About Fastly
Fastly -- https://www.fastly.com/ -- is upgrading the internet
experience to give people and organizations more control, faster
content, and more dynamic applications. By combining the world's
fastest global edge cloud network with powerful software, Fastly
helps customers develop, deliver, and secure modern distributed
applications and compelling digital experiences. Fastly's customers
include many of the world's most prominent companies, including
Pinterest, The New York Times, and GitHub. [GN]
FCA US: Maugain Files Suit in D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as Etienne Maugain, Louise Shumate, Denise Hunter, Harry
Reichlen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-UNA (D. Del., Jan.
28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
FCA US doing business as Chrysler -- https://www.chrysler.com/ --
is one of the "Big Three" automobile manufacturers in the United
States, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-4601
Email: rpaul@bm.net
FORD MOTOR: Chimicles Schwartz Investigates EcoBoost Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is investigating a
potential class action lawsuit related to reports that 2018-2019
Ford EcoSport vehicles equipped with 1.0L EcoBoost engines built on
or before April 3, 2019 may suffer from a defect which can result
in loss of engine oil pressure. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Fuel Efficiency Class Action Set to Head for Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a Ford
fuel efficiency class action lawsuit is set to head for trial after
a court ruling.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered the issuance of a
certification notice to individuals across Canada who purchased or
leased model year 2013-14 Ford vehicles, readying a class action
lawsuit targeting Ford Motor Company for trial.
Customers' filed the class action lawsuit against Ford in 2016,
arguing the company misled the public by making false and deceptive
statements regarding the fuel consumption of its model year 2013-14
vehicles, reports Law Times.
Customers' are seeking to represent a Class of both individuals and
corporations who purchased or leased the affected model year
2013-14 Ford vehicles.
Class Action Lawsuit Certified By Ontario Superior Court In 2018
The Superior Court certified the class action lawsuit in December
2018, reports Law Times. The certification notice will now give
potential Class Members the opportunity to opt-out of being part of
the complaint.
Customers, meanwhile, argue Ford's allegedly false statements
violated Ontario's Competition Act and Consumer Protection Act.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Ford in 2019 by
drivers who claim the company artificially inflated the fuel
efficiency on some of its trucks, in order to entice drivers into
purchasing the vehicles.
The plaintiff in that complaint claimed Ford would incorrectly
program the dynamometer used to test a vehicles' fuel efficiency in
order to make them appear more fuel efficient than they actually
were.
Ford US acknowledged that it was being investigated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission over its fuel efficiency
testing, according to the complaint.
Another class action lawsuit was filed against Ford in 2020 by a
customer claiming the company misrepresented the fuel economy in
some of its vehicles.
The plaintiff in the complaint also alleged the company installed
an emissions cheating device in its 2019 Ford Rangers and possibly
in its F-150 series trucks.
The plaintiffs are represented by Robins Appleby LLP and McKenzie
Lake Lawyers LLP. [GN]
FRITO-LAY INC: Faces FLSA Montgomery Class Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
STARR MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00185-G (N.D. Tex., January 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract and failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a product
packer in Dallas County, Texas from July 22, 2021 until the
present.
Frito-Lay, Inc. is a manufacturer of snack food products, with its
offices located in Dallas County, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
ROSS-SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
- and –
Steven R. Samples, Esq.
SAMPLES AMES PLLC
460 W Harwood Rd.
Hurst, TX 76054
Telephone: (214) 308-6505
Facsimile: (855) 605-1505
GENERATION LOVE: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generation Love LLC.
The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Generation Love LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00845 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Generation Love -- https://generationloveclothing.com/ -- offers
the best selection of effortlessly chic tees, tops, tanks,
sweaters, and essentials designed in New York City.[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
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Bakhtiar Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Golbenaz Bakhtiar, Michael Tomlinson, Jeffrey
Pisano, Ricardo Moron, Jonathan Ferguson, Richard Obrien, Michael
Galloway, Felicia Ball, Ronda Lockett, Teresa Dowler, Alberta
Griffin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Glaxosmithkline (America) Inc.,
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00323, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Feb. 1,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00149-UNA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC -- https://us.gsk.com/en-us/home/ -- produces
and distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tammy Smith, Gaylord Stauffer, Ronda Lockett,
Jerry Hunt, Jeffery Gunwall, Nicholas Hazlett, Jeffrey Pisano,
Rodriguez Hampton, Sr., in his personal capacity and as a guardian
for Rodriguez Hampton Jr., Teresa Dowler, Gloria Colon, Lynn White,
Michael Tomlinson, Dale Hunter, Gregory Alan Wayland, Felicia Ball,
Andy Green, Jr., Michael Galloway, Golbenaz Bakhtiar, Lisa Lyle,
Donald Northrup, Wendy Quezaire, Dennis Robbins, Lakisha Wilson,
Benny Fazio Alberta Griffin, Ricardo Moron, Richard Obrien, Randy
Jones, Charles Longfield, Ana Guzman, Julie Turner, Marianella
Villanueva, Earlene Green, Kathy Jeffries, Jonathan Ferguson, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Glaxosmithkline (America) Inc.,
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00316, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Feb. 1,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00148-UNA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC -- https://us.gsk.com/en-us/home/ -- produces
and distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN]
GOPRO INC: Chimicles Schwartz Investigates Potential Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is investigating a
potential class action lawsuit concerning issues with the GoPro
Hero 9 Max Lens Mod. Consumers are reporting that when they try to
install their Max Lens Mod, the lens does not fit and can
potentially cause damage to the GoPro. [GN]
GREENS MART: Hazary Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Jahidul Haque Hazary, Bazlur Rahman Bhuiyan, and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Greens Mart, Inc., Taufique Chowdhury,
Mohammed Romman Chowdhury, and Roksana Chowdhury, Case No.
4:22-cv-00339 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and straight-time wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Defendants own and operate gasoline stations and convenience
stores in the state of Texas, including the Exxon gasoline station
and convenience store doing business as "Greens Mart", located at 3
Greens Road, Houston, Texas.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours a week for the Defendants, yet they did not
receive overtime wages as the FLSA requires. Furthermore, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and Members of the
Plaintiff Class their straight-time wages for some of the hours
worked, it adds.
The Defendants engaged in a company-wide, and uniformly applied
policy that resulted in the willful non-payment of employees'
wages, asserts the complaint.
On November 6, 2020, the Defendants sold the Greens Mart Exxon.
Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class, thus, seek their
unpaid wages up until, and including, the date Defendants owned
and/or operated the Greens Mart Exxon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
430 W. Bell Street
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (713) 898-0982
E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com
GWJ COMPANY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GWJ Company. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. GWJ Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00517
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GWJ Company -- https://www.gwjcompany.com/ -- is a distribution
service in Bermuda Dunes, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HEZE LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heze LLC. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Heze LLC doing business as:
Hathaspace, Case No. 1:22-cv-00571 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Heze LLC doing business as Hathaspace -- https://hathaspace.com/ --
offers air purifiers and HEPA filters deliver cleaner air to your
space, filtering out harmful pollutants, allergens, and
pathogens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Lucas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CORRINE LUCAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00591 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2022) seeks relief for claims for
unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA") arising out work that the Plaintiff, and others
similarly situated, performed as employees of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated and continues to
violate the overtime provision of the FLSA by having a policy
and/or practice of not including all bonuses, commissions, and
other eligible remuneration earned by Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees in calculating their overtime pay rates. This
resulted and results in Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees receiving less overtime wages than they are entitled to
receive.
Th Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and members of the FLSA
Collective, seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre
and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all
relief allowed by law arising out of the Defendant's FLSA
violations.
The Plaintiff Lucas is a resident of Pennsylvania. From November 2,
2020 to January 26, 2022, Ms. Lucas worked for the Defendant as a
mortgage loan processor. She and similarly situated employees were
paid by Defendant's Melville, New York office.
The Defendant ICG is in the business of selling mortgage loans and
related products to consumers. The Defendant employs salespeople
who sell its products from inside Defendant's offices and/or from
inside the salespeoples' home offices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
mmoreno@vandallp.com
- and -
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Telephone: (434) 218-3133
Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com
- and -
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
ButlerCurwood, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Linkenberg Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Israel Linkenberg, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-00485-VB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://myjcap.com/ -- is a debt
collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
KAJABI LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kajabi, LLC. The case
is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kajabi, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00833
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kajabi, LLC -- https://kajabi.com/ -- provides software
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES: Mabra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keysight
Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Louis Mabra, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keysight
Technologies, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00314127-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
Keysight Technologies, or Keysight --
https://www.keysight.com/us/en/home.html -- is an American company
that manufactures electronics test and measurement equipment and
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
KODA HOLDINGS: Pays Day Rate Without OT Pay, Reherman Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JIM REHERMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KODA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a KODA RESOURCES, Case No.
1:22-cv-00129-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 28, 2022) is a collective action
complaint brought by Mr. Reherman and on behalf of all current and
former Company Men who worked for Koda Holdings and were paid a day
rate with no overtime compensation.
Reherman worked for Koda as a Company Man. He and the Putative
Class Members regularly worked for Koda in excess of 40 hours each
week. But Koda did not pay them overtime. Instead of paying
overtime as required by the FLSA, Koda improperly paid Reherman and
the Putative Class Members a daily rate with no overtime
compensation, the lawsuit says.
This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed to these workers.
Koda is a Denver based company focused on the acquisition and
development of oil and gas properties in the rocky mountain
region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rrustmann@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
LA FLOR PRODUCTS: Dardarian Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Flor Products
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Dardarian, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. La Flor Products
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00547-KAM-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
La Flor Products Company, Inc. -- https://www.laflorspices.com/ --
manufactures food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Email: ecf@shublawyers.com
LABTOX LLC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LABTOX, LLC, MOUNTAIN COMPREHENSIVE CARE
CENTER, INC., and KENNETH STEIN, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-00019-DCR (E.D. Ky., January 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for their 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 Kentucky Wage and Hour Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in
Lexington, Kentucky and Prestonsburg, Kentucky from September 2018
until July 2021.
LabTox, LLC is a company that operates a drug and molecular
diagnostic testing laboratory in Lexington, Kentucky.
Mountain Comprehensive Care Center, Inc. is an operator of
behavioral and mental health treatment facilities in Kentucky.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
- and –
Anne L. Gilday, Esq.
THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC
606 Philadelphia Street
Covington, KY 41011
Telephone: (859) 578-9130
Facsimile: (859) 578-1032
E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com
LEVAIN BAKERY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Levain Bakery Cookie
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Levain Bakery Cookie
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00521 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Levain Bakery, Inc. -- https://levainbakery.com/ -- retails baked
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2022, that the
parties to a consolidated securities class action lawsuit are
awaiting a New York court's decision on the defendants' motion to
dismiss.
The Defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned "Olivier Tremblay,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Loop
Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita and Nelson Gentiletti" and
"Michelle Bazzini, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita and
Nelson Gentiletti," was served on June 11, 2021.
