/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220308.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 42
Headlines
20TH AVE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Martinez Class Suit Says
3M CO: Class Settlement Over Personal Injury Claims Discussed
3M COMPANY: Allan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Bowers Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Centonze Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Edwards Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Film
3M COMPANY: Engle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Watford Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Michels Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Treckman Class Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to D.S.C.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Harkless Sues Over Tainted Infant Formula
ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Infant Formulas
ABBOTT NUTRITION: Anastopoulo Files Suit Over Contaminated Formula
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal With Microsoft
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 18 Deadline
ADIDAS AMERICA: Inouye Sues Over Mislabeled Jersey Products
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Faces Toole Suit Over Alleged Share Price Drop
ALACER CORP: Court Strikes Cimoli's Nationwide Class Claims
ALPINE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, MacDonald Class Suit Says
APPLE INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Ruling
ARIEL COMMUNITY: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
BIMBO BAKEHOUSE: Brown Bread Not Made of Whole Grains, Suit Says
BROCK PIERCE: Must Face TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sternberg Suit Over SPAC Transaction
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 18 Deadline
C.H. ROBINSON: JMR Bid for Class Status Nixed without Prejudice
CABALETTA BIO: Faces Patterson Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Seeks Class Certification
CANDID CARE: Thomas Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action
CANTEX CONTINUING: Wallace Suit Seeks OT Pay for Medical Staff
CELEBRITY'S MANAGEMENT: Mitchell FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
CHULA VISTA: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Sartin Suit With Prejudice
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Faces Workers' Class Action After Cyber Attack
CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Files Bid for Class Certification
CUMBERLAND VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Optional Masking Rule
DELOITTE LLP: Gordon Ball Announces Securities Class Action
DOGFISH HEAD: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Struck in Contreras
DT EMPLOYER: Kraut Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Steam Line Failure
EL SEGUNDO, CA: Faces McDaniel Suit Over Discrimination, Harassment
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Smith Class Suit Over Rodent Infestation
FANATICS INC: Montrose Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to M.D. Fla.
FCA US: Court Adjourns March 11 Settlement Conference Deadline
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Averts Athletes' Antitrust Class Action
FIRSTCASH INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 15 Deadline
FLEET 18: Court Directs Parties to Consult Local Rule 3.02
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carrol Suit Seeks Class Certification
FREDDIE MAC: Breach of Contract Securities Suits Consolidated
GATOS SILVER: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 25 Deadline
GE CAPITAL CONSUMER: Belton Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
GEICO GENERAL: Partly Wins Bids to File Under Seal in Nichols Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Hackler Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Infotainment Systems
GETSWIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Case Management Hearing Set in March
GIRARD, OH: Legislation on Traffic Cameras Proposed Amid Class Suit
GRASS CLIPS: Fails to Pay Landscapers' Overtime, Cortez Alleges
GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Bid to Certify Eviction Class Partly OK'd
GRILL CREATIONS: Faces Stark Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HAIER US: Parties in Jones Suit Directed to Confer Deadlines
HALLMARK AVIATION: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Discovery in Elhassa
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Jason Sanders Loses Class Certification Bid
ILLINOIS: DoC Faces Class Action Over Prison Inhumane Conditions
ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Response in Werner Class Suit
INGALLS MEMORIAL: HIPAA Protects Worker Info, Court Finds in Mazya
INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Continuance of Class Cert. Filing Sought
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Wallace Seeks Briefing Schedule Approval
IT'SUGAR LLC: Fails to Comply FACTA, Hall Class Suit Alleges
J & J SAFETYMATE: Faces Kim Suit Over Store Clerks' Unpaid Wages
JAMES LEBLANC: Expert Reports Must be Submitted by March 4
JOHNS MANVILLE: Bid to Strike Chase Class Suit Junked
JOLO INC: Saad, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
JUST SALAD: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz Loses Bid to Certify Employees Class
JUUL LABS: Canastota Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Hermon-DeKalb Suit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Alpine School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: East Irondequoit Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Faces Worcester Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Fremont County Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Castleford School Claims
JUUL LABS: Renaissance Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Twin Falls Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho
KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John Bid to File Under Seal Information Nixed
KIM BIMESTEFER: Bid for Extension of Time to File Reply OK'd
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Deadline Extension Sought
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Bylaws Limit Stockholders' Rights, Kent Says
LINK SNACKS: Products Contain MSG, Schoolcraft Class Action Says
LVNV FUNDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod in Norton
MANHATTAN BEER: Sued Over Hidden 10-Cent Bottle Deposit Charges
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Suit Challenges Asset Forfeiture
MATCH GROUP: Benouis Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
MEIJER INC: Misleads Consumers Over Non-Drowsy Products, Moore Says
MERCEDES BENZ: Order on Class Certification Entered in Calabasas
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headrests
META PLATFORMS: Adult Entertainers File Suit Over Web Traffic
META PLATFORMS: Bid to Compel Layser to Produce Docs Nixed
MICHIGAN: District Court Dismisses Sanders Complaint v. MDOC
MORLEY COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Journagin Says
MSP RECOVERY: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Bids for Attys.' Fees in Milliner Suit Denied
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dickinson Wright Attorney Discusses Flores Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Discrimination Suit to Move Forward
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Says Race Played Role in Dolphins Firing
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: GM Comments on Decision to Hire Former Coach
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: May Face Dolphin Wagers Class Action Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Pittsburgh Steelers Hires Flores Following Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Stipulated Scheduling Order Entered in Smith
NCI GROUP: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Vacated
NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Extension for Discovery Deadline Sought
NETFLIX INC: City of Beaumont Mulls Lawsuit Over Franchise Fees
NEW MILLENIUM: Underpays Home Attendants, Joseph Class Suit Says
NEW YORK, NY: Living Conditions in Prison City Remain Abysmal
NISSAN MOTOR: Customers Set to Get Compensation in Cartel Suit
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Emergency Braking System
NISSAN NORTH: Bid for Leave to File Document Entered in Ayala
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Loses Bid to Strike Bennett's Class Claims
NORTH CAROLINA: Court to Hear Motorists' Class Action Settlement
NOTORIETY GROUP: Kuan Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 14 Deadline
OCTAPHARMA AG: Judge OKs $10M Fingerprint Class Action Settlement
OUTBACK CARE: Wrenn Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
PARTICIA COYNE-FAGUE: Ct. Tosses DeBritto's Bid to Certify Class
PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rombough Suit Claims
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Initial CMP Order Entered in Boyuk Suit
PHYSICIANS WEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
POOL SCREENING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Jenkins Says
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ: Wins Summary Judgment v. Talarico
PREMIUM RETAIL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Nixed w/o Prejudice
PRIMACARE PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Njoroge Suit Says
PSL ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 22
QG PRINTING: Seeks to File Response to Sims' Objections
QUALTEK RECOVERY: Ferguson Seeks Unpaid OT for Logistics Workers
QUEBEC: Faces Suit Over Underfunding of Nunavik's Child Services
RIPPLE LABS: Bid for Class Certification Due November 18
SAFEMOON: Celebrities Named in Illegal Crypto Scheme Class Suit
SALAS CONCRETE: Class Action Settlement in Cavazos Gets Initial Nod
SANTANDER BANK: Settlement Deal in Sanchez Suit Gets Initial Nod
SEKUNJALO GROUP: Faces Discrimination Class Suit in South Africa
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Renewed Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for March 28
SELECT MEDICAL: Filing of Dispositive Bid Allowed in FHPM Suit
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Judge Approved Final Settlement in FDCPA Suit
SETTON PISTACHIO: Ali Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
SGT ROCHA: Barfell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
SHOE SHOW: North Carolina Court Narrows Claims in Smith Class Suit
SONY INTERACTIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Majo Discrimination Suit
SR MANGO: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Najera Class Action Suit Says
STANDARD LITHIUM: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
STANDARD LITHIUM: Gross Law Firm Reminds of March 28 Deadline
STEWARD HEALTH: Bids to Dismiss Williams' 2nd Amended Suit Denied
SUNPOWER CORP: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
SUNPOWER CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 18 Deadline
SUNPOWER CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 18 Deadline
SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Kuznicki Law Reminds of April 18 Deadline
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TAMAR LICH: Court Freezes Freedom Convoy Cash Crypto Donations
TAMARA LICH: Freedom Covy Protest Ended Following Class Action
TASKUS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 25 Deadline
TESLA INC: Class Action Over Yellow Touchscreen Dismissed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: $420MM Settlement Hearing Set on June 2
TFORCE FREIGHT: Gonzalez Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Cal.
TUFIN SOFTWARE: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Violates Wage & Labor Laws, Diaz Suit Alleges
VOLVO CARS: Jenner Wins Leave to File Second Amended Class Suit
ZOOM VIDEO: California Pares Claims in Securities Class Action
[*] "Freedom Convoy" Protest Suit Will Likely Seek $300M Damages
[*] Australian Labor Party Talks About Class Action Reforms
[*] COVID-19 Tuition Refund Class Action Lawsuits Examined
[*] D&O Class Actions Still Major Concern for Companies, Insurers
[*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Trends
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss M&A Class Action Litigation
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Reached $3B in 2021
*********
20TH AVE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Martinez Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENE MARTINEZ and NEONEL ANTONIO PEREZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 20th AVE CW AND LUBE CORP, and
SILVERPOINT CAR CARE CENTER, INC., and JOSE BARREIRO, as an
individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-01050 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022) seeks
to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs'
employment with the Defendants.
As a result of the delineated violations of Federal and New York
State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. the
Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
3M CO: Class Settlement Over Personal Injury Claims Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------
whnt.com reports that a long-running lawsuit against 3M is near
resolution and involves more than 400,000 residents in six North
Alabama counties.
But it's not clear how many residents are aware of the settlement
terms, which generally bar most future claims against 3M, unless a
class member actively opts out by March 17.
Personal injury claims are not barred by joining the settlement,
but property damage, punitive damage and other actions will be
barred if the settlement is approved at a hearing in Morgan County
Circuit Court on April 21.
The case dates back to 2002 with a group of plaintiffs in the case,
St. John vs. 3M. Leon Ashford, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said
the case at one point focused on 3M plant worker health, but those
claims were tossed by the judge more than a decade ago.
The settlement that has been reached is part of a global agreement
that includes the federal Tennessee Riverkeeper lawsuit against 3M
and other chemical makers.
3M produced PFAs chemicals for years at its Decatur plant. The
chemicals don't break down in water and have been linked to a
number of health conditions. The settlements focus on cleanup
efforts 3M is to undertake in locations where PFAs waste was dumped
by the company over decades.
Trinity man charged with drug trafficking
3M is also under a consent decree with the State of Alabama's
Department of Environmental Management, which established
far-reaching cleanup requirements for the company. That agreement
was reached in July 2020.
The 3M lawsuit settlement reached last October includes an
agreement by the company to pay for new ball fields in Decatur, to
spend millions to clean up North Alabama properties contaminated by
its chemicals and resolve a class-action claim for residents. The
full settlement with Decatur can be read on the city's website.
For more information on the case and how the settlement will work,
click here. For questions about the settlement, click here. To read
the full settlement, click here.
Across North Alabama, it includes people in Colbert, Franklin,
Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, and Morgan counties.
Police capture Lacey's Spring man accused of stealing truck
440,000 people are identified in the class action. You may have
received a postcard or email, telling you about the settlement. In
this case, it pays to read the fine print.
Attorney Leon Ashford has been working on the 3M lawsuit since
2002. It's near resolution.
"As property owners or persons who have leased property in the
past, or lease property now, they all have potential claims for
contamination to that property by PFAS," said Ashford.
The postcards have gone out, but Lawrence County resident Brenda
Hampton, who's been trying to raise alarms about PFAS for years,
says people don't necessarily know what it all means.
"My phone has been ringing off the hook about these lawsuits,"
Hampton told News 19. "But the funny thing is, I think I told the
people, I think my letter should have been the first one to come
out the box, but I don't have one."
With the cards, a lot of people don't understand if they should
sign for it or it would knock them out.
The settlement includes around 5,000 acres in the region that have
had sludge applied on them. Those property owners are due $1,000
per acre.
Priceville opens first drive-thru coffee stand
Ashford warns people not to look for any additional payment in the
current settlement, stating, "an ordinary citizen who owns a house
or rents a house or has an acre of land is not going to be
receiving any compensation in this settlement."
"We are going to try and re-mediate the PFAS problem so there never
is any drop in value in those six counties for the PFAS that's
already there," Ashford continued.
If you believe you have a claim for property damages or other
damages, you only have until March 17 to opt-out of the settlement
to pursue your own claims. A court will consider those arguments at
a final settlement approval hearing set for April 21.
Huntsville attorney Mark McDaniel, who isn't involved in the
lawsuit, said residents need to consider their options now.
"I think we're talking about from April 21, 2003, to December 17th,
2021, that's your dates you're looking at there," McDaniel told
News 19. "Anybody who worked in this area, had an ownership
possessory interest, had a business anything, you're in that
class.
Hands-on training looking to relieve paramedic shortage
News 19 asked McDaniel to clarify the fine print. He stated, "If
you're going to start carving out, I'd talk to a lawyer about my
statute of limitations problem and my remedies problem, I would
talk to my lawyer about that, soon."
Ashford said if people think they have a problem with PFAS
contamination, they should reach out and he says the settlement
will have an impact.
"We are bringing 440,000 people along with us, to a resolution with
think is good for the environment, and all of the counties in North
Alabama, this is not a coupon settlement, this is not a token
settlement, this is not paying the residents up there a dollar to
make them go away," Ashford stated. "This is a settlement that
recognizes the profound impact that these chemicals have, and we're
trying to do something about it in the future." [GN]
3M COMPANY: Allan Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ALLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00617-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries allegedly sustained
by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Bowers Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST REX BOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00598-RMG
(D.S.C., February 25, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
the suit contends.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Centonze Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
William Centonze, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00470-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 14,
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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Larry Clark, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00472-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 14, 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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Edwards Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Film
------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Edwards, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00473-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 14,
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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Engle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Engle, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS,
INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX CORPORATION,
ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A., BASF
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba,
Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB
FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, 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 & 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., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., 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, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00498-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 15,
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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
dortega@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Watford Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDNYA WATFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00618-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his
training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the
Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees,
including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by
either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or
its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Michels Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Allen Michels, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00502-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 14, 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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Treckman Class Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to D.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIM TRECKMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.,
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P., THE ANSUL COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC.,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE FIREFIGHTING, INC.,
U.S. PUMP COMPANY, LLC, and WILLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00076, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on February 25, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-00601-RMG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and gross
negligence, strict products liability, and medical monitoring by
exposing the Plaintiff and similarly situated firefighters to a
harmful chemical called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
from the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products.
3M Company is a multinational conglomerate corporation and
designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of
firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at
3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a multinational conglomerate that
manufactures fire and security equipment, headquartered in Cork,
Ireland.
Tyco Fire Products, L.P. is a manufacturer of water-based fire
suppression system components and ancillary building construction
products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One
Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
The Ansul Company is a chemical manufacturing company headquartered
in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Firefighting, Inc. manufacturer of fire safety products,
headquartered in North Carolina.
U.S. Pump Company, LLC is a manufacturer of industrial fire
solutions, headquartered in Louisiana.
Williams Fire & Hazard Control is a fire protection equipment
supplier in Port Arthur, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Hodges, Esq.
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Jerry W. Mason, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
jmason@hftrialfirm.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Harkless Sues Over Tainted Infant Formula
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANDRIA HARKLESS individually and as the legal guardian of a
minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01097 (N.D. Ill., Feb.
25, 2022) is a class action complaint brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and a class compromised of all others similarly situated
to redress Defendant's numerous unfair and deceptive acts and
practices designed to mislead the public in connection with their
promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling,
distribution and/or sale of Similac Infant Formula.
The Similac Infant Formula includes Similac (TM), Alimentum (TM)
and EleCare (TM) products which Defendants unfairly and deceptively
promoted during the relevant time period as containing ingredients
safe for infant consumption and being safe for use, when, in fact,
they cause bacterial infections and gastrointestinal illnesses such
as Cronobacter Sakazakii, Salmonella, diarrhea, gastrointestinal
illnesses, and other serious health problems, alleges the suit.
Similac, owned and made by Abbott, tells consumers that "the
Promise of Similac is to help keep your baby fed, happy, and
healthy" and that Similac brand is "Nutrition you can trust." But
recent testing at one of Abbott Nutrition's manufacturing
facilities tells a different story - one of broken promises,
mistrust and concealment. After receiving consumer complaints of
Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella infections, the FDA's
investigation along with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and state and local partners, confirmed that Abbott
Nutrition's Sturgis, Michigan facility had findings to date of
"several positive Cronobacter sakazakii results from environmental
samples taken by the FDA and adverse inspectional observations by
the FDA investigators."
Moreover, Politico reported that the FDA first received a report of
a foodborne illness suspected to be linked to infant formula in
September -- four months before issuing the recall of three major
brands -- after four babies were hospitalized and one died. The
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a case of an infant who
was sickened by Cronobacter sakazakii in September 2021, the state
agency told Politico. State health officials in Minnesota knew that
the infant had consumed powdered formula produced at an Abbott
Nutrition facility in Sturgis, Mich., and shared this information
with the FDA and CDC in September of 2021. 6 Inspectors found
Cronobacter sakazakii in several environmental samples taken at the
plant, as well as records suggesting the company had been finding
the bacteria in the plant and had destroyed product because of the
issue, says the suit.
Abbott Laboratories manufactures, labels, markets, and sells infant
formula under the Similac, Alimentum, and Elecare brands.
On February 17, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
announced it was investigating consumer complaints of Cronobacter
and Salmonella infections related to ingestion of Similac,
Alimentum and EleCare.
The Plaintiff's minor childs illness was allegedly caused by the
consumption of the tainted Alimentum. To date, Plaintiff's minor
child continues to suffer gastrointestinal and bowel problems as
well as other pains and injuries.
The Plaintiff incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses,
has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of
life, emotional distress, and medical problems in the future as a
direct and proximate result of her ingestion of the contaminated
infant formula.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Paul Doolittle, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Infant Formulas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Maas, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that as Abbott
Laboratories faces a growing number of necrotizing enterocolitis
infant formula lawsuits brought by families of premature babies who
developed a devastating intestinal injury after being fed Similac
in the NICU, the company now faces a class action lawsuit over
recalled versions of its powdered formula, which may be
contaminated with Cronobacter sakazakii and other pathogens that
are causing older babies to develop gastrointestinal distress.
A complaint (PDF) was filed in the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida on February 18, by Luis Alfredo Suarez, on
behalf of his minor child, identified only with the initials A.S.,
who developed gastrointestinal distress after being fed tainted
Alimentum formula earlier in February.
The lawsuit comes only one day after Abbott Laboratories recalled
Similac, Alimentum and EleCare formula, after confirming that the
powder may contain Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella Newport or
other bacteria that entered the products during the manufacturing
process at a plant in Sturgis, Michigan.
INFANT FORMULA RECALL LAWSUIT
Did your baby experience problems after being fed Similac,
Alimentum or EleCare?
According to an infant formula warning issued by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) on February 17, parents and caregivers
are being urged to stop using the recalled Similac, Alimentum and
EleCare powdered products immediately, while the agency pursues an
investigation into at least three confirmed injuries and one death
that may be linked to contamination.
The FDA announced it has initiated an onsite inspection at the
facility and has recorded several positive Cronobacter sakazakii
results from environmental samples along with several adverse
inspectional observations by investigators.
The infant formula lawsuit brought by Suarez seeks class action
status to pursue damages for his child and other infants,
indicating that Abbott Laboratories failed to put adequate quality
control measures in place to make sure the products are safe and
free of salmonella and cronobacter bacteria, which could cause
gastrointestinal problems and difficulty feeding.
Suarez indicates that he purchased and fed the recalled Alimentum
to his daughter. Shortly after, around February 8, A.S. began
developing symptoms of gastrointestinal distress, including
diarrhea, abdominal pain, severe diaper rash with blisters and
blood, dehydration, sleeplessness, and other pain and injuries
requiring immediate medical attention.
To date, Suarez states his infant still suffers gastrointestinal
and bowel problems caused by the contaminated formula, causing A.S.
to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of life and medical problems.
Suarez states he has incurred, and continues to incur, medical
expenses to have his child medically treated as a direct and
proximate result of Abbott's negligence in failing to ensure its
baby formula products were safe for human consumption and free of
pathogenic bacteria or other substances injurious to human health.
The baby formula recall lawsuit is one of the first of what could
be many filed against Abbott Laboratories Inc. in the coming weeks
as the manufacturer scrambles to remove the potentially
contaminated powdered formula from store shelves and alert
customers of the possible dangers.
Similac and Enfamil Baby Formula NEC Risks
The reports of contamination came as Abbott Laboratories was
already defending a rising number of Similac formula lawsuits
brought throughout the federal court system, alleging that the
company has withheld information about the safety of the cow's milk
product for premature infants, which has been found to greatly
increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
A number of studies have highlighted a link between baby formula
and NEC for preterm infants, resulting in gastrointestinal
perforations that often develop while the infant is still in the
NICU, allowing bacteria to leak through and cause abdominal
infections and intestinal tissue to die off. Common symptoms of NEC
include swollen, red or tender belly, difficulty feeding,
constipation, dark or bloody stools, body temperature changes,
green vomit, apnea, bradycardia (slowed heart rate) and
hypotension (low blood pressure), among others. It is often fatal
and survivors often experience long term side effects from surgery
to remove dead bowels, resulting in a lifetime of bowel
complications.
According to allegations raised in the litigation, Abbott
Laboratories withheld warnings and information from parents and
medical providers for decades, placing desire for profit before
consumer safety. Similar claims are also being pursued against Mead
Johnson in Enfamil NEC lawsuits brought by families of babies who
received this competing cow's milk formula instead of breast milk.
Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints filed
in recent weeks throughout the federal court system, Abbott
Laboratories filed a motion to create a Similac MDL, which would
centralize the litigation before one judge for coordinated
discovery and pretrial proceedings. The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is expected to schedule oral
arguments on motion during an upcoming hearing session this month.
[GN]
ABBOTT NUTRITION: Anastopoulo Files Suit Over Contaminated Formula
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lexi Moore reports that a law firm in the Lowcountry is filing a
nationwide class-action lawsuit against the laboratory that
manufactures baby formulas, recently recalled by the Food and Drug
Administration for possible contamination.
The FDA is warning consumers not to use or purchase certain
powdered formulas such as Alimentum, Similac, and Elecare made by
"Abbott Nutrition" as they could be contaminated with bacteria. Roy
Willey, a trial lawyer with the Anastopoulo Law Firm representing
the case says people around the world could be impacted.
"There's a certain level of trust with this product that's really
been broken because they have known about this for four months and
have allowed customers to still purchase it," says Willey.
The FDA is investigating after several babies were hospitalized and
one died. Investigators believe the illnesses could be related to
contamination in some of the company's powdered baby formulas.
"Similac is supposed to be one of the best. It's the one that
hospitals here give you," says Willey.
Officials say babies are showing side effects of diarrhea, fevers,
and bowel damage. Willey says they are representing a client in
Ridgeville whose infant has been exposed.
"She's just one of many people that's been affected by this. It
happened nationally and it's very widespread," says Willey.
Willey says this lawsuit hits close to home as he's got a
three-week-old baby that uses one of the recalled formulas.
"We are in the midst of this. I actually had this product and was
feeding it to my child," he says.
Lawyers say the liquid product is safe, but the bacteria lives in
dry conditions and urge people to make sure they are throwing out
any recalls.
"Most of this formula is produced in the facility so if you have
this formula, you probably have the affected recall," says Willey.
Officials say as of right now any Silimac Alimentum that expires by
April 1st are the ones recalled, but the FDA says they are
continuing to investigate the facility.
A spokesperson for Abbott sent News 2 a statement:
"We value the trust parents and caregivers place in us, and
ensuring the safety and quality of our products is our top
priority.
As part of Abbott's quality processes, all infant formula products
are tested for Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella and other
pathogens, and they must test negative before any product is
released. No distributed product from our Sturgis, Mich., facility
has tested positive for the presence of either Cronobacter
sakazakii or Salmonella." [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal With Microsoft
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOLOMON RUBIN v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., REVETA BOWERS, ROBERT
CORTI, HENDRIK HARTONG III, BRIAN KELLY, ROBERT KOTICK, BARRY
MEYER, ROBERT MORGADO, PETER NOLAN, DAWN OSTROFF, and CASEY
WASSERMAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2022) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff against Activision Blizzard and the
members of Activision's Board of Directors for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Activision will be acquired by
Microsoft Corporation through Microsoft's subsidiary Anchorage
Merger Sub Inc.
On January 18, 2022, Activision and Microsoft issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated January 18, 2022 to sell Activision to Microsoft.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Activision stockholders
will receive $95.00 in cash for each share of Activision common
stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately
$68.7 billion.
On February 18, 2022, Activision filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Activision stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Activision's financial
forecasts; and (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financialvaluation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the Company's financial advisor, Allen & Company LLC.
The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
In short, unless remedied, Activision's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured, says the suit.
Activision is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located at 2701 Olympic Boulevard, Building B, Santa
Monica, California. The Company develops and publishes interactive
entertainment content and services. Activision's common stock
trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol
"ATVI." The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
W-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Acutus Medical, Inc. ("Acutus
Medical" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFIB) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Acutus Medical securities between May 13, 2021 and
November 11, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/afib.
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 alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) their ability to grow and scale Acutus'
business; (2) Acutus' strategy regarding AcQMap system placements;
and (3) the ability of Acutus to improve commercial execution in
the United States, including through the expansion and training of
sales staff to "ensure" adequate customer account support, which
defendants claimed would be a major growth driver. Specifically,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (a) a material percentage of the AcQMap
systems under evaluation had been randomly installed at sites with
little, if any, consideration given to whether the healthcare
providers at the selected locations were likely to adopt, or
desire, Acutus Medical's products; (b) a material percentage of the
AcQMap systems under evaluation had been installed in locations
where Acutus Medical did not possess the infrastructure necessary
to appropriately educate, train, and support medical service
providers on the system's operations; (c) as a result, defendants
were in the process of designing a strategic plan to terminate and
relocate approximately 20% of then-existing AcQMap systems
evaluation arrangements; (d) the Company's management discussion
and analysis was materially false and misleading and failed to
disclose that the termination and relocation of approximately 20%
of existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements was reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on Acutus Medical's 2021
financial results; and (e) Acutus Medical's risk factor discussions
were materially false and misleading and made reference to
potential risks without disclosing that such risks were
then-existing or adequately describing the specific nature of the
risks then facing the Company.
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/afib 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
Acutus Medical you have until April 18, 2022, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
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.
Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
ADIDAS AMERICA: Inouye Sues Over Mislabeled Jersey Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID INOUYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Case
No.8:22-cv-00416-VMC-TGW (M.D. FL., Feb. 21, 2022) alleges that
Defendants' manufactures, labels, markets, and sells mislabeled NHL
(National Hockey League) jerseys 'authentic' or 'authentic pro'
under the Adidas brand (the 'Product').
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the Product
believing that the Product was authentic, understood as being
genuine and substantially similar or identical to those worn by NHL
players. But the Product was not merchantable because it was not
fit to pass in the trade as advertised, not fit for the ordinary
purpose for which it was intended and did not conform to the
promises or affirmations of fact made on the packaging, container
or label.
The Defendant allegedly misrepresented and omitted the attributes
and qualities of the Product that it was authentic, understood as
being genuine and substantially similar or identical to those worn
by NHL players. Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known
the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have
paid less for it.
ADIDAS AMERICA INC. designs and markets apparel products. The
Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women,
boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports
collections including basketball, football, and training shoes.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Will Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4326
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
-and –
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Faces Toole Suit Over Alleged Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY TOOLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., and MAX LEVCHIN, Case No.
3:22-cv-01243-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2022) is a securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Affirm Holdings securities on February 10, 2022 after the
Company sent a Tweet concerning its Second Quarter 2022 financial
results at approximately 1:15 p.m. pursuant to the the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
At approximately 1:15 p.m. on February 10, 2022, Affirm issued a
Tweet from its official account in which the Company disclosed
certain metrics from its second quarter 2022 financial results. The
Tweet, which was published prior to the Company's planned release
of its financial results, portrayed a highly successful quarter,
which included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused Affirm's
share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading, says the
suit.
The Tweet was allegedly misleading, in that it omitted to disclose
the full details of Affirm's second quarter financial results.
Indeed, the Company deleted the Tweet and released its full second
quarter financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial
results were lackluster -- with the Company posting a loss of $0.57
per share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share.
On this news, Affirm's share price plummeted from an intra-day high
of $83.57 per share on February 10, 2022, to close at $58.68 per
share, or approximately 32%.
The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of Affirm at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, and has been damaged by
the revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and
omissions.