On October 13, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned "Olivier Tremblay, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita,
and Nelson Gentiletti," Case No. 7:20-cv-0838
The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants
allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects, which caused the company's securities to
trade at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of Loop's securities
between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020.
On October 28, 2020, Loop and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a second proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned "Michelle Bazzini, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita,
and Nelson Gentiletti", Case No. 7:20-cv-09031-UA. The allegations
in this complaint are similar in nature to those made in the
Tremblay class action.
On January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York rendered a stipulation and order
granting the consolidation of the two class-action lawsuits filed
in New York as "In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master," File No. 7:20-cv-08538. Sakari Johansson and John Jay
Cappa have been appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP have been appointed as Co-Lead
Counsel for the class.
Plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint on February 18,
2021 which alleges defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly
failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Loop's
business, operations, and prospects, which caused the Loop's
securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
consolidated amended complaint relies on the October 13, 2020
report published by a third party regarding the Company to support
their allegations.
Defendants served a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 27, 2021. Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion
to dismiss was served on May 27, 2021 and Defendants' reply in
support of the motion to dismiss was served on June 11, 2021.
Quebec, Canada-based Loop Industries is in to chemicals and allied
products.
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Feb. 24 Hearing on Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 11, 2022, that a
Quebec court is slated to hold a hearing on February 24, 2022, to
consider granting class status to a securities lawsuit.
On October 13, 2020, the company, Loop Canada Inc. and certain of
their officers and directors were named as defendants in a proposed
securities class action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec
(District of Terrebonne, Province of Quebec, Canada), in file no.
700-06-000012-205.
An application for authorization of a class action and for
authorization to bring an action pursuant to section 225.4 of the
Quebec Securities Act was filed by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and a class of buyers who purchased the company's
securities during the class period.
Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants
allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and allegedly
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company's
technology, business model, operations and prospects, thus causing
the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated and thereby
causing plaintiff to suffer damages. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages stemming from losses he claims to have suffered as a result
of the foregoing.
On December 13, 2020, the Application was amended in order to add
allegations regarding specific misrepresentations. The
authorization hearing is scheduled on February 24, 2022.
Quebec, Canada-based Loop Industries is in to chemicals and allied
products.
MANNA PRO PRODUCTS: Perry Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manna Pro Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Toni Perry, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Manna Pro Products, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-00127-MTS (E.D. Mo., Feb. 1, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Manna Pro Products LLC -- https://www.mannapro.com/ -- manufactures
and markets animal feed products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave., Suite 304
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Heavy Metals
----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a number
of McCormick herbs and spices contain heightened levels of toxic
heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and cadmium, a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges.
Central to the 21-page suit against McCormick & Company, Inc. is a
November 2021 Consumer Reports piece that found that a number of
brands of herbs and spices were contaminated with toxic heavy
metals linked to cancer and other serious health issues. The
lawsuit, filed in California on January 18, contends that although
other companies in the industry have adapted to limit the levels of
heavy metals found in their herbs and spices, McCormick has "stood
idly by with a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and
well-being."
The specific McCormick products alleged to contain heightened
amounts of toxic heavy metals include the company's ground basil,
ground ginger, ground oregano, paprika, ground thyme and ground
turmeric. As the case tells it, the levels of heavy metals in the
foregoing McCormick herbs and spices "far exceed[] consumer
expectations."
According to the complaint, the harmful effects of heavy metals
such as lead, arsenic and cadmium are well documented, and include
the risk of children developing a lower IQ, behavioral problems
and/or other adverse health conditions. For adults, heavy metals in
even modest amounts can increase the risk of cancer, cognitive and
reproductive issues and other conditions, the case says.
With regard to the November 2021 Consumer Reports article, the
lawsuit states that 126 individual products from brands such as
Great Value, La Flor, McCormick, Penzeys, Spice Islands and Trader
Joe's were comprehensively analyzed. Per the case, roughly
one-third of the tested products, 40 in all, had high enough levels
of heavy metals to "pose a health concern for children when
regularly consumed in typical serving sizes," as well as for
adults.
"The authors cautioned that 'just one serving -- 3/4 teaspoons or
more -- per day leaves little room for heavy metal exposure from
other sources' including 'fruit juice, baby food, and rice[.]'
These latter food categories have also tested high for heavy metals
and have been the subject of numerous lawsuits."
The lawsuit says that although Consumer Reports determined that it
is possible for companies to limit the heavy metals found in their
products, McCormick nevertheless "fails to test for heavy metals,"
even though competitors do so.
"Accordingly, provided this industry standard, Defendant would have
had the knowledge that it could test for heavy metals, but it did
not, and that it could safely remove these metals from its herbs
and spice, but, again, did not," the complaint charges. "Instead,
Defendant chose to ignore the health of the consuming public in
pursuit of profit."
The suit alleges McCormick "intentionally and knowingly concealed"
the fact that certain herbs and spices it makes contain toxic heavy
metals, and knew that consumers would not buy the products had the
presence of heavy metals been disclosed on their labels.
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
have bought any of the McCormick herbs and spices listed on this
page. [GN]
MITEK SYSTEMS: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mitek Systems, Inc., Case No.
2021-CH-06319 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Jan. 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00349 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Mitek Systems, Inc. -- https://www.miteksystems.com/ -- is a
software company that specializes in digital identity verification
and mobile capture built on artificial intelligence
algorithms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: aheldut@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott T. Schutte, Esq.
Benjamin Kabe, Esq.
Gregory Thomas Fouts, Esq.
Michael W. Fakhoury, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 324-1773
Email: scott.schutte@morganlewis.com
benjamin.kabe@morganlewis.com
gregory.fouts@morganlewis.com
michael.fakhoury@morganlewis.com
NATIONAL GRID: May 12 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Liles, writing for Save Our Snopes, reports that in January
2022, Google users looked to find out if an email for a proposed
class action settlement for National Grid was a "scam or legit," as
readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the
subject line, "Notice of National Grid TCPA Settlement," and linked
to the website, NationalGridTCPASettlement.com.
This was a legitimate notice for a real class action settlement for
National Grid. The case was named, "Jenkins et al. v. National Grid
USA Service Company Inc., et al." The case number was listed as
15-cv-1219 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. "TCPA" stands for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
What's This About?
National Grid is a utility company. According to the settlement
website's FAQ page, "the lawsuit claims that National Grid and its
debt collectors made calls with automated dialers and/or
prerecorded or artificial voice messages to cellular telephones,"
and that these telemarketing actions were done "without the prior
express consent of the persons called":
Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violates the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. National Grid denies those allegations and
disputes that it did anything wrong.
Some of the calls at issue in the lawsuit were made directly by
National Grid, while others were made by debt collectors hired by
National Grid to collect utility debts that were allegedly past
due. Many of the calls were made to persons who are or were
National Grid utility account holders, but some calls were made to
persons who were not a National Grid account holder.
"National Grid" includes utilities operating in New York as KeySpan
Gas East Corporation, The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation; in Massachusetts as Boston Gas Company,
Colonial Gas Company (now part of Boston Gas), Massachusetts
Electric Company, Nantucket Electric Company; and in Rhode Island
as The Narragansett Electric Company.
Plaintiffs Jarrett Jenkins, Emmot Steele, Frances Royal, Danai
Ewan, and Charmaine Whyte filed the lawsuit against National Grid
and some of its affiliated companies about these issues.
The time period at issue in the settlement was from March 9, 2011,
through Oct. 29, 2021. The case has been around since at least
2017.
How Big Is the Settlement?
According to the National Grid TCPA settlement email notice and a
December 2021 article from JD Supra, a $38.5 million settlement was
reached.
How much will eligible participants be able to pocket? According to
the settlement website: "It is estimated by Class Counsel that
settlement payments will range between $50 and $150 per Settlement
Class Member, although the actual amount could be higher or
lower."
Claims must be submitted by May 12, 2022.
Who Is Eligible?
On the National Grid TCPA settlement website's FAQ page, it spelled
out how readers can tell if they would be eligible for funds from
the settlement.
"You are part of the Settlement Class if you reside in the United
States and received, a telephone call on a cellular telephone using
a prerecorded or artificial voice message from March 9, 2011, until
October 29, 2021, from the defendant concerning the items listed in
FAQ 3 above," the website said:
All persons residing in the United States who, from March 9, 2011
until October 29, 2021, received a telephone call on a cellular
telephone using a prerecorded or artificial voice message
concerning: (1) the payment or status of a current or past National
Grid utility bill or account; (2) an "important matter" concerning
a current or past National Grid utility bill or account; (3) a
disconnect notice concerning a current or past National Grid
utility account; (4) an invitation from National Grid to attend a
Customer Assistance Expo or to meet with or speak to the National
Grid Consumer Advocacy Group, National Grid Consumer Advocate, or
National Grid Credit Department; or (5) the availability of a
government assistance program, such as the Home Energy Assistance
Program (HEAP), to assist with payments to National Grid.
The email notice, as well as another recent settlement for a
company named Plaid, might have landed in some reader's spam
folders. For more details, visit the official National Grid TCPA
settlement website. [GN]
NATIONAL SEATING: Young Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Seating &
Mobility, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lan Nesha Shauntay
Young, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National
Seating & Mobility, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Does 1-10, Case
No. 34-2022-00314703-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 28, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil."
National Seating & Mobility, Inc. -- https://www.nsm-seating.com/
-- provides wheelchairs. The Company offers custom seating and
mobility systems for adults, teens, and seniors with severe trauma,
disease, and skeletal disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
NAVIENT CORP: March 17 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a
hearing in March to consider final approval of the settlement
reached in the case, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al v.
Navient Corporation et al., Case No. 16-cv-00112 (D. Del.).
On November 17, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed with the Court an
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and
Authorization to Provide Notice of Settlement. On November 22, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the deal and set a final
settlement hearing for March 17, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4A
before Judge Maryellen Noreika.
In December 2021, Judge Noreika entered an oral order terminating a
pretrial conference set for January 12, 2022, and a January 24,
2022 trial date in light of the pending settlement.
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Distribution Report
on Form 10-D for the distribution period from November 1, 2021 to
November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 10, 2022, that during the first quarter of
2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors,
and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings
(including certain of the initial purchasers) were sued in three
putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of
certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.
These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of
the consolidated case is "Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al."
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is in to backed securities based in
Virginia. Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions,
Inc.), is the administrator of its student Loan-Backed Notes.
NEW YORK: Mayor Issues Emergency Executive Order Over Absenteeism
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Jan. 24 issued Emergency
Executive Order 19.
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, the federal monitor in the Nunez
use-of-force class action stated steps must be taken immediately to
address the conditions in the New York City jails; and
WHEREAS, excessive staff absenteeism among correction officers and
supervising officers has contributed to a rise in unrest and
disorder, and creates a serious risk to the necessary maintenance
and delivery of sanitary conditions; access to basic services
including showers, meals, visitation, religious services,
commissary, and recreation; and prompt processing at intake; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing shortages
are affecting health operations, including the availability of
escorts to bring patients to the clinic and of DOC personnel to
staff the clinics; and
WHEREAS, this Order is given to address the effects of excessive
staff absenteeism and in order to address the conditions at DOC
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency existing within DOC facilities,
first declared in Emergency Executive Order No. 241, issued on
September 15, 2021, and extended most recently by Emergency
Executive Order No. 332, issued December 30, 2021, remains in
effect;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the laws of
the State of New York and the City of New York, including but not
limited to the New York Executive Law, the New York City Charter
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the common
law authority to protect the public in the event of an emergency:
Section 1. I hereby direct that section 1 of Emergency Executive
Order No. 15, dated January 19, 2022, is extended for five (5)
days.
Section 2. This Emergency Executive Order shall take effect
immediately and shall remain in effect for five (5) days unless it
is terminated or modified at an earlier date. [GN]
NORTH OKLAHOMA: Maendele Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Chavez Maendele, Dakota Wolfskill, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons v. NORTH OKLAHOMA COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER D/B/A NORTHCARE, Case No. CJ-2022-279 (D. Okla., Jan.
20, 2022), is brought for the Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII")
and personal health information (PHI) stored within the Defendant's
information network, including, without limitations, their full
names, social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and
their medical diagnoses.
With this action, the Plaintiffs seek to hold the Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiffs and over 127,000
other similarly situated Class members in the massive and
preventable ransomware attack that took place on May 29, 2021, by
which cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately
protected network servers where highly sensitive personal and
medical information was being kept unprotected (the "Data
Breach").
This PII/PHI was compromised due to the Defendant's negligent,
grossly negligent, and /or reckless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect PII/PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class Members. The
Defendant flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiffs' privacy and
property rights by intentionally, wilfully and recklessly failing
to take the necessary precautions required to safeguard and protect
the Plaintiffs' PII/PHI from unauthorized disclosure. The
Plaintiffs' PII/PHI were improperly handles, inadequately
protected, readily able to be copies but thieves and not kept in
accordance with basic security protocols. The Defendant's obtaining
of the information and sharing of same also represent and flagrant
disregard of the Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights both as to
privacy and property, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former patients of NorthCare.
The Defendant offers a variety of services for children, adults,
and families, designed to help patients recover from mental
illness, substance abuse, trauma or crisis to live a life in
recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Molly E. Brantley
FEDERMAN & SHEERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
meb@federmanlaw.com
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: 401(K) Fee Class Action Suit Revived
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille and Lydia Wheeler, writing for Bloomberg Law, report
that the U.S. Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against Northwestern
University Monday in a decision that may breathe new life into
dozens of lawsuits across the country that take aim at retirement
plans with poorly performing investments and excessive
recordkeeping fees.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court vacated an appellate
court's decision to toss out a lawsuit university employees brought
challenging the school's retirement plan fees and investment
lineup. The ruling is a boost for employees who argue that an array
of investment options isn't enough, and that retirement plans have
a duty to pick the most prudent fund options available.
The Supreme Court ruled plan fiduciaries must conduct their own
independent evaluation to determine which investments may be
prudently included in the plan's menu of options.
"If the fiduciaries fail to remove an imprudent investment from the
plan within a reasonable time, they breach their duty," Justice
Sonia Sotomayor said in the court's opinion.
Evaluation Needed
Jerry Schlichter, founding and managing partner of Schlichter
Bogard & Denton LLP which brought the case against Northwestern
University, called the court's decision a victory.
It reaffirms the already existing law as set by the Supreme Court,
"which is that fiduciaries and these plans must monitor every fund
in the plan and remove those that are imprudent," he said.
The justices were asked to consider a 2020 decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejecting the challenge
employees brought against the university under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act. The Seventh Circuit opinion
suggested that a plan fiduciary wouldn't be liable under ERISA for
offering bad or expensive funds if the plan also offers prudent,
inexpensive options.
The Supreme Court, however, said the appeals court erred in relying
on the participants' ultimate choice over their investments to
excuse allegedly imprudent decisions.
In a 2015 ruling, Tibble v. Edison International, Sotomayor said
that, even in a defined-contribution plan where participants choose
their investments, plan fiduciaries are required to conduct their
own independent evaluation to determine which investments may be
prudently included in the plan's menu of options.
"The Seventh Circuit's exclusive focus on investor choice elided
this aspect of the duty of prudence," she wrote.
The appeals court had dismissed the case on the basis that as long
as there's an array of investment choices that's enough. "Clearly
the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with that, and we have said
all along that just because an employer offers some prudent funds
doesn't eliminate the need for them to monitor all funds and remove
those that are imprudent," Schlichter said.
The justices sent the case back to the Seventh Circuit to
re-evaluate the allegations as a whole and consider whether the
employees have plausibly alleged a violation of the duty of
prudence as articulated in Tibble.
'Short, Sweet, and Pretty Clear'
Monday's decision provides guidance on what information retirement
plan participants must include in their complaints to move forward
with ERISA class actions challenging plan fees. These lawsuits have
exploded in recent years, with about 150 lawsuits filed in federal
court over the past two years and more than a dozen cases put on
hold while the parties awaited the Supreme Court's ruling.
Michelle Yau, a partner at Cohen Milstein who represents retirement
plan participants, said she appreciated how clear the court's
decision was.
"The decision was short, sweet, and pretty clear that the proper
focus for ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims is on fiduciaries'
actions," she said.
Even though it filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of
Northwestern in this case, the American Benefits Council said it
was pleased to see the court recognize that fiduciaries have to
make decisions that have difficult tradeoffs. Sotomayor said
"courts must give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a
fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise."
"There's a variety of things that go into selecting investment
funds, and cheaper isn't the only factor," said Lynn Dudley, senior
vice president of global retirement and compensation policy at ABC,
a trade group that advocates for employer-sponsored health,
retirement, and other benefit plans.
Sotomayor's statement provides some hope that judges will see there
are tradeoffs a fiduciary has to weigh, but showing those tradeoffs
will lengthen the litigation, said Chris Lockman, a partner and
fiduciary compliance attorney at Verrill in Portland, Maine.
"The beauty of the Northwestern decision was the court decided at
the motion-to-dismiss stage, before the litigation got really
expensive," he said, referring to the district court's decision
that the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
In a statement, Northwestern University said it's disappointed the
Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Seventh
Circuit, but is pleased the court asked the Seventh Circuit to
reconsider whether plaintiffs' allegations fail to state a claim.
"As Northwestern has explained, the University did not violate its
fiduciary duty with regard to the recordkeeping or the investment
fees related to its retirement plans, and nothing in the Court's
decision today prevents the Seventh Circuit from reaching that
conclusion in reexamining the allegations on remand," Jon Yates, a
spokesperson for the school, said via email.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the decision.
Latham & Watkins LLP represents Northwestern. Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC represents the Northwestern workers.
The U.S. solicitor general's office represents the government.
The case is Hughes v. Nw. Univ., U.S., No. 19-1401, 1/24/22. [GN]
OAK STREET: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Street Health, Inc. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Oak Street securities between August 6, 2020 and
November 8, 2021, (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/osh.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants failed
to disclose to investors: (1) that Oak Street maintained
relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke
law enforcement scrutiny; (2) that Oak Street was providing free
transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner
that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) that these
activities may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) that, as
such, Oak Street was at heightened risk of investigation by the DOJ
and/or other federal law enforcement agencies; (5) that, as a
result, Oak Street was subject to adverse impacts related to
defense and settlement costs and diversion of management resources;
and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/osh or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Oak Street
you have until March 14, 2022, to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
URL: http://bgandg.com[GN]
OSI SYSTEMS: May 12 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
CORY LONGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OSI SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:17-cv-08841-FMO-SKx
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT;
(II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; AND
(III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired OSI
Systems, Inc. ("OSI") common stock or 1.25% convertible senior
notes due 2022 (collectively, "OSI Securities") between
August 21, 2013 and February 1, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby ("Settlement Class")
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California ("Court"), that the
above-captioned action ("Action") has been provisionally certified
as a class action for purposes of settlement, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Final Approval
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses ("Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System and Defendants OSI, Deepak Chopra, Alan
Edrick, and Ajay Mehra have reached a proposed settlement of the
Action on behalf of the Settlement Class for $12,500,000 in cash
("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing ("Final Approval Hearing") will be held on May 12, 2022
at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United
States District Judge for the Central District of California,
either in person at the United States Courthouse, 350 W. 1st
Street, 6th Floor, Courtroom 6D, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by video
or telephonic conference as the Court may order, to determine,
among other things: (i) whether, for purposes of settlement, the
Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be appointed as class
representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be
appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class; (ii) whether
the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of October 22,
2021 ("Stipulation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court;
(iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; and (iv) whether
Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount
not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in
an amount not to exceed $200,000 should be approved. Any updates
regarding the Final Approval Hearing, including any changes to the
date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or
remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website
for the Settlement, www.OSISystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice and Claim Form in the mail, you
may obtain copies of these documents by: (i) contacting the Claims
Administrator at Longo, et al. v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al., c/o
A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173136, Milwaukee, WI 53217,
1-877-999-1997, info@OSISystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com; or (ii)
downloading them from the website for the Settlement,
www.OSISystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com, or from Lead Counsel's
website www.ktmc.com.
To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must
be a member of the Settlement Class and submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online via
www.OSISystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com, no later than May 11, 2022,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Settlement proceeds,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than March 28, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be submitted to the Court. Objections must be
received no later than March 28, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims
Administrator:
Longo, et al. v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al.
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173136
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-999-1997
info@OSISystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com
www.OSISystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com
DATED: January 24, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Central District of California [GN]
PEPSICO INC: Boone Sues Over No Artificial Preservatives Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN BOONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC. and THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00108 (E.D. Mo., January 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of
the Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Quaker products. The Defendants market the products as containing
"No Artificial Preservatives." Contrary to these representations,
the products contain the artificial preservative tocopherols. This
labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving
healthier Products that are free of artificial preservatives, but
the Defendants' products do not live up to these claims. The
Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the products
had they known that they contain artificial preservatives.
PepsiCo, Inc. is the parent company of The Quaker Oats Company,
with its headquarters located at 700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase,
New York.
The Quaker Oats Company is a food products manufacturer, with its
headquarters located at 433 W. Van Buren Street, Suite 3N, Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-5151
Facsimile: (314) 455-7375
E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com
- and –
Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-5151
Facsimile: (314) 455-7278
E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com
PL DEVELOPMENTS: Faces Class Action Over "Non-Drowsy" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims Ready In Case over-the-counter cold and flu
medicine is falsely promoted as "non-drowsy," even though it
contains an active ingredient known to cause drowsiness.
According to the 12-page case, defendant PL Developments Copiague,
LLC has marketed its Ready In Case medications as non-drowsy in
order to sell more of the products, and at higher prices. The
filing alleges that the non-drowsy representation displayed on
product labels is false and misleading given the medicine contains
dextromethorphan hydrobromide, a common side effect of which is
drowsiness.