Affirm purports to be a "next generation platform for digital and
mobile-first commerce." Through its platform, the Company offers
"buy now, pay later" or "BNPL" services to consumers. Affirm
represents itself "a more flexible and transparent alternative to
credit cards." The Individual Defendants are officers and directors
of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
ALACER CORP: Court Strikes Cimoli's Nationwide Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY CIMOLI, Plaintiff v. ALACER CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-07838-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, issued an order:
a. dismissing without leave to amend the Plaintiff's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL")
claim; and
b. striking the nationwide class allegations in the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
I. Introduction
Before the Court is Defendant Alacer's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Partially Dismiss and 12(f) Motion to Partially Strike Plaintiff
Jeffrey Cimoli's Class Claims in this class action related to
allegedly misleading labeling of Alacer's dietary supplement
Gummies. Plaintiff brings various claims on behalf of a class of
California residents (the "California Class") under California law,
including California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Further,
Cimoli brings one claim on behalf of a Nationwide Class under
Pennsylvania's unfair competition law -- the UTPCPL.
At issue in Alacer's Motion is whether, under choice-of-law
principles, Cimoli can simultaneously bring claims under both
California and Pennsylvania unfair competition statutes -- and if
not, which state's law applies. Alacer moves to dismiss Cimoli's
Pennsylvania law claim on the basis that he cannot bring claims
under both states' statutes under choice-of-law principles, and
California law applies.
Further, Alacer moves to strike Cimoli's Nationwide Class
allegations, since the only claim he brings on behalf of the
Nationwide Class is the Pennsylvania claim. Cimoli opposes, arguing
that nothing bars him from bringing claims under both states'
statutes.
II. Background
Alacer manufactures and sells the dietary supplement gummies at the
heart of the suit. It is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Cimoli is a California
resident who purchased a bottle of Alacer's Emergen-C Immune
Support 750 mg Vitamin C Gummy Orange, Tangerine, and Raspberry
Product on or around June 2020 from a Target store in San Jose,
California. S
Mr. Cimoli's claims stem from the fact that in purchasing the
Product, he saw and relied on representations on the front label
indicating that it contains "750 mg Vitamin C" and "45 Gummies."
Based on these representations, Cimoli believed the bottle of
Gummies he purchased contained 45 Gummies that each contained 750
mg of Vitamin C, when in fact three Gummies were required to obtain
the 750 mg of Vitamin C indicated on the front label. The Plaintiff
alleges he was misled by the label. He sues on the basis of alleged
misrepresentations on the labels of Alacer's Emergen-C Gummies and
its Elderberry Gummies (the "Products").
Mr. Cimoli brings claims on behalf of a California Class and a
Nationwide Class. On behalf of the California Class, the Plaintiff
brings claims for (1) violation of California's UCL; (2) violation
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (3) violation
of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4) unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract; and (5) common law fraud. On behalf of
the Nationwide Class, Cimoli brings a claim for violation of
Pennsylvania's UTPCPL.
Alacer moves to dismiss Cimoli's claim under the UTPCPL because
under choice-of-law principles, (1) Cimoli is barred from asserting
consumer fraud claims under the laws of California and Pennsylvania
at the same time and (2) California law governs. Further, it moves
to strike Cimoli's Nationwide Class allegations, since the only
claim Cimoli brings on behalf of the Nationwide Class is the UTPCPL
claim, which Alacer argues should be dismissed. Cimoli opposes,
arguing that (1) choice-of-law principles do not bar him from
bringing consumer fraud claims under the laws of California and
Pennsylvania simultaneously and (2) even if they did, this issue is
better resolved at the class certification stage, rather than on a
motion to dismiss.
The Court previously deferred ruling on Alacer's Motion to Dismiss
Cimoli's UTPCPL claim in the initial Complaint, which Alacer
brought on similar grounds. In that Order, the Court found that the
UTPCPL "may apply extraterritorially," based on the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's decision in Danganan v. Guardian Protection
Services, 645 Pa. 181, 186 (2018). However, the Court noted that
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cautioned that the reach of the
UTPCPL is still limited by "jurisdictional principles and
choice-of-law rules." Accordingly, the Court deferred on ruling on
Cimoli's UTPCPL claim until after Cimoli amended his pleading,
noting the following: "The remaining issues before the Court are
whether a Plaintiff may advance consumer fraud claims under two
different state's laws and, if not, which state's law should be
applied under choice-of-law rules."
In the Initial Complaint, Cimoli alleged that Alacer maintained a
130,000 square foot facility in Pennsylvania. In the First Amended
Complaint, Cimoli added further allegations regarding Alacer's
connections to the state, namely, (1) Alacer's Pennsylvania
facility includes a 10,000 square foot office space; (2) Alacer
employed a third-party graphic design firm located in Pennsylvania
for the design of the Products' packaging; and (3) Alacer employs a
project manager located in Pennsylvania who is involved in the
packaging of the Products.
Per the Court's prior order, two primary questions are before the
Court in considering Alacer's Motion: (1) whether a Plaintiff may
advance consumer fraud claims under two different state's laws and
(2) if not, which state's law should be applied under choice-of-law
rules. Both parties endeavor to answer these questions in their
briefing. Alacer asserts that "the answer to the first question is
no, and the answer to the second question is California." In
response, Cimoli asserts that "the answer to the first question is
yes," and "the answer to the second question is that the Plaintiff
can bring the [UTPCPL claim] on behalf of non-Pennsylvania
residents nationwide."
III. Discussion
A. 12(b)(6) Motion
Alacer's argues that Cimoli fails to state a claim under the UTPCPL
because choice of law principles prevent a party from asserting
claims under California and Pennsylvania unfair competition laws
simultaneously -- even at the pleading stage -- and the choice of
law analysis indicate that applying California law is proper. In
response, Cimoli argues that choice of law does not prevent him
from bringing unfair competition claims under California and
Pennsylvania law; even if it did, choice of law would be premature
at this stage; and the choice of law analysis indicates that
applying Pennsylvania law is proper.
1. Whether a Plaintiff May Advance Consumer Fraud Claims Under Two
Different States' Consumer Protection Laws
The parties disagree whether it is appropriate for the Court to
resolve the choice-of-law issue at the pleading stage, rather than
waiting until the class certification stage when discovery is
complete. They disagree whether Cimoli can bring claims under
California and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws simultaneously
under choice of law principles.
Judge Freeman declines to defer the choice of law analysis until
the class certification stage. Instead, she finds it appropriate to
conduct the choice of law analysis at the pleading stage. She finds
that under choice of law principles, Cimoli cannot bring California
and Pennsylvania unfair competition claims simultaneously. The
problem with Cimoli's Pennsylvania unfair competition law claim is
not that it is inconsistent with his California unfair competition
law claim. Rather, the choice of law analysis indicates that his
Pennsylvania law claim is improper. Choice of law principles
indicate that his unfair competition claim should be brought under
California law -- not Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, Rule 8 is
inapposite.
Judge Freeman therefore proceeds to conduct a choice of law
analysis to determine which state's substantive law should apply.
2. Which State's Law Should Be Applied Under Choice-of Law Rules
The parties dispute whether the choice of law analysis indicates
that California is proper, or whether it indicates that
Pennsylvania law can be applied nationwide. Cimoli and Alacer
appear to agree that the governmental interest test applies to the
choice of law analysis. However, they disagree on whether the
elements of the governmental interest test favor the application of
California law for Cimoli's claims, or whether the analysis
indicates that Pennsylvania law can be applied nationwide.
Judge Freeman holds that Cimoli has failed to adequately
demonstrate that the materiality inquiry regarding differences
between California and Pennsylvania unfair competition laws favors
the application of Pennsylvania law in the case. She also finds
that Cimoli has failed to adequately allege that he can bring
claims under Pennsylvania substantive law. Rather, the choice of
law analysis unequivocally indicates that it is proper to apply
California substantive law to his claims. Accordingly, Cimoli's
UTPCPL claim is dismissed. Since amendment would be futile, the
dismissal is without leave to amend.
B. Motion to Strike
Alacer moves to strike Cimoli's nationwide class allegations
because he cannot state a claim under Pennsylvania law, and his
only claim on behalf of the Nationwide Class is under the UTPCPL.
Cimoli does not dispute that his only Nationwide Class claim is
under Pennsylvania law, although as outlined, he argues that his
Pennsylvania law claim should not be dismissed.
Judge Freeman agrees with Alacer. Since she dismisses Cimoli's
UTPCPL claim, and since his nationwide class allegations are based
exclusively on that claim, Judge Greeman strikes Cimoli's
nationwide class allegations.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman dismisses without leave to
amen Cimoli's UTPCPL claim and strikes the nationwide class
allegations in Cimoli's First Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r594swdp from Leagle.com.
ALPINE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, MacDonald Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany MacDonald, Angel Epley and Raynn Porter, Each Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alpine Access,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00493 (D. Colo., Feb. 28, 2022) seek a
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as
a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and the New Hampshire's wage laws.
The Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees were
classified as nonexempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA
and were paid an hourly wage. The Defendant directly hired
hourly-paid Remote Call Center Employees to work on its behalf,
paid them wages and benefits, controlled their work schedules,
duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment
conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their
employment, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and other Remote Call Center Employees recorded
their hours worked via an electronic time clock, which logged their
hours into a payroll system maintained by Defendant. The Plaintiffs
and other Remote Call Center Employees were unable to clock in
until their computer was turned on and the systems were running.
Until December of 2020, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other
Remote Call Center Employees for an additional 3 minutes of time
per shift to compensate them for the time it took to boot up their
computer. From December of 2021 until January of 2022, the
Defendant did not compensate Plaintiffs and other Remote Call
Center Employees for any extra boot up time, added the suit.
Alpine Access provides outsourced in-bound call services to
consumer retail clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
APPLE INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
February 4, 2022, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part and denied in part a motion for class certification in a
putative class action against a multinational consumer electronics,
software, and online services company (the "Company") and two of
its executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In re
Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:19-cv-2033-TGR (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 4, 2022). Plaintiff, who sought to represent purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities, alleged that in late 2018,
the Company made misrepresentations about the state of its business
in China, the Company's most important growth market at the time,
which caused the Company's stock price to fall. After granting in
part and denying in part a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in a decision covered here, the Court granted class certification
except as to the inclusion of option holders in the class, finding
that the option holders' damages could not be calculated on a
classwide basis with the remaining stockholders.
Plaintiff alleged that the Company, primarily through its CEO, made
material misrepresentations about the state of the Company's
business in China, its most important market, despite being aware
of facts allegedly inconsistent with the statements. Specifically,
plaintiff alleged that, on a November 1, 2018 investor and analyst
conference call, the CEO stated that the Company's "business in
China was very strong last quarter," despite allegedly knowing
several conflicting facts, including that U.S.-China trade tensions
were negatively impacting sales and demand for the Company's
flagship product, that the Company had already begun experiencing
lower traffic in its China-based retail stores, and that the
Company was reducing orders from its largest suppliers and ramping
down manufacturing of its flagship product ahead of the holiday
season. Following the alleged misrepresentations, several public
reports emerged in November and December that allegedly indicated
that the Company was halting production and implementing certain
"fire drill" responses to poor sales in the region. On January 2,
2019, the Company preannounced its first earnings shortfall in over
15 years, citing, among other things, the significant revenue
shortfall that it experienced in China. Following this disclosure,
the Company's stock price dropped from $157.92 per share on January
2 to $142.19 per share on January 3.
Although most of the initial complaint's allegations were stripped
away at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court found two of the
allegations pertaining to misstatements made by the Company's CEO
were sufficiently pled. In particular, plaintiff moved to certify a
putative class defined as all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities from
November 2, 2018 through January 2, 2019, and who suffered damages
as a result of the Company's alleged Exchange Act violations. In
opposing class certification, defendants argued that (1) plaintiff
is not an adequate class representative; (2) evidence rebuts the
presumption of classwide reliance; (3) even if a class were to be
certified, it should not include option holders; and (4) the
proposed damages model includes damages that did not result from
the alleged wrongdoing. The Court rejected all but defendant's
third argument.
In arguing against plaintiff's adequacy as class representative,
defendants pointed to numerous alleged errors plaintiff made (and
corrected) in its class certification filing regarding its stock
trading history and alleged losses. In response, plaintiff
contended that some of the errors were clerical mistakes by counsel
and submitted that its records supported the remaining information
related to losses. The Court held that, absent evidence of bad
faith or intent to deceive, plaintiff's "careless[]" but "minor"
errors did not rise to a level that would preclude a finding of
adequacy. Moreover, the Court held that defendants had not shown
that plaintiff and its counsel "have conflicts or that plaintiff
will not prosecute the action vigorously." Accordingly, the Court
held plaintiff to be an adequate class representative.
The Court next considered the issue of predominance of common
questions, focusing initially on the reliance element of Section
10(b). The Court addressed whether all of the class members could
invoke the Basic rebuttable presumption of reliance that would
allow the members to substitute reliance on the Company's stock
price for actual reliance on the Company's false statement, so long
as the Company's stock traded in an efficient market. Finding that
defendants failed to rebut the Basic presumption by breaking the
causal link between the January 2, 2019 disclosure and the negative
stock price impact, the Court held that predominance was met with
respect to reliance.
Finally, the Court addressed predominance with respect to damages.
Plaintiff proposed the "out-of-pocket" damages methodology, which
measures the difference "between the amount of stock price
inflation at purchase and the amount of inflation in the stock
price at sale or, if held, at the end of the Class Period[.]" While
defendants argued that the methodology could not be used for the
proposed class, the Court disagreed, holding that plaintiff
"proposed a standard method of calculating damages that is
consistent with this theory of liability and can be applied
classwide."
The Court did, however, agree with defendants that plaintiff's
proposed damages model did not provide any method for calculating
alleged damages of the Company's options holders, and that
plaintiff had not adequately explained how the options holders'
damages could be calculated as part of the class damages.
Specifically, the Court held that "given the varying
characteristics of the 2,282 distinct . . . options that were
available for trading during the relevant period, [plaintiff]
offers nothing in either of his reports to satisfy the Court that
individualized issues pertaining to damages to option holders will
not predominate." The Court therefore granted class certification
in part but denied without prejudice class certification as it
related to option holders, noting that "[s]hould plaintiff re-seek
certification with respect to [option holders], it would behoove
plaintiff to address the concerns not only pertaining to its
ability to calculate classwide damages but also the issues raised
by defendants regarding market efficiency for purposes of invoking
the Basic assumption of reliance."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
ARIEL COMMUNITY: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGLE' GOLDSTON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ARIEL
COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, DONNIE MANN and PIERRE PICKENS, Case No.
1:21-CV-000615 (M.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for
class certification until set by the Court.
On August 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her collective action and
class action complaint, asserting causes of action against
Defendants, Ariel Community Care, LLC, Donnie Mann and Pierre
Pickens. The Plaintiff amended her Complaint on October 21, 2021.
On November 1, 2021, the Court entered a text order adopting the
Parties' setting forth various deadlines including the deadline to
move for class certification on March 15, 2022 and the response and
reply thereto.
The Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the FLSA
collective but has not yet moved for class certification under Rule
23.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IGhjjR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (336) 333-9899
Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nathaniel C. Smith, Esq.
E-mail: nsmith@bhspa.com
BAGWELL HOLT SMITH P.A.
111 Cloister Ct., Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Telephone: (919) 401-0062
Facsimile: (919) 403-0063
BIMBO BAKEHOUSE: Brown Bread Not Made of Whole Grains, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabia Hamidani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bimbo Bakehouse LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01026 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 25, 2022) alleges that despite the labeling of the Bimbo's
Product as "Brown Bread," with a dark brown color, and visible
pieces of grain, the Product is not made mainly whole grains.
The representations include "The Cheesecake Factory At Home," "Our
Famous 'Brown Bead,'" "Wheat Sandwich Loaf," "No Artificial
Preservatives or Flavors," and a dark-colored loaf of bread with
visible pieces of grains on the crust.
This is revealed in part from the fiber content shown on the
Nutrition Facts as 1g per serving, or 4% of the Daily Value. The
Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to
the Product which are false or misleading, says the suit.
The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by the Defendant. The 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. Had Plaintiff and proposed class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would
have paid less for it, added the suit.
As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
no less than $3.99, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions.
Bimbo Bakehouse manufactures, labels, markets, and sells "Brown
Bread" under The Cheesecake Factory brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BROCK PIERCE: Must Face TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that as TCPA.World
readers know, TCPA class actions related to political messages are
something of a growing pastime. If you're a Republican, you sue
Democratic campaigns who pester you with unwanted messages. If
you're a Democrat, you sue Republican campaigns - or perhaps the
Republican National Committee - for such messages.
The fun part is that since all candidates and campaigns seem to be
robocalling people these days regardless of party affiliation,
everyone can join in - and there's seemingly no limit to the number
of lawsuits that can arise out of campaign season (which is just
about to start.)
Well a new TCPA case out of Puerto Rico should give political
candidates a bit of pause -it turns out these folks can be
PERSONALLY SUED for messages sent by their campaigns. And that's a
bit of a stunner.
In Rowan v. Pierce, CIVIL NO. 20-1648 (RAM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14547 (D.P.R. January 21, 2022) the Court refused to dismiss former
presidential candidate Brock Pierce from a robocall lawsuit arising
out of campaign messages promoting his failed bid to be President.
Since Brock Pierce was a child movie star and a crypto millionaire,
he felt he was well-qualified to lead our nation back from the
COVID pandemic - and who's to say he was wrong - and decided to use
prerecorded calls to let everyone know about it. Unfortunately for
him, of course, the TCPA bans prerecorded calls to cell phones -
even voicemails and even political messages - without express
consent of the called party. And the TCPA is enforceable in private
class action lawsuits that can net $500-$1,500 a call, as TCPAWorld
readers well know.
But what is less well known, is whether candidates can be
personally sued for messages from their campaigns. Usually these
suits are focused solely on the campaign and do not seek to
personally name the candidate. In fact, while I can think of suits
where a platform used by a candidate was sued - and even the owners
of the platform were personally sued - I can't think of another
time a candidate was personally sued for a campaign message.
Well the Rowan court had no problem with the concept and held that
Pierce could be personally liable because the complaint alleged
Pierce: (1) collected independent voter lists to gather voters'
phone numbers; (2) created and controlled the content of the
prerecorded calls; (3) determined to whom the calls should be made;
(4) authorized the prerecorded calls; and (5) sent the prerecorded
messages to individuals without first obtaining their consent to
receive them.
So if it turns out Pierce wasn't personally involved with these
efforts then he can't be held liable. But if he was. . . Pierce
will have t pay $500 (or more) for each call that violated the TCPA
- and that could cost Pierce literally dozens of bitcoin (or
millions of that less valuable currency known as dollars).
So there you go folks, just like CEOs and corporate officers,
directors, employees and compliance staff, candidates can also be
personally liable for messages sent under their control.
Will this slow the rampant scourge of political robocalls this
year? Probably not. But it should make for a bunch of fun political
TCPA suits. I'll keep an eye on this for you. [GN]
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sternberg Suit Over SPAC Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GILBERT v. OPHIR STERNBERG, MARTHA STEWART, ALLISON
GREENFIELD, MANN, VIVIAN LOPEZ-BLANCO, ANDREW TAUB, and BURGERFI
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2022-0185 (Del. Ch., Feb. 25, 2022)
alleges that Opes and its advisors did not bother to conform the
post-de-special purpose acquisition company (de-SPAC) entity's
bylaws with the Delaware General Corporation Law in an effort to
rush the completion of the de-SPAC transaction.
Allegedly, Section 228(a) of the DGCL ("Section 228(a)") specifies
that Delaware corporations cannot restrict the right of
stockholders to act via consent, either written or made in an
electronic transmission, unless such prohibition is set forth in a
corporation's certificate of incorporation.
The Plaintiff brings this action for a judicial declaration that
the Bylaws impermissibly limit stockholders' rights in violation of
Delaware law.
In recent years, special purpose acquisition companies, or "SPACs",
have grown in popularity as an alternative to conducting an initial
public offering -- i.e., the conventional process through which a
private company is taken public.
SPACs like Opes Acquisition Corp. ("Opes") operate as publicly
traded shell - 1 -companies that attempt to effect a reverse merger
with private companies, which thereby gain listing on a stock
exchange (the "de-SPAC"). Opes completed a de-SPAC merger with
BurgerFi International, LLC on December 16, 2020 ("the de-SPAC
Transaction"), with the surviving entity named BurgerFi.
This alleged meteoric rise in the popularity of SPACs has brought
with it a wide range of legal violations, some equitable and some
statutory. The founders of SPACs often turn to the same law firms
to create their multiple SPACs. These law firms, enjoying huge fees
for essentially using the same form for each SPAC, may multiply the
same mistakes on Delaware law issues over and over again. In some
cases, these mistakes even stay uncorrected after the de-SPAC and
taint the resulting operating company.
BurgerFi's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the
Charter) says nothing about stockholder action via written consent.
BurgerFi's Amended and Restated Bylaws (the Bylaws), however,
purport to prohibit stockholder action via written consent. This
limitation violates Section 228(a) and is thus invalid.
While Opes was hardly the only SPAC to use facially invalid bylaws,
the fact that BurgerFi stockholders have a current statutory right
to act by written consent -- which Defendants are publicly denying
and blocking through the Bylaws -- requires immediate corrective
action. Perhaps invalidating the Bylaws here will prompt other
non-compliant SPAC entities to conform their bylaws to Delaware
law, says the suit.
Plaintiff Gilbert is a stockholder of the Company.
BurgerFi owns over 100 fast casual restaurants focused on creating
premium hamburgers. The Company in its current form came about as a
result of the de-SPAC Transaction. While the Company amended
Opes’s initial bylaws in connection with the de-SPAC Transaction,
the majority of the bylaws, including the challenged provision,
remained unchanged. The current Bylaws became effective as of
December 16, 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newton Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor No. 6161
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
shareholder filed a class action on behalf of two classes:
-- all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Butterfly Network, Inc. (NYSE:BFLY) between February 16, 2021 and
November 15, 2021; and
-- holders of Butterfly common stock as of the record date for the
special meeting of shareholders held on February 12, 2021, to
consider the merger between Longview Acquisition Corp. and
Butterfly and entitled to vote on the merger
The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Butterfly is a digital health company that develops,
manufactures, and commercializes ultrasound imaging solutions in
the U.S. and internationally.
If you suffered a loss due to Butterfly Network, Inc.'s misconduct,
click here.
What is this Case About: Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY)
According to the complaint, on February 12, 2021, Longview
shareholders voted to approve the merger with Butterfly, and on
February 16, 2021, changed its name to Butterfly Network, Inc. and
began trading on the NYSE.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Additionally, the Proxy and defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Butterfly had overstated its post-merger business and financial
prospects; (ii) Butterfly's financial projections failed to take
into account the COVID-19 pandemic's broad consequences, which
included healthcare logistical challenges, and medical personnel
fatigue; and (iii) Butterfly's gross margin levels and revenue
projections were less sustainable than the Company had
represented.
On November 15, 2021, Butterfly announced its financial results for
the third quarter of 2021. In a press release, Butterfly advised,
among other things, that the Company's total gross margin for the
quarter was negative 35% and that the Company expected its revenue
for 2021 to be $60-$62 million, significantly below the guidance it
gave out in Q1 of $76-80 million. On an earnings call the same day,
Butterfly's CEO stated that the Company's results were impacted by
"healthcare logistical challenges, and doctor, nurse, and medical
technician fatigue concurrent with COVID conditions and its broad
consequences." On this news, Butterfly's stock price fell $1.08, or
12.55%, to close at $7.52 per share on November 15, 2021.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Butterfly Networks, Inc.
(BFLY) between February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021, or held
Butterfly common stock on February 12, 2021, you have until April
18, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have
to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Butterfly Network, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts
when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock
Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
C.H. ROBINSON: JMR Bid for Class Status Nixed without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JMR FARMS, Inc. et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Case No.
0:20-cv-00879-PJS-HB (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Patrick J. Schiltz
entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
C.H. Robinson is an American Fortune 500 provider of multimodal
transportation services and third-party logistics. The company
offers freight transportation, transportation management, brokerage
and warehousing. It offers truckload, less than truckload, air
freight, intermodal, and ocean transportation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vHnq3F at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut St., Unit 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (855) 984-8100
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark W. Wallin, Esq.
Christina M. Janice, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
- and -
Patrick J. Rooney, Esq.
FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON P.A.
CABALETTA BIO: Faces Patterson Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA LYNNE PATTERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CABALETTA BIO, INC., STEVEN A. NICHTBERGER,
ANUP MARDA, DAVID J. CHANG, CATHERINE BOLLARD, BRIAN DANIELS,
RICHARD HENRIQUES, and MARK SIMON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00737 (E.D.
Pa., Feb. 28, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Cabaletta
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about October 24, 2019; and/or (b) Cabaletta
securities between October 24, 2019 and December 13, 2021, both
dates inclusive.
The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On September 30, 2019, Cabaletta filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after
amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on October 24, 2019.
On or about October 24, 2019, pursuant to the Registration
Statement, Cabaletta's common stock began trading on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the trading symbol "CABA".
On October 25, 2019, Cabaletta filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Cabaletta conducted the IPO,
selling approximately 6.8 million shares of common stock priced at
$11.00 per share, for approximate proceeds of $69.5 million to the
Company after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions,
and before expenses.
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies, says the suit.
On December 14, 2021, Cabaletta issued a press release "report[ing]
top-line data on biologic activity from the two lowest dose cohorts
in the DesCAARTes™ Phase 1 clinical trial of DSG3-CAART for the
treatment of patients with mucosal Pemphigus Vulgaris (mPV)." Among
other results, Cabaletta reported that two cohort participants had
"disease activity scores that worsened after DSG3-CAART infusion"
and thus "reduced or discontinued selected systemic therapies prior
to DSG3-CAART infusion, as required by the protocol", while another
participant "subsequently received systemic medication to improve
disease activity after DSG3-CAART infusion."
On this news, Cabaletta's stock price fell $9.15 per share, or
73.14%, to close at $3.36 per share on December 14, 2021.
As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Cabaletta
common stock continues to trade below the $11.00 per share Offering
price, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Cabaletta common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO, and/or Cabaletta securities during the
Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged
federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions.
Cabaletta, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on the
discovery and development of engineered T cell therapies for
patients with B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. The Company's
proprietary technology utilizes chimeric autoantibody receptor
(CAAR) T cells that are designed to selectively bind and eliminate
B cells, which produce disease-causing autoantibodies or pathogenic
B cells. Cabaletta's lead product candidate is DSG3-CAART, which is
in Phase I clinical trial for the treatment of mucosal pemphigus
vulgaris, an autoimmune blistering skin disease, and Hemophilia A
with Factor VIII alloantibodies. The Individual Defendants are
directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com
- and -
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
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, ET AL., v.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Taylor Anders and
Courtney Walburger ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying this litigation as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on
behalf of a class defined as follows:
"All present and future women students and potential
students at Fresno State who participate, seek to
participate, and/or are deterred from participating in
intercollegiate athletics there;"
2. Appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g);
3. Appointing the proposed class representative as
representatives of the class; and
4. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just.
California State University, Fresno is a public university in
Fresno, California. It is one of 23 campuses in the California
State University system.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HNEqI8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
Cary Joshi, Esq.
Joshua I. Hammack, Esq.
Lori Bullock, Esq.
Nicole L. Ballante, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 436-0291
E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com
cjoshi@baileyglasser.com
jhammack@baileyglasser.com
lbullock@baileyglasser.com
nballante@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
P.O. Box 1311
Monterey, CA 93942
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
CANDID CARE: Thomas Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN THOMAS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CANDID CARE CO., Case No.
2:21-cv-05472-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
(a) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under the FLSA against Defendant Candid Care Co. On
behalf of Representative Plaintiff and others similarly
situated;
(b) Approving Representative Plaintiff's proposed notice and
consent to join form;
(c) Directing that notice be sent at Representative
Plaintiff's expense by United States mail, email, and
text message to the following class:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt telephone-
based customer service employees employed by Defendant at
any time in the three years preceding the date of the
filing of this Action to the present, who worked 40 or
more hours in any workweek and in the same workweek
booted up their computer, logged into software programs,
or reviewed emails prior to the start of their shift , or
monitored or responded to messages on Slack."
(d) Directing Defendant to provide within 14 days an
electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
delimited format a roster of all individuals that fit the
definition above that includes their full names, dates of
employment, last known home addresses, personal email
addresses, and phone numbers; and
(e) Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing
addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers are found
for any potential opt-in plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and other members of the purported class are hourly,
non-exempt telephone-based customer service employees. Defendant's
rules require that Class Members be fully logged in and ready to be
in queue to take customer calls at the exact start time of their
scheduled shift.
As such, Class Members must boot up their computers, log into the
different software applications they need to perform their primary
job duties, and respond to any emails or other outstanding issues
prior to the start of their scheduled shift. Moreover, Class
Members use a messaging application called "Slack" to communicate
with co-workers. Defendant expects Class Members to respond to
Slack messages, even if the Class Member is not currently
on-the-clock. The Defendant allegedly does not pay Class Members
for any of this time spent performing compensable work.