The lawsuit explains that many consumers seek over-the-counter cold
and flu medications touted as non-drowsy when they want to feel
better yet remain active, especially for work, family obligations
or "a desire to maintain control of their senses." According to the
suit, the defendant has sought to take advantage of this desire by
labeling its Ready In Case cold and flu medication as "non-drowsy"
even though it contains dextromethorphan hydrobromide, a common
active ingredient in oral antitussive products that's known to
cause drowsiness, among other side effects.
The case alleges, however, that federal regulations prohibit
manufacturers such as PL Developments Copiague from making
statements on product labels that are "half-truths, misleading, or
false." Per the lawsuit, the "non-drowsy" representation for the
Ready In Case product has caused consumers to pay more for the
medicine than they otherwise would have had it been truthfully
advertised.
Moreover, consumers might not have purchased the Ready In Case
product, or would have paid less for it, had they known the
purportedly non-drowsy medication could cause drowsiness, the case
contends.
"The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by Defendant," the complaint
states. "Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices
than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers."
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in Michigan, Iowa, New York, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Arkansas,
Delaware, Wyoming, Virginia and Oklahoma who purchased the Ready In
Case cold and flu medication within the statute of limitations
period. [GN]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Butler's Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELANIE BUTLER and JOHN ROBINSON, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated class and collective action
members, Plaintiffs v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; DOES I through X, inclusive;
ROE CORPORATIONS I through X inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00861-JCM-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Application
for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement.
The Application for Preliminary Approval came before the Court,
Judge Mahan presiding, on Jan. 25, 2022. Having considered the
papers submitted in support of the application of the parties,
Judge Mahan granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and the
Settlement Classes based upon the terms set forth in the Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release between Plaintiffs and
Defendant filed therewith. The Settlement appears to be fair,
adequate and reasonable to the Classes.
Judge Mahan approved, as to form and content, the Notice of
Pendency of Class Action, Request to Opt Out Form, Proposed Class
Action Settlement, and Hearing Date for Court Approval. He approved
the procedure for the Class Members to participate in, to opt out
of and to object to, the Settlement as set forth in the Notice of
Pendency of Class Action.
Judge Mahan directed the mailing of the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement by first class mail to the Class
Members in accordance with the Implementation Schedule.
Judge Mahan ordered that the Settlement Classes are preliminarily
certified for settlement purposes only.
Judge Mahan confirmed (i) Plaintiff Delanie Butler as the Class
Representative for the Hourly Employee class, (ii) John Robinson as
the Class Representatives for the Salaried Employee class, (iii)
Hutchings Law Group, LLC as the Class Counsel, and (iv) Simpluris
as the Claims Administrator.
To facilitate administration of the Settlement pending final
approval, Judge Mahan enjoined the Plaintiff and all the Class
Members from filing or prosecuting any claims, suits or
administrative proceedings regarding claims released by the
Settlement unless and until such Class Members have filed valid
Requests for Exclusion with the Claims Administrator and the time
for filing claims with the Claims Administrator has elapsed.
Judge Mahan ordered the following Implementation Schedule for
further proceedings:
a. Deadline for Defendant to Submit Class Member Information
to Claim Administrator - June 14, 2022 [140 calendar days after
Order granting Preliminary Approval]
b. Deadline for Claims Administrator to Mail the Notice to
Class members - June 28, 2022 [14 calendar days after receipt of
Class information from Defendant]
c. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Requests for
Exclusions - July 28, 2022 [30 calendar days after initial mailing
of the Notice to Class Members]
d. Deadline for Receipt by Court and Counsel of any Objections
to Settlement - July 28, 2022 [30 calendar days after initial
mailing of the Notice to Class Members]
e. Deadline for Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Enhancement Award - Aug.
3, 2022 [7 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing]
f. Deadline for Counsel to File Declaration from Claims
Administrator of Due Diligence and Proof of Mailing - Aug. 3, 2022
[7 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing]
g. Final Fairness Hearing - Aug. 10, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.
h. Deadline for Defendant to Fund Settlement Account
maintained by Claims Administrator - Aug. 31, 2022 [21 calendar
days after Effective Date]
i. Deadline for Claims Administrator to wire transfer the
Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Class Counsel - Sept. 5, 2022 [5
calendar days after Defendant Funds Settlement Account] (if
Settlement is Effective)
j. Deadline for Claims Administrator to mail the Settlement
Awards to Class Members and the Enhancement Awards to Class
Representatives - Sept. 10, 2022 [1 day after Defendant Funds
Settlement Account] (if Settlement is Effective)
k. Claims Administrator to File Proof of Payment of Settlement
Awards, Enhancement Awards, Attorneys' Fees and Costs - Nov. 8,
2022 [90 calendar days after Effective Date] (if Settlement is
Effective)
l. Deadline checks paid to Claimants will remain valid and
negotiable - March 9, 2023 [180 calendar days from the date of
issuance]
m. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to release uncashed
funds back to the Defendant - May 1, 2023
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2rm6fnkx from Leagle.com.
Dana B. Salmonson -- dana.salmonson@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., in Las Vegas, Nevada,
Attorney for Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
PWCC MARKETPLACE: Court Dismisses Latham Suit With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY LATHAM, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PWCC MARKETPLACE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01381-MO (D. Or.), Judge Michael W. Mosman of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division,
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Latham's
complaint with leave to amend.
I. Background
Defendant PWCC sells trading cards online. Until recently, PWCC
sold cards through eBay, the auction website. But in August 2021,
eBay announced that it was restricting PWCC's selling privileges
due to "individuals associated with" PWCC having engaged in "shill
bidding." "Shill bidding" is when sellers -- or their agents --
place fake bids on their own auctions to inflate the price of the
product.
Plaintiff Latham is a former customer of PWCC's; he claims to have
bought several trading cards from PWCC, including an Eddie Collins
baseball card bought through an eBay auction in August 2020. Latham
brings the suit as a class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased goods from PWCC through an online auction."
Seeking recovery of actual damages and a statutory penalty, Latham
alleges PWCC's practices violated the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA"). Specifically, Latham brings this claim
under Or. Rev. Stat. Section 646.608(1)(v), which allows suit
against those who violate the requirements for auction sales
outlined in Or. Rev. Stat. Section 698.640. Of those restrictions,
Latham claims PWCC violated Or. Rev. Stat. Section 698.640(2)(d),
which prohibits auctioneers from "employing or using another person
to act as a bidder or buyer at the auction on behalf of the
auctioneer."
II. Discussion
A. Whether the Rule 9(b) Pleading Standard Applies
A pivotal question raised in the parties' briefing is whether
Latham's UTPA claim "sounds in fraud," triggering the heightened
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). PWCC argues that Latham's claim
is "grounded in fraud," because the "underlying premise of the
[c]omplaint aligns with the elements of fraud under Oregon law."
Latham, in turn, contends he has not alleged any fraud because the
UTPA provision he is suing under does not require him to show that
PWCC "made any misrepresentations."
Judge Mosman opines that Latham's UTPA claim alleges a course of
conduct that fits the elements of fraud. He alleges: (1) PWCC
orchestrated fake bids on its auctions; (2) PWCC did so
intentionally; (3) PWCC intended that members of the putative class
rely on those bids as valid reflections of price; (4) members of
the putative class justifiably relied on those shill bids; and (5)
members of the putative class were harmed as a result of that
reliance. Thus, even though Or. Rev. Stat. Section 646.608(1)(v)
does not require a plaintiff to prove a defendant committed fraud,
Judge Mosman find that Latham's complaint is grounded in fraud. As
such, Latham must meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule
9(b).
B. Whether the Complaint Meets Rule 9(b) Pleading Standards
Judge Mosman opines that in the face of the exacting standards of
Rule 9(b), Latham has little to defend himself. The complaint
alleges no specifics whatsoever. Instead, it makes a barebones
assertion that, based on eBay's sanctions against PWCC, it must
have engaged in shill bidding. But the complaint does not even go
that far: It fails to even allege that PWCC engaged in shill
bidding itself, instead opting to borrow the language from the eBay
announcement that "individuals associated with PWCC" did so. These
associated individuals could be employees or agents, but they could
also be those whose activities are completely unknown by PWCC. Most
importantly, for the purposes of Rule 9(b), they have no identity.
The complaint also lacks particularity regarding PWCC's alleged
shill bidding practices. Judge Mosman finds that Latham does not
allege how often the shill bidding occurs or even allege a single
specific instance where PWCC placed a shill bid. Though Latham
describes a specific trading card that he purchased from PWCC on
eBay, he does not claim that the price of the card was inflated by
shill bidding. This vagueness falls far below the requirements of
Rule 9(b) and is cause for dismissal.
However, because this is Latham's first bite at the apple and the
deficiencies of his complaint are of fact rather than law, Judge
Mosman will dismiss his complaint with leave to amend.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons given, Judge Mosman granted PWCC's motion and
dismissed Latham's complaint with leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mn6hyw8b from Leagle.com.
QUEST GLOBAL: Faces Herblet Class Suit Over No Poach Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY HERBLET, JOHN LEE, SAM GIAQUINTO, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA,
INC., BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC, CYIENT, INC., AGILIS
ENGINEERING, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., and RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, Case No.
3:22-cv-00180-SRU (D. Conn., Feb. 1, 2022) is a class action
complaint for damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust
laws of the United States against the Defendants.
The action challenges the no-solicitation and no-hiring agreement,
combination, or conspiracy between and among Defendants, pursuant
to which the Defendants agreed not to hire each other's engineers
and other highly skilled workers.
The Defendants are aerospace engineering firms. All Defendants
employ aerospace, mechanical, and civil engineers and other highly
skilled workers, such as, but not limited to, engineering
technicians, instrumentation technicians, quality technicians,
machinists, welders, and mechanics (Skilled Aerospace Workers).
According to the complaint, the no-poach agreements accomplished
their purpose. They reduced competition for the Defendants'
aerospace workers and suppressed employee compensation below
competitive levels. The Defendants also disrupted the labor market
and colluded against their current and former employees in order
not to compete for labor.
The Defendants' actions denied aerospace workers opportunities,
restricted mobility and wages, and deprived the workers of
information they could have used to negotiate better compensation,
the lawsuit says.
Mary Herblet is a resident of Portland, Michigan. She was employed
as a tooling analyst for QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc. from 2012
until 2019. Mrs. Herblet was injured in her business and property
by reason of the alleged No Poach Agreement, notes the complaint.
The Defendants are top participants in the aerospace industry.
There are currently 69,600 aerospace engineers in the United
States, its territories, and the District of Columbia and tens of
thousands of additional Skilled Aerospace Workers including,
without limitation, mechanical and civil engineers, engineering
technicians, instrumentation technicians, quality technicians,
machinists, welders, and mechanics.
The complaint alleges that beginning at least as early as 2011,
Pratt & Whitney orchestrated a no-poach agreement to prevent the
free movement of Skilled Aerospace Workers among Defendants.