The Defendant makes and sells products to straighten teeth.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34bnJZ9
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq. (0074304)
7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
CANTEX CONTINUING: Wallace Suit Seeks OT Pay for Medical Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WALLACE AND KIPP CLAYTON ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CANTEX CONTINUING CARE NETWORK LLC,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00187 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2022) is a class action
seeking to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that during their employment with Defendant,
they often worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving
overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA.
According to its website, Cantex provides transitional and
residential healthcare services in approximately 36 Skilled Nursing
Facilities (SNFs) throughout the state of Texas, including
facilities in San Antonio Texas. Cantex also has SNFs located in
the states of Louisiana and New Mexico.
Mr. Wallace worked for Defendant as a full-time Physical Therapist
(PT) from April 2016 to May 2019 and again from January 2020
through the present. As a PT, Plaintiff Wallace always worked for
Defendant at its Sorrento Skilled Nursing Facility located at 2739
Babcock Road, San Antonio, Texas.
Mr. Clayton worked for Defendant as a full-time Occupational
Therapist (OT) from March of 2015 or 2016 through the present. As
an OT, Plaintiff Clayton worked for Defendant primarily at its
Sorrento Skilled Nursing Facility located at 2739 Babcock Road, San
Antonio, Texas, but also periodically at its Stone Oak Skilled
Nursing Facility located at 19638 Stone Oak parkway, San Antonio,
Texas, and at its Windemere at Westover Hills Skilled Nursing
Facility located at 11106 Christus Hills, San Antonio, Texas when
those facilities are understaffed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael K. Burke, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: mburke@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &
GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
CELEBRITY'S MANAGEMENT: Mitchell FLSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISEANNA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CELEBRITY'S MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC and FREDRICK JACOBS, Case No. 2022-CC-000138, was removed from
the County Court in and for Marion County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 25,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 5:22-cv-00108 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Celebrity's Management Company, LLC is a hospitality company in
Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ashwin R. Trehan, Esq.
Alyssa Castelli, Esq.
SPIRE LAW, LLC
2572 W. State Road 426, Suite 2088
Oviedo, FL 32765
E-mail: ashwin@spirelawfirm.com
alyssa@spirelawfirm.com
CHULA VISTA: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Sartin Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed with prejudice the
case, JOSEPH SARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHULA VISTA, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1890 (E.D. Wis.).
I. Background
The Chula Vista Resort & Waterpark is a resort in Wisconsin Dells
comprised of a hotel, condominium residences, a golf course, and
indoor and outdoor waterparks. It is owned by Chula Vista, Inc., of
which Mike Kaminski is the chairman and CEO.
Plaintiffs Kenneth Riche, Robert Silberman, and Tony Edwards all
owned condominiums at the resort during the alleged class period.
Riche and Silberman have since sold their units. The Defendants'
proposed findings of fact do not state whether Edwards still owns a
unit. He is referenced in the proposed findings of fact only to say
that he "is an experienced real estate investor, having owned
hundreds of properties over his career." Plaintiffs Joseph Sartin
and Scott Willock never personally owned any unit. Rather, they
were members of Abbsandra 2622, LLC, which previously owned a unit.
Abbsandra 2622, LLC is not a party to the action.
Owners of condominium units within the resort may participate in a
rental program operated by CVR Management, LLC. Abbsandra LLC as
well as Riche, Silberman, and Edwards entered into to a rental
management agreement with CVR regarding the rental of their
condominiums. Under the rental management agreement between
condominium owners and CVR, CVR had sole discretion to set rental
rates.
At the heart of the litigation is "The Club," which Chula Vista
created in 2009 and announced at that year's meeting of condominium
owners. The Club charged members a membership fee of between
$5,000 and $10,000, which was paid to Chula Vista. In exchange,
Club members received discounts on condominium rentals as well as
on hotel rooms, food, beverages, spa services, golf, and resort
merchandise. Chula Vista retained all Club membership fees.
The Plaintiffs' claim is, in effect, that The Club deprived them of
rental income they otherwise would have received. In their view,
they suffered the costs of The Club (in the form of discounts on
condominium rentals) without enjoying any share of the benefits
(the membership fees).
The Plaintiffs filed the proposed class action complaint on Nov.
30, 2018 and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the
implementation of a new rental management agreement. The complaint
includes, in relevant part, claims for conversion, theft by fraud,
constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent
misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The complaint
also includes a claim for an "unconscionable contract of adhesion,"
which relates to the 2018 rental management agreement.
Following all parties consenting to the full jurisdiction of the
Court, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction. On March 22, 2019, the Court denied the
motion. It subsequently granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the
Plaintiffs' claim under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act
but denied the motion on all other grounds.
Currently before the Court are numerous motions. The Defendants
seek summary judgment and to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert. The
Plaintiffs seek to exclude the Defendants' experts and to certify a
class. The parties also filed motions seeking to restrict access to
numerous documents.
II. Discussion
Judge Duffin holds that it is easy to recognize why the Plaintiffs
feel they were wronged. The Defendants sold discounted access to
their condominium units without cutting the Plaintiffs in on the
fees. The Plaintiffs believe that, when members of The Club rented
the Plaintiffs' units at a discount, but for The Club those members
would have rented their units at a market rate. Thus, the
Plaintiffs believe that it's only fair that they should get some of
the membership fees that Chula Vista collected. But to obtain
relief in Court, a party must have standing to pursue a claim, the
Defendant must be plausibly liable, and the perceived wrong must be
presented in terms of a cognizable claim for relief.
Judge Duffin finds that Joseph Sartin and Scott Willock are not
proper Plaintiffs in the action because they did not personally own
a condominium unit at Chula Vista. Rather, they were merely members
of an LLC that owned a condominium. Therefore, they must be
dismissed as plaintiffs.
Mike Kaminski is not a proper Defendant because the Plaintiffs have
failed to present evidence that any allegedly unlawful action he
took was outside his capacity as an official of Chula Vista, Inc.
Therefore, Judge Duffin must dismiss all claims asserted against
him and must dismiss him as a Defendant.
The remaining Plaintiffs' civil conversion claims (Counts 1 and 2)
fail because they have not presented evidence that any Defendant
withheld from them any property in which they had a possessory
interest. No fiduciary relationship existed between the Plaintiffs
and any Defendant, and therefore the Plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty (Counts 12 and 13) and constructive fraud (Counts 7
and 8) claims fail. And the Plaintiffs' claims for theft by fraud
(Counts 4 and 5) and misrepresentation (Counts 15, 16, 19 and 20)
fail because the Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of false
representation by a Defendant. Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim for
injunctive relief regarding the 2018 rental management agreement
(Count 30) is moot because the 2018 agreement has been superseded
by the 2020 rental management agreement.
III. Order
For these reasons, Judge Duffin granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. He granted the motion for summary judgment filed
by CVR Management LLC, Chula Vista Inc., and Michael Kaminski. The
Plaintiffs' complaint and the action are dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk will enter judgment accordingly.
Judge Duffin denied as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude
Plaintiffs' expert Karen Romrell. He dismissed as moot the
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the Defendants' experts Richard Bero
and David Sangree and their motion to certify class.
Judge Duffin, finding good cause, granted the motions to restrict
documents to case participants (ECF Nos. 122; 127; 134; 142; 148;
155).
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4yzz2bem from Leagle.com.
COMMUNITY MEDICAL: Faces Workers' Class Action After Cyber Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Erickson, writing for Missoulian, reports that a spokesperson
for Community Medical Center has responded to a class-action
lawsuit filed by a group of employees who allege that they were
underpaid by the hospital.
The lawsuit was filed in Missoula County District Court on behalf
of hundreds of workers who allege that the hospital inaccurately
counted hours for many of them and hasn't fixed the problem.
The Montana Nurses Association is not a party to the lawsuit, but
represents 257 nurses at Community Medical Center for collective
bargaining purposes.
Megan Condra, the director of marketing and community relations at
the hospital in Missoula, said the hospital is disappointed the
union has taken legal action.
"Particularly because this issue stems from a ransomware attack
with a third-party vendor," Condra said. "In December, we learned
that the Kronos Enterprise System, our cloud-based timekeeping
platform, went down nationwide due to a ransomware issue on the
national Kronos system. This situation impacted all companies and
employees worldwide that utilize the cloud-based version of this
payroll system."
The hospital had to implement manual entry procedures, she said.
"Every employee continued to be paid every pay cycle as we worked
through this unfortunate situation," she said. "In some instances,
employees were overpaid and in other instances they were underpaid,
largely resulting from delayed pay premiums and differentials."
The hospital also worked individually with employees who worked
additional hours beyond their regular schedule to supplement their
extra earnings as quickly as possible, she said.
The lawsuit alleges that after Dec. 12, the hospital simply paid
employees for the same number of hours they had worked in the
previous pay period, even though many employees may have actually
worked more hours.
"When we regained access to the Kronos system in late January, our
facility timekeepers begun the reconciliation process going back to
the initial impacted pay period of December 11, 2021," Condra said.
"That process was recently completed, and the final data
reconciliation is now underway to address any remaining wage
discrepancies."
After the problem was identified, the hospital immediately began
communicating to all employees and encouraged them to go to human
resources if they were concerned about their paycheck, Condra
said.
"And we performed initial, estimated reconciliations for immediate
payment on an individual basis in cases of financial hardship,"
Condra said. "In an additional attempt to proactively ensure staff
were paid as accurately as possible, a reconciliation was completed
after the first two pay dates with any identified underpayments
being made to staff."
The lawsuit alleges that a large number of CMC employees are
individually owed hundreds or thousands of dollars in unpaid
wages.
Vicky Byrd, a nurse who is the CEO of the Montana Nurses
Association, released a statement saying the hospital needs to
resolve the issue immediately because many workers can't afford to
miss even a partial paycheck.
"Since this process was completed, we know of no employee who has
been underpaid by thousands of dollars as alleged," Condra said.
"In fact, at this point, it appears there may be at least as many
overpayments as there are underpayments, a fact that is
conveniently ignored in these ongoing and disappointing
allegations."
A final data reconciliation is underway to address any wage
discrepancies, she noted, and the hospital has said it will hire an
independent auditor to review and validate the accuracy of "this
extraordinary complex payroll reconciliation process." She
anticipates that will begin in the next 30 days.
"We are so appreciative of our team who has worked around the clock
for the past two months to address the impact of this malicious
ransomware attack on our employees," Condra said. "Although this
criminal act was completely beyond our control, we will continue to
work nonstop toward a final resolution of this matter. Ensuring our
caregivers are compensated accurately for serving our patients and
community is of utmost importance to us."
Community Medical Center is owned by LifePoint Health, a
Tennessee-based for-profit corporation. [GN]
CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC
a/k/a THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN L.L.C., d/b/a CREDIT LAW CENTER and
THOMAS ADDLEMAN a/k/a TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO
(D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
his motion for class certification.
According to the complaint, CLC's response raises a class-wide
issue: whether the "retainers" it collects for its credit repair
services are exactly what they sound like -- down payments that
violate Section 1679b(b) of CROA. The Plaintiff contends this
class-wide merit issue will be resolved in his favor because each
retainer is calculated as a percentage of the total costs of the
credit repair services to be performed, before the customer entered
into CLC's Engagement Agreement.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vADjJk
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
A.J. Stecklein, Esq.
Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED
748 Ann Ave
Kansas City, KS 66101
Telephone: (913) 371-0727
Facsimile: (913) 371-0727
E-mail: mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
msr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
- and -
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com
CUMBERLAND VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Optional Masking Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Schmidt, writing for WHTM, reports that a group of parents is
suing the Cumberland Valley School District for making masks
optional.
The class-action lawsuit is a claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act.
The parents named 'John Doe and Jane Doe' in the lawsuit claim
their kids cannot attend school in person if other students are not
masked.
Michael Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener Law Commonwealth says
some students are protected under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The biggest question he said is "whether it is a reasonable
accommodation for these children's disabilities."
Does the district think the lawsuit is a reasonable request?
abc27 reached out to Cumberland Valley on Monday, Feb. 21. The
district responded, saying, "We are aware of the lawsuit that was
recently filed against the District. As requested by our District
Solicitor, we do not comment on matters of pending litigation."
[GN]
DELOITTE LLP: Gordon Ball Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Gordon Ball LLC (www.gordonball.com) announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons who
purchased The Southern Company (SOUTHERN) (NYSE: SO) common stock.
The case, Formby, et al, v. Deloitte, 1:22-cv-00670-WMR, is pending
in the United States District Court of Georgia, Northern District.
The class action is brought against Deloitte, LLP and Deloitte &
Touche, LLP who have been SOUTHERN and Mississippi Power Company
outside auditors since 2002.
The complaint alleges that Deloitte violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act including SEC rule 10b-5 and Section
17(a)(1)-(3) of the Securities Act regarding SOUTHERN financial
condition and/or concealing material adverse omissions from
investors about the true status of its investment in the Kemper
County Energy Facility Construction Project in Kemper County,
Mississippi.
The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. If you purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of
SOUTHERN, you may, no later than April 25, 2022, request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Gordon Ball
LLC, or other attorneys, to serve as your counsel.
If you wish to discuss your rights, please contact Gordon Ball LLC
at (865) 525-7028. A copy of this complaint is available on our
website www.gordonball.com. [GN]
DOGFISH HEAD: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Struck in Contreras
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONTRERAS, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOGFISH HEAD
COMPANIES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09695-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Analisa Torres entered an order striking Schedule for Class
Certification Briefing.
In advance of any motion for class certification, the parties are
directed to comply with Section III of the Court's Individual
Practices in Civil Cases, including filing pre-motion letters, as
appropriate, Judge Torres says.
Dogfish Head operates as a brewing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tm1TLa at no extra charge.[CC]
DT EMPLOYER: Kraut Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERICKA KRAUT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DT EMPLOYER LLC; DT MANAGEMENT, LLC;
DOUBLETREE EMPLOYER, LLC; HILTON EMPLOYER, INC.; HILTON HOTEL
EMPLOYER, LLC; EMBASSY SUITES EMPLOYER, LLC; CURIO EMPLOYER, LLC;
HAMPTONS INNS EMPLOYER, LLC; HLT CONRAD DOMESTIC EMPLOYER, LLC; HLT
CONRAD DOMESTIC, LLC; CONRAD EMPLOYER, LLC; WALDORF-ASTORIA
EMPLOYER, LLC; HOMEWOOD SUITES EMPLOYER, LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2132004, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 25, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00349 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California' Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods and pay meal period
premiums at correct rates; failure to provide rest periods and pay
rest period premiums at correct rates; failure to pay all wages due
during employment, including minimum and straight time wages;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate wage
statements and maintain accurate payroll records; failure to pay
all wages due to terminated employees; unfair business practices;
and civil penalties.
DT Employer LLC is a limited liability company in California.
DT Management, LLC is a limited liability company in California.
Doubletree Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in
California.
Hilton Employer, Inc. is a limited liability company in
California.
Hilton Hotel Employer, LLC is a hospitality company in California.
Embassy Suites Employer, LLC is a hotel chain company in
California.
Curio Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California.
Hamptons Inns Employer, LLC is a hospitality company in
California.
HLT Conrad Domestic Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in
California.
HLT Conrad Domestic, LLC is a limited liability company in
California.
Conrad Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in California.
Waldorf-Astoria Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in
California.
Homewood Suites Employer, LLC is a limited liability company in
California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cynthia L. Filla, Esq.
Connie L. Chen, Esq.
Paul J. Cohen, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Cynthia.Filla@jacksonlewis.com
Connie.Chen@jacksonlewis.com
Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Steam Line Failure
----------------------------------------------------------
Marina Waters, writing for TimesNews, reports that Eastman
officials have determined the company's Jan. 31 rupture was caused
by a "failure" in a steam line fitting.
There is no evidence so far of any steam system operation
deficiency, a Feb. 21 press release from Eastman Chemical Co.
stated.
The release also said, according to its preliminary conclusions,
air test results following the rupture show no detectable asbestos.
Eastman is also conducting an inspection of the steam line system
and working with a third party to evaluate the results of the
inspection, according to the press release.
"We are focused on both the investigation and safe start-up of
portions of the plant impacted by the steam line failure," said
Mark Bogle, Eastman vice president and Tennessee Operations site
leader. "Keeping our workers and the community safe is the most
important responsibility we have. We are grateful to the Eastman
team and our contract partners, and we appreciate the support we
continue to receive from the community."
A high pressure steam line failure at the plant sent noise,
vibrations and eventually debris throughout the city on Jan. 31.
Later that day, officials said initial testing of the debris showed
that at least some of the material damaged in the event contained
asbestos.
According to the release, Eastman has since distributed almost 700
car wash vouchers, visited 500 nearby residents, mailed 300 letters
with the debris testing results to residents in the Green Acres
neighborhood and conducted more than 180 air monitoring samples in
Green Acres.
Eastman's steam system delivers power throughout the plant.
According to the release, Eastman inspects its steam piping on a
regular basis. The company is conducting an inspection of its steam
distribution system "to ensure integrity of its operations," the
release stated.
A Knoxville-based law firm filed a class-action lawsuit that
includes at least one Kingsport resident as a plaintiff. The
filing, according to documents from Sullivan County Circuit Court,
includes claims for public and private nuisance, trespass,
negligence and strict liability for "ultrahazardous" activity.
According to a press release from the law firm, Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman, attorneys also joined a physician and
environmental consultant to conduct a town hall meeting with local
residents to hear their concerns following the steam line failure.
Eastman is releasing updates on the rupture. That page is available
at www.eastman.com. The community can also contact Eastman by
calling the Care Line at (423) 229-CARE. [GN]
EL SEGUNDO, CA: Faces McDaniel Suit Over Discrimination, Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMY McDANIEL, an individual v. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a public entity;
and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-01351 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2022) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the City of
El Segundo, in connection with their approved, adopted, and
ratified policies constituting a continuing pattern and practice of
retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and intentional violations
of the rights guaranteed to Plaintiff under the United States
Constitution and California state law, and public policy.
The Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the
foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with respect
to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff and other individuals
similarly situated, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed with the El Segundo Police Department
(ESPD). The Plaintiff began working for the ESPD as a civilian
Police Assistant in 2014. Throughout her employment with the City,
Plaintiff performed her various responsibilities in an exemplary
fashion.
In addition to her office job duties, the Plaintiff played an
integral role in the development and management of the ESPD’s
social media and website. The Plaintiff built the website for the
ESPD and ran its social media accounts. In her role, the Plaintiff
became well known as the person who exclusively handles the ESPD's
social media and website.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was completely ostracized
by Command Staff and their "chosen" and favored employees. The
Plaintiff continued to work the equivalent of two jobs without rest
or meal breaks, and no progress was made to provide her with the
training that her predecessor received. Exhausted by the stress and
hostility, Plaintiff returned to the lower paying position of
Police Assistant, even though she preferred the Crime Prevention
Analyst I position. Even after being constructively demoted, the
retaliatory conduct continued and still continues, the suit
added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
Aleksandra Urban, Esq.
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 322-2211
Facsimile: (310) 322-2252
E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com
thomas@kallaw.com
aleksandra@kallaw.com
FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Smith Class Suit Over Rodent Infestation
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAKINDAL SMITH and KEITH MARTIN, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, LLC, t/a
FAMILY DOLLAR, and DOLLAR TREE, INC. t/a FAMILY DOLLAR, Case No.
1:22-cv-00208 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2022) arises out of the recently
disclosed rodent infestation of a distribution center operated by
Defendant Family Dollar in West Memphis, Arkansas.
The warehouse stored and shipped products, including products that
were intended for human and animal consumption. As a result of the
alleged rodent infestation, Plaintiffs and thousands of Class
Members who purchased these products were subjected to actual harm,
the lawsuit says.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on February 18,
2022, that Family Dollar stores in six states may have received
products from a distribution center in West Memphis, Arkansas that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation. The agency warning
includes items purchased since January of 2021, such as food for
the Plaintiffs' and their family, cosmetics, vitamins and dietary
supplements, over-the-counter medications, surgical masks, feminine
hygiene products, and contact lens cleaning solutions, and toiletry
items among others.
The FDA is asking Family Dollar customers to contact the company if
they purchased any of these products. The agency also recommends
discarding any medical items immediately and is working with the
store chain to begin a product recall.
Family Dollar has issued a voluntary recall which covered numerous
FDA regulated products, including medicine, pet food and cosmetics,
that were sold between January 2021 and February 2022 in Family
Dollar stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri and Tennessee, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a Class
of all persons similarly situated bring claims for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment.
Family Dollar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dollar Tree. Dollar
Tree is a Fortune 200 company and a leading operator of discount
variety stores in North America for more than thirty years. The
company operates more than 15,500 stores across the 48 contiguous
states and five Canadian provinces, supported by a coast-to-coast
logistics network and more than 193,000 associates. Family Dollar
operates a distribution center in West Memphis, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
Joseph M. Langone, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Ste. 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 934-6377
Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
jlangone@wiselaw.pro
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
J. Luke Sanderson*
- and -
J. Luke Sanderson, Esq.
WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, PC
208 Adams Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 523-1844
E-mail: Luke@wcwslaw.com
FANATICS INC: Montrose Suit Removed From Circuit Ct. to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE MONTROSE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. FANATICS, INC., Case
No. 16-2022-CA-000436, was removed from the 4th Judicial. Circuit,
Duval County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on Feb. 25, 2022.
The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-00219 to the proceeding.
On or about January 26, 2022, the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a
putative Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida.
The Complaint alleges that Fanatics violated the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and the North Carolina
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, in connection with charging
Plaintiff a "Handling Fee" and breached the contract between the
parties.
The Defendant denies the allegations and relief sought in the Class
Action Complaint.
Fanatics is an American online retailer of licensed sportswear,
sports equipment, and merchandise. It was formed in 1995 and is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lorence J. Bielby, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
101 East College Avenue
Post Office Drawer 1838
Tallahassee, FL 32302
Telephone: (850) 222-6891
Facsimile: (850) 681-0207
E-mail: BielbyL@gtlaw.com
HoffmannM@gtlaw.com
- and -
Mark F. Bideau
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
777 S Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 650-7900
Facsimile: (561) 561-6222
E-mail: BideauM@gtlaw.com
ThomasD@gtlaw.com
- and -
Stephanie Peral, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue Suite 4400
Miami FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 579-0500
Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
E-mail: perals@gtlaw.com
collazoe@gtlaw.com
FCA US: Court Adjourns March 11 Settlement Conference Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., v.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Terrence G. Berg entered an order regarding stipulation setting
schedule for class certification briefing and pretrial Deadlines:
Settlement conference summary deadline set for March 11, 2022 and
settlement conference set for March 21, 2022 are adjourned without
date. New dates to be set, Judge Berg issues.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells
vehicles.[CC]
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Averts Athletes' Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Braden Keith, writing for Swim Swam, reports that both plaintiffs
and defendants in the ongoing legal dispute between the
International Swimming League and FINA have scored victories in
court in the battle toward establishing a class certification,
which would dramatically increase the stakes of the case, because
plaintiffs would essentially be suing on behalf of a much larger
number of athltes.
The case revolves around whether or not FINA behaved in violation
of anti-trust law with regard to athlete participation in a 2018
Energy for Swim meet that was a precursor event to the
International Swimming League.
It claims violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which
forbids organizations from engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also claim tortious interference with
contractual relations or prospective economic relations, for
collusion to unreasonably restrict competition, and for monopoly.
While the International Swimming League is not a party to the case,
it is using the three named plaintiffs, Tom Shields, Katinka
Hosszu, and Michael Andrew, as a surrogate in court. ISL has also
filed a related case, and as such is named as an interested party
in court filings.
The ISL's founder Konstantin Grigorishin is also funding the
plaintiffs' case.
FINA EVISCERATED BY JUDGE, ORDERED TO PAY COSTS
The side of the athletes and the pro league won a significant
financial victory when US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
admonished FINA for a filing made to the court. The filing, which
was in response to what FINA characterized as a "change in the
Plaintiffs' expert's damages theory," included revelation of
confidential information from settlement negotiations between the
two sides.
FINA said that they felt it was okay to disclose that information
because the communications occurred between the parties and after
settlement conference proceedings had ended, which the judge
rejected.
FINA further argued that "confidentiality rules should not be used
to conceal unethical conduct," which the judge also rejected.
FINA's goal with the filing was to argue that the Plaintiffs are
not adequate class representations, according to the order to
strike submitted by the judge.
The judge wrote a scathing conclusion that accused FINA of that
called it the most "egregious" violation of a rule regarding
disclosure of settlement conversation that it has seen in at least
a decade.
This Court has conducted more than 1000 settlement conferences over
the past 10 years. During that time it has never witnessed a
violation of ADR Local Rule 7-4 as egregious as FINA's here. Not
only did that violation damage Plaintiffs by requiring them to file
a motion to strike and reply, it led to the loss of a settlement
magistrate judge who had been working with the parties for over 22
months. FINA's insistence that it can unilaterally decide what
settlement communications can be disclosed has thus wasted precious
public resources in addition to the settlement judge's heroic
efforts at facilitating settlement. Further, FINA's conduct has
damaged the entire ADR program of the Northern District of
California and thus the administration of justice. The success of
settlement negotiations "depends largely on the willingness of the
parties to freely disclose their intentions, desires, and the
strengths and weaknesses of their case; and upon the ability of the
[third party] to maintain a neutral position while carefully
preserving the confidences that have been revealed." In re County
of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990, 993 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). Sadly, as a result of FINA's breach, parties will have
reason to question whether the promise of confidentiality will
actually be honored.
Paperwork submitted by the athletes' lawyers included costs of
$136,799.
CLASS AGREEMENT REJECTED
The court ruled that the Plaintiffs had not adequately provided
support for acting as a class when seeking damages from FINA. They
did, however, find that in seeking injunctive relief, they had met
that adequacy, because in the case of injunction, the interest of
all athletes moved together.
Among the cases cited were White v. NCAA, where student-athletes
argued that the NCAA's grant-in-aid rule put a limit on
student-athletes' earnings.
In that case, the courts agreed with the logic of the argument by
the NCAA against certification of a class, but ultimately said that
the specifics of the Plaintiffs' damages claim supported a class.
In this case, though, the court said that the Plaintiffs' claim was
different -- the argument was made that there was a "fixed pot" of
money, and that swimmers lost the opportunity to compete with
others for a share of a "fixed pot" of money."
Whereas in the NCAAs case, there was "unfettered discretion" to
limit money (in other words, prevent athletes from seeking
compensation from outside parties and brands), in this case, it was
a zero-sum: that some athletes gain and others lose, according to
the Plaintiffs' argument.
That means that all athletes do not stand to gain in the same
direction as they did in the NCAA's case, so the court rejected
that as a supporting ruling for class action.
The court also pointed to the ownership by Andrew and Hosszu of
league teams, plus funding of the plaintiffs' case by Konstantin
Grigorishin, the founder of the ISL, creates a "risk of divided
loyalties," which also undercuts their request for class status.
The court did say, though, that these things were not a concern
with regards to the injunctive relief sought, which allows
Plaintiffs to file as a class to stop FINA from interfering with
athletes participating in ISL via threats of suspension.
In this case, the courts have decided that the injunctive class is
uniform enough to be granted, but the damages class, which seeks
financial compensation from FINA, is not.
This does not rule on the merits of the claims by the Plaintiffs
against FINA, it just limits their ability to act as a class that
represents a much broader set of athletes. That will serve as a
huge blow to the Plaintiffs and the ISL, because class status would
have resulted in a substantially higher calculated damage if they
won their case against FINA.
OWNERSHIP STAKES REVEALED
Among the more interesting revelations in the judge's orders are
the first public disclosure of ownership stakes in the league's
teams.
Michael Andrew and his parents own 40% of the New York Breakers, a
team that Michael Andrew no longer races for, his mom Tina is no
longer the general manager of, and his dad Peter is no longer the
head coach of. It also reveals that Hosszu is a 40% owner of Team
Iron.
Through discussion of whether team ownership is a common
characteristic among all class members, it is also revealed that
two swimmers other than Andrew and Hosszu also have an ownership
interest in an ISL team.
The court said that this gave those owners a $5,000 incentive to
support a settlement with the class, even if it is not fair to all
members of the class.
The documents also reveal that two other athletes have ownership
stakes in teams, though the fillings that reveal those identities
have been sealed by the court.
The ownership structure of the league is still not entirely clear,
but as of last year, Grigroshin remained a majority owner in most
of the league's teams. Two recent as general managers have resigned
include that Rob Woodhouse, former GM of the London Roar, is a
"minority owner" of the team, while former DC Trident GM Kaitlin
Sandeno says that she has no ownership stake in the team. [GN]
FIRSTCASH INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 21 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
FCFS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstcash-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1
BHG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1
BFLY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/butterfly-network-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
FirstCash, Inc. (NASDAQ:FCFS)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of
FirstCash common stock between February 1, 2018 and November 12,
2021, both dates inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 15, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstcash-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (a) FirstCash had made more than
3,600 loans to over 1,000 active-duty members of the military and
their families at usurious interest rates above 36% - and often
exceeding 200% - in violation of the Military Lending Act ("MLA")
and the Consent Order Cash America had entered into with the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "Order"); (b) FirstCash
had failed to implement the remedial measures imposed by the Order;
(c) FirstCash's financial results were, in substantial part, the
product of the Company's violations of the MLA and the Order; and
(d) as a result of the foregoing, FirstCash was exposed to a
material undisclosed risk of legal, reputational and financial harm
if the Company's violations of the MLA and the Order were ever
publicly disclosed.