Pratt & Whitney served as a leader and primary enforcer of the
no-poach agreement and did so through Mahesh Patel -- a manager and
later the director of the unit within Pratt & Whitney in charge of
managing relationships with Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LCC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 920-5362
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and -
Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
Connor P. Lemire, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
231 North Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
lmp@mccunewright.com
cpl@mccunewright.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Dana R. Vogel, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
drv@mccunewright.com
RENT-A-DAUGHTER CORP: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid OT for Caregivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIM ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-DAUGHTER CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00143-CAB (N.D. Ohio, January 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated caregivers overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio Rev. Code.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a caregiver in Ohio.
Rent-A-Daughter Corp. is a provider of home health care services,
with a principal place of business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
SANGRIA 71 EAST: Santos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUFINO SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANGRIA 71 EAST CORP. d/b/a SANGRIA 71
COMMACK, RVC EMPANADA CORP. d/b/a SANGRIA 71 ISLAND PARK, SPAIN
FOOD GROUP INC. d/b/a SANGRIA 71 WILLISTON PARK, JOSE FERNANDEZ,
and ROSENDO FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00497-JS-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., January 27, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hour premiums, failure to provide
accurate wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
Mr. Santos worked as a busser and food runner at Sangria 71 Commack
in New York from approximately September 2020 to October 2021.
Sangria 71 East Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant
under the name Sangria 71 Commack, located at 1095 Jericho
Turnpike, Commack, New York.
RVC Empanada Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under
the name Sangria 71 Island Park, located at 4585 Austin Boulevard,
Island Park, New York.
Spain Food Group Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant
under the name Sangria 71 Williston Park, located at 71 Hillside
Avenue, Williston Park, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Schlumberger
Technology Corp. will defend a potential class action alleging it
didn't pay overtime wages for oilfield drilling workers, as a
federal court in Texas said the company failed to show that the
plaintiff's work was exempt from overtime requirements.
Trevor Guilbeau worked as a directional driller whose primary job
duties centered on providing oilfield drilling services. Guilbeau
brought suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that his
typical workweek encompassed about 100 hours but he wasn't paid an
overtime rate for time worked over 40 hours. [GN]
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Labor Suit Pending in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging
violations of certain wage and hour laws.
On April 8, 2019, Corey Splond filed a class action lawsuit, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark
County, naming ShiftPixyy and its client as defendants, and
alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws. This lawsuit is
in the initial stages, and ShiftPixy denies any liability.
ShiftPixy, Inc. provides services on employment agencies based in
California.
SLATE HEALTHCARE: Dupre Sues Over Unpaid OT for Traveling Nurses
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER DUPRE and MELINDA WILSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SLATE HEALTHCARE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00264 (S.D. Tex., January 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated traveling nurses overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as traveling nurses.
Slate Healthcare LLC is a nursing services provider, with its
principal place of business located at 2100 West Loop South, Suite
900, Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES
3518 Travis, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 960-8300
Facsimile: (713) 621-6670
E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
ST. JOSEPH RESIDENCE: Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN SCHUELKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ST. JOSEPH RESIDENCE INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00112-WCG
(E.D. Wis., Jan. 28, 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 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 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.
The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including
but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional,
willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and
state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the suit.
In approximately March 2015, the Defendant hired Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Resident
Caregiver.[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
STANDARD LITHIUM: Gloster Sues Over 18.84% Decline of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GLOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STANDARD LITHIUM LTD., ROBERT MINTAK, and
KARA NORMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00507 (E.D.N.Y., January
27, 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 Standard Lithium's business, operations, and
compliance policies in order to trade Standard Lithium securities
at artificially inflated prices between May 19, 2020 and November
17, 2021. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the
LiSTR technology's extraction recovery efficiencies were
overstated; (ii) accordingly, the company's final product lithium
recovery percentage at the demonstration plant would not be as high
as the company had represented to investors; and (iii) as a result,
the company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Standard Lithium's common share price fell
$1.86 per share, or 18.84 percent, to close at $8.01 per share on
November 18, 2021, says the suit.
Standard Lithium Ltd. is a technology and lithium development
company, with principal executive offices located at Suite 110, 375
Water Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. [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
STAR BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Pretzels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action argues that Flipz white fudge-covered pretzels are
mislabeled given they contain neither the type nor amounts of
certain ingredients consumers expect to find in fudge.
The 21-page lawsuit in Illinois contends that Flipz maker Star
Brands North America has deceived consumers by failing to
adequately disclose that the fat content of the product's white
fudge coating is comprised almost entirely of non-dairy fats and
substituted vegetable oils. Although an older version of the Flipz
ingredients list identified the white fudge and its constituent
parts separately, the suit says, a newer one lists the ingredients
for the pretzels and their coating together, leaving consumers
unable to decipher which ingredients were used for which.
According to the filing, the "fudge" representation on the
pretzels' packaging leads consumers to expect that the product
contains ingredients "essential to fudge"—namely, sugar and dairy
ingredients.
Per the case, closer inspection of the Flipz ingredients list
reveals that the predominant fat component of the pretzels' white
fudge coating comes from palm kernel and hydrogenated palm oils.
Knowledge of this substitution of milkfat with vegetable oils would
be a critical factor in consumers' purchasing decisions, the
lawsuit relays.
"Whether a product contains fudge and/or ingredients expected in
fudge, is basic front label information consumers rely on when
making quick decisions at the grocery store," the complaint says,
alleging the value of Flipz white fudge-covered pretzels is
materially less than represented by Star Brands.
Milkfat is a central component of fudge, and the quality of fudge
depends on the amount and type of fat-contributing ingredients used
during production, the lawsuit says. Whereas dairy ingredients
impart to fudge a rich, creamy texture thanks to milkfat,
alternative, cheaper vegetable oils fail to melt at mouth
temperature and leave a waxy mouthfeel, the complaint reads.
Overall, the substitution of vegetable oils for milkfat will result
in a lesser quality fudge lacking the calcium and vitamins offered
by milkfat, the case relays.
The lawsuit says that by matching the ingredients found on the
earlier version of the Flipz ingredients list with those of the
current list, it is apparent that vegetable oils are the most
predominant ingredient by weight in the fudge coating.
The case looks to cover consumers in Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico,
Michigan, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia and Oklahoma who bought Flipz
white fudge-covered pretzels within the applicable statute of
limitations period.
On January 22, 2022, the same day the case detailed on this page
was filed, grocer Aldi was also hit with a proposed class action
that alleged consumers were misled by the "white fudge" description
found on its Choceur white fudge-covered pretzel labels. [GN]
TALKSPACE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Talkspace, Inc. (NASDAQ:TALK, HEC, HECCU,
HECCW) investors of record on May 19, 2021 with significant losses
and who were entitled to vote on June 17, 2021 regarding the
proposed merger between Talkspace with special purpose acquisition
company ("SPAC") Hudson Executive Investment Corporation ("HEIC")
to submit your losses now.
Class: TALK, HEC, HECCU, HECCW Holders of Record on May 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 8, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TALK
Contact An Attorney Now: TALK@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Talkspace, Inc. (TALK) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Talkspace, HEIC and certain of its top
executives and Board members made false and misleading statements
in their proxy statement to induce shareholders to vote in favor of
the SPAC merger.
Specifically, Defendants mispresented and concealed that Talkspace
was experiencing: (1) significantly increased online advertising
costs in its business-to-consumer ("B2C") channel since the start
of 2021; (2) lower conversion rates in its online advertising in
its B2C business; (3) increased customer acquisition costs and more
tepid B2C demand than represented to investors; and, (4) ballooning
customer acquisition costs and worsening growth and gross margin
trends.
In addition, Defendants overstated Talkspace's accounts receivable
from certain health plan clients in its business-to-business
channel.
The truth emerged through partial disclosures beginning on Aug. 9,
2021, when Talkspace blamed disappointing Q2 2021 financial results
on increasing customer acquisition costs and a sequential decline
in active members in the B2C channel.
Then, on Nov. 15, 2021, Talkspace reported dismal Q3 2021 financial
results reflecting slowing revenue growth, a lower number of
acquired customers in its B2C business, and an increased allowance
for credit losses.
Within a week, co-founders CEO Oren Frank, Head of Clinical
Services Roni Frank, and COO Mark Hirschhorn abruptly left the
company.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants
concealed known trends to induce shareholders to vote in favor of
the SPAC merger," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you invested in Talkspace and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Talkspace should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email TALK@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens BermanHagens Berman is a national law firm with eight
offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty
attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its
successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our
newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
TD BANK: Norville Consumer Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASMINE NORVILLE, individually and on behalf of 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 January 27, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-00416-KMW-AMD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract and
violation of the New York General Business Law by improperly
collecting overdraft fees on debit and/or credit card transactions
that should not have been assessed a fee.
TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank and subsidiary of the
Canadian multinational Toronto-Dominion Bank, headquartered in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
TEITEL BROS: Faces Greene Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
AKBAR ALI GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEITEL BROS, INC., doing business
as TEITEL BROTHERS WHOLESALE AND RETAIL GROCERY COMPANY; GILBERT
TEITEL; and EDWARD TEITEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00723
(S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hour premiums,
failure to provide accurate wage notices, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
Mr. Greene worked for the Defendants as a driver from 2014 through
December 29, 2021.
Teitel Bros, Inc., doing business as Teitel Brothers Wholesale and
Retail Grocery Company, is an owner of a wholesale and retail
grocery store business located in Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
THEODOROS VASILPOULOS: Surls Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyger Surls, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Theodoros Vasilpoulos, Case No. 1:22-cv-00755 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28,
2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor
Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff Surls was employed as a server, cashier, deliver person,
kitchen employee, and general worker at Defendant's diner located
at 89 B Canal St, New York. He was also employed as a general
worker at Defendant's mobile food truck ("Souvlaki Shack") from on
or around December 1, 2021 through and including December 21,
2021.
Defendant Theodoros Vasilpoulos is an individual engaging (or who
was engaged) in business within this judicial district during the
relevant time period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
TILRAY INC: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------
Tilray Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2022, that the Defendants
are looking to seek dismissal of the second amended class action
complaint.
On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
Tilray, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on behalf of
himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that Tilray and the
individual defendants overstated the anticipated advantages of the
company's revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group,
announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered
losses when Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an
impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020.
On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an Opinion
and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
in the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims
against Tilray and Brendan Kennedy. The Defendants intend to file a
motion to dismiss this amended complaint as well.
Tilray Inc. is a cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods
company headquartered in New York.
TILRAY INC: Stockholders' Suit Shelved Pending Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2022, that a Special
Litigation Committee (SLC) has successfully moved to have the
Plaintiff's discovery stayed during their investigation to
re-assert director control and investigate derivative claims.
On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader
Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled "Braun v. Kennedy," Case No.
2020-0137-KSJM. On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine
Bouvier, James Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action
and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled
"Bouvier v. Kennedy," Case No. 2020-0154-KSJM.