Bright Health Group, Inc. (NYSE:BHG)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bright Health
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about June 24, 2021; and/or (b) Bright Health securities between
June 24, 2021 and November 10, 2021.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 7, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bright-health-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) Bright Health had overstated
its post-IPO business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was
ill-equipped to handle the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (iii)
the Company was experiencing a decline in premium revenue because
of a failure to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (iv)
all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative
impact on Bright Health's business and financial condition; and (v)
as a result, the documents issued in connection with the IPO and
Defendants' public statements throughout the class period were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
Butterfly Network, Inc. f/k/a Longview Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:BFLY)
This lawsuit is one behalf of: (a) all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Butterfly securities between
February 16, 2021 and November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive
and/or (b) all holders of Butterfly common stock as of the record
date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12,
2021 to consider approval of the merger between Longview
Acquisition Corp. and Butterfly.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 18, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/butterfly-network-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23903&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) Butterfly had overstated its
post-merger business and financial prospects; (ii) notwithstanding
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Butterfly's financial projections
failed to take into account the pandemic's broad consequences,
which included healthcare logistical challenges, and medical
personnel fatigue; (iii) accordingly, Butterfly's gross margin
levels and revenue projections were less sustainable than the
Company had represented; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on Butterfly's business
and financial condition; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard 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]
FLEET 18: Court Directs Parties to Consult Local Rule 3.02
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE CABALLERO v. FLEET
18, INC. and REY LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-00156-RBD-GJK
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. entered an order
directing the parties to:
-- Read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local
Rules.
-- Consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action
requires a case management conference and case management
report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions
listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). If a CMR is required,
utilization of the attached CMR form is mandatory.
The Court aid, "This Court makes an active effort to review each
case to identify parties and interested corporations in which the
assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge may have an interest,
and for other matters that might require consideration of recusal.
Compliant with Local Rule 3.03, within fourteen (14) days from the
day of this Order or, if a party joins this action subsequent to
the entry of this Order, from the date of a party's first
appearance, each party, pro se party, governmental party,
intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee is directed to
file and serve a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate
Disclosure Statement."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pzD4KI at no extra charge.[CC]
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carrol Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY CARROLL, TODD VAN
DER JAGT, JERRY RAY, TONY JELINEK, STEPHEN ANDERSON, AND FRED MINOR
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. FLEXSTEEL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERALD K. DITTMER, DEREK P. SCHMIDT, and UNNAMED
FIDUCIARIES OF FLEXSTEEL'S ERISA-GOVERNED SEVERANCE PLAN, Case No.
2:21-cv-01005-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order for:
1. Certification of a Class for settlement purposes;
2. Preliminary Approval of the settlement;
3. Approval of class notice to class members;
4. Appointment of Class Counsel;
5. Setting deadlines for filing claims, making objections,
opting out and the final fairness hearing to consider final
approval of the proposed settlement;
6. The Defendants do not resist this motion.
Flexsteel manufactures and sells wooden and upholstered furniture
for the retail, contract, and recreational vehicle furniture
markets.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sEg52N
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq.
Kelsey A.W. Marquard, Esq.
O'Brien & Marquard, P.L.C.
2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 140S
Davenport, Iowa 52807
Telephone: 563-355-6060
Facsimile: (563) 355-6666
E-mail: dao@emprights.com
kawm@emprights.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
56 S. Washington Street, Suite 302
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Telephone: (219) 242-8668
Facsimile: (219) 242-8669
E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com
- and -
Jesse R. Dill, Esq.
Pabst Boiler House
31243 North 10th Street, Suite 200
Milwaukee, WI 53205
Telephone: (414) 239-6400
Facsimile: (414) 755-8289
E-mail: jesse.dill@ogletree.com
FREDDIE MAC: Breach of Contract Securities Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (doing business as Freddie
Mac) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 10, 2022, that a consolidated complaint was
filed against the company alleging that the August 2012 amendment
to the Purchase Agreement breached Freddie Mac and Federal National
Mortgage Association's respective contracts with the holders of
junior preferred stock and common stock and the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts.
Three putative class action lawsuits were consolidated:
"Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA," filed on July 29,
2013; "American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA," filed on July 30, 2013; and "Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA,
Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation," filed on September 18, 2013.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac and Federal National Mortgage Association's
respective contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and
common stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
inherent in such contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a government sponsored
enterprise based in Virginia.
GATOS SILVER: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos
Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO) (a) common stock pursuant to the
Company's October 2020 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or (b)
securities between October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022. Gatos
Silver engages in the exploration, development, and production of
precious metals.
"the mineral resource and reserve estimates in the 2020 Technical
Report should not be relied upon."
What is this Case About: Gatos Silver, Inc. (GATO) Announces Errors
in Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates in its 2020 Technical
Report
According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement in support of the IPO and
during the class period. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the technical report for Gatos
Silver's primary mine contained certain errors, and (2) the mineral
reserves had been overstated by as much as 50%.
On January 25, 2022, Gatos Silver provided a resource and reserve
update for the Los Gatos Joint Venture, concluding "that there were
errors in the technical report entitled 'Los Gatos Project,
Chihuahua, Mexico' with an effective date of July 1, 2020 (the
'2020 Technical Report'), as well as indications that there is an
overestimation in the existing resource model." Therefore, "[o]n a
preliminary basis, the Company estimates a potential reduction of
the metal content of CLG's mineral reserve ranging from 30% to 50%
of the metal content remaining after depletion" and advised that
"the mineral resource and reserve estimates in the 2020 Technical
Report should not be relied upon." Following this news, Gatos
Silver stock fell by 69% to close at $3.17 per share on January 26,
2022. By the commencement of the lawsuit, Gatos Silver shares were
still down significantly from its $7.00 per share IPO price.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Gatos Silver, Inc. (GATO)
pursuant to the Company's October 2020 IPO or between October 28,
2020 and January 25, 2022, you have until April 25, 2022, to ask
the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate
in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.[GN]
GE CAPITAL CONSUMER: Belton Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 10, 2022, that a preliminary
approval of a class action settlement was filed by the plaintiff.
On April 30, 2014 "Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending," a
putative class action adversary proceeding was filed in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff
alleges that the Bank violates the discharge injunction under
Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by attempting to collect
discharged debts and by failing to update and correct credit
information to credit reporting agencies to show that such debts
are no longer due and owing because they have been discharged in
bankruptcy.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages. On December 15, 2014, the Bankruptcy
Court entered an order staying the adversary proceeding pending an
appeal to the District Court of the Bankruptcy Court's order
denying the Bank's motion to compel arbitration. On October 14,
2015, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court and on
November 4, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Bank's motion to
compel arbitration.
On March 4, 2019, on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the
District Court vacated its decision reversing the Bankruptcy Court
and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision denying the Bank's
motion to compel arbitration. On June 16, 2020, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Bank's appeal of the
District Court's decision. On October 5, 2021, the plaintiff filed
a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.
Synchrony Financial (formerly known as GE Capital Consumer Lending)
is a consumer financial services company based in Connecticut.
GEICO GENERAL: Partly Wins Bids to File Under Seal in Nichols Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MERLE NICHOLS on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign automobile insurance company, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-01253-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in
part and denied in part GEICO's three motions to seal.
I. Background
All the three motions are brought by Defendant GEICO, are unopposed
by Plaintiff Merle Nichols, and concern substantially similar
subject matter. The first was filed on May 15, 2021, regarding the
parties' Joint Status Report (redacted version filed as Docket
Number 139, sealed version filed as Docket Number 143) and the
Defendant's Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (redacted version
filed as Docket Number 140, sealed version filed as Docket Number
142). The second motion to seal was filed on Aug. 18, 2021,
regarding the Defendant's Motion for a Stay Pending En Banc Review
(redacted version filed as Docket Number 150, sealed version filed
as Docket Number 152). The third motion was filed on Nov. 24, 2021,
regarding an Updated Joint Status Report (redacted version filed as
Docket Number 157, sealed version filed as Docket Number 159). On
Nov. 29, 2021, the Court terminated two of the underlying motions
because they had been withdrawn. None of the filings the parties
seek to seal are dispositive motions.
A protective order is in place affording limited protection against
public disclosure of certain designated confidential material, but
by its own terms, it does not "presumptively entitle the parties to
file confidential information under seal." After adopting the
parties' proposed stipulated protective order, the Court granted
motions to seal several documents, including a hearing transcript.
A subsequent court order requires the parties to confer and submit
any sealing requests in the form of joint statements. The Court has
since granted motions to seal by the parties that complied with
that order. The parties have conferred and submitted the instant
sealing requests in the form of joint statements.
II. Discussion
The Court's previous order allowed sealing of the following, with
respect to motions relating to class certification: (1) documents
containing GEICO's confidential trade secrets or proprietary
competitive information; (2) confidential medical information for
GEICO insureds or claimants who are not parties to the lawsuit; and
(3) briefs or declarations containing confidential information.
Much of the information the parties are currently seeking to seal
is sufficiently similar -- if not identical to -- the competitive
business information previously allowed to be filed under seal.
In charts summarizing why sealing would be appropriate under the
heading "Reasons for Confidentiality Designation," GEICO asserts
that the materials contain information "derived from" three
declarations of employee Roberto Noriega and related to its
"confidential claims adjusting procedures and claims sampling
contained therein, as well as the confidential information
contained in prior documents already under seal." GEICO's
allegations of harm do not get much more specific in the remainder
of the joint statements. In all three joint statements, GEICO uses
the same stock language to describe the "specific discussions of
confidential information, including GEICO's processing of PIP
claims, and GEICO's analysis and tracking of these claims" that it
has redacted. It then offers a chronology of the other motions to
seal granted by the Court with examples of the information it has
been allowed to seal in the past.
Similarly, in each of the relevant joint statements, GEICO avers
alternatives are insufficient because the information it is seeking
leave to seal includes the company's "confidential trade secrets
and proprietary confidential competitive information" that is
"substantively indistinguishable from information this Court has
already ruled should be maintained under seal in the matter," is
"identifiable to GEICO," and "cannot be redacted," due to its
pertinence to the associated filing(s). Likewise, in all three
statements, Plaintiff Nichols' position regarding potential
alternatives to sealing is represented as one of non-objection and
lack of "sufficient knowledge to assess the asserted proprietary
sensitivity" of the information at issue.
Judge Lin's instant decision does not disturb previous rulings in
the case. Materials that have previously been allowed to be sealed
will remain under seal.
However, Judge Lin finds no good cause to allow the parties to seal
information that relates purely to the amount of time they expect
litigating this case will take. The Court has not previously
allowed this type of information to be filed under seal.
Additionally, the Court has specifically informed the parties that
it "will not accept motions to seal that fail to comply with the
Local Rules and offer only boilerplate reasons to seal documents
from the public domain." It directed that each sealing request must
be accompanied by (1) "specific examples" of the harm that would
result from allowing the material (or portions thereof) into the
public domain and (2) "articulated reasons" why less restrictive
alternatives to sealing would be insufficient. Yet, the parties
fail to supply in their joint statements any rationale supporting
their attempt to veil from public disclosure information about the
length of time their case will likely be pending before the Court.
Particularly troubling, according to Judge Lin, is GEICO's attempt
to conceal its outrageous request for a 200-day (40-week) jury
trial. She says, this extraordinary, unwarranted, and absolutely
unsupported demand on taxpayer-supported judicial resources is
totally at odds with the timeframe that Geico (along with the
Plaintiff) initially estimated would be required to try the case if
it had been certified as a class action. The Court has the power to
issue sanctions against attorneys and firms that engage in bad
faith conduct, and it will not tolerate such abusive litigation
tactics going forward.
III. Conclusion
Judge Lin granted in part and denied in part the parties' pending
motions to seal. The parties are ordered to re-file the documents
currently labeled with Docket Numbers 139, 140, 150, and 157
without redactions for any estimates or calculations regarding the
amount of time it will take for review of claim files or to
otherwise try the case. The Clerk of court is instructed to strike
Docket Numbers 139, 140, 150, and 157.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/br8m4u2x from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Hackler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Benjamin W. Cheesbro entered a scheduling order a follows:
Event Deadline
-- Written Discovery Feb. 28, 20221
-- Discovery Depositions of Fact March 29, 2022
Witnesses:
-- The Plaintiffs Motion for Class March 29, 2022
Certification:
-- The Defendant's Response to May 13, 2022
Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Motions for Summary Judgment: May 13, 2022
-- All Other Civil Motions (Including June 14, 2022
Daubed Motions; Excluding Motions
in Limine):
-- The Plaintiffs Reply in Support of June 14, 2022
Motion for Class Certification
-- Responses to Motions for Summary June 14, 2022
Judgment:
-- Replies in Support of Motions for July 15, 2022
Summary Judgment:
-- Depositions of All Witnesses Taken July 15, 2022
for Use at Trial:
-- Proposed Pre-Trial Order: Aug. 15, 2022
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing corporation. Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, the
company is the largest automobile manufacturer based in the United
States and one of the largest worldwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IKK1QA at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Infotainment Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit has survived another dismissal
challenge from General Motors, but only a few California claims
remain from the four plaintiffs who sued.
The judge has allowed the plaintiffs to change and refile their
lawsuit three times, but this time the judge dismissed certain
claims without leave to amend the claims.
The Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit includes:
"Plaintiffs [who] seek to represent a Class of all persons and
entities who purchased or leased 2013 to 2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX,
and XTS vehicles and 2014 to 2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR, and Escalade
vehicles equipped with General Motors' Cadillac User Experience
[CUE] touch screen display in the state of California."
According to the Cadillac CUE lawsuit, those models have defective
infotainment touchscreens that delaminate or separate from the
touchscreen glass.
The CUE infotainment system controls the audio, phone and climate
inputs for the car and displays the backup camera image. But the
plaintiffs allege mechanical or thermal stress causes the CUE
touchscreen to show spiderweb-like patterns on the display.
This allegedly prevents a vehicle occupant from using the
touchscreen due to the placement of the screws and rubberized
gasket that hold the plastic cover to the frame of the CUE.
Specifically, the Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit alleges the
plastic cover is anchored to the touch screen by eight screws, but
only two screws are placed on "the bottom portion of the plastic
cover, which causes it to flex and move when pressure is applied."
The plaintiffs claim this makes the plastic cover prone to
separating from the touchscreen glass.
Additionally, the rubber gasket is allegedly cut in a way that
creates too much space between the touchscreen and the plastic
cover, which "allows for more flexibility in the plastic cover,
which leads to the spider-webbing defect."
The CUE class action further alleges temperature changes cause
delamination between the plastic cover and the touchscreen glass.
Bringing the Cadillac to a dealer allegedly does no good because
any replacement CUE components are replaced with equally defective
replacement parts.
Motion to Dismiss the Cadillac CUE Class Action Lawsuit
Because this was the third amended lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs,
multiple claims against GM had already been dismissed in previous
actions.
This time around Judge Linda Lopez dismissed several claims and
granted GM's motion to dismiss "injunctive claims (1) to remove and
replace their CUE Systems with a suitable alternative product that
does not contain the alleged defects and (2) to perform a recall
and repair."
The judge also dismissed a claim against GM to prevent the
automaker from selling or leasing the Cadillac vehicles, and
certain California and unjust enrichment claims were also
dismissed.
The plaintiffs did find support for a claim they have standing to
compel General Motors to "reform its warranty to cover the injury
alleged and to notify all Class Members that such warranty has been
reformed."
Judge Lopez also refused to dismiss the "implied warranty of
merchantability claim pursuant to California Commercial Code
section 2314."
The Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California - Goldstein,
et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law, and Berger
Montague. [GN]
GETSWIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Case Management Hearing Set in March
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mason and Jemima Whyte, writing for Australian Financial
Review, report that former market darling GetSwift and its
directors are appealing a Federal Court loss to the corporate
regulator for what a judge lashed as a "public relations-driven
approach to disclosure" designed to pump up the technology
company's share price.
It comes as GetSwift chief executive Bane Hunter resigned from the
last mile logistics services business and Joel MacDonald, the
company's president, was appointed interim chief executive on Feb.
18 in Canada, where the company was relisted in January 2021 after
successfully applying to leave the Australian Securities Exchange
in late 2020.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission launched a
legal action against GetSwift and directors Mr Hunter and former
AFL footballer Mr MacDonald in February 2019. It later amended its
claim to include former director Brett Eagle.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which represents GetSwift, Mr
MacDonald and Mr Hunter, confirmed an appeal had been filed on
behalf of its clients. Mr Eagle's appeal was filed by law firm
Baker McKenzie on Feb. 18 The deadline for appeal was 4pm on
Friday, Feb. 18.
A series of articles in The Australian Financial Review questioning
GetSwift's rapid-fire ASX disclosures revealed the company had
failed to update the market when it lost customers after trial
periods. These revelations helped drive the ASX to tighten
disclosure requirements in 2018 and prompted ASIC's legal action.
In its legal case, the corporate regulator alleged GetSwift issued
a string of misleading announcements about customers it had secured
in deals in 2017, which caused its share price to shoot up 1900 per
cent.
In the November decision now being appealed by GetSwift and the
directors, Justice Michael Lee ruled Mr Hunter was "knowingly
involved" in 16 of the 22 continuous disclosure breaches, 29 of the
misleading and deceptive conduct contraventions and had breached
his director's duties.
Case management hearing
Justice Lee found Mr MacDonald was "knowingly involved" in 20 of
the 22 continuous disclosure breaches, 33 of the misleading and
deceptive conduct contraventions and had breached his director's
duties.
He ruled Mr Eagle was "knowingly involved" in three of the 22
continuous disclosure breaches and had breached his director's
duties.
GetSwift noted in its Canadian quarterly filings that it intended
to appeal.
"In regards to both the appeal and the hearing, the corporation has
recorded a provision which has been included in general and
administrative expenses within the condensed interim consolidated
statements of loss and other comprehensive loss for the three and
six months ended December 31, 2021," it said.
The company, which delisted from the ASX and is now trading on
Canada's NEO exchange, told investors in July last year it had
agreed with the shareholders to settle a separate, long-running
class action.
However, questions arose about GetSwift's ability to fund the $1.5
million upfront payout - to go along with continuing contributions
from future capital raisings - as the company tries to find enough
cash to keep running in the short term. A case management hearing
will be held for the class action suit in March.
In its second quarter results, GetSwift said it was "in the process
to secure enough capital funding to continue operations in the
short term".
"Despite a working capital deficiency of ($US3,424,736) as at
December 31, 2021, the corporation has a reasonable expectation
that it should be able to obtain short-term funding by the end of
February 2022 that will provide the corporation with sufficient
working capital for the next 4-5 months," the company's accounts
said.
"Following such short-term funding, the corporation is planning to
obtain additional funding for over the longer term."
Four days after GetSwift's quarterly results, the company announced
the resignation of Mr Hunter.
"Bane's passion for growing GetSwift into a global enterprise was
only outmatched by his dedication to the GetSwift team," GetSwift
chairman Stanley Pierre-Louis said.
"While the board reluctantly accepts his resignation, we are
grateful to Bane for his vision, dedication and relentless efforts
to achieve successful outcomes for the company, its employees and,
most importantly, its shareholders. Bane's future will no doubt be
filled with successes." [GN]
GIRARD, OH: Legislation on Traffic Cameras Proposed Amid Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dvid Skolnick, writing for Tribune Chronicle, reports that an Ohio
House member who has proposed legislation to restrict the use of
traffic cameras over the years has introduced several new bills on
their use.
"Traffic cameras have proven to be a nuisance to the public,
providing zero increase to public safety," said state Rep. Tom
Patton, R-Strongsville. "While I understand their purpose in
principle, I have yet to see it in practice."
Girard Mayor James Melfi, whose city uses speed cameras, said
Patton's proposals don't "bother me. We've seen and heard proposals
before. We're in the business of protecting citizens and
pedestrians and raising revenue. If this legislation is passed, we
would follow it."
Of Patton's seven new bills, four were introduced in the last
legislative session, but didn't get out of committee.
Those four would prohibit:
-- A community that doesn't operate a fire department or an
emergency medical service organization to use traffic
photo-monitoring devices.
-- A community with fewer than 200 residents from using the
devices.
-- A community from issuing a total number of traffic citations
using the devices annually that exceeds two times its population.
-- A community from getting more than 30 percent of its total
annual revenue from the issuance of citations from the devices.
The new Patton proposals would:
-- Prohibit the placement of traffic cameras within a half-mile of
an interstate highway entrance.
-- Prohibit a community located in a county with a population of
at least 1 million from using traffic cameras on interstate
highways. Only Franklin and Cuyahoga counties have populations that
size.
-- Require 80 percent of all revenue from traffic camera
citations to be used for law enforcement expenses.
IN GIRARD
Melfi said the 80 percent proposal would impact Girard as about 40
percent of the money collected through speed camera citations goes
to the police department.
The rest, he said, is used for street improvements such as paving
and the purchase a few years ago of a street sweeper as well as
toward recreation.
"We're trying to slow traffic down and create revenue, which is a
problem to some," Melfi said. "Slower speeds make for safer
roads."
Even if all of Patton's bills pass, Melfi said the city will
continue to use speed cameras.
"These bills provide reasonable solutions to our ever-growing
problem of the misuse of local authority," Patton said.
Patton said the proposal related to county population is because
Linndale, a community near Cleveland with about 100 residents,
makes about 95 percent of its general revenues from the issuance of
fines, licenses and permits generated by traffic camera citations.
CORRUPT?
Attorney Marc Dann, who is representing a group of people who got
speeding citations in Girard in a class-action suit, said the
cameras are a "cesspool for corruption."
Dann, a former state attorney general, said he co-sponsored
legislation to change the traffic camera laws during his time in
the state Senate from 2003 to 2006.
The cameras are "a cash grab by communities that are more concerned
with money than traffic enforcement," Dann said.
More than 7,700 people driving on a section of Interstate 80 in
Girard were cited and billed for speeding for about a month as the
cameras were set for a construction zone of 55 mph when the
construction had finished Dec. 7, 2017, and the regular 65 mph
limit was in force. One sign was left on the road stating the speed
limit was 55 mph.
Judge Andrew Logan of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court agreed to
an out-of-court settlement with Blue Line Solutions, the traffic
camera company, in December 2021. Logan also absolved the city of
any financial blame.
Dann filed an appeal with the 11th District Court of Appeals
seeking damages from the city.
"It's literally highway robbery," Dann said.
He added: "You fight more crime when you pull people over for
speeding than using the cameras. Pulling people over not only
deters speeding, but you get the opportunity to get drug dealers
who are on I-80 or people with a back seat full of AK-47s. You're
giving up something by not doing traffic stops."
HIGH COURT
Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court heard a case from
Newburgh Heights and East Cleveland, both in Cuyahoga County,
contending a state law approved in 2019 related to traffic cameras
was unconstitutional.
That law required these cases be heard in municipal or county
courts rather than administrative hearings and reduced a
community's Local Government Fund payment by the amount it received
in traffic camera citations.
The Cleveland-based 8th District Court of Appeals ruled that the
Local Government Fund reduction as well as an advanced deposit
requirement for filing fees and court costs violated home rule. The
state appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Feb. 16 that New Miami in Butler
County didn't have to refund $3 million to motorists who received
speed-camera tickets.
The village had collected about $3 million in a 20-month period,
starting in July 2012, from speed cameras from people driving at
least 11 mph over the limit. Those in that class-action lawsuit
contend the camera program is unconstitutional.
The court ruled to let a 12th District Court of Appeals decision
from October 2020 in favor of the village stand. [GN]
GRASS CLIPS: Fails to Pay Landscapers' Overtime, Cortez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL VALENTIN CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRASS CLIPS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00717-AT (N.D. GA., Feb. 18, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Cortez was employed by the Defendant as landscaper.
GRASS CLIPS, INC. offers complete landscape and lawn maintenance to
commercial and residential clients. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael David Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678)780-4880
Facsimile: (478)575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
GREYSTAR REAL: Wallace Bid to Certify Eviction Class Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA WALLACE, on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs
entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification as to the Eviction Class;
and
2. denying as to the Collection Letter Class.
The Court said, "The Defendants argue that statutory and treble
damages available under Counts II and III of the Plaintiff's
Complaint weigh against class certification because they (1)
provide ample incentives for bringing individual actions and (2)
will be distorted under the DCA "to the point of ruination." The
Court, however, dismissed Counts II and III in an Order issued
simultaneously with this Order, rendering this argument moot. In
conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden under
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)."
In this purported class action, the Plaintiff alleges that her
landlords charged her "Eviction Fees" in February 2018 in violation
of North Carolina's Residential Rental Agreements Act, and other
laws.
The Plaintiff leased an apartment from "Greystar" from April 23,
2017, until June 21, 2018. After Plaintiff missed her February 2018
rental payment, the Defendants filed for summary ejectment in state
court, issued Plaintiff a collection letter, and charged her a $201
eviction "filing fee" "[to dismiss the eviction filing"
(hereinafter "Eviction Fees"). The Plaintiff immediately paid the
Eviction Fees, late fee, and outstanding rent. The Defendants then
voluntarily dismissed their ejectment action.
"Greystar" is a brand used by a network of entities that managed
159 properties in North Carolina throughout the relevant time
period. If a tenant at a Greystar managed property failed to pay
rent, Greystar employees would issue and send a collection letter
generated from a template, identical or similar to the one sent to
Plaintiff.
They would then upload the tenant's information into an online
portal called Nationwide Eviction, a service used to hire attorneys
to file summary ejectment actions and add Eviction Fees to tenant
ledgers. Greystar charged between $181 and $201 for each eviction
filing plus $30 for each additional tenant on the lease.
The Plaintiff filed this suit on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated in state court, and Defendants removed to this
Court on June 13, 2018.
The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 24, 2018, which
alleges that the threat and collection of Eviction Fees violated
the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act ("RRAA"), the
North Carolina Debt Collection Act
("DCA"), and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("UDTPA").
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tr5I1M at no extra charge.[CC]
GRILL CREATIONS: Faces Stark Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL STARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRILL CREATIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-01072 (D.N.J., Feb. 28, 2022) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Beginning on or about July 12, 2021, the Defendant began bombarding
the Plaintiff with telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s
cellular telephone number ending in 2468.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.
The Defendant is a restaurant specializing in Mexican-style
cuisine. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
HAIER US: Parties in Jones Suit Directed to Confer Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheryl Jones v. Haier US
Appliance Solutions, Inc., doing business as GE Appliances, Case
No. 6:22-cv-00409 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered
an endorsed order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of
expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2)
discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4)
response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion
for class certification, says Judge Byron.
The nature of suit states contract -- contract product liability.
GE Appliances is an American home appliance manufacturer based in
Louisville, Kentucky. It has been majority owned by multinational
home appliances company Haier since 2016.[CC]
HALLMARK AVIATION: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Discovery in Elhassa
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALMA ELHASSA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HALLMARK AVIATION SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-09768-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman Leentered an order
denying the motion to stay discovery.
The Court said, "The Court cannot say that the Defendant has made a
strong showing that it is likely to on its argument that there is
no private right of action for the late payment of wages. The New
York Appellate Division First Department has held that the New York
Labor Law permits employees to seek liquidated damages for the
untimely payment of wages even if the wages are no longer past due.
But, as the Defendant admits, the question in Konkur had to do with
the implication of a private right of action for a different
provision of the NYLL. Vega rested on a different ground. Vega did
not hold that a private right of action was implied for the late
payment of wages. It concluded that the NeYLL "expressly provides a
private right of action for [the late payment of wages].
Defendant's position that no private right of action exists is
dependent on its erroneous assertion that the late payment of wages
is not an underpayment of wages." Without prejudging the ultimate
outcome of the motion to dismiss, those decisions are sufficient to
cast doubt on the assertion that Defendant has made a "strong
showing" that it is likely to succeed."
The Defendant offers load and flight control, crew administration,
check-in and ticketing, centralized baggage, and training services
at airports throughout the country, including at LaGuardia Airport
and John F. Kennedy Airport in New York.
The Plaintiff was employed as a customer service agent at JFK
Airport from July 2019 through March 2021, and from November 7,
2021 to present. She brings this action on behalf of herself and
all other similar customer service agents who work or have worked
for Hallmark in New York in the past six years to remedy what she
claims are violations of the NYLL. Specifically, she alleges two
separate violations of the NYLL. First, she alleges that Defendant
failed to pay her wages on the weekly basis upon which she was
entitled to be paid as a manual laborer and thus Defendant has
violated the timely payment of wages provisions under the NYLL.