On March 4, 2020, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the
Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint. The operative
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, and Privateer
Evolution, LLC for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their
alleged capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and against
Kennedy, Maryscott Greenwood, and Michael Auerbach for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as directors
and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the prior merger of
Privateer Holdings, Inc. with and into a wholly owned subsidiary.
The complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream
Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and
that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their
fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger.
Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer
Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without
providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority
stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred
and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over Tilray.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims. On August 14, 2020, Tilray
and the Privateer Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. At the February 5, 2021 hearing on Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs agreed that their perpetuation of
control claims are moot and stated that they intend to move for a
fee award in connection with those claims. On June 1, 2021, the
Court denied Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
In August 2021, the company's Board of Directors established a
Special Litigation Committee (SLC) of independent directors to
re-assert director control and investigate the derivative claims in
this litigation matter. The SLC has appointed the law firm Wilson
Sonsini to assist the SLC with an ongoing investigation of the
underlying claim and determine whether continued prosecution of
such claims is in the best interests of the company. The SLC has
successfully moved to have the Plaintiff's discovery stayed during
their investigation.
Tilray Inc. is a cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods
company headquartered in New York.
TOSHIBA CORP: Robbins Geller Wants Court to Revive Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has once before resurrected a class action
by investors in Toshiba Corp's American Depository Receipts, in a
2018 decision reversing the case's dismissal. Now plaintiffs
lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd are counting on the
appeals court to bring the class action back from the dead for a
second time.
On Jan. 21, Robbins Geller filed a petition asking the 9th Circuit
for leave to appeal a Jan. 7 decision denying certification of a
class of Toshiba ADR investors. The filing argues that U.S District
Judge Dean Pregerson of Los Angeles ignored crucial facts and
misapplied the 9th Circuit's Toshiba precedent -- and that the
consequences of his errors could be dire for investors in newly
created ADRs.
The petition presents a nuanced issue that takes some explaining.
The Toshiba ADRs purchased by Robbins Geller's client, an
automotive workers' pension fund, were not actually issued by the
company. Instead, the securities were created by Citigroup Global
Markets Inc, a registered depositary institution, at the request of
Barclays Capital Inc. Barclays, in turn, was acting as a broker for
the pension fund's investment advisor, ClearBridge Advisors LLC.
When ClearBridge placed an order for Toshiba ADRs with Barclays,
Barclays purchased Toshiba common shares on the Tokyo Stock
Exchange, then delivered those shares to Citi for conversion into
the ADRs acquired by Robbins Geller's client.
Why do all of these details matter? Because the critical question
in the case is where the securities transaction took place. As you
surely recall, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2010's Morrison v.
National Australia Bank Ltd that investors may only sue in U.S.
courts over securities listed on U.S. exchanges or securities
trades that occurred in the U.S. The pension fund in the Toshiba
case did not purchase its ADRs on a U.S. exchange. So in order to
sue in the U.S., the fund had to show that its ADR transaction took
place in this country.
The 9th Circuit's previous Toshiba decision provided a test for
trial courts to use in deciding whether securities transactions
took place domestically or internationally. Adopting the 2nd
Circuit's "irrevocable liability" reasoning from 2012's Absolute
Activist Value Master Fund Ltd v. Ficeto, the 9th Circuit held in
the 2018 Toshiba decision that a securities transaction is located
"where purchasers incurred the liability to take and pay for
securities, and where sellers incurred the liability to deliver
securities."
After the appeals court returned the Toshiba class action to
Pregerson, the trial judge ruled in 2020 that investors had
adequately alleged the ADR deal took place in the U.S. Robbins
Geller's client argued that the entire transactions took place
here: A New York-based ClearBridge trader placed an order for
Toshiba ADRs with Barclays, and New York-based Barclays traders
confirmed the terms and executed the purchase. The pension fund
contended that it incurred irrevocable liability for the securities
when Barclays entered final execution of the ADR purchase on March
23, 2015.
Pregerson agreed in the 2020 decision denying Toshiba's dismissal
motion. But Toshiba's lawyers at White & Case refused to abandon
their contention that the real key to the ADR deal was not the
pension fund's agreement with Barclays to buy the ADRs, but was
instead Barclays' purchase on the Tokyo Stock Exchange of the
Toshiba common shares that Citi converted into ADRs. Without those
common shares, Toshiba said, there would have been no ADRs for
Robbins Geller's client to purchase -- so the irrevocable liability
for the securities, according to Toshiba, kicked in outside of U.S.
borders.
In a clever bit of repurposing, White & Case turned its
extraterritoriality argument into opposition to certification of
the Toshiba ADR investor class. Toshiba insisted that Robbins
Geller's client was not a typical class member because it had
acquired its ADRs in a foreign transaction. Moreover, Toshiba said,
the two sides needed a year of intensive discovery to establish the
facts of the pension fund's ADR deal. At the very least, the
company argued, that process showed that investors' ADR purchases
were too individualized for class treatment.
Pregerson agreed with Toshiba that the "triggering event" for the
pension fund's irrevocable liability was Barclays' purchase of
common shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchange -- a foreign transaction
that precluded the fund from acting as a typical class
representative. (The judge also denied certification of a class of
investors asserting claims under Japanese securities laws, holding
that issues of standing and damages methodology must be resolved in
summary judgment litigation before the class can be certified.)
In the Jan. 21 petition to the 9th Circuit, Robbins Geller argued
that Pregerson's decision ignored copious evidence that everyone
involved in the ADR deal - the pension fund, ClearBridge and
Barclays - considered it to have taken place in the U.S.
Pregerson's "triggering event" prerequisite, the petition said, is
nowhere to be found in either the Supreme Court's Morrison decision
or the 9th Circuit's previous Toshiba ruling. And if the 9th
Circuit allows the trial judge's interpretation to stand, the
filing warned, it will be fatal for ADR investors hoping to hold
corporate fraudsters accountable in U.S. courts, since every new
issue of ADRs begins with purchase of common shares on foreign
exchanges.
"Taken to its logical conclusion the district court's reasoning
would mean that all transactions in newly issued ADRs (whether
sponsored or not) are 'foreign' due to their origination via
'triggering events' in another country," the petition said. "That
ignores the factual realities of ADRs while contravening both the
Exchange Act's protections for American investors and SEC oversight
of ADRs."
The petition also argued that Pregerson's ruling runs afoul of
class action procedural rules because every Toshiba ADR held by
investors in the proposed class originated with the purchase of
Toshiba common shares, so the pension fund is actually a typical
class representative.
Toshiba counsel Christopher Curran of White & Case declined to
comment. Robbins Geller did not respond to a request for comment.
[GN]
U.S. SPECIALTY: Wiley Rein Discusses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Hart, Esq., of Wiley Rein LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
report that the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, applying California law, has held that an
exclusion barring coverage "in connection with a Claim" for
violation of the WARN Act barred coverage for a lawsuit alleging
breach of fiduciary duty against a company's officers and directors
for causing a mass layoff in violation of the WARN Act. Adelman v.
U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 6427920 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021)
The insured, a now-defunct company, laid off over 300 employees
before filing for bankruptcy. The former employees filed a class
action lawsuit against the insured company for violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). As
part of the settlement of that action, the class received an
assignment of the company's claims against certain officers and
directors. Subsequently, the class, as assignee of the company,
filed a lawsuit against the directors and officers for breach of
fiduciary duty for allegedly causing or allowing the layoff in
violation of the WARN Act. Upon settlement of that action, the
directors and officers assigned their claims for insurance coverage
for the lawsuit to the named class plaintiff. The named class
plaintiff sued the insurers as assignee of the directors and
officers, seeking a declaration that coverage was available for the
lawsuit. The insurers filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that
coverage for the lawsuit was barred under a policy exclusion
providing, in relevant part, that "the Insurer will not be liable
to make any payment of Loss in connection with a Claim: . . . for
any actual or alleged violation of any provision of [the WARN
Act][.]"
The court held that the exclusion barred coverage for the breach of
fiduciary duty lawsuit. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument
that the exclusion did not apply because the "employment claims"
and the "fiduciary duty claims" were not the same "claim." The
court explained that under California law, the exclusion's "in
connection with" language "does not import any particular . . .
theory of liability into an insurance policy," but rather the
language "broadly links a factual situation with the event creating
liability and connotes only a minimal causal connection or
incidental relationship." The court found that "[e]ach of [the
plaintiff's] claims rested on the assumption that the D&Os either
knowingly or negligently violated the WARN Act when they conducted
a mass layoff." Accordingly, "[b]ecause [plaintiff's] fiduciary
duty claims only exist due to alleged violations of the WARN Act,"
"the fiduciary duty claims were made 'in connection with' alleged
violations of the WARN Act," triggering the exclusion. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Reed Class Suit Over Upfront Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARCHEAL REED, SUSAN LEO KOPKO, and LINDA LIVINGSTON on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES
INC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00596 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2022) is a class
action on behalf of California, Pennsylvania and Illinois consumers
who used the Defendant's App, and were charged more than the price
they were quoted at the beginning of their ride (i.e. the "upfront
price") in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices, the
Consumer Protection Law, and the Illinois Consumer Protection.
The Defendant develops, markets and, facilitates the sale of shared
rides through its well-known Uber ride-hailing app ("the App").
Starting in 2016 and continuing through to today ("Class Period"),
the Defendant allegedly marketed its App as having Upfront Pricing
-- a feature Defendant claimed provided accuracy, transparency,
simplicity, and certainty to riders by notifying them of the total
cost of a ride prior to purchase. Unfortunately for consumers this
was and is untrue, as Defendant routinely overcharged consumers.
In a classic bait and switch scheme, under the so-called Upfront
Pricing, the Defendant promises consumers one price to entice them
to use Uber for transportation, to then surreptitiously charge the
consumers a highly price later, the suit alleges.
The Defendant was able to accomplish this scheme because it had
received the consumers' method of payment at or before the time
Uber gave consumers the upfront price, but then charged the
consumers' credit card or method of payment a higher price later
on. Indeed, many consumers were overcharged on their credit cards
and other payments methods and are unaware of it still to this day.
The Defendant's records, however, are able to show each and every
one of the overcharges during the Class Period, added the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring the claims seeking injunctive relief and
restitution.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
George V. Granade, Esq.
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
cmoore@reesellp.com
UDR INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tenants' Pool Usage
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Blake, writing for I Love the Upper West Side.com. reports
that the founding partner of a New York law firm has set his sights
on his own landlord - the New York Law Journal reports -- filing a
suit on behalf of the residents of Columbus Square, the luxury
rental complex on Columbus Avenue just north of 97th Street.
According to Manhattan attorney C.K. Lee, founder of Lee Litigation
Group, things are not going swimmingly at Columbus Square. He
alleges that the owners of the complex, UDR Inc., have a side
hustle going with a local swimming school, and are allowing swim
classes to take place during hours that should be available for
residents.