Second, she alleges that she (and other members of the class) did
not receive wage notices and wage statements as required by the
NYLL; although Defendant gave her a numerical code to use on its
proprietary computer system, it did not provide her an email or
password which is necessary access the paystub and the software
does not allow one to set up an email or password.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sALQdb at no extra charge.[CC]
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Jason Sanders Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON L. SANDERS v. HEIDI
E. WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00510-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motions seeking class
certification; and
2. denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDQvLA at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS: DoC Faces Class Action Over Prison Inhumane Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that prisoners at an Illinois Department of
Corrections facility in Joliet suffer through nightmare living
conditions, with rat-infested cells, rotten food and raw sewage
overflowing into common areas, a lawsuit says.
The suit, which is asking to be granted class-action status, was
filed on Feb. 17 against top officials of the Northern Reception
and Classification Center. It says they have violated the
constitutional rights of the estimated 1,000 people incarcerated
there.
Living spaces and common areas are infested with mice, rats, birds
and insects, according to the suit filed against warden David Gomez
and Rob Jeffreys, the facility's director, who are accused of
having allowed inhumane conditions to develop and ignored pleas to
act.
"Mice run in and out of cells all night long. Cockroaches crawl up
the walls, crawl into bedding and bury themselves in commissary
items. Gnats and flies swarm the pools of flooded water in common
shower areas," according to the lawsuit, filed by the Uptown
People's Law Center and Jenner & Block.
Winter is when the vermin problem is at its worst, as more mice and
rats come inside to escape the cold, the lawsuit says. The sound of
running mice echoes through the cells at night, according to the
lawsuit, disrupting prisoners' sleep.
"Within the confines of their cells, prisoners have no escape from
the bugs and mice that crawl, scurry and burrow in every corner,"
the lawsuit said. "This sense of helplessness, on a day-to-day
basis, degrades the psychological health of all prisoners who
experience it."
The Northern Reception and Classification Center is an adult male
intake and processing unit for the entire Department of Correction
system. Prisoners stay there while awaiting transfer to a permanent
institution, but there is no limit on how long that can take.
The facility has 1,800 beds and 24 housing units.
"Entering prison is always going to be a shock," said Alan Mills,
executive director of the Uptown People's Law Center. "But forcing
people to endure infestation by vermin, undrinkable water and
extended solitary confinement when they first enter Illinois'
prison system is unacceptable and serves no legitimate purpose."
The lawsuit also claims prisoners are living with unsafe water and
deficient plumbing. Faucets at sinks inside the cells often don't
work -- and when they do, they sometimes dispense brown water that
smells like sewage.
Likewise, toilets in the cells sometimes have no water and other
times overflow or back up into sinks -- "where prisoners are
supposed to get their drinking water, brush their teeth and wash
their hands."
Prisoners often use their own clothing or towels to clean up, the
lawsuit alleges, and those soiled items are never replaced.
The Illinois Department of Corrections did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
There are also allegations of prisoners being fed only spoiled food
that sometimes makes them ill.
"Prisoners who do eat the food are routinely forced to eat around
moldy, rotten patches of food," according to the lawsuit.
Another problem cited in the lawsuit is lack of "yard time" for
prisoners. Since November 2021, according to the lawsuit, prisoners
at the facility have had no out-of-cell time -- and the cells often
are too small to exercise.
"Prison officials have known how bad the conditions are for years,
but they've chosen to ignore the situation and shuffle prisoners
along in the penal system," said Ben Bradford, an attorney with
Jenner & Block. "We want to shine a light on the inhumane
conditions at the Northern Reception Center; it's time to amplify
prisoners' voices and force change at this facility." [GN]
ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Response in Werner Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL K. WERNER, v.
GREGORY HACKER, Case No. 3:21-cv-01431-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting him a 14-day
extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction.
On January 25, 2022, this Court resolved several pending matters
and directed that the Defendant respond to Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction by February 24, 2022.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3trCyzB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Cook, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
500 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Telephone: (217) 785-4555
Facsimile: (217) 782-8767
E-mail: lisa.cook@ilag.gov
INGALLS MEMORIAL: HIPAA Protects Worker Info, Court Finds in Mazya
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, LUCILLE MOSBY, Individually, and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THE INGALLS
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, UCM COMMUNITY HEALTH & HOSPITAL DIVISION, INC.,
and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants. YANA
MAZYA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL,
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, OMNICELL, INC., and BECTON,
DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendants (Northwestern Lake Forest
Hospital and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare,
Defendants-Appellants), Case Nos. 1-20-0822 and 1-21-0895, cons
(Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First
District, Sixth Division, issued an Opinion:
a. finding that the legislature did not exclude employee
biometric information from its protections, consistent with
the plain language of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996; and
b. answering the following certified question in the negative:
Does finger-scan information collected by a health care
provider from its employees fall within the Biometric
Information Privacy Act's exclusion for 'information
collected, used, or stored for health care treatment,
payment or operations under the federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,' 740 ILCS
14/10, when the employee's finger-scan information is used
for purposes related to 'healthcare,' 'treatment,'
'payment,' and/or 'operations' as those terms are defined
by the HIPAA statute and regulations?
I. Background
Plaintiff Mosby filed a class-action suit individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against Defendants Ingalls
Memorial Hospital and UCM Community Health & Hospital Division,
Inc. (collectively Ingalls), and Becton, Dickinson and Co. (BD)
(collectively Group Defendants One). Similarly, Plaintiff Yana
Mazya filed a class-action suit individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated against Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital
and Northwestern Memorial Healthcare (collectively Group Defendants
Two).
During the course of the litigation, Group Defendants One filed an
interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308
(eff. Oct. 1, 2019) to have the Court answer this certified
question: Whether the exclusion in Section 10 of BIPA for
information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment,
payment, or operations under the federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 applies to biometric
information of health care workers (as opposed to patients)
collected, used or stored for health care treatment, payment or
operations under HIPAA?
Subsequently, Group Defendants Two also filed an interlocutory
appeal pursuant to Rule 308 concerning the same issue: Does
finger-scan information collected by a health care provider from
its employees fall within the Biometric Information Privacy Act's
exclusion for 'information collected, used, or stored for health
care treatment, payment or operations under the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,' 740 ILCS
14/10, when the employee's finger-scan information is used for
purposes related to 'healthcare,' 'treatment,' 'payment,' and/or
'operations' as those terms are defined by the HIPAA statute and
regulations?
Both Droup Defendants' petitions for leave to appeal were
permitted. However, at this time, the only question submitted for
the Court's review is the question submitted by Group Defendants
two.
II. Analysis
On appeal, Northwestern contends that the Court should answer the
certified question in the affirmative because the plain language of
section 10 demonstrates that employee biometric information used in
medication dispensing systems is excluded from protections of the
Act.
The Appellate Court opines that the Act on which the certified
question is based defines "biometric information" as "any
information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored,
or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to
identify an individual." The Act defines "biometric identifiers" as
"a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or
face geometry." he parties do not dispute that the fingerprint scan
of the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated hospital
employees is a biometric identifier and, when stored, this
fingerprint constitutes biometric information as outlined in the
Act.
Northwestern and the amici contend that the circuit court erred in
finding that the carveouts for health-related information apply
only to information taken from a patient because the plain language
of the Act does not read to limit patient biometric data. They
maintain that biometric identifiers as defined by the Act included
an "or" exception as they pertain to health care information.
The Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court did not err in
holding that Northwestern is not exempt from the Act and that it
excludes only patient biometric data from its protections because
patient data is already protected by HIPAA. They assert that this
would in effect leave thousands of hospital workers unprotected
from the risks that the Act was designed to protect against. The
Plaintiffs assert that Northwestern's interpretation of how "or"
creates two clauses would make sense if the "under HIPAA" language
was not present because patient information is the only information
governed by HIPAA.
The Appellate Court opines that the language of the statute is
clear and simple disagreement between the parties will not create
ambiguity in the statute. What is excluded from the protections of
section 10 are (1) information from the patient in a healthcare
setting and (2) information that is already protected "under the
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996." Even taking into consideration the disjunctive "or," section
10 still has the same effect of excluding those two classifications
of information. Indeed, the disjunctive "or" means that patient
information and information under HIPAA are alternatives that are
to be considered separately.
At oral argument, Northwestern argued that the Appeallte Court
should not consider the terminology "under HIPAA" and instead it
should consider this as "defined by HIPAA." However, "under HIPAA"
is what the Act expressly states, and that cannot be ignored. The
Appellate Court is simply unable to rewrite the statute. Either
way, it holds that the biometric information of employees is simply
not defined or protected "under HIPAA." Accordingly, the plain
language of the statute does not exclude employee information from
the Act's protections because they are neither (1) patients nor (2)
protected under HIPAA.
The Appeallte Court further finds that, if the legislature intended
to create a wide-ranging exemption for hospitals, it would have
done so, since the Act does contain a separate blanket exclusion.
This is demonstrated in the Act when the legislature expressly
provided that the Act was not to apply to financial institutions
subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
and employees, contractors, or subcontractors of local government
or the State as provided in section 25.
Finally, Northwestern's inclusion of employee's biometric
information under the exclusion goes beyond the plain language of
the Act. The Appellate Court is unable to rewrite the statute to
add provisions or limitations that the legislature did not include.
No rule of construction permits the Appellate Court to declare that
the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute
imports. There is simply no provision or reference to the
protection of employee biometric data in the Act or in HIPAA. Thus,
the Appellate Court will not add employee biometric data as
information to be excluded by the Act because it would be contrary
to the plain language of the Act. Based thereon, it need not
consider other sources in order to find the statutory meaning.
III. Conclusion
Consistent with the plain language of the Act, the Appellate Court
finds that the legislature did not exclude employee biometric
information from its protections, and it answers the certified
question in the negative. It remands this cause for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/43z7zwpd from Leagle.com.
Joseph A. Strubbe -- jstrubbe@vedderprice.com -- Frederic T. Knape,
and Zachary J. Watters, of Vedder Price P.C., and Gary M. Miller,
Matthew C. Wolfe, and Elisabeth A. Hutchinson, of Shook, Hardy &
Bacon L.L.P., both of Chicago, for Appellants Ingalls Memorial
Hospital, UCM Community Health & Hospital Division, Inc., and
Becton, Dickinson and Company.
Joel Griswold -- jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- and Bonnie Keane
DelGobbo, of Baker & Hostetler LLP, of Chicago, for other
Appellants.
James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Ryan F. Stephan,
Andrew C. Ficzko, Catherine T. Mitchell, and Paige L. Smith, of
Stephan Zouras, LLP, of Chicago, for the Appellees.
Michael A. Woods, of Naperville, and Richard H. Tilghman --
rhtilghman@nixonpeabody.com -- of Nixon Peabody LLP, and Bonnie
Keane DelGobbo and Joel Griswold, of Baker & Hostetler LLP, both of
Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Health and Hospital Association,
et al.
INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Continuance of Class Cert. Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY MEJIA, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. INGLEWOOD
SPORTSERVICE, INC.; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED and DOES
I to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09564-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the
deadline for her to file motion for class certification until after
the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, scheduled
for March 28, 2022.
Inglewood delivers beverage.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hCghcK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Pooja V Patel, Esq.)
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
ppatel@lelawfirm.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East | Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 201-1532
jbrophy@seyfarth.com
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Wallace Seeks Briefing Schedule Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIQUAN WALLACE, v.
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES LLC, TRIHOP MANAGEMENT LLC, TRIHOP
177TH STREET LLC, TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, TRIHOP 69TH STREET LLC,
JOHN DOE LLC, BEN ASHKENAZY, EDWARD SCANNAPIECO, and KWESI THOMAS,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06993-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order setting a pre-motion conference in anticipation
of his intention to move for Certification of this action, or in
the alternative, so-order the below proposed briefing schedule as
follows:
-- Opening Brief March 11, 2022
-- Defendants' Opposition April 11, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' Reply April 25, 2022
The Plaintiff intends to move for collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf
of all employees of the Defendants who have been subject to a
common and unified policy of unpaid minimum wage and overtime
wages, uniform mainteance and costs damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorney's fees and cost
under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) all of which
caused the Defendants' employees substantial economic harm.
IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain
that specializes in breakfast foods. It is owned by Dine Brands
Global—a company formed after IHOP's purchase of Applebee's, with
99% of the restaurants run by independent franchisees.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KabXxA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com
IT'SUGAR LLC: Fails to Comply FACTA, Hall Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE A. HALL, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. IT'SUGAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. CACE-22-002402 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 25,
2022) arises from Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
a federal law which requires persons that accept debit cards or
credit cards for the transaction of business to truncate certain
card number account information on printed receipts provided to
consumers.
Despite the clear language of the statute, the Defendant allegedly
failed to comply with FCRA by printing the first 10 digits of their
customers' credit card and debit card numbers on point-of-sale
transaction receipts.
As a result of Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and
others who conducted business with Defendant during the time frame
relevant to this action have suffered a violation of their
substantive rights under 15 U.S.C. section 1681c(g), an invasion of
their privacy, breach of their confidence in the safe handling of
their account information, breach of an implied bailment, exposure
to an elevated risk of identity theft, financial loss, and were
unfairly burdened with the need to keep or destroy the receipt, so
as to prevent further disclosure of their sensitive credit or debit
card information.
The Plaintiff and the proposed Class allege an actual or legal
injury herein and have a sufficient interest at stake in this
controversy that will be affected by the outcome of the
litigation.
The Defendant manufactures candy and other confectionery products.
The Company offers cupcakes, geeks delights, bacon lovers, and
mustache products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
ezebersky@zpllp.com
- and -
Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (954) 962-2333
Facsimile: (954) 960-6565
E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com
J & J SAFETYMATE: Faces Kim Suit Over Store Clerks' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heung Yol Kim on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. J & J Safetymate Corp. dba College Point Safety Mate
and Yun Hee Kim, Case No. 1:22-cv-01070 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022)
seeks recover unpaid overtime wages, and other damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against
defendants' unlawful actions, overtime wage, liquidated damages,
compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL.
The Defendants own and operate College Point Safety Mate, a safety
equipment supply store at 58-19 College Point Blvd., Flushing New
York. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated at the statutorily overtime wage as required by
law.
Kim was employed as a store clerk by Defendants from September
2013, through January 23, 2022. During the employment period for
the Defendants, Kim was an individual who engaged in commerce or
the production of goods for commerce and handling, selling, or
otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or
produced for commerce by any person.
J & J owns and operates College Point Safety Mate in Flushing New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee NJ 07024
Telephone: (718) 573-1111
E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com
JAMES LEBLANC: Expert Reports Must be Submitted by March 4
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY v. JAMES
LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233 (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Scott D
Johnson entered an order on motion for extension of time as
follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' expert reports for class certification must
now be submitted to the opposing party on or before March
4, 2022.
-- All other pending deadlines remain unchanged.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
JOHNS MANVILLE: Bid to Strike Chase Class Suit Junked
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chase Manufacturing, Inc.
v. Johns Manville Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-cv-00872-MEH (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Hegarty entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion to strike (filed January 14, 2022); the
Defendant's motion to exclude (filed December 6, 2021); and the
Plaintiff's Motion to exclude (filed December 6, 2021).
The question of whether the Plaintiff can prove the merits of its
claims for relief remains unanswered. It will be Plaintiff's burden
to explain how it must prove its case and what evidence supports
its theories. It must do so on the full record. This Court sees no
reason to strike or otherwise exclude the challenged expert witness
reports, the Court says.
The Plaintiff contends that the law of the case forecloses the need
for an explanation of the mechanical insulation industry. Plaintiff
refers to the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment at Chase Mfg., Inc. v. Johns Manville Corp., No.
19-cv-00872-MEH, 2021 WL 50871 (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2021). In it and
preceding rulings, the Court declined to define the relevant market
to necessarily include calsil's end users within its scope or to
exclude the possibility that factors other than price may influence
calsil demand. The Court did not enter summary judgment in
Defendant's favor. Moreover, that ruling was limited to the record
then available.
The Plaintiff itself regards Defendant's endeavor as "premature,"
and at the time, the Plaintiff complained that the Defendant was
ignoring the "highly fact-intensive" task of "defining a relevant
product market."
The undisputed material facts that the Court drew from the then
record were measured and limited in scope. Neither they nor other
aspects of that ruling prevents a fuller inquiry into whether
Plaintiff can prove an antitrust violation. The Court finds no
basis to exclude the challenged opinions of Mr. King on Rule 702 or
Daubert grounds.
Johns Manville is an American corporation based in Denver, Colorado
that manufactures insulation, roofing materials, and engineered
products.
Chase designs, engineers and manufactures a wide variety of
decorative products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBG633 at no extra charge.[CC]
JOLO INC: Saad, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH SAAD, ET AL., v.
JOLO, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-11377-TSH (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying the proposed Class(es) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);
2. Appointing the Plaintiffs Deanna Gallo, Brittany Duchaine,
Sanchare Kelly, and Leah Saad as the Class Representative
for each respective Class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23;
3. Appointing their counsel as Class Counsel for each Class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and
4. Providing for such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hz3iDe
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David D. Dishman, Esq..
DISHMAN LAW, PC
224 Lewis Wharf
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 617-523-5252
E-mail: david@dishmanlaw.com
- and -
Tod A. Cochran, Esq.
PYLE ROME EHRENBERG PC
2 Liberty Square, 10 th Floor
Boston MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 367-7200
E-mail: tcochran@pylerome.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
Formisano & Co., P.C.
100 Midway Place, Suite 1
Cranston, RI 02920
Telephone: (401) 944-9691
E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com
JUST SALAD: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz Loses Bid to Certify Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODOLFO TECOCOATZI-ORTIZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. JUST
SALAD LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-7342 (JGK)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York:
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment; and
(ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs in the case are 16 former employees of Just Salad
restaurant locations who worked as delivery persons. The Defendants
are Just Salad LLC; 24 Just Salad franchises; and Nicholas Kenner,
Just Salad's cofounder and chief executive officer.
The Plaintiffs advance 15 causes of action, alleging that the
Defendants:
a. Violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York
Labor Law (NYLL), and related regulations by illegally retaining
tips (Counts 1 and 2);
b. Violated the FLSA, NYLL, and related regulations by taking
unlawful kickbacks (Counts 3 and 4);
c. Violated the FLSA, NYLL, and related regulations by
willfully failing to pay the minimum wage (Counts 5 and 6);
d. Violated the FLSA, NYLL, and related regulations by failing
to pay the plaintiffs overtime wages (Counts 7, 8, and 9);
e. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to pay
spread of hours wages (Count 10);
f. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to
keep adequate weekly payroll records (Count 11);
g. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to
provide tip credit notices at the time of hire and thereafter
(Count 12);
h. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to
provide the Plaintiffs with compliant pay stubs (Count 13);
i. Violated the NYLL and related regulations by failing to
reimburse the Plaintiffs for uniform maintenance costs (Count 14);
and
j. Breached an implied contractual obligation to reimburse the
Plaintiffs for costs associated with their bicycles and other
delivery vehicles (Count 15).
The Defendants have moved for summary judgment dismissing all the
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
II. Discussion
A.
The Defendants first argue that all claims against Kenner should be
dismissed because he was not an "employer" of the Plaintiffs within
the meaning of the FLSA or the NYLL.
Judge Koeltl opines that n reasonable jury could find that Kenner
was the Plaintiffs' "employer" under either the FLSA or NYLL.
Although he is an owner and founder of Just Salad, there is no
genuine dispute that Kenner did not exercise day-to-day supervision
over delivery personnel and was not involved in scheduling or
hiring/firing decisions. The Plaintiffs have not submitted any
evidence regarding Kenner's role in any just Salad Store.
Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that Kenner ever gave
any direction to any of the Plaintiffs or ever interacted with any
of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs point to several aspects of
Kenner's job responsibilities that they contend demonstrate that he
was an employer of them, but these arguments are without merit. The
fact that Kenner made certain high-level corporate level decisions
that were remote from the day-to-day conditions of the Plaintiffs'
employment is insufficient to demonstrate that Kenner is an
"employer" of the plaintiffs within the meaning of the NYLL or
FLSA.
Accordingly, all claims against Kenner are dismissed with
prejudice.
B.
The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing all claims
against 12 Defendants, arguing that there is no evidence that any
Plaintiff was ever employed by those Defendants. The Plaintiffs do
not dispute that they never worked at ten of these locations, but
instead argue that all the Just Salad Defendants are liable under
the so-called single integrated enterprise theory of liability.
Judge Koeltl holds that although the Plaintiffs contend that
certain human resources functions were centralized across the Just
Salad locations, district managers worked with the general managers
of certain locations, and certain policies applied across all
locations, the Plaintiffs fail to explain how the stores where they
did not work had any control or supervision over them. There is
also no evidence that the operations of different locations were
"interrelated" or that the stores at which the Plaintiffs did not
work had any input into the employment or human resources decisions
at the stores where the Plaintiffs did work.
Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that all
the Just Salad stores are part of the same corporate structure or
under common ownership and management. Indeed, the Plaintiffs have
failed to identify any Just Salad franchisor or any corporate
parent entity that might control all the Just Salad stores.
Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing all claims against Just
Salad nd the ten stores where the Plaintiffs never worked is
granted.
C.
The Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing all FLSA claims
advanced by Carranza and Medel as untimely. Claims alleging willful
violations of the FLSA, such as the claims in the case, are subject
to a three-year statute of limitations. Claims under the FLSA
accrue "when the employer fails to pay the required compensation
for any work week at the regular pay day for the period when the
workweek ends."
Judge Koeltl finds that Carranza and Medel have not worked for any
Defendant since December 2011 and October 2012, respectively.
Accordingly, all of Carranza's and Medel's FLSA claims are untimely
unless their claims were filed before December 2014 or October
2015. Both the Plaintiffs filed their consents to become Plaintiffs
in the action on Aug. 14, 2018. Therefore, all of Carranza's and
Medel's claims arising under the FLSA must be dismissed with
prejudice as time-barred.
D.
The remaining Plaintiffs assert four categories of claims that
arise under both the FLSA and NYLL: Dailure to pay the minimum wage
and provide proper tip credit notices (Counts 5, 6, and 12);
illegal retention of tips (Counts 1 and 2); unlawful kickbacks
(Counts 3 and 4); and failure to pay adequate overtime wages
(Counts 7, 8, and 9). The Defendants move for summary judgment
dismissing all these claims.
First, Judge Koeltl holds that it is undisputed that during the
entire FLSA limitations period, the hourly salaries of
Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, and Zapotitlan Sanchez did
not drop below $7.50, which is above the federal minimum
wage.Accordingly, all FLSA minimum wage and tip credit claims
advanced by Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, and Zapotitlan
Sanchez are dismissed with prejudice. Whether the remaining minimum
wage and tip credit claims must also be dismissed depends on
whether the Defendants' tip credit practices complied with the
relevant statutes.
Second, Judge Koeltl dismissed all claims arising under the NYLL
and the FLSA based on the allegation that the Defendants illegally
retained the Plaintiffs' tips with prejudice as to all remaining
Plaintiffs. He finds no genuine dispute that third party delivery
providers -- Grub Hub and Seamless -- took and retained the
delivery fees, not the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' arguments based
on the credit card processing fees are likewise without merit
because the Plaintiffs made no such allegations in their complaint
and raised the argument for the first time in their brief in
opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Third, Judge Koeltl holds that all FLSA tip credit notice claims
advanced by the following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice:
Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Baten, Ramos Flores, Pereda
Abarca, and Zempoalteca Montes. All FLSA and NYLL tip credit notice
claims advanced by Fernandez Gutierrez and Galeana are dismissed
with prejudice. Summary judgment dismissing the remaining NYLL and
FLSA tip credit notice claims is denied.
Fourth, Judge Koeltl opines that the non-tipped side work claims
arising under the FLSA advanced by the following Plaintiffs are
dismissed with prejudice: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, and Ramos
Flores. The non-tipped side work claims arising under the FLSA and
the NYLL for the following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice:
Lema Mayancela, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Yuquilema Mullo, and Fernandez
Gutierrez. Summary judgment dismissing the remaining NYLL and FLSA
non-tipped side work claims is denied.
Fifth, Judge Koeltl finds that the Defendants do not specifically
address this claim in their motion for summary judgment. The
Defendants also do not point to any evidence disputing this claim
or contend that Galeana's wages for that period were above the
federal minimum wage even if the alleged kickback was taken.
Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing Galeana's kickback claim
is denied. Because the Plaintiffs point to no evidence supporting
any kickback claim arising under the FLSA or NYLL asserted by any
other Plaintiff, all those claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Sixth, the overtime claims arising under the FLSA advanced by the
following Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice:
Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Ramos Flores,
Zapotitlan Sanchez, Zempoalteca Montes, Fernandez Gutierrez, and
Lema Mayancela. The overtime claims arising under the NYLL advanced
by Galeana, Fernandez Gutierrez, Lema Mayancela, and Baten are also
dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment dismissing the remaining
NYLL and FLSA overtime claims is denied.
E.
Judge Koeltl rules that all the remaining state law claims advanced
by the following Plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice for
want of subject matter jurisdiction: Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos
Flores, Zapotitlan Sanchez, Fernandez Gutierrez, Medel, and
Carranza. The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over these Plaintiffs' state law claims. Any concerns about
judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are limited because
this case is still at a relatively early stage of the litigation.
Moreover, while there may be some overlap at a high level of
generality between these Plaintiffs' state law claims on one hand
and the remaining Plaintiffs' federal and state law claims on the
other, the proof that would support the claims of each Plaintiff is
distinct. As illustrated, whether a plaintiff has a meritorious
claim turns on evidence unique to each plaintiff.
F.
Judge Koeltl now addresses the remaining state law claims advanced
by de la Cruz Rosas, Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Zempoalteca Montes,
Encalada Abad, Lema Mayancela, Yuquilema Mullo, and Ramirez
Ocegueda.
First, he finds that because none of the Plaintiffs with remaining
state law claims have pointed to any evidence supporting a spread
of hours claim, any such claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Second, the records that the Defendants submitted seem to satisfy
the necessary requirements. Accordingly, any payroll records claims
(Count 11) are dismissed with prejudice.
Third, Judge Koeltl holds that the Plaintiffs do not appear to
contest that their wage statements apprised the Plaintiffs of the
total tip credit that the Defendants took in the relevant earnings
period. The Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority that supports
their proposed interpretation of the statute or offer any
persuasive reason for why a notice of the total tip credit claimed
for a given pay period is not a sufficient disclosure that they
defendants took an "allowance" against the Plaintiffs' wages.
Accordingly, any wage statement claims (Count 13) are dismissed
with prejudice.
Fourth, Judge Koeltl dismissed any bicycle maintenance claims
(Count 15) with prejudice. He finds that nosuch FLSA claim were
included in the Plaintiffs' complaint. Instead, the complaint
framed claims arising out of bicycle costs solely as claims for
breach of implied contract.
G.
In a bench opinion dated Jan. 10, 2020, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for collective certification and
court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
without prejudice. In so doing, the Court explained that under the
then-existing record, "determining whether violations of the FLSA
occurred for each of the Plaintiffs is an individualized inquiry"
and that "it would not be possible" to resolve those claims on a
collective basis.
Now, after the Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment,
the Plaintiffs filed a "cross motion" for class certification
seeking certification of the following class pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23: All deliverymen and food preparers who
were employed or are currently employed by Defendants during the
six years immediately preceding the initiation of the action, or
Aug. 14, 2012, up to the date of the decision on the cross motion
for class certification.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' cross motion should be
denied because it is untimely, improper, and because the proposed
class does not meet any of the requirements for class certification
under Rule 23.
Judge Koeltl holds that the timing of the Plaintiffs' cross motion
prejudices the Defendants and "undermines the efficiency of the
judicial process." Accordingly, the cross motion is denied as
untimely. He also finds that the Plaintiffs' cross motion also
fails on the merits. He says, they have plainly failed to
demonstrate several necessary conditions for class certification,
including commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority.
Moreover, Judge Koeltl holds that questions of fact relating to
each Plaintiff will certainly predominate over questions common to
any class, making resolution of these claims by class action
inefficient and not feasible. The claims advanced by the Plaintiffs
could not be resolved on this motion for summary judgment without
delving into the experience that each Plaintiff had working for the
Defendants and parsing the evidence unique to each Plaintiff.
Because none of the Plaintiffs' claims could be resolved without a
detailed analysis of evidence particular to each Plaintiff, these
claims plainly cannot and should not be resolved on a class-wide
basis.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority, the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion for class certification is denied.
III. Conclusion
Judge Koeltl has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To
the extent not discussed, he finds the arguments to be either moot
or without merit.