The lawsuit says Columbus Square tenants, who pay rents starting at
about $3,900 for a studio, are promised daylong use of the 70-foot
lap pool -- on weekdays from 6am to 10pm and on weekends from 7am
to 8pm. Only when they move in, claims Mr. Lee, do they find that
the pool is rented out to nonresidents for a large part of each
day. He says that local company SwimJim uses the pool most of the
day on weekdays from 10am to 6pm, and from 9am to 1pm on weekends,
during which time the pool is off-limits to residents.
The suit charges UDR with deceptive and unfair trade practices,
false advertising, fraud, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.
Mr. Lee argues that UDR owes millions, if not tens of millions
"over the six-year limitations period for breach of contract."
That's based on his calculations that the value of a private pool
membership in the city is at least $600 a month. In addition, he
wants the defendants to hand over to the residents all earnings
that they've received from the SwimJim deal.
Lee Litigation Group's class-action suits have been widely
publicized. It has specialized in "slack fill" suits, in which it's
sued major manufacturers for insufficiently filling product
containers. A suit was brought against Wise Potato Chips, for
instance, for selling oversized bags of chips with very few chips
inside. Starbucks was sued for not filling up its Frappuccino
bottles. The firm also filed a lawsuit over Pret A Manger's wrap
sandwiches, saying the "wrap was packaged with one inch of space
between two halves." This suit was settled.
The founding partner of a New York law firm has set his sights on
his own landlord -- the New York Law Journal reports -- filing a
suit on behalf of the residents of Columbus Square, the luxury
rental complex on Columbus Avenue just north of 97th Street.
According to Manhattan attorney C.K. Lee, founder of Lee Litigation
Group, things are not going swimmingly at Columbus Square. He
alleges that the owners of the complex, UDR Inc., have a side
hustle going with a local swimming school, and are allowing swim
classes to take place during hours that should be available for
residents.
The lawsuit says Columbus Square tenants, who pay rents starting at
about $3,900 for a studio, are promised daylong use of the 70-foot
lap pool—on weekdays from 6am to 10pm and on weekends from 7am to
8pm. Only when they move in, claims Mr. Lee, do they find that the
pool is rented out to nonresidents for a large part of each day. He
says that local company SwimJim uses the pool most of the day on
weekdays from 10am to 6pm, and from 9am to 1pm on weekends, during
which time the pool is off-limits to residents.
The suit (read here) charges UDR with deceptive and unfair trade
practices, false advertising, fraud, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.
Mr. Lee argues that UDR owes millions, if not tens of millions
"over the six-year limitations period for breach of contract."
That's based on his calculations that the value of a private pool
membership in the city is at least $600 a month. In addition, he
wants the defendants to hand over to the residents all earnings
that they've received from the SwimJim deal.
Lee Litigation Group's class-action suits have been widely
publicized. It has specialized in "slack fill" suits, in which it's
sued major manufacturers for insufficiently filling product
containers. A suit was brought against Wise Potato Chips, for
instance, for selling oversized bags of chips with very few chips
inside. Starbucks was sued for not filling up its Frappuccino
bottles. The firm also filed a lawsuit over Pret A Manger's wrap
sandwiches, saying the "wrap was packaged with one inch of space
between two halves." This suit was settled.
The firm has also gone after companies that represent their
products as being "natural" or having "no preservatives," and has
sued media companies under the ADA on behalf of the deaf, saying
their websites don't have captioned videos. Generally, the
defendants settle, most likely out of reluctance to bring attention
to their marketing practices. Lee Litigation is not always
successful, though: a federal judge once threw out a suit that
charged Advil with duping consumers by selling its product in
oversized bottles, saying that it "did not pass the laugh test."
Neither UDR nor Mr. Lee could be immediately reached for comment.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Navy Seals Sue Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brest, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that the law
firm representing the nearly three dozen Navy SEALs who
successfully sued the Department of Defense over the COVID-19
vaccine mandate has amended the complaint to make it a class-action
case.
First Liberty Institute altered the suit on Monday and noted that
should the judge rule in its favor, it would "protect every U.S.
Navy service member who requested a religious accommodation from
the vaccine mandate."
Judge Reed O'Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs earlier in
January, noting in a filing that "there is no COVID-19 exemption to
the First Amendment" and adding, 'There is no military exclusion
from our Constitution."
Mike Berry, general counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in a
statement, "Our clients are boldly leading the fight against the
vaccine mandate, but no service member should face discipline or
punishment for following their faith."
"The fact that the military continues to demonstrate hostility to
anyone who expresses religious objection to the vaccine mandate
shows that the Biden Administration does not care about religious
freedom," he added. "The lawsuit seeks to protect as many service
members as possible from further punishment. We have to put a stop
to this before any more harm is done to our national security."
The suit points out that the SEALs, all of whom are Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, "do not object to safety measures
that reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace."
Their religious beliefs prevent them from taking the vaccine
because they oppose the use of "abortion" and "fetal cell lines in
development of the vaccine," believe "that modifying one's body is
an affront to the Creator," have received "direct, divine
instruction not to receive the vaccine," and are opposed to
"injecting trace amounts of animal cells into one's body."
A Navy spokesperson declined to comment to the Washington Examiner
regarding the updated filing, saying the service branch does not
publicly discuss ongoing litigation.
The initial suit was not a challenge to the constitutionality of
the mandate itself. Rather, the plaintiffs were arguing that the
Department of Defense did not legitimately review their request for
an exemption on religious grounds.
There have been nearly 4,000 requests for a religious exemption
from active-duty and reserve sailors, and none had been granted as
of Jan. 19. Of these requests, 3,217 came from active-duty members,
while 764 were from the reserves. Twenty-two sailors, all of whom
were within their first 180 days of active duty, were separated
from the Navy for refusing the vaccine.
There are roughly 5,100 active-duty sailors who remain unvaccinated
long after the deadline, and this group amounts to less than 2% of
the total force of nearly 350,000.
More than 13,000 service members across the military have made such
requests, while only two Marines were able to receive the elusive
exemption.
The Department of Justice and the Pentagon previously declined to
comment on the litigation. [GN]
WASTE PRO: Harris Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY HARRIS v. WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-14045-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2022) seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff files this individual lawsuit to continue litigating
claims against Waste Pro after the previous collective action
Plaintiff opted in to was decertified.
Per the decertification order from the Southern District of
Florida, the Plaintiff has filed this individual FLSA action within
the 21 day period that the statute of limitations was tolled.
The Plaintiff is a Waste Disposal Driver for the Defendant who was
paid on a purported job/day rate for work performed.
According to the complaint, due to the Defendant's company-wide
policies and procedures, the Plaintiff was deprived of complete
overtime wages for all overtime hours actually worked.
Specifically, the Defendant did not pay a true day rate for any and
all hours worked in a given day, but placed limitations on the
number of hours worked before the "day rate" was paid, it adds.
Waste Pro provides waste disposal and recycling services to
residential and commercial clients throughout the state of
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5352
Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
WASTE PRO: McCLoud Seeks to Recover Compensation Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
BYTHYNEA MCCLOUD v. WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
6:22-cv-00207 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2022) seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff files this individual lawsuit to continue litigating
claims against Waste Pro after the previous collective action
Plaintiff opted in to was decertified. That case was captioned
Anthony Wright, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., and Waste Pro Florida, Inc., Case
No. 0:19-cv-62051-KMM, D.E. 291 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2022). Per the
decertification order from the Southern District of Florida,
Plaintiff has filed this individual FLSA action within the 21 day
period that the statute of limitations was tolled.
The Plaintiff is a Waste Disposal Driver for the Defendant who was
paid on a purported job/day rate for work performed. Due to
Defendant's company-wide policies and procedures, thr Plaintiff was
deprived of complete overtime wages for all overtime hours actually
worked. Specifically, Defendant did not pay a true day rate for any
and all hours worked in a given day, but placed limitations on the
number of hours worked before the "day rate" was paid, asserts the
complaint.
Additionally, Defendant paid annual and three year
non-discretionary bonuses, but failed to include these bonuses in
the calculation of the regular rate for overtime purposes, the
lawsuit says.
Waste Pro provides waste disposal and recycling services to
residential and commercial clients throughout the state of Florida.
The Plaintiff drove an assigned route to collect and dispose of
residential or commercial waste for Defendant's customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
pbotros@forthepeople.com
WELLS FARGO: Class Settlement in Ryder Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ETHAN RYDER et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-638 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S. Black
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued an order:
(i) granting the final approval of the Class Action
Settlement; and
(ii) awarding the Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fee and
litigation expenses, and service awards.
The Court held a fairness hearing on Jan. 25, 2022.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), Judge Black approved the Settlement
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to, and is in
the best interests of, the Plaintiffs and the Class. Accordingly,
the Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement is approved in
all respects and will be consummated in accordance with its terms
and conditions. The Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo are directed to
perform the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter and docket the judgment in the action.
Judge Black approved the Plan of Allocation as set forth in the
Settlement as fair and equitable. He directed the Class Counsel,
JND Legal Administration, and Wells Fargo to proceed with
processing and further administering the Settlement under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, including the Allocation of the
Settlement funds to the Class Members.
Having considered the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards, Judge Black approved (i)
the Class Counsel's requested fee award of $2,719,093, (ii) the
Class Counsel's requested reimbursement of litigation expenses of
$43,726.97, and (iii) the Service Awards proposed of $17,000 total
($5,000 to Ethan Ryder, and $2,000 each to Jose Aguilar, James
Chamber, Kimberly Duncan, Elizabeth Manley, Maureen Mann, and Viola
Thomas). The Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses reimbursed
will be paid to the Class Counsel as provided in the Settlement
Agreement. The $2,719,093.00 Fee Award will also cover the
additional time the Class Counsel will spend on the administration
of the Settlement. All payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses to the Class Counsel in the Action will be
made payable in the form and manner as stated in the Settlement
Agreement.
Wells Fargo is released and forever discharged from any and all of
the Released Claims. All Class Members are forever barred and
enjoined from asserting, instituting or prosecuting, directly or
indirectly, any of the Settled Class Claims in any court or other
forum against any of the Released Party. All Class Members are
bound by the Settlement Agreement and hereby are forever barred and
enjoined from taking any action in violation of the Settlement
Agreement.
Judge Black dismissed with prejudice the Action and all of the
Plaintiffs' claims against Wells Fargo. The Plaintiffs and Wells
Fargo will bear their own fees and costs.
The Order applies to all claims asserted in the Action. Judge Black
found, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just
reason for delay and expressly directs entry of judgment as set
forth. Accordingly, he found the Settlement fair, reasonable and
adequate, and granted final approval of the class action
Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3vurzrjp from Leagle.com.
WESTJET AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Baggage Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press report that the B.C. Court of Appeal has
dismissed WestJet's efforts to overturn the certification of a
class-action lawsuit on baggage fees.
The Calgary-based airline is alleged to have between September 2014
and March 2019 published two prices for checked bags, one that was
free and then charged passengers another that was higher.
WestJet ultimately amended wording in its domestic tariff to remove
that one checked bag will be free.
The class action based in contract law, unjust enrichment, and a
double-ticketing offence under the federal Competition Act was
certified in January 2021.
WestJet Airlines Ltd. and WestJet Encore Ltd. challenged
certification relating to the claim under the Competition Act, not
certification of the class in general.
In a ruling released on Jan. 21, Justice Robert Bauman wrote that
the plaintiffs' efforts are not "bound to fail" because the meaning
behind the alleged offence has not been "substantially developed."
[GN]
ZACHRY GROUP: Settles Class Action Over 401(k) Plan for $1.9MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Antonio Express-News reports that Zachry Group has agreed to
pay just under $1.9 million to settle a proposed class-action
lawsuit over the management of its 401(k) plan. The company
performed expansion work on Exxon Mobil's polyethylene plant in
Beaumont in 2019.
Most current and former employees of San Antonio engineering and
construction firm Zachry Group won't see a big windfall from a
settlement reached in a lawsuit over its retirement plan.
Zachry has agreed to pay about $1.9 million to resolve the dispute,
a settlement that still requires a San Antonio federal judge's
approval.
Lawyers for the four plaintiffs who filed the complaint in August
2020 as a proposed class action called the settlement a
"substantial recovery" for class members in a Friday court filing.
But the average settlement would work out to less than $100 if
every member of the proposed class -- which could exceed 16,000 --
participates. That's assuming the plaintiffs' lawyers receive a
third of the settlement, or $624,275, for attorneys' fees. The four
named plaintiffs also will each receive a maximum award of
$15,000.
Settlement proceeds are slated to be allocated on a pro rata basis
relative to the plan's losses attributed to each participant and
beneficiary's account.
The four plaintiffs, all former employees, alleged the company's
401(k) plan suffered "enormous losses" as a result of imprudent
investments and excessive fees.
"Zachry denies all of the claims in the lawsuit and believes that
at all times it acted prudently and in the best interest of plan
participants," the company said in an emailed statement.
On ExpressNews.com: San Antonio's Zachry Group sued over management
of 401(k) plan
An expert for the plaintiffs had calculated losses of about $13.6
million in present value after applying a "reasonable interest
rate," a court document indicates. The expert had calculated the
losses at about $8 million using a more conservative method.
In an email Monday, Philadelphia attorney Alec J. Berin, one of the
lawyers for the plaintiffs, said the settlement represents a
substantial recovery based on the plan's losses and the lawyers'
assessment of the range of potential recoveries in light of the
risks of litigation.
'Compares favorably'
"The litigation was contested vigorously and the settlement was
reached after extensive negotiations with the assistance of a
mediator," Berin said. "In our experience, the proposed settlement
compares very favorably with recent settlements in similar ERISA
litigation."
The suit was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, or ERISA, which provides protections for individuals in
retirement plans.
Similar lawsuits have been filed against other companies across the
country in recent years.
In 2019, San Antonio grocery store chain H-E-B was sued for
allegedly failing to monitor and control its plan expenses, "making
it one of the most expensive plans in the country with over $1
billion in assets," that suit said. H-E-B disputed the allegations
in the case, which has been stayed pending a judge's ruling on
various motions.
SA Inc.: Get the best of business news sent directly to your inbox
Zachry Group is one of two successors to H.B. Zachry Co., a global
construction company that reorganized into two entities in 2008.
Zachry Corp. is the other.
Zachry Group took over industrial projects in the power and
petrochemical sectors, industrial engineering and maintenance. It
has more than 20,000 employees in about 400 locations nationwide.
The lawsuit named Zachry Holdings Inc. as the lead defendant,
identified as the 401(k) plan sponsor and a fiduciary. The plan had
16,832 participants and $919 million in account balances and assets
at the end of 2019, according to an amended petition filed in
August. The plan ranks in the top 0.2 percent of all 401(k) plans
based on asset size.
Fidelity Management Trust Co. has served as the plan trustee.
Suit's allegations
The suit alleged that the plan offered "riskier and more costly"
actively managed target date mutual funds through Fidelity rather
than a suite of Fidelity index target date mutual funds with lower
expenses and risk.
"Active funds paid for the majority of the relevant period,
represents an annual cost to investors that is over eight times
higher than what shareholders of the corresponding Index fund pay,"
the suit said. "The impact of such high fees on participant
balances is aggravated by the effects of compounding, to the
significant detriment of participants over time."
The suit also cited excessive record-keeping costs. The $60 annual
administrative cost per person as of 2019 was 71 percent higher
than smaller plans, the suit said.
The plaintiffs' causes of action included breach of fiduciary duty
and failure to monitor fiduciary duties.
In a September court filing, Zachry disputed the allegations and
that the plaintiffs' claims were appropriate for class treatment.
Zachry sought to dismiss an amended version of the lawsuit, a
request denied in April by Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan
Ezra.
In September, the parties filed a motion to stay the case pending
mediation. Then, in November, they notified the court they had
agreed in principle to resolve the litigation. [GN]
[*] European Parliament Approves Class Action Directive
-------------------------------------------------------
Ladislav Storek, Esq., Pieter-Jan Aerts, Esq., Sara Biglieri, Esq.,
Tiberiu Csaki, Esq., Juraj Gyarfaš, Esq., Heiko Heppner, Esq.,
Peter Kubina, Esq., Thomas Nebel, Esq., Anna Maria Pukszto, Esq.,
Istvan Reczicza, Esq., Anouk Rosielle, Esq., Jose María, Esq.,
García Santos, Esq., Christine Sevère, Esq., and Gareth Steen,
Esq., of Dentons, in an article for JDSupra, report that on
November 25, 2020, the European Parliament approved DIRECTIVE (EU)
2020/1828 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on
representative actions for the protection of the collective
interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC
(Directive).
The Directive entered into force on December 24, 2020. Member
states were given 24 months to transpose the directive into
national law, and an additional six months to implement it. The new
rules will apply to representative actions that were filed on or
after the Directive's date of application. Therefore, we expect
these changes to be implemented starting from mid-2023.
This guide provides a picture of the status of implementation of
the Directive across major EU jurisdictions as at January 2022,
including the current collective litigation mechanisms in place in
these jurisdictions. It also describes what changes respective
governments are already doing to update the current legal regime
according to the indications provided by the European Parliament.
A copy of the full Guide is available at:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/class-action-in-eu-status-of-2147188/
[GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paddock Ent. Will Fund $610MM Asbestos Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paddock Enterprises, LLC, filed a Plan of Reorganization and a
Disclosure Statement after reaching a settlement with parent O-I
Glass, Inc., the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, and the Future Claimants' Representative that would
permanently resolving present and future Asbestos Claims.
The Plan Settlement, as incorporated into and fully embodied in the
Plan, reflects a global resolution of all key issues between and
among Paddock, O-I Glass, the Non-Debtor Affiliates, and the
holders of Asbestos Claims.
The Asbestos Trust will be funded with cash and securities totaling
$610 million, consisting principally of (a) $601.5 million in cash
delivered on the Effective Date and (b) a note (defined in the Plan
as the "Payment Note") in the principal amount of $8.5 million,
secured by a pledge (defined in the Plan as the "Pledge") of
one-hundred percent (100%) of the Equity Interests in the
Reorganized Debtor. The Asbestos Trust will be administered by one
or more Asbestos Trustees. On the Effective Date and pursuant to
the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court shall appoint the individuals
designated by the ACC and FCR and identified in the Asbestos Trust
Agreement to serve as the initial Asbestos Trustees. The ACC and
FCR have designated LeAnne Jackson, Allen Schwartz, and Hon. George
Silver to serve as the initial Asbestos Trustees. The Asbestos
Trust will assume sole responsibility for paying Asbestos Claims
and the expenses of the Asbestos Trust.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pulte and J&J Pays $325K to Settle Abatement Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Georgia-based property development corporation and its contractor
will pay up to $325,000 to settle allegations of illegal asbestos
abatement work during excavation and construction activities for
the development of a large-scale condominium complex in North
Reading, Attorney General Maura Healey announced today.
The consent judgments, entered in Suffolk Superior Court, settle
allegations that Pulte Homes of New England, LLC and J&J
Contractors, Inc. violated the state's Clean Air Act and its
regulations governing asbestos by causing or allowing excavation
work at the Lowell Road development where workers did not use
proper handling practices and did not properly secure asbestos,
impacted during excavation, for safe storage and disposal.
"These defendants put the health of their workers at risk when they
failed to take the proper safety precautions during this
construction project," AG Healey said. "Contractors and developers
who encounter asbestos during their work must comply with the law
and safely handle, store, and dispose of the material, and we will
hold accountable those who don't."
According to the AG's complaint, Pulte hired J&J as its contractor
for the construction, demolition, and subsequent redevelopment of
multiple large condominium buildings at the North Reading property.
The AG's Office alleges that despite reports that identified the
presence of underground utility lines and piping with thermal
system insulation – a friable asbestos – inside the pipes,
Pulte and J&J excavated the pipes and utility lines, breaking the
asbestos in to pieces. According to the complaint, Pulte and J&J
then piled the utility lines and piping at the site, which they
loosely covered or removed off-site without properly handling,
wetting, or storing. The AG’s Office further alleges that the
defendants stockpiled and processed, by screening or sifting, a
large pile of soil containing pieces of underground piping with
asbestos without taking precautions to minimize the release of dust
emissions from the soil pile containing asbestos. The complaint
alleges that the material contained numerous pieces of piping and
visible pieces of thermal system insulation.
"It is critically important that property owners, as well as
construction companies, identify asbestos-containing materials and
ensure that those materials are properly removed before beginning
any demolition or renovation, particularly near populated areas,"
said Eric Worrall, director of the Northeast Regional Office of the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).
"Asbestos is a known carcinogen and following the required work
practices is imperative to protect workers and the public."
Under the terms of the settlement, Pulte is required to pay
$175,000 in civil penalties and identify an on-site representative
who will be responsible for ensuring that any future asbestos work
is conducted in accordance with the Clean Air Act and asbestos
regulations. The settlement also requires J&J to pay $150,000 in
civil penalties, with $25,000 of that amount suspended pending
compliance with the consent judgment. Additionally, J&J is required
to submit to the state a sworn certification that each of its
employees who supervises or directs any construction, demolition,
or renovation activity at the site has successfully completed an
asbestos supervisor training course.
Asbestos is a mineral fiber that has been used in a wide variety of
building materials, from roofing and flooring, to siding and
wallboard, to caulking and insulation. If asbestos is improperly
handled or maintained, fibers can be released into the air and
inhaled, potentially resulting in life-threatening illnesses,
including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Asbestosis is
a serious, progressive, and long-term disease for which there is no
known effective treatment. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer
that is found in the thin membranes of the lung, chest, abdomen,
and heart, that may not show up until many years after exposure,
and that has no known cure, although treatment methods are
available to address the effects of the disease.
AG Healey has made asbestos safety a priority. In November 2019,
the AG's Office released a report, highlighting the work of her
office's "Healthy Buildings, Healthy Air Initiative." Since
September 2016, the AG's Office, with the assistance of MassDEP,
has successfully brought asbestos enforcement cases that together
have resulted in nearly $5.7 million in civil penalties.
*********
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 ***