For the foregoing reasons:
a. The Plaintiffs' cross motion for class certification is
denied;
b. All claims against the following Defendants are dismissed:
Kenner, Just Salad LLC, Just Salad GP LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion
District; Just Salad Partners LLC d/b/a Just Salad Financial
District; Just Salad State Street LLC; Just Salad Park Slope LLC;
Just Salad Herald Square LLC; Just Salad 2056 Broadway LLC; Just
Salad 140 8th Ave LLC; Just Salad Woodbury LLC; Just Salad 291 7th
Avenue LLC; and Just Salad 437 5th Avenue LLC;
c. All of Rosario's claims are dismissed without prejudice
for failure to prosecute;
d. All the Plaintiffs' illegal retention of tips claims
arising under the FLSA and NYLL, including those for wage or tip
theft are dismissed with prejudice;
e. All the Plaintiffs' claims arising under the FLSA and NYLL
relating to kickbacks, except for those advanced by Galeana, are
dismissed with prejudice;
f. All the claims arising under the FLSA advanced by
Tecocoatzi-Ortiz, Baten, Ramos Flores, Zapotitlan Sanchez,
Carranza, and Medel are dismissed with prejudice. Baten's overtime
claim arising under the NYLL is dismissed with prejudice. All these
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims are dismissed without
prejudice;
g. All the tip credit notice and overtime claims arising
under the FLSA advanced by Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Zempoalteca
Montes, and Fernandez Gutierrez are dismissed with prejudice;
h.All the tip credit notice and overtime claims arising under
the NYLL advanced by Galeana and Fernandez Gutierrez are dismissed
with prejudice;
i. All the overtime claims arising under the FLSA and NYLL
advanced by Lema Mayancela are dismissed with prejudice;
j. All the non-tipped side work claims arising under the FLSA
and the NYLL advanced by Lema Mayancela, Fernandez Gutierrez, and
Yuquilema Mullo are dismissed with prejudice;
k. All remaining claims arising under state law advanced by
Fernandez Gutierrez are dismissed without prejudice;
l. All remaining claims arising under state law advanced by
the following plaintiffs, except for those relating to uniform
maintenance costs, are dismissed with prejudice: de la Cruz Rosas,
Galeana, Pereda Abarca, Zempoalteca Montes, Encalada Abad, Lema
Mayancela, Yuquilema Mullo, and Ramirez Ocegueda.
m. All other claims and the Defendants remain in the case.
The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 130 and 142.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mzamz from
Leagle.com.
JUUL LABS: Canastota Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
CANASTOTA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01183-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 25,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Canastota Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 120 Roberts Street in Canastota, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Hermon-DeKalb Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HERMON-DEKALB CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01180 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit contends.
Hermon-DeKalb Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 709 East DeKalb Road in DeKalb
Junction, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Alpine School Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01196 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Alpine School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 575 North 100 East in American Fork, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: East Irondequoit Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST IRONDEQUOIT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01179 (N.D. Cal., February
25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
East Irondequoit Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 600 Pardee Road in Rochester,
New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Worcester Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
WORCESTER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01185 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Worcester Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 198 Main Street in Worcester, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Fremont County Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
FREMONT COUNTY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01195 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Fremont County Joint School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 945 West 1st North in St. Anthony,
Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Castleford School Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASTLEFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01190 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Castleford School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 500 Main Street in Castleford, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Renaissance Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE RENAISSANCE CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01182 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
The Renaissance Charter School is a charter school with its offices
located at 35-59 81st Street in Jackson Heights, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Twin Falls Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TWIN FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01187-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 25,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Twin Falls School District is a charter school with its offices
located on 201 Main Avenue West in Twin Falls, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John Bid to File Under Seal Information Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNA ST. JOHN, v. Keller
Williams Realty, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-01347-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel C. Irick entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to file under seal confidential information in
Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed on January 31,
2022.
The Court is not convinced that a less onerous alternative to
sealing these exhibits is unavailable. Although the Court may agree
that confidential commercial information, as a general matter,
could sometimes be appropriately subject to a sealing order, it
does not necessarily follow that the protection of such interests
requires a complete sealing of the exhibits at issue.For these
reasons, the Court is also unconvinced that good cause exists to
seal the exhibits at issue. There is a "presumptive common law
right to inspect and copy judicial records," right through the
sealing of portions of this Court's docket because, at base, the
parties have entered into a confidentiality agreement. The Court
finds that the parties' general interest discussed in the Motion
does not outweigh the public's common law right to open
proceedings.
Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pAIWTX at no extra charge.[CC]
KIM BIMESTEFER: Bid for Extension of Time to File Reply OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. A., P. B. and P. C. v.
Kim Bimestefer, Case No. 1:21-cv-02381 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class and
unopposed motion for leave to file excess pages.
The Plaintiffs are granted an extension of time to file reply as to
motion to certify class, to and including March 25, 2022. The
Plaintiffs are further granted leave to file excess pages, not to
exceed 30, in their reply, says Judge Rodriguez.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities
Act.[CC]
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Deadline Extension Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raul Martinez and Philippe
Vieux, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Knight Transportation, Inc., Which Will Do Business In
California As Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc.; and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter granting the joint
stipulation filed on February 16, 2022 to extend the filing
deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by
approximately nine months and continue the deadlines for Defendant
to comply with the February 3, 2022 discovery order.
The Plaintiffs contends that they simply seek the nine-month
extension for their class certification filing deadline.
The Plaintiffs gave Defendant Knight Transportation notice of
Plaintiffs' intent to file this Ex Parte Application on February
25, 2022. The Defendant was advised that if it filed an Opposition
to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application, such opposition must be filed
no later than twenty-four hours after the filing of this Ex Parte
Application. The Defendant does not intend to oppose this Ex Parte
Application.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vDqQof at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Loera Annaliz, Esq.
Lebe Law, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Annaliz@lebelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
John Ellis, Esq.
Luis Ariasv, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN,
RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP,
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434 9100
E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullincom,
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
larias@sheppardmullin.com
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action contends that the inclusion of the word "Paris" on
certain L'Oreal cosmetics misleads reasonable consumers into
believing the products are imported from France.
The 32-page case says that millions of American consumers have
overpaid for certain L'Oreal Paris products that "are not what they
claim to be" given the items are made in the company's factory in
Arkansas. As the suit tells it, L'Oreal charges U.S. consumers a
"corresponding premium price" based on the representation that the
cosmetics at issue, whose labels also include French language
descriptions, are imported from France.
"In fact, the L'Oreal Products are not even designed in France
(much less made there and then imported into the U.S.)," the
complaint says.
According to the suit, defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc. is based in New
York, and the back of each product label states in "tiny print"
"L'Oreal USA, New York, NY."
Per the case, American consumers associate French beauty products
with quality, luxury and prestige and as such are willing to pay a
higher price for the items. The complaint argues that within the
beauty industry, a product labeled as "Paris" is enough to cause a
reasonable consumer to believe that the item is from France and pay
a corresponding premium.
"Nothing on the front label, or in any of Defendant's
advertisements, states or suggests that the L'Oreal Products are
not actually manufactured in Paris, and are instead manufactured in
Arkansas and elsewhere," the complaint says. "To the contrary, in
each L'Oreal Product, Defendant hides this information on the back
or side of the label, in small text."
The lawsuit stresses that L'Oreal's fine-print disclosures do not
stop reasonable consumers from being misled as to the products'
origin.
The specific L'Oreal products covered by the case include all items
that bear the word "Paris" but are not made in France. The proposed
class action looks to represent all consumers who bought a L'Oreal
product bearing the word "Paris" in the United States during the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Bylaws Limit Stockholders' Rights, Kent Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT v. JAMES R. ANDERSON, D. JEFFREY RICHARDSON, ROBIN A.
ABRAMS, E. JENSEN, ANJALI JOSHI, JAMES P. LEDERER, KRISHNA
RANGASAYEE, and LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Case No.
2022-0183 (Del Ch., Feb. 25, 2022) is a verified stockholder class
action complaint for a judicial declaration that the Bylaws
impermissibly limit stockholders' rights in violation of Delaware
law.
The Defendants have allegedly attempted to impose such a limitation
by purporting to eliminate the right to act by written consent
explicitly guaranteed to Lattice's stockholders under the Delaware
General Corporation Law (the "DGCL"). Specifically, Section 228(a)
of the DGCL ("Section 228(a)") prohibits Delaware corporations from
restricting stockholders' right to act via consent, either written
or made in an electronic transmission, unless such restriction is
set forth in a corporation's certificate of incorporation.
Lattice's Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Charter")
says nothing about stockholder action via written consent.
Lattice's Bylaws, as amended as of November 3, 2016, (the
"Bylaws"), however, purport to prohibit stockholder action via
written consent. This limitation violates Section 228(a), is
invalid, and requires immediate corrective action, says the suit.
Stockholders of a Delaware corporation have three ways to take
corporate action: by voting at an annual meeting, by voting at a
special meeting, and via stockholder consent. These are the
exclusive avenues for stockholders to make their voices heard --
particularly in case of disagreement with a company's board of
directors. As such, Delaware law unambiguously protects them, and
Delaware courts closely scrutinize any attempts to restrict or
limit these rights to take action.
Plaintiff Michael Kent is, and has continuously been at all
relevant times, a stockholder of the Company.
Lattice is a semiconductor company specializing in low power
programmable technology. The Company, which was initially
incorporated in Delaware on March 1, 1985, has since then amended
its governing documents multiple times. Through one of these
amendments to Lattice's Bylaws in 2004, the Company purported to
eliminate stockholders' right to act by written consent.
The Bylaws were amended in 2009 and 2016, but this restriction
remained unchanged. The current Bylaws became effective as of
November 3, 2016.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor No. 6161
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
LINK SNACKS: Products Contain MSG, Schoolcraft Class Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Schoolcraft, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Link Snacks Inc. d/b/a/ Jack Link's, Case No.
3:22-cv-05105-BHS (W.D. Wash., Feb. 28, 2022) alleges that Jack
Links led Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers to believe that
its Products do not have added MSG by prominently labeling and
advertising the beef jerky and meat snack products as "NO ADDED
MSG," but the truth is that the Products contain ingredients such
as yeast extract and soy sauce, that do contain MSG.
According to the complaint, the Products that Defendant prominently
labels "NO ADDED MSG" actually do have added MSG. By labeling its
Products deceptively, Defendant misled consumers, caused them to
buy Products that they do not actually want, and caused them to
overpay for Products that aren't what they claim to be, the lawsuit
says.
The Plaintiff brings certain claims on behalf of the proposed class
of:
"all persons who purchased a No MSG Product in the United
States
during the applicable statute of limitations (the "Nationwide
Class"). For other claims, Plaintiff brings those claims on
behalf of a subclass of consumers who live in the identified
states (the "Consumer Protection Subclass"). For certain claims,
Plaintiff also brings those claims on behalf of a subclass of
consumers who, like Plaintiff, purchased No MSG Products in
Washington (the "Washington Subclass").
Jack Links makes, markets, labels, distributes and sells beef jerky
and meat snack products that are labeled and advertised as having
"NO ADDED MSG."
Glutamic acid and its salts are known as "free glutamates." Free
glutamates provide an "umami" or savory taste to food. Umami taste
induces salivary secretion, meaning that it makes your mouth water.
This can improve the taste of food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Ave. NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 395-7786
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Alex Van Dyke, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
alex@dovel.com
- and -
Zack Broslavsky, Esq.
BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
1500 Rosecrans. Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 575-2550
Facsimile: (310) 464-3550
E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com
LVNV FUNDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod in Norton
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA NORTON v. LVNV
FUNDING, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-05051-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting final approval of
class action settlement and awarding attorneys' fees and costs as
follows:
-- Class counsel is awarded $239,373 in fees and $2,053.58 in
costs; and
-- Norton is awarded $5,000 as an incentive award.
The Court said, "Within 21 days after the final distribution of
settlement funds (including to the cy pres recipient) and payment
of attorneys' fees, class counsel shall file a Post-Distribution
Accounting in accordance with the Procedural Guidance for Class
Action Settlements, available at
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements.
The Post-Distribution Accounting must contain all information
listed in the Guidance, and shall be filed with the court and
posted on the Settlement Website."
On October 21, 2008, non-party Arrow Financial Services, LLC filed
a collections action against Norton in San Mateo County Superior
Court, alleging that Norton failed to tender owed amounts to Arrow.
On December 26, 2008, the state court entered a default judgment
against Norton in the amount of $3,986.60. On February 24, 2012,
H&Z filed a substitution of counsel to appear on behalf of Arrow in
the state court action.
On May 17, 2012, H&Z caused a writ of execution to issue from a
state court in the amount of $5,853.07.
Norton's wages were garnished in the amount of $323.55 in August
and September 2012. The Defendants sought and obtained five more
writs of execution between December 27, 2013 and September 1,
2017.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IFru8c at no extra charge.[CC]
MANHATTAN BEER: Sued Over Hidden 10-Cent Bottle Deposit Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that an Armonk,
New York restaurant has filed a proposed class action in which it
alleges Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC has engaged in "widespread
billing fraud" against small businesses by way of imposing
additional bottle deposit charges.
The 23-page lawsuit alleges Manhattan Beer, reportedly the largest
single-market beer wholesaler in the U.S., has hidden within its
invoices an extra 10-cent charge in the deposit the company is
required to charge customers under the New York State Returnable
Container Act of 1982, or the "Bottle Bill."
Under the law, beer distributors such as the defendant must collect
a five-cent deposit on each bottle delivered, the case says.
According to the suit, Manhattan Beer "dupes its customers," of
which there are reportedly more than 23,000 in New York alone, into
paying an extra 10 cents on 24-bottle orders and believing that the
10-cent charge is part of the state-mandated bottle deposit.
"This deceptive billing practice leads customers like Plaintiff Cap
111, which ran a small restaurant, to think that the $1.30
'deposit' Manhattan Beer billed for a 24-bottle case of beer is
legitimate, when in fact the Company is only authorized by law to
collect $1.20 in deposit fees," the complaint says. "That is, 24
bottles x $0.05 = $1.20. Not the $1.30 Manhattan Beer sneaks into
its invoices."
The lawsuit stresses that the additional 10-cent charges "add up
quickly" given Manhattan Beer reportedly sells more than 45 million
cases of beer per year.
"Even if Manhattan Beer added the extra 10 cents onto just half of
the 45 million cases it delivers annually, that results in millions
of dollars in ill-gotten gains," the suit alleges. "Specifically,
22,500,000 cases x $0.10 = $2,250,000 per year. Manhattan Beer
extracts millions of dollars from its customers every year by this
deceptive and fraudulent scheme."
The lawsuit goes on to allege that Manhattan Beer is well aware
that its "billing scheme" is fraudulent and unlawful, as the
company, the suit says, declines to charge "more sophisticated
customers," such as supermarkets, the extra 10 cents on 24-bottle
cases.
"Instead, Manhattan Beer's scheme preys on the small businesses
that rely on the giant distributor to do the right thing when it
comes to billing," the plaintiff charges.
According to the case, Manhattan beer is "the only game in town"
for its more than 23,000 New York customers since the company has
exclusive distribution rights for Corona, Coors Light, Heineken and
many other popular brands. Small businesses are thus left locked
into buying from Manhattan Beer, and in doing so "innocently pay
fraudulent deposit charges to a company with annual sales that
exceed one billion dollars a year," the lawsuit claims.
"Sales of alcoholic beverages, including beer, are the lifeblood of
many restaurants and convenience stores, especially those owned and
operated by small business owners," the plaintiff states. "To
target consumers with impermissible bottle deposit charges using
the cover of state action, as Defendants have done for years, is
unconscionable."
The lawsuit looks to represent all Manhattan Beer customers in the
United States who purchased bottled beer from the company and were
charged $1.30 as a deposit for 24-bottle cases during the
applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the
date of judgment. [GN]
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Suit Challenges Asset Forfeiture
------------------------------------------------------------
Flint Mccolgan, writing for Boston Herald, reports that a
class-action lawsuit headed by a Boston-area woman challenging
asset forfeiture on the federal level is casting light on an issue
that's also subject to reform efforts on Beacon Hill.
Partnered House and Senate bills requiring greater transparency and
accountability on civil asset forfeiture -- the tool police use to
seize money and assets purportedly linked to crime -- this month
received an extended reporting deadline to April 15.
"The Fourth Amendment exists to protect people's rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures," said state Rep. Danillo Sena,
D-Acton, in an October hearing before the Joint Committee on State
Administration and Regulatory Oversight. "But right now state law
enforcement agencies seize significant amounts of money and
property from people often when they have done nothing wrong."
The bills, H.3233 and S.2105, sponsored by Sena and state Sen.
Becca Rausch, D-Needham, would require the attorney general,
district attorneys and police to report annually on property
seizures and expenditures, and for a public database that would
report a variety of information including location, estimated
value, length of seizure and if the suspect ever faced criminal
charges.
Dan Alban, the senior lawyer in the lawsuit that challenges federal
agencies for detaining and seizing more than $82,000 from a
Boston-area woman at the Pittsburgh International Airport despite
never charging her with a crime also gave testimony in support of
the Massachusetts bills.
"Without more information about how forfeiture is used in the Bay
State, legislators are at a disadvantage considering potential
reforms," said Alban, co-director of the Institute for Justice's
National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse.
Alban -- whose firm says Massachusetts "has the worst civil
forfeiture laws in the country" -- said that without adequate data
collection and public reporting, it's impossible to account for
these "off budget" expenditures and that these bills would allow
lawmakers to hold district attorneys and other agencies
accountable.
The Institute for Justice reported that from 2000 to 2019, $327
million was forfeited in Massachusetts, including $24 million under
federal law that was returned to the commonwealth.
Nationally, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform -- on
which sit two Boston-area lawmakers, Reps. Stephen Lynch and Ayanna
Pressley -- held a hearing on the issue that then-chairman Rep.
Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said was the first in Congress for seven
years.
"Many of these operations are in fact trampling every major
component of constitutional due process," Raskin said Dec. 8. "Law
enforcement agents can seize and permanently deprive people of
their assets without ever arresting them."[GN]
MATCH GROUP: Benouis Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMIR ALI CHERIF BENOUIS,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
MATCH GROUP, INC., AMANDA W. GINSBERG, and GARY SWIDLER, Case No.
3:19-cv-02356-S (N.D. Tex.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R.C.P. 23 and Rule 23.2 of the
Local Civil Rules:
1. Certifying a class consisting of:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MTCH) between November 6, 2018 and January 31, 2020, both
dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against the
Defendants Match, Ginsberg, and Swidler for violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
directors of Match at all relevant times, members and
their immediate families and their legal representatives,
affiliates, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity
in which Defendants have, or had, a controlling interest.
2. Appointing Plaintiff as a Class Representative; and
3. Appointing Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
as Class Counsel, and Kendall Law Group, PLLC as Local
Counsel for the Class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mj16Dj
at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for Samir Ali Cherif Benouis, are:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
Jennifer B. Sobers, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
mltuccillo@pomlaw.com
jbsobers@pomlaw.com
Co-Lead Counsel for the Class, are:
Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
Local Counsel for the Class, are:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
Additional Counsel for Samir Ali Cheri Benouis, are:
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
MEIJER INC: Misleads Consumers Over Non-Drowsy Products, Moore Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBIE MOORE, SAMANTHA HATFIELD, and GARY GRANT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEIJER, INC., Case
No. 2:22-cv-10417-GCS-CI (E.D. Mich., Feb. 25, 2022) alleges that
Defendant misled the Plaintiffs and other consumers about the
effects of the Non-Drowsy Meijer Products.
The Defendant makes, sells, and markets over-the-counter cough,
cold and flu medicine (the "Non-Drowsy Meijer Products"), including
generic Meijer versions of brands like DayQuil and Robitussin. Like
the branded versions, these medicines contain the active ingredient
Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("DXM"), an ingredient that causes
drowsiness, says the suit.
The Defendant's Non-Drowsy Meijer Products state prominently on the
front of their label that they are "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime"
products (juxtaposed against Defendant's "Nighttime" versions). By
prominently labeling these products as "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime,"
Defendant led Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe that the
Non-Drowsy Meijer Products do not cause drowsiness, and that
drowsiness is not a side effect of those products.
The Defendant also led Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe
that those products are for use during the day, and can be safely
and satisfactorily consumed during waking hours, at work, and while
driving and operating machinery.
But the truth is that products containing DXM -- and thus the
Non-Drowsy Meijer Products -- do cause drowsiness, and that
drowsiness is a known side effect of DXM (a fact not known by the
average consumer). In reality, the Products cause drowsiness, which
in effect destroys the primary reason for purchasing the "Daytime"
Products in the first place -- for use during the day, when
consumers do not want to be drowsy, added the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this case for themselves and for millions of
other consumers who purchased Non-Drowsy Meijer Products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: 313-303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
MERCEDES BENZ: Order on Class Certification Entered in Calabasas
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calabasas Luxury
Motorcars, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-08805-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin
entered an order regarding class certification:
-- Joint Brief
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party is immediately followed by the opposing
party's/parties' response.
-- Citation to Evidence
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be
directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the
evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a
deposition.
-- Unnecessary Sections
The parties need not include a "procedural history"
section, since the court will be familiar with the
procedural history.
-- Evidentiary Appendix
The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate,
tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence
(including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts,
etc.).
-- Failure to Comply with this Order
If it appears from the joint brief that the parties have
not discharged their meet and confer obligations in good
faith, that the parties have not worked to fully integrate
the document, or that the parties have otherwise failed to
fully comply with this Order, the motion shall be stricken,
and the parties shall be required to repeat the process.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor
for passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand.
Mercedes-Benz USA was founded in 1965 to integrate sales in the
most important foreign market into the Group.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HEB61B at no extra charge.[CC]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headrests
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Mercedes-Benz headrest lawsuit alleges customers complain their
active headrests deployed without collisions, suddenly smacking
occupants on their heads.
The Mercedes headrest lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Joseph
Monopoli (New York), James Fitzpatrick (North Carolina), Synthia
Praglin (California) and Sawntanaia Harris (California).
Harris is the only plaintiff who claims the headrest
unintentionally deployed, meaning three of the plaintiffs sued even
though they didn't have any problems with their headrests.
The plaintiffs and several Florida Mercedes owners sued the
automaker and headrest manufacturer Grammer in a Florida district
court, but the class action lawsuit was dismissed except for one
claim made by two Florida owners.
The plaintiffs then filed a headrest lawsuit in a Georgia district
court which heard the same arguments but ruled differently than the
Florida court.
According to the Mercedes headrest class action, the active head
restraint is called the NECK-PRO and is used to prevent whiplash
injuries in rear-end collisions. The headrest propels forward and
upward to prevent the occupant's head from suddenly flying
backward.
The plaintiffs say the internal headrest mechanism uses a latch pin
that keeps the active headrest in place until a collision occurs.
The latch pin allegedly must hold back 75 pounds of force and is
made with cheap plastic allegedly prone to break.
The lawsuit alleges the plastic breaks and causes the headrest to
strike the head of the occupant without a collision. According to
the class action lawsuit, the headrest is moving at 12 miles per
hour when it hits the driver or passenger.
Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes Headrest Lawsuit
Mercedes-Benz filed a motion to dismiss the headrest class action
lawsuit, following the same playbook it used to get the same
lawsuit dismissed in Florida. However, the judge came to a somewhat
different conclusion this time.
Mercedes succeeded in getting multiple claims tossed, including the
following:
-- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
-- Negligent Design & Manufacture
-- Negligent Failure to Warn
-- California False Advertising Law
-- Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
-- North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
-- Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
-- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
-- Monopoli's and Fitzpatrick's unjust enrichment claims
-- Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
But while Judge Steven D. Grimberg did dismiss the fraudulent
misrepresentation claim, he denied to dismiss a fraudulent
concealment claim as well as a New York business law claim.
Additionally, Judge Grimberg ruled plaintiffs Praglin and Harris
may pursue unjust enrichment claims.
The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Monopoli, et
al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Caplan Cobb LLP, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton LLP, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Santiago Burger LLP, and Law Office of
George Franjola. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Adult Entertainers File Suit Over Web Traffic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dworetzky at Bay City News Foundation reports that a 39-page
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California uses the phrase "on information and belief,"
a total of 34 times in asserting far-reaching claims by a class of
adult entertainers against Meta Platforms Inc. and its
subsidiaries, Instagram and Facebook.
The phrase "on information and belief" is a legal phrase that
lawyers use in federal court when they want to allege something in
a complaint that they believe to be true, but do not yet have all
the facts to prove it.
The colorful class action suit was brought by three adult
entertainers on behalf of themselves "and all others similarly
situated."
They allege that for many years they had business arrangements with
various adult entertainment websites. When paying customers came to
those sites and watched videos of the plaintiffs engaged in adult
activity, the websites would share the payments with the
entertainers.
Because of their financial stake in the viewership, the
entertainers tried to drive traffic to the adult websites where
their videos could be seen. An important tool was their presence on
the major social media platforms, particularly Instagram and
Facebook.
The entertainers worked to build up their views, likes and follows
in the hope that those people would go to one of the sites where
the entertainers' videos could be viewed.
The complaint alleges that all worked well until late 2018 or early
2019. Until that point, "the online adult entertainment industry
was a vibrant, competitive market."
Plaintiff Dawn Dangaard a/k/a Alana Evans allegedly had more than
100,000 followers on Instagram at that time.
However, in October of 2018 the complaint alleges that a Florida
resident named Leonid Radvinsky acquired ownership of a U.K. and
Hong Kong registered company named Fenix International Limited.
Fenix, through a Delaware subsidiary headquartered in Florida,
owned and operated "OnlyFans," an adult entertainment website.
The complaint says that OnlyFans competed with the adult websites
where plaintiffs' videos were available.
After the acquisition, plaintiffs started to notice that their
posts were being deleted or hidden on the social media apps they
used to promote their work, resulting in a substantial drop in
their traffic. The consequence was a corresponding drop of views of
their videos on the adult websites they worked with.
The complaint alleges that even though the websites with
plaintiffs' videos experienced steadily decreasing traffic, visits
to the OnlyFans platform grew dramatically. Charts included in the
complaint show OnlyFans total monthly web traffic growing from less
than 3 million to nearly 12 million from June 2019 to June 2021.
Similar charts show dramatic losses of traffic at several
unidentified competing adult websites over the same period.
The complaint asserts that OnlyFans "quickly became one of the most
dominant players in the adult industry" growing to be the 86th
largest website in the United States and the "4th largest adult pay
website in the world."
The complaint alleges that OnlyFans growth resulted from it
"gaining an enormous advantage over its competitors by wrongfully
manipulating behind-the-scenes databases, and in the process
harming thousands of small entrepreneurs who rely on social media.
. . . ."
Liberally using the "on information and belief" qualifier, the
complaint alleges a complicated scheme to "blacklist" the
plaintiffs on social media platforms so that their web traffic
would be dramatically reduced or eliminated.
The key to the scheme was allegedly a database initially created by
several social media companies under the name "Global Internet
Forum to Counter Terrorism." The database allegedly included
"hashes, or unique digital footprints" of "violent terrorist
content that had been flagged and removed . . . . " from social
media platforms.
The complaint says that many social media companies use the
database "to identify and quickly remove potential terrorist
content on their respective platforms."
The theory of the lawsuit is that following the acquisition of
OnlyFans by Radvinsky, the plaintiffs' information was
surreptitiously added to the GIFCT database resulting in them being
blacklisted as terrorists or otherwise dangerous individuals even
though they had no terrorist involvement.
This was allegedly done to harm the businesses of the adult sites
that competed with OnlyFans, "in order to improve the market
position, revenue, power, and otherwise benefit OnlyFans and its
owner, Radvinsky."
The complaint alleges that the scheme "required and involved"
unidentified "employees or agents" of Meta, Instagram and Facebook
to manipulate the database information, but the complaint only
identifies the people involved as "John Does" at this time.
The plaintiffs assert that the potential class of plaintiffs
includes more than a hundred people and that their claims exceed $5
million. In addition to Meta and its subsidiaries, the suit names
Radvinsky, Fenix and the Fenix subsidiary that owns the OnlyFans
platform.
The complaint was filed by the law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman PLLC, a plaintiffs' class action firm. The firm's
website claims that the firm "pioneered federal class action
litigation. . . . " and, in the last 50 years, has recovered more
than $50 billion for its clients.
No response to the complaint has yet been filed. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Bid to Compel Layser to Produce Docs Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D.Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order regarding November
11, 2021 discovery dispute re layser supboena.
The Court denies Meta's request for an order compelling Ms. Layser
to produce documents responsive to Meta's September 17, 2021
subpoena. However, this order does not 3 Meta from taking discovery
of Ms. Layser should it in the future serve discovery requests that
comply with the foregoing guidance and are supported by a
sufficient justification.
Ms. Layser sued Meta on January 13, 2021. Layser v. Facebook, No.
21-cv-00337. Her case was related to and consolidated with this
action. The consolidated amended complaint on behalf of the
Advertiser Plaintiffs names Ms. Layser as a plaintiff.
According to this amended complaint, Meta engaged in "a scheme to
unlawfully monopolize the market for social advertising" that
allowed it to charge supracompetitive prices for social
advertisements.
The amended complaint includes allegations specific to Ms. Layser.
On August 5, 2021, Ms. Layser voluntarily dismissed her claims
against Meta without prejudice. About six weeks later, Meta served
a Rule 45 document subpoena on Ms. Layser seeking categories of
documents. Ms. Layser objects to producing any responsive
documents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HBg0RR at no extra charge.[CC]
MICHIGAN: District Court Dismisses Sanders Complaint v. MDOC
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismisses the case, JASON
L. SANDERS, Plaintiff v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-510 (W.D. Mich.).
I. Background
The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff is presently
incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at
the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia
County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at
that facility.
The Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington and the
following IBC personnel: Warden Unknown Macauley; Deputy Wardens
Unknown Walzac and Unknown McBride; Prisoner Counselors Unknown
Battle and Unknown Stroller; Food Service Director Unknown Klien;
Grievance Coordinator Unknown Robinson; Captain Unknown Bennikson;
Lieutenant Unknown Harrison; Inspector Unknown Gibson; Corrections
Officers Unknown Gibson, Unknown Burch, Unknown Crips, Unknown
Simon, Unknown Muchowski, Unknown George, and Unknown Parish;
Healthcare Unit Manager Unknown Party #1; Healthcare Unit
Supervisor Unknown Party #2; and Nurses Unknown Strong and C.
Corning.
The Plaintiff's complaint initially appears to resemble many others
that have been brought in the Western District of Michigan by
prisoners with legitimate fears posed by the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic and frustrations with their prisons' responses. But on
closer inspection, that is different in important ways. It appears
to be the Plaintiff's fourth of seven complaints since August 2020
that he has brought against many of the same defendants. The
Plaintiff has sued Defendant Washington in five of the seven
actions, and he has sued Defendant Macauley in all seven. His
amended complaint also duplicates allegations he has raised in
prior and later actions.
The Plaintiff alleges in the instant amended complaint conduct from
several discrete events at IBC, the first of which occurred by
December 2020 and the last of which occurred after the start of
April 2021. The first and earliest allegation that reasonably can
be construed as a claim alleges that Defendants Washington and
Macauley interfered with the Plaintiff's access to the courts by
closing the IBC law library.
By the end of December 2020, after the Plaintiff "attempted to
grieve" issues related to COVID-19, Defendant Robinson threatened
to place the Plaintiff on modified access to the grievance process.
The Plaintiff explains that he contacted internal affairs and legal
affairs to report IBC staff's failures to comply with Governor
Whitmer's executive orders related to COVID-19. He appears to
allege that Defendant Robinson's conduct implicated Defendants
Battle, Stroller, and Macauley as well.
In early February 2021, the B.1.1.7 variant of the novel
coronavirus infected kitchen workers first in Unit 7, next in Unit
6, and finally in Unit 3, and "Defendants Washington and Macauley
refused to shut down the IBC food service" dining hall. Around Feb.
9, 2021, Defendants Macauley and Battle allegedly moved Plaintiff
and inmate Steele (not a party), who worked in food service, to a
new cell on Unit 7. The Plaintiff was then tested, and his results
returned negative. After spending several more hours in the cell
with Steele, the Plaintiff was moved to a quarantine cell,
apparently on another unit, for those prisoners who had been in
close contact with individuals ill with COVID-19.
The Plaintiff contends that he was restricted while quarantined. He
complains that Unit 7 prisoners "were denied exercise yard" and
given only "8 minutes" for phone calls and "5 minutes" of J-Pay
daily. He further alleges that Defendants Washington, Macauley, and
Walzac "mixed" the population in Unit 7, housing both Security
Level 4 and Security Level 2 prisoners, "which created a hostile
and unsafe environment for the lower custody prisoners." Neither
administrative nor custodial staff at IBC conducted rounds on the
COVID-19 unit. The Plaintiff further alleges that medical staff did
not adequately treat him while he was ill with COVID-19. The
remainder of the Plaintiff's allegations apply more generally to
the pandemic.
Summarizing his allegations, the Plaintiff contends that IBC staff
"did not take proper precautions" to prevent Plaintiff from
contracting COVID-19. He avers that social distancing in IBC was
impossible.
Also mixed within the Plaintiff's amended complaint is an
incomplete declaration. It appears that the Plaintiff wrote the
declaration himself and left the name and signature of the
declarant open. It remains unsigned.
Finally, the Plaintiff lists what he styles as 15 "legal claims"
for relief. Many of the claims each assert multiple rights to
relief related to his allegations.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, $100,000 in compensatory
damages against each Defendant, $100,000 in punitive damages
against each Defendant, and costs.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to amend the complaint
The Plaintiff has filed an unsigned motion to amend the complaint,
two motions to certify a class, and a motion to appoint counsel.
The Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint arrived several days
before his amended complaint. Both filings appear to have been
mailed on the same day, and the amended complaint serves as the
operative pleading. The Plaintiff is unrepresented and has not
signed the motion. On July 8, 2021, the Court informed the
Plaintiff that it would strike the motion from the record without
further order if Plaintiff did not submit his signature within 21
days. The Plaintiff did not submit his signature within 21 days.
B. Motions to certify class and to amend
The Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking class certification.
He has further filed a motion to amend stating that he intends to
state to the Court the number of putative class members, however,
he omitted any such number.
Judge Jonker holds that it is well established that pro se
litigants are "inadequate class representatives." He explains that
pro se prisoners generally may not bring class action lawsuits
concerning prison conditions because pro se prisoners are not able
to represent fairly a class. Because the Plaintiff is an
incarcerated pro se litigant, he finds that he is not an
appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, Judge Jonker will
deny the Plaintiff's request for class certification.
C. Motion to appoint counsel
The Plaintiff has also asked the Court to appoint counsel. Indigent
parties in civil cases have no constitutional right to a
court-appointed attorney. The Court may, however, request an
attorney to serve as counsel, in its discretion.
Judge Jonker opines that appointment of counsel is a privilege that
is justified only in exceptional circumstances. In determining
whether to exercise its discretion, the Court should consider the
complexity of the issues, the procedural posture of the case, and
the Plaintiff's apparent ability to prosecute the action without
the help of counsel. Judge Jonker has carefully considered these
factors and determines that, at this stage of the case, the
assistance of counsel does not appear necessary to the proper
presentation of the Plaintiff's position. Hence, the Plaintiff's
motion will be denied.
D. Misjoinder
The Plaintiff brings the action against 22 Defendants, alleging
discrete events that occurred over approximately four months, with
at least 15 "claims."
Judge Jonker explains that to allow the Plaintiff to proceed with
improperly joined claims and the Defendants in a single action
would permit him to circumvent the PLRA's filing fee provisions and
allow him to avoid having to incur a "strike" for purposes of
Section 1915(g), should any of his putative claims turn out to be
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim. Courts are
therefore obligated to reject misjoined complaints like the
Plaintiff's.
Judge Jonker will look to the first named Defendant and the
earliest clear factual allegations involving that the Defendant to
determine which portions of the action should be considered
related. The Plaintiff names Defendant Washington as the first
Defendant in the caption of the amended complaint in the list of
the Defendants and in his allegations giving rise to a putative
claim. As noted, the Plaintiff's first and earliest allegations
that reasonably give rise to a claim assert that Defendants
Washington and Macauley closed IBC's law library, and the Plaintiff
purportedly missed a court deadline as a result.
Judge Jonker finds that the conduct by Defendants Walzac, McBride,
Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector
Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George,
Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning is
wholly unrelated to the Plaintiff's putative claim regarding IBC's
closed law library. Moreover, there is neither a transaction or
occurrence, nor a question of law or fact, that is common to all
the Defendants. The Plaintiff has, therefore, improperly joined to
this action Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien,
Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson,
Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1,
Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning as well as the claims against
Defendant Macauley other than the Plaintiff's claim that Macauley
closed the law library.
Because he has concluded that the Plaintiff has improperly joined
to the action multiple Defendants and the claims against them,
Judge Jonker must determine an appropriate remedy. He finds that
whether or not the Plaintiff receives the benefit of tolling during
the administrative exhaustion period, and during the pendency of
the action, the Plaintiff has sufficient time in the limitations
period to file new complaints against Defendants Walzac, McBride,
Battle, Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector
Gibson, Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George,
Parish, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, Corning, and
Macauley, and he will not suffer gratuitous harm if claims against
these Defendants are dismissed.
Accordingly, Judge Jonker will exercise discretion under Rule 21
and drop Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle, Stroller, Klien,
Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson, Officer Gibson,
Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish, Unknown Party #1,
Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning from the suit, dismissing the
Plaintiff's claims against them without prejudice to the
institution of new, separate lawsuits. He will further dismiss
without prejudice the misjoined claims against Defendant Macauley.
If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his claims against the
dismissed the Defendants, he will do so by filing new civil actions
on the form provided by the Court, and paying the required filing
fee or applying in the manner required by law to proceed in forma
pauperis.
E. Failure To State a Claim
The Plaintiff alleges several constitutional violations. He alleges
that Defendants Washington and Macauley interfered with his access
to the courts. He further alleges that Defendant Washington
violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Plaintiff also asserts
that Defendant Washington retaliated against him in violation of
his First Amendment rights.
First, Judge Jonker holds that the Plaintiff utterly fails to
demonstrate that he suffered an actual injury. The Plaintiff
neither alleges the basis for his underlying action nor indicates
that he sought to attack his sentence or challenge the conditions
of confinement. Further, it is not at all clear what, if any,
remedy was lost to him. Consequently, Juge Jonker will, therefore,
dismiss his access to the courts claim.
Second, he opines that (i) the Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth
Amendment claim for policies that restricted access to phones,
J-Pay, and the prison yard; (ii) the Plaintiff fails to state an
Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Washington for the policy
that permitted mixing prisoners from different security levels on a
COVID-19 outbreak unit; (iii) at this stage in the proceedings, the
Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to satisfy the objective and
subjective prongs of the deliberate indifference test in any of his
claims so he may not maintain an Eighth Amendment claim against her
for sharing a cell while quarantining; (iv) the Plaintiff has not
presented any facts to support his conclusion that Defendant
Washington retaliated against him because he complained to his
family so his speculative allegation fails to state a claim; and
(v) the Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant Washington
engaged in any active unconstitutional behavior.
III. Conclusion
Judge Jonker denies the Plaintiff's pending motions. Additionally,
pursuant to Rules 18, 20, and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, he determines that Defendants Walzac, McBride, Battle,
Stroller, Klien, Robinson, Bennikson, Harrison, Inspector Gibson,
Officer Gibson, Burch, Crips, Simon, Muchowski, George, Parish,
Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Strong, and Corning are
misjoined in the action. He dropps them from the suit, dismissing
the Plaintiff's claims against them without prejudice. He also
dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Macauley other than the retained claim that Macauley
interfered with the Plaintiff's access to the courts.
Further, having conducted the review required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Judge Jonker determines that the Plaintiff's
complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42
U.S.C. Section 1997e(c).
Judge Jonker must next decide whether an appeal of the action would
be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(a)(3). For the same reasons he concludes that the Plaintiff's
complaint is properly dismissed, Judge Jonker also concludes that
any issue the Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous.
Accordingly, he certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good
faith.
It is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
A judgment consistent with Judge Jonker's opinion will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/37yjdmjw from Leagle.com.
MORLEY COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Journagin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD JOURNAGIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MORLEY COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-10443-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Feb. 28, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information that Plaintiff and Class Members entrusted to it.
This sensitive information, includes, without limitation, names,
addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's
license numbers, client and/or member identification numbers,
medical diagnostic and treatment information, and health insurance
information including medications, conditions, and providers
(collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with industry
standards to protect information systems that contain PII, and for
failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to
Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII and PHI had been
accessed and potentially acquired by an unauthorized third-party.
The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant
to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that
has been compromised, to adopt reasonably sufficient security
practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure
in the future, to destroy information no longer necessary to retain
for purposes for which the information was first obtained from
Class Members, and to provide a sum of money sufficient to provide
to Plaintiff and Class Members identity theft protective services
for their respective lifetimes as Plaintiff and Class Members will
be at an increased risk of identity theft due to the conduct of
Morley .
Beginning on August 1, 2021, Morley discovered that it could not
access data on its computer systems. After investigation, Morley
learned that an unauthorized third party had gained access to files
on its services where sensitive PII was stored (the "Data Breach").
In its Notice of Data Breach published on its website on February
2, 2022, Morley advises that the data accessed contained PII.
However, the Notice provides scant other information, including how
long these unauthorized third-parties had access to the sensitive
information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Additionally, Morley
has failed to adequately explain why it took six months to begin
notifying individuals that their PII had been accessed by an
unauthorized third-party, the suit contends.
This case involves a breach of a computer system by an unknown
third-party, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure and potential
acquisition of the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members to unknown
third-parties. As a result of Defendant's alleged failure to
implement and follow basic security procedures, the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members was accessed and/or acquired and is now
in the hands of criminals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members now and will forever face a
substantial increased risk of identity theft. Consequently,
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant time and money in the future to protect
themselves due to Morley's failures, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Morley as well as various clients.
Morley is an international provider of business services to Fortune
500 companies. Its services include business process outsourcing,
organizing meetings and incentives, and designing, fabricating, and
installing exhibits and displays. Morley assists clients in
industries including automotive, healthcare, technology, and
communications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Hanna, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (313) 739-1950
E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fkester@ForThePeople.com
MSP RECOVERY: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-23749-PAS (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion for a brief enlargement of time to
the class certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- The Plaintiff will file its class March 1, 2022
certification motion and include
the reports of any class
certification experts with the
motion.
-- The Parties agree to set mutually March 11, 2022
agreeable dates for the depositions
of Plaintiff's class certification
experts to occur by:
-- The Defendant will file its opposition April 1, 2022
to the class certification motion and
include the reports of any class
certification experts with the
opposition. The parties agree to set
mutually agreeable dates for the
depositions of the Defendant's class
certification experts.
-- The Plaintiff will file its reply to April 18, 2022
Defendant's opposition:
MSP Recovery is the leading Medicaid and Medicare Secondary Payer
Act Recovery Specialist.
Ace American operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KglRxR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
Amanda McGovern, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000
Miami, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
E-mail: amcgovern@riveromestre.com
arivero@riveromestre.com
receptionist@riveromestre.com
- and -
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran Esq.
J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
Facsimile: (786) 221-2903
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
alfred@armaslaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: cwhorton@msprecoverylawfirm.com
jruiz@msprecovery.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Valerie Greenberg, Esq.
Bryan T. West, Esq.
Alexander J. Hall, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
Three Brickell City Centre
98 Southeast 7th Street, Suite 1100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-5600
Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
E-mail: valerie.greenberg@akerman.com
debra.atkinson@akerman.com
bryan.west@akerman.com
maria.ossorio@akerman.com
alexander.hall@akerman.com
kim.stathopulos@akerman.com
- and -
Bryce L. Friedman, Esq.
Alan C. Turner, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
E-mail: bfriedman@stblaw.com
aturner@stblaw.com
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Bids for Attys.' Fees in Milliner Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL
SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03354-DMR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the parties' motions for awards of
attorneys' fees pursuant to a provision in the settlement agreement
and California Civil Code section 1717.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joann Brem executed a written
settlement agreement with Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. ("MSI")
on June 1, 2018. MSI later filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement and the stipulated protective order entered in the case,
arguing that the Plaintiffs and their counsel, David
Sturgeon-Garcia, had breached them. The Court ruled on portions of
the motion in July 2019 and held one part in abeyance pending the
issuance of a determinative decision by the California Supreme
Court. In June 2021, the Court ruled on the remaining dispute.
Both sides now move for awards of attorneys' fees pursuant to a
provision in the settlement agreement and California Civil Code
section 1717, each arguing that it is the prevailing party on the
motion to enforce the settlement agreement. These motions are
suitable for resolution without a hearing.
II. Background
Plaintiffs Milliner and Brem filed the case as a putative class
action asserting claims stemming from MSI's brokerage agreement
with them. On June 1, 2018, following a settlement conference
before Judge Ryu, the parties resolved the case and executed a
written settlement agreement that contained a confidentiality
provision. The parties subsequently consented to have this court
conduct all further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(c). The case was dismissed on Sept. 11, 2018.
In April 2019, MSI filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement and the stipulated protective order entered in the case.
It argued that the Plaintiffs and Sturgeon-Garcia breached the
settlement agreement, including its confidentiality provision,
among other things.
In its motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the
stipulated protective order, MSI argued that the Plaintiffs and/or
Sturgeon-Garcia violated the terms of the settlement agreement in
three ways, as follows: 1) Sturgeon-Garcia attached confidential
documents and deposition transcripts produced and/or used in this
case to the Gilotti claim in violation of the settlement
agreement's confidentiality provision (issue one); 2)
Sturgeon-Garcia attached the settlement agreement to the Gilotti
claim in violation of the settlement agreement's confidentiality
provision (issue two); and 3) the settlement agreement required
Milliner to dismiss her FINRA statement of claim but she failed to
do so (issue three). MSI asked the Court to order the Plaintiffs
and Sturgeon-Garcia to pay its attorneys' fees and costs incurred
in enforcing the settlement agreement pursuant to a provision in
the agreement.
The Court issued an order on July 8, 2019. As to issue one, it
found that Sturgeon-Garcia's submission of materials from the
litigation did not violate the settlement agreement's
confidentiality provision.
The Court held issue two in abeyance pending a ruling by the
California Supreme Court that bore on the question of whether
Sturgeon-Garcia was bound by the settlement agreement's
confidentiality provision because he was not a party to the
agreement and had not signed it in any capacity. It found that "the
question of whether Sturgeon-Garcia is bound by the confidentiality
provision in the settlement agreement remains unsettled."
As to issue three, the Court found that "Milliner's continuing
failure to dismiss her FINRA claim does not violate the exact
wording of the settlement agreement." Nonetheless, it noted that it
was "baffling" why the claim was still pending and ordered Milliner
to dismiss her FINRA claims against MSI within seven days of the
date of the order.
The Court deferred ruling on MSI's request for attorneys' fees and
expenses pending the outcome of issue two.
The parties notified the Court after the California Supreme Court
issued Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal. 5th 781 (2019). The
Court then set a briefing schedule on the impact of the decision.
On June 28, 2021, the Court ruled on issue two; that is, whether
the Plaintiffs and/or Sturgeon-Garcia violated the settlement
agreement's confidentiality provision by attaching a copy of the
settlement agreement to the Gilotti claim. It concluded that "in
the absence of any evidence that Sturgeon-Garcia consented to the
settlement agreement and the confidentiality provision therein, MSI
has not established that he was bound by it." Therefore, the Court
held that MSI "has not established that he breached the
confidentiality provision" in connection with the Gilotti claim. It
also ruled that MSI had not established that Milliner or Brem
"personally breached any provision of the settlement agreement."
The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for an award of attorneys'
fees, arguing that MSI moved "to enforce the Settlement Agreement,
and lost" and that the Plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" under
the attorneys' fees provision. MSI subsequently filed its own
motion for an award of attorneys' fees. It argues that it is the
prevailing party because it obtained "essentially all the relief
that it sought when it filed its motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, while the Plaintiffs obtained no relief."
III. Discussion
In the case, each side contends that it is the prevailing party
under section 1717. In its opening brief, the Plaintiffs simply
assert that MSI "filed a motion to enforce the Settlement
Agreement, and lost." For its part, MSI acknowledges that it was
"not completely successful in enforcing the settlement agreement
against the Plaintiffs' counsel," but argues that MSI "obtained
essentially all the relief that it sought when it filed its motion
to enforce the settlement agreement, while the Plaintiffs obtained
no relief."
In their opposition to MSI's motion, the Plaintiffs assert that
they "ultimately prevailed on a practical level on all the contract
claims," arguing that the court found in their favor on issues one
and two. As to issue three, whether Milliner was required to
dismiss her FINRA statement of claim, the Plaintiffs contend that
the Court found that "there was no technical violation of the
settlement agreement."
To determine whether to award contractual fees to a prevailing
party under section 1717, Judge Ryu explains that the Court must
"compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with
the parties' demands on those same claims and their litigation
objectives." She finds that neither side can claim a clear victory
in the case.
Given the mixed outcome of MSI's motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, neither side achieved a "simple, unqualified win." Judge
Ryu holds that although MSI technically did not obtain a legal win
on any of the three bases for its motion, it achieved meaningful
results toward its litigation objectives on two of the three issues
through the relief granted by the Court. In light of the equivocal
results of MSI's motion to enforce the settlement, Judge Ryu finds
that there was no prevailing party on the contract pursuant to
section 1717(b)(1). She thus declines to award fees to either side.
Both motions are denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ryu denied the parties' motions
for attorneys' fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ntbfc74z from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Dickinson Wright Attorney Discusses Flores Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Burgener, Esq., of Dickinson Wright, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that on February 1, 2022 -- the first day of Black
History Month -- Brian Flores, the former head football coach of
the Miami Dolphins, filed a class action lawsuit against his former
team, as well as the New York Giants, the Denver Broncos, and the
National Football League ("NFL") for discriminatorily denying
employment to Black candidates to serve as Head Coaches, Offensive
and Defensive Coordinators, Quarterback Coaches, and General
Managers. The 58-page, 261-paragraph Complaint also put the other
29 teams in the NFL on notice that they too could be Defendants in
this action.
The Complaint lays out the history of alleged discrimination in the
NFL, and includes quotes from senior NFL executives admonishing
teams for the league's lack of progress in hiring minority
candidates. "Any criticism we get for lack of representation at the
GM and head coach positions, we deserve," quoting the NFL's Senior
Vice President and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer, Jonathan
Beane. The Complaint relies on data showing just how few head
coaches, offensive, defensive, and special teams coordinators,
quarterback coaches, and general managers are black, especially
when you consider that 70% of NFL players are black.
What is fascinating about Flores' lawsuit is how much the Complaint
relies on information that has been apparent (and discussed) for
years. In many ways, the Complaint itself could have just as easily
have appeared in Sports Illustrated or a segment on ESPN rather
than a filing in federal court. And, while much of what Flores'
lawyers set out in the Complaint were matters of public record,
there are some facts or allegations that were not -- specifically,
a text message exchange between Coach Flores and his former boss,
and current head coach of the New England Patriots, Bill Belichick,
wherein Belichick congratulated Flores on being hired for a job he
had yet to interview for, only to realize later he had "f-ed up"
because he thought he was corresponding with another former protege
also named Brian. Oops.
Flores also alleges that Miami Dolphins owner Steven Ross offered
to pay him $100,000 for each game the team lost during the 2019
season to secure a higher draft pick. While this explosive
allegation rocked the NFL and has serious implications for the
league and Ross' ability to continue to own the Dolphins, if the
charges are substantiated, it has very little to do with whether
Flores was fired because of his race. In fact, there is a strong
argument that Flores' decision not to "play ball" with the owner's
desire to tank - commendable as it was - and not the color of his
skin, is why he was fired. And, as any manager or HR professional
knows, employees can basically be fired for any reason, so long as
the reason isn't illegal (i.e., discriminatory or because that
individual engaged in protected behavior).
As a commercial and employment litigator, to say nothing of an avid
sports fan, I will be following this case very closely to see what
transpires in the weeks ahead. The headline of Jacob Gershman's
Wall Street Journal article from February 4, 2022, says it all
"Brian Flores Case Could Test NFL -- If Lawsuit Survives Early
Hurdles." Here's what I will be looking for and the questions I
have been asking:
Is the NFL even a proper party? Brian Flores never worked for the
NFL per se and was neither interviewed, hired, nor fired by the
NFL. I could certainly see the NFL filing a Motion to Dismiss under
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to
state a claim up which relief can be granted;
Did Brian Flores' contract with the Dolphins have an arbitration
provision? If so, I am sure they will seek to remove the case to
private arbitration and out of the limelight of the Southern
District of New York and the federal court system generally;
Which comes back to a larger question -- to what lengths will the
NFL and the teams he has sued go to to stop this lawsuit in its
tracks? In the most mundane cases, discovery is a beast, but the
sheer volume of (not all relevant, but potentially embarrassing)
information that could come to light is astonishing. Just ask Jon
Gruden what can happen when lawyers start looking through your
emails. The NFL will do everything it can to stop this matter from
being litigated either in court or the court of public opinion;
Will anyone else join Flores' suit? To date, other Black head
coaches have given interviews sharing their own experiences, but
none have signed on. Former Cleveland Browns coach Hue Jackson said
he was encouraged to lose but had to walk back comments that he was
affirmatively offered money to do so;
What will the NFL do internally? Since the Complaint was filed, NFL
Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a memo to all thirty-two NFL
teams calling the diversity among its coaches to be "unacceptable"
and promising to "reevaluate" the league's current diversity,
equity, and inclusion policies (a direct reference to the Rooney
Rule that was implemented after Johnny Cochran threatened the sue)
and requires NFL teams to interview at least one Black candidate
for all head coaching vacancies. During his press conference ahead
of Super Bowl XVI, Goodell went further, saying the league had
"really focused to try and get the kind of [diversity] results that
we would expect and [the NFL] fell short…but a long shot." On the
one hand, the league wants to look like it's doing something; on
the other hand, it does not want to do anything to bolster Flores'
case should it be allowed to proceed forward. Moreover, the league
cannot (yet) mandate that teams hire particular candidates. Any
changes to NFL policies (like strengthening the Rooney Rule) will
require approval of at least 75% of the NFL owners or twenty-four
out of thirty-two teams.
Will Flores coach in the NFL in 2022? So far, he remains
unemployed, despite being a career 24-25 as a head coach, and
previously considered one of the most sought-after candidates when
he was surprisingly fired by the Dolphins. Flores' legal team has
already suggested that he was not hired to be the head man for the
Houston Texans because of this lawsuit, and there are presently no
head coaching vacancies in the NFL.
At the end of the day, the NFL, and the thirty-two teams that
comprise the league, are workplaces subject to the same employment
laws as everyone else -- their workplaces are just more
interesting. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Discrimination Suit to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Benton, writing for msn, reports that even before the New York
Giants finished conducting their head coaching search, they were
slapped with a class-action lawsuit courtesy of Brian Flores.
In the legal filings, Flores, who is also suing the NFL and several
of its teams, claims that he was "humiliated" by the Giants,
believing they ran him through a "sham interview" process to give
the impression a minority coach was a serious candidate.
The Giants emphatically denied Flores' allegations of racial
discrimination.
"The allegation that the Giants' decision had been made prior to
Friday evening, January 28, is false. And to base that allegation
on a text exchange with Bill Belichick in which he ultimately
states that he "thinks" Brian Daboll would get the job is
irresponsible. The text exchange occurred the day before Coach
Daboll's in-person interview even took place. Giants' ownership
would never hire a head coach based only on a 20-minute zoom
interview, which is all that Mr. Daboll had at that point," the
Giants said in part.
After his filing, Flores continued to receive head coaching
interest from the Houston Texans. However, after they passed on
Flores and instead hired Lovie Smith, they, too, found themselves
added to Flores' lawsuit.
Even after being hired as a defensive assistant and linebackers
coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers, Flores and his representatives
maintain that the lawsuit will move forward. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Says Race Played Role in Dolphins Firing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Habib, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that Brian Flores,
speaking on a podcast released on Feb. 21, said he believes race
was a factor in his firing by the Dolphins.
Flores has a class-action suit pending accusing the NFL of
discriminatory hiring practices. It also alleges that Dolphins
owner Stephen Ross attempted to bribe him to lose games in 2019 to
enhance the team's draft position, a charge Ross denied.
Flores, who is Black, had not alleged his dismissal was related to
race until now.
"I think race played a role in my firing," Flores said on the "I Am
Athlete" podcast. "What I mean by that is, there were things I was
asked to do. There were conversations that were had. I was made out
to be a difficult person to work with. I think my white
counterparts wouldn't have been asked to do the things I was asked
to do."
Flores appeared on the podcast with former receivers Brandon
Marshall and Chad Johnson, who both briefly played for the Dolphins
before Flores arrived, and Sun-Sentinel Dolphins reporter Omar
Kelly.
Flores did not specify which "things" were requested of him that he
felt were inappropriate.
The Dolphins referred to their earlier statement released by Ross.
"With regards to the allegations being made by Brian Flores, I am a
man of honor and integrity and cannot let them stand without
responding," Ross said. "I take great personal exception to these
malicious attacks, and the truth must be known. His allegations are
false, malicious and defamatory. We understand there are media
reports stating that the NFL intends to investigate his claims, and
we will cooperate fully. I welcome that investigation and I am
eager to defend my personal integrity, and the integrity and values
of the entire Miami Dolphins organization, from these baseless,
unfair and disparaging claims."
When Flores was fired Jan. 10, Ross cited his inability to work
collaboratively.
"Look," Flores said. "I'm a strong personality. I know that played
a role. You need to be that to be a head coach in the National
Football League."
Flores on the timing of the suit: 'I thought there was power in
filing it then'
The Pittsburgh Steelers announced on Feb. 19 that they were adding
Flores to Mike Tomlin's staff as a senior defensive
assistant/linebackers. When the suit was filed, Tomlin was the
league's lone Black head coach and Flores was a finalist for head
coaching openings with the New York Giants and Houston Texans.
Flores said he wished to make a statement by filling the suit, in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, while
under consideration for head coaching positions.
"I thought there was power in filing it right then," he said. "I
was going to put it all on the line. That's how important it was to
me."
It originally appeared Flores made a concerted effort to avoid
linking the Dolphins to racism. While serving as Dolphins coach, he
and general manager Chris Grier formed the only Black head coach/GM
tandem in the NFL. In addition, Marvin Allen is the assistant GM
and Reggie McKenzie is senior personnel executive. They too are
Black. The Dolphins were honored by the Fritz Pollard Alliance in
2020 for diversity.
Two years ago, NBC analyst and Pro Football Hall of Famer Tony
Dungy, speaking in West Palm Beach, called Ross' diverse hiring
practices "a blueprint" for the league. He credited Ross with
thinking "outside the box" to find qualified candidates.
"I think they look for a leader," Dungy said at the time. "They
look for somebody from a winning organization who had leadership
qualities, who can direct them for a long time, and Brian Flores
reminds me a lot of myself."
Believing that taking the matter to court could benefit minorities
in general, Flores said he told his wife, Jennifer, "I'm not going
to be able to live with myself if I don't file this lawsuit."
Flores said he declined to sign the Dolphins' separation agreement
-- thus giving up pay for the remaining two years on his contract
-- because it would have meant conceding the right to sue or speak
his mind. Flores still must contend with a common clause in NFL
contracts calling for disputes to be settled by arbitration rather
than in court.
The Texans' job instead went to Lovie Smith, a Black man who hadn't
been considered a finalist. The Dolphins hired Mike McDaniel, who
is biracial.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, speaking during Super Bowl week,
acknowledged frustration at the league's inability to achieve
diversity in key positions including head coach and general
manager.
On the podcast, Flores said NFL owners ignore qualifications and
instead side with familiarity while hiring mostly white men for
high-ranking positions.
"There's a change of heart that needs to happen," Flores said.
"We've got to open our minds up."
Goodell speculated it might be time to scrap the Rooney Rule, which
requires minority candidates to be interviewed for key openings, in
favor of a more comprehensive strategy to promote diversity. Flores
said change will require Black ownership of NFL teams and an
"oversight committee" to review hiring and firing throughout the
league.
"Maybe it's a collection of individuals that aren't affiliated with
the team," he said.
Johnson responded by saying NFL owners would never cede such
control. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: GM Comments on Decision to Hire Former Coach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rutter, writing for TribLive, reports that as evidenced by the
decision to hire Brian Flores, the Pittsburgh Steelers weren't
scared away by the former Miami Dolphins coach's class-action
lawsuit against the NFL, which claims racial discrimination in the
league's hiring practices.
General manager Kevin Colbert, though, said the organization wasn't
making a statement by giving Flores a chance to coach the team's
linebackers in the role of senior defensive assistant.
"It says we hired a very good quality defensive coach that can
maybe help us win games," Colbert said on Feb. 21. "Beyond that,
there is nothing else to say."
Flores, 40, was fired by the Dolphins after compiling back-to-back
winning seasons that brought his record to 24-25 in three years in
Miami. He named the Dolphins, the Denver Broncos and New York
Giants in his lawsuit against the NFL.
Such a lawsuit could make a coach untouchable, but the Steelers
ended any speculation on whether Flores ever would get another
coaching opportunity.
Colbert said he had minimal input in coach Mike Tomlin's decision
to add Flores to the coaching staff. The Steelers had an opening
after Keith Butler retired as defensive coordinator and senior
defensive assistant Teryl Austin was promoted to take Butler's
place.
"Coach Tomlin makes every coaching hire," Colbert said. "He will
come to me at different times and say, 'I'm interviewing so and so,
do you know anything about him or could you find out some things
about him.' When he brought coach Flores' name up as a potential
(hire), I was excited about it.
"Coach Flores has been a successful defensive coordinator and head
coach. The thing that's really intriguing about Brian is he started
off in the personnel world. I'm excited to get with him and see
what kind of ideas he can bring to us from a coaching standpoint as
well as a personnel standpoint."
Flores was 23 when he joined the New England Patriots in 2003 as a
scouting assistant. He became a pro scout before joining coach Bill
Belichick's staff in 2008. He has coached special teams, safeties
and linebackers while making the defensive play calls late in his
tenure with the Patriots.
Other items Colbert addressed:
-- The Steelers remain open to defensive end Stephon Tuitt
returning in 2022 even though he didn't play last season, and his
2022 salary cap figure is nearly $14 million. A knee injury that
required surgery, combined with the death of his brother in a
hit-and-run accident, contributed to Tuitt missing the 2021
season.
"We're very open to continuing to help him," Colbert said. "We'll
continue to evaluate that position and his availability to us. We
just hope for the best for him as he tries to come back and be a
part of the Pittsburgh Steelers."
-- One thing he wishes he could revisit from 2021 was providing
more experience for the offensive line in the wake of Maurkice
Pouncey's retirement, David DeCastro's injury and the exit of Matt
Feiler and Alejandro Villanueva in free agency. Guard Trai Turner
and backup Joe Haeg were the only significant additions in a group
that included rookies Kendrick Green and Dan Moore Jr. and
second-year guard Kevin Dotson.
"If I have any regrets, it's probably from not adding another
veteran, an affordable veteran that maybe could have eased the
growth time for that group," Colbert said. "We knew it was going to
be a tough year." [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: May Face Dolphin Wagers Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports that nearly three
weeks ago, former Dolphins coach Brian Flores dropped a bomb on the
NFL by suing the league for racial discrimination in the hiring,
compensation, and retention of Black coaches. The lawsuit included
a separate allegation that Flores fell out of favor because he
refused to go along with a plan to tank in 2019, ultimately
refusing an offer from team owner Stephen Ross of $100,000 per
loss.
Making the claim that Ross wanted to lose even more jarring is the
fact that it allegedly happened at the dawn of the age of legalized
sports wagering. As of 2019, roughly six states had legalized
sports wagering programs. To the extent that the tanking plan
worked, the Dolphins deliberately lost games that someone,
somewhere bet hard-earned money they'd win.
For that reason, it's hard not to imagine that the Dolphins and the
NFL will eventually face a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all
those gamblers who placed wagers on the Dolphins to win, either via
the money line or with application of the point spread. The
argument would be simple. The owner's alleged desire to lose games
taints the outcome of every loss, justifying a refund of all money
wagered and lost.
It's too early to know what Flores will say regarding the tanking
plan in 2019. The available evidence suggests that he may have gone
along with it through the Week Five bye. The Dolphins lost in Week
One to the Ravens, 59-10. Then came a 43-0 loss to the Patriots, a
31-6 drubbing in Dallas, and a 30-10 loss to the Chargers.
During the bye, Flores announced that Josh Rosen would serve as the
starting quarterback for the rest of the year. During a Week Six
game against Washington, Flores replaced Rosen with Ryan
Fitzpatrick. The Dolphins went from losing by a score of 17-3 to a
final outcome of 17-16.
In hindsight, that could be the moment at which Flores decided to
break from the tanking plan.
Immediately after the loss to Washington, Flores said Rosen remains
the starter. The next day, Flores opened the door for Fitzpatrick
to reclaim the job. Two days later, it was official -- Rosen out,
Fitzpatrick in.
After starting 0-7, the Dolphins went 5-4. Even without specific
testimony from Flores as to whether tanking happened and if so when
it ended, it looks like there was something happening. Indeed, some
league insiders wondered in September whether it wasn't a one-year
tank or Tua but a two-year effort to land Trevor Lawrence.
Regardless, there's a class action waiting to be filed. Frankly,
I'm surprised it hasn't been filed yet. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Pittsburgh Steelers Hires Flores Following Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Powell, writing for CBS News, reports that The Pittsburgh
Steelers named former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores as its
senior defensive assistant/linebackers coach, the team said on Feb.
19. The announcement comes weeks after Flores filed a lawsuit
against the NFL and several of its teams for racial discrimination.
"I am excited about Brian Flores joining our coaching staff given
his history of developing and teaching defensive players during his
time in the NFL," Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin said in a
statement on Feb. 19. "Brian's resume speaks for itself, and I look
forward to him adding his expertise to help our team."
Flores began his career with the New England Patriots, where he
spent 11 seasons in various coaching positions, according to the
Steelers. He arrived at the team after playing football at Boston
College. In 2019, Flores was hired as the head coach of the
Dolphins. After leading the team to back-to-back winning seasons,
Flores was fired.
Earlier this month, Flores filed a class-action lawsuit against the
NFL, the New York Giants, the Dolphins, the Denver Broncos and
unnamed individuals for several instances of alleged racial
discrimination.
Among the allegations in the lawsuit, Flores claims that the
Dolphins owner Stephen Ross offered to pay him $100,000 for every
loss during the coach's first season because Ross wanted to protect
the team's draft pick. Flores said standing up against Ross hurt
his standing within the organization and led to his firing.
The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, also claims that the
Giants had already chosen someone as their new coach before Flores
interviewed for the position. Flores also alleged that when he
interviewed for the head coach position with the Broncos,
interviewers arrived late and hungover.
The NFL, Dolphins, Broncos and Giants have denied the lawsuit's
claims. A law firm including former U.S. Attorney General Loretta
Lynch of the Obama administration has been hired by the NFL to
defend it and its teams, CBS Miami reported.
Today, there are three minority head coaches out of 32 in the
league. The Steelers' Tomlin is one of them. Meanwhile, about 70%
of players in the NFL are Black.
"We didn't have to file a lawsuit for the world to know that
there's a problem from a hiring standpoint in regards to minority
coaches in the National Football League," Flores exclusively told
"CBS Mornings." "The numbers speak for themselves. We filed the
lawsuit so that we could create some change and that's important to
me."
Analisa Novak contributed reporting. [GN]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Stipulated Scheduling Order Entered in Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-01217-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson
entered a stipulated scheduling order as follows:
1) All class discovery and discovery regarding the damages
claims of plaintiff, Brendan Smith to be completed by June
1, 2022;
2) Expert reports regarding the damages claims of plaintiff,
Brendan Smith, if necessary, to be exchanged by June 15,
2022; and
3) The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed
by July 1, 2022.
The Court will schedule a further case management conference
following a ruling on the plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products that
protect your many sides.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqYmxQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER
& KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and -
Nicholas A. Cummins, Esq.
BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLC
1500 Market Street, 32nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer A.L. Battle, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
280 Plaza, Suite 1300
280 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
NCI GROUP: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Vacated
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO GONZALEZ on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. NCI GROUP, INC., dba NCI BUILDING
SYSTEMS; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-00948 (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Anthony W. Ishii entered an order setting deadlines and
hearings.
The Court has deemed the motion to certify class. As such, the
hearing is vacated and the motion will be taken under submission as
of that date, says Judge Ishii.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.
NCI Group designs, manufactures, and markets metal products.[CC]
NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Extension for Discovery Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL HOOK, DAVID SEMAN,
BARBARA BROWN, LARRY ONDAKO and JULIA ONDAKO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a, NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS
RESORT; NEMACOLIN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and NWL, CO.,
a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00387-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines
for class certification discovery as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
--Close of Pre-Certification March 31, 2022 June 29, 2022
Fact Discovery
--Deadline to amend the March 31, 2022 June 29, 2022
pleadings or add new
parties
--Telephone Status Conference April 5, 2022 July 5, 2022
to set deadlines for next
phase of litigation
Nemacolin is in the resort hotel business.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3py6qJu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joy D. Llaguno, Esq.
HOOK & HOOK PLLC
430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101
Waynesburg, PA 15370
Telephone: 724-802-7144
Facsimile: 724-802-7959
E-mail: jllaguno@hooklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William E. Blick, Esq.
Jessica G. Lucas, Esq.
Marc T. Thirkell, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 577-7400
Facsimile: (412) 347-5461
E-mail: wblick@grsm.com
jlucas@grsm.com
mthirkell@grsm.com
NETFLIX INC: City of Beaumont Mulls Lawsuit Over Franchise Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Kersey, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reports that the
City of Beaumont is suing Netflix, Hulu, and Disney for failure to
pay franchise fees.
At the Feb. 15 city council meeting, the city attorney was
officially authorized to file the lawsuit.
The city alleges that the companies violated the 2005 Texas Video
Service Providers Act, according to a public notice.
"The city's desired outcome in pursuing the litigation is to
recover from the VSPs damages owed to the city for failure to pay
franchise fees and obtain an order requiring the VSPs to pay the
franchise fees going forward," the public notice stated.
This is not a nationwide law, City Attorney Sharae Reed said. It is
Texas specific, and to her knowledge, Netflix, Hulu and Disney are
not paying the franchise fees to any cities in Texas.
"I'm not privileged to say what other cities are doing, but I am
aware of some other cities who are in a class action lawsuit," Reed
said. "It's each city filing their own individual lawsuits, and
then we're coming together."
All three companies are expected to vigorously oppose the charge,
so the city is hoping to employ highly-skilled lawyers on the case.
Beaumont intends to work with three law firms on the lawsuit —
McKool Smith, P.C., Ashcroft Sutton Reyes LLC, and Korein Tillery
LLC.
McKool Smith was founded in 1991 and was recognized in 2020 as one
of leading firms for commercial litigation by Chambers USA, the
domestic branch of an international company that ranks the skill of
law firms and individual lawyers. McKool Smith was also named a
"Texas Powerhouse Firm" in 2019 by Law360, which authors news on
the legal profession.
Ashcroft Sutton Reyes was founded in 2008 by former U.S. Attorney
General, Missouri Gov. and Sen. John Ashcroft. It is composed of
several former high-ranking government officials who bring years of
expertise in government law. They have a track record of helping
governments recover billions of dollars lost to contractual
breaches, tax evasion, theft, waste, fraud and abuse.
Korein Tillery consistently ranks as on the National Law Journal's
"Plaintiff's Hot List" as one of the country's top plaintiff firms.
In 2014 and 2015, it was deemed by NLJ as one of the top 50 Elite
Trial Lawyers. In Missouri, two lawyers from the firm litigated the
first known filed lawsuit seeking to require streaming providers to
pay franchise fees to cities. Currently, they are working on
similar cases in Georgia and Indiana.
Should the lawsuit prove successful for the city, recovered
franchise fees will be used to pay for essential municipal services
going forward.
Councilmember at-large AJ Turner said he had received calls from
residents who were concerned about potentially losing their
streaming services.
Though much is still unclear about the case, Reed made sure
individual streamers knew there was nothing to fear during the Feb.
15 city council meeting.
"We're not canceling anybody's subscriptions," she said. [GN]
NEW MILLENIUM: Underpays Home Attendants, Joseph Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HYACINTHE JOSEPH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW MILLENIUM NY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01029
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks redress for systematic underpayment
of minimum and overtime wages against Defendant, a provider of home
health care for the elderly and infirm.
The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action on behalf of
similarly situated home attendants, personal care aides and/or home
health aides (the "Collective or Class Members")
The Defendant, by failing to pay promptly Plaintiff, the Collective
and Class Members the federal and state mandated minimum wage and
overtime, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2016 until January
2022. Plaintiff and the others at all times maintained and lived in
their own separate residences. The job duties of the Plaintiff and
the others included, but were not limited to the following:
personal care services, such as assistance with walking, bathing,
dressing, personal grooming, meal preparation, feeding and
toileting; heavy and light cleaning, such as vacuuming, mopping,
dusting, cleaning windows, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry and
taking out garbage; shopping; running errands; escorting clients;
and taking care of household visitors and pets.
New Millennium is a home care provider that services Forest Hills,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
www.wimslaw.com
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Telephone: (646) 393-9550
Facsimile: (646) 393-9552
E-mail: dwims@wimslaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Living Conditions in Prison City Remain Abysmal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that living
conditions in New York City's prison system remain abysmal -- even
after 40 years of federal oversight by a court-appointed monitor
brought in at taxpayers' expense, records show.
The city's deeply troubled Department of Correction had come under
intense scrutiny in the mid-1970s, when pre-trial detainees brought
seven different class-action lawsuits alleging confinement
conditions were so poor that their constitutional rights were
violated.
In 1982, then-Manhattan federal Judge Morris Lasker signed off on a
settlement agreement requiring the DOC to drastically improve the
jails' "environmental conditions."
The pact also created an independent monitoring entity, called the
Office of Compliance Consultants, to try to help speed up the
process.
Four decades later, harsh critics including lawyers for the Legal
Aid Society, who represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuits over jail
conditions, say the situation is still horrific.
"Conditions in the jails are deteriorating at an exponential rate,"
Legal Aid wrote to a judge this past fall.
"People in custody are living in filth and darkness, and as a
result of massive neglect and mismanagement, the jails and the
people confined in them are in crisis."
Legal Aid was responding to an October status report to the court
filed by OCC Deputy Director Nicole Austin-Best -- who all but
agreed that Rikers Island, for one, is a disaster.
The OCC is one of at least 11 federal- or state-appointed monitors
or "special masters" overseeing ongoing cases aimed at ridding city
agencies of longtime negligence and misfeasance.
As the Sunday Post exclusively reported, the city has forked over a
total of at least $111 million to these high-priced overseers to
help fix serious failures: from horrific conditions in public
housing to alleged racist practices at the NYPD and FDNY.
In terms of the city's jails, in addition to the OCC, there are two
other court-appointed groups handling related issues: one involving
correction officers accused of routinely using excessive force on
juvenile detainees, and another seeking to ensure mentally ill
detainees get access to medical treatment and other services upon
release.
But none of the court-appointed monitors have been on the job as
long as the OCC.
The OCC has received enough judicial extensions to continue
operating for 40 years while racking up hefty fees on the
taxpayers' dime -- and as the Rikers Island jail complex remains
plagued by poor ventilation, filthy cells and plenty of rodents,
records show.
The DOC rejected a request by The Post under the Freedom of
Information Law seeking its 40-year payment history to the OCC.
Instead, it only provided the monitoring agency's cost to taxpayers
from 2018 through 2021, which totaled nearly $1.5 million.
The OCC works closely with the DOC, has its own staff and sometimes
uses outside consultants. All hires and other expenses must be
approved by parties in the ongoing litigation.
In her October status report, Austin-Best, who records show is paid
$150,000 yearly, said the city continues to have difficulty
providing inmates clean jail cells, proper ventilation, adequate
lighting and other basic living necessities. Those conditions are
in violation of a 2001 order by the late Manhattan federal Judge
Harold Baer Jr.
Austin-Best said the DOC is failing to comply with many of its
mandates and that sanitary conditions on Rikers island had gotten
especially worse over the previous year, including a "significant
increase in vermin activity."
She questioned whether DOC staffing shortages during the COVID-19
pandemic played a role.
Legal Aid said in its response that the "disgusting, inhumane
conditions are markedly worse" than those Baer found "sanctionable"
two decades earlier.
"Compliance is not just backsliding," they said.
Ex-City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who released an analysis in
December exposing how costs to house city inmates had reached
all-time high while violent jail incidents skyrocketed, said he
supports the use of monitors and special masters but believes they
need to be held more accountable for their work.
"We need monitors, but we need better results," he said.
City Councilman Keith Powers (D-Manhattan), who chaired the
council's Criminal Justice Committee from 2018 through 2021, said
the goal is obviously improving city jails so the federal monitors
are no longer needed. But he conceded that some conditions plaguing
Rikers Island are so challenging they require constant oversight.
"We have constantly seen a [jail facility] that is plagued by
violence and has failed to provide even basic services," he said.
In September, Powers was among a group of elected officials who
toured Rikers Island amid a spike in inmate deaths.
Afterward, the pols described putrid conditions that included feces
and rotting food carpeting the floors, a dozen men packed into a
single cell and inmates with chronic health conditions not
receiving proper medical care. Two state legislators also said they
saw an inmate try to hang himself in front of them.
Last year, 16 people died in DOC custody, more than the previous
two years combined and the most since 2016, which saw 15 in-custody
deaths, records show.
Staffing shortages have led to an uptick in inmate violence,
insiders say.
In a bid to make its jails more humane, the city is preparing to
move ahead with ex-Mayor Bill de Blasio's controversial, nearly $9
billion plan to shutter the Rikers Island prison complex and
replace it with four smaller jails in every borough but Staten
Island.
Many critics say the city would be better off building a new
state-of-the-art complex on Rikers Island and away from the general
public.
Austin-Best did not return messages, and DOC declined to comment.
[GN]
NISSAN MOTOR: Customers Set to Get Compensation in Cartel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FleetNews reports that any UK business or motorist who bought or
leased a new car, van or truck between October 2006 and September
2015 could be eligible for compensation of up to GBP60 per
vehicle.
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has given the green light
to a class action against multiple maritime car carriers who
operated an illegal cartel to manipulate car shipping prices.
More than 17 million cars, vans and trucks are said to been
affected by a price-fixing scheme run by several international
shipping firms.
The proceedings against Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co, Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha, Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, Eukor Car Carriers Inc and
Compania Sudamericana de Vapores SA were filed in February 2020.
It followed the European Commission's decision in 2018 to fine
these shipping companies EUR395 million (GBP329m) for fixed prices
and rigged bids for roll-on, roll-off (RoRo) transport of
vehicles.
The EC found that the shippers had coordinated rates, allocated
tenders, coordinated reductions of capacity in the market and
exchanged commercially sensitive information to maintain or
increase the price of intercontinental shipping of new vehicles.
When buying or leasing new vehicles, consumers and businesses pay
for delivery costs and the class action aims to help that those who
were overcharged get their money back.
If the collective action, which has been filed by consumer rights
champion Mark McLaren, is successful, anyone who bought or leased
an affected vehicle will be automatically entitled to
compensation.
Customers affected include those who bought from Ford, Vauxhall,
Volkswagen, Peugeot, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Citroen
and Renault between October 2006 and September 2015.
The claim value is up to GBP60 per new car bought or leased and
class members will be able to claim in respect of more than one
vehicle.
McLaren has instructed Scott+Scott UK LLP as solicitors on behalf
of consumers and businesses who purchased or leased new cars or
vans, to proceed to trial.
He said: "The CPO (Collective Proceedings Order) is a crucial step
in our case, and we are delighted at the CAT's decision to
authorise our claim to move forward.
"We look forward to securing compensation for the millions of UK
consumers impacted by the cartelists' illegal behavior."
The claim, estimated to be worth GBP150 million, seeks to recover
damages for individual customers and businesses who overpaid for
their car as a result of higher delivery charges.
This differs, says McLaren, differs from earlier claims filed in
relation to the RoRo cartel that represented car manufacturers.
David Scott, of Scott+Scott UK LLP, said: "This is an important
judgment for class members, but also for the UK collective actions
regime as a whole.
"When granting the collective proceedings order, the Tribunal
correctly noted that collective proceedings such as this claim are
important for ensuring that wrongdoers like the shipping companies
modify their behaviour." [GN]
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Defective Emergency Braking System
----------------------------------------------------------------
MyCarVoice News reports that Nissan's FEB system has been the
source of many complaints, with owners claiming that it can
unexpectedly engage or fail completely. A class action lawsuit has
since been filed against Nissan North America for these alleged
defects in its Forward Emergency Braking (FEB) system.
The lawsuit claims that despite repeated owner complaints and
dealership repair orders, Nissan wrongfully and intentionally
concealed the defect forcing owners to pay for repairs.
Forward Emergency Braking System Problem
According to the lawsuit, the FEB system uses radar
sensors(Continental ARS410) to detect obstacles in front of the
vehicle. If the FEB system detects an obstacle, the driver is
alerted. If the driver does not respond quickly, the FEB system
automatically applies the brakes.
Vehicle owners however claim the FEB system contains one or more
defects resulting in erratic and unexpected behavior. Because of
alleged defects with the system, it's therefore unpredictable and
poses a safety hazard to drivers and other occupants on the road.
Due to defects with the FEB system, vehicle owners have experienced
the following behavior:
-- Detecting nonexistent obstacles on the road resulting in the
automatic triggering of the brakes suddenly, causing the vehicle to
slow down abruptly
-- Forcing the vehicle to come to a complete stop without
warning, and when not required to do so
-- FEB system deactivating itself causing drivers to lose their
focus on the road and rendering the safety feature completely
useless
-- Dashboard flashes warning: "Front radar unavailable due to
obstruction."
The lawsuit alleges that Nissan North America has been wrongfully
and intentionally concealing the defect in their Forward Emergency
Braking system.
Nissan markets its FEB system as:
Intelligent feature that uses radar technology to monitor the
vehicle's proximity to the vehicle ahead, giving the driver audible
and visual display warnings to help the driver reduce the vehicle's
speed if a potential frontal collision is detected. If the driver
fails to respond, the Forward Emergency Braking system can apply
the brakes, helping the driver to avoid the collision or reduce the
speed of impact if it is unavoidable.
Additionally, vehicle owners claim Nissan's failure to disclose the
FEB defect(s) to consumers, despite their knowledge of alleged
defects render the vehicles unsafe and unreliable.
Despite Owner Complaints, Nissan Refused to Repair or Replace FEB
System
Nissan had early indications that its FEB system contained one or
more defects during pre-production testing. Yet despite consumer
complaints, warranty data, and even dealership repair orders,
Nissan has not recalled a single vehicle equipped with the FEB
system. Instead, the cost of paying to diagnose and repair has been
shifted to the consumer.
The lawsuit even includes several complaints submitted to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the models
listed in the lawsuit.
Braking complaints collected by NHTSA over the past 18 months all
seem to describe the same phenomenon with drivers reporting their
Nissan Rogue "brakes suddenly without warning."
Nissan Vehicles Affected
The following vehicles are affected by the alleged Forward
Emergency Braking system defect:
2019-2021 Nissan Maxima
2020-2021 Nissan Sentra
2020-21 Nissan Versa
2017-2020 Nissan Rogue
2017-2021 Nissan Rogue Sport
2019-2021 Nissan Altima
2020-2021 Nissan Kicks
2021 Nissan Armada
2018-2021 Nissan Leaf
2019-2021 Nissan Murano
2020-2021 Nissan Titan
Status of the Nissan Forward Braking System Class Action
Litigation
The lawsuit was filed on February 15, 2022 in the United States
District Court Middle District of Tennessee.
Class Action Currently Active
Questions About This Lawsuit?
MyCarVoice.com is not counsel or the settlement administrator in
this class action investigation. Our goal is to inform owners of
these vehicles of the current lawsuit.
This post will be updated as more information is officially
announced. Please consider subscribing to this post for critical
updates. [GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Bid for Leave to File Document Entered in Ayala
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE J. AYALA, JR., on
behalf of himself and as representative of other class members
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a
NISSAN USA, Case No. 6:20-cv-01625 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy
B. Dalton, Jr entered an endorsed order granting motion for leave
to file document.
The Court said, "By Wednesday, March 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs may
file replies of no more than 10 pages. The replies should also
include briefing on the difference between the class and collective
certification standards, whether Plaintiffs are seeking class
certification in the alternative to collective certification or
vice versa, and any authority addressing whether such motions can
be considered simultaneously."
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Nissan USA is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.[CC]
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Loses Bid to Strike Bennett's Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUNE BENNETT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and GERALD McGHEE, Plaintiffs v. NORTH AMERICAN
BANCARD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to
strike class allegations.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of
consumers, who North American Bancard, LLC ("NAB") allegedly
improperly charged undisclosed monthly fees in connection with its
credit card processing service and products. NAB offers a
"Pay-As-You-Go" credit card processing service, which was
advertised as a free service with no setup, monthly, or hidden
fees. The Plaintiffs were two of NAB's Pay-As-You-Go customers who
were charged multiple fees in the form of a $3.99 per month
"inactivity" fee. NAB automatically began withdrawing these
inactivity fees from its customers' bank accounts in 2015. To date,
NAB has not refunded any of the inactivity fees withdrawn from the
Plaintiffs' bank accounts.
Plaintiff McGhee filed the original complaint in the Court in March
2017. NAB then filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike class action
claims and related allegations on Aug. 27, 2019, which was denied.
The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to certify the class in
October 2020, which the Court denied without prejudice. On Oct. 1,
2021, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC, which added Bennett as a
plaintiff. On Jan. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to
certify class, which is still pending before the Court. On Feb. 2,
2022, NAB filed the instant motion to strike class action claims.
The Order follows.
II. Discussion
NAB moves to strike the class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f).
Under that rule, a court may act sua sponte, or NAB must file a
motion to strike a pleading or portion thereof either before
responding to the pleading, or, if a response is not allowed,
within twenty-one days after the relevant pleading is served.
First, Judge Battaglia holds that several courts within the Circuit
have held that Rule 12(f) is an improper vehicle for dismissing
class claims and should rather be addressed through Rule 23. Next,
he says, it would be inappropriate against this procedural backdrop
to allow NAB to seek certification-related relief now under Rule
12(f). Lastly, under Rule 12(f)(1), he holds that the Court may
strike material from a pleading "on its own" at any time, but this
provision is obviously inapplicable in the case because the Court
is not acting sua sponte -- it is addressing a motion filed by
NAB.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Battaglia denied NAB's motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yx9ya99f from Leagle.com.
NORTH CAROLINA: Court to Hear Motorists' Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Doyle, writing for WGHP, reports that a federal court on
Tuesday, Feb. 22, was scheduled to consider the settlement of a
suit that the could help protect drivers who have lost their
licenses for non-payment of fines and fees.
The case is Johnson v. Jessup, a class action suit filed on behalf
of motorists who lost licenses because they failed to pay traffic
fines and court costs in full within 40 days, as required by North
Carolina statute.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder was scheduled to hold a final
hearing on what is described as "a proposed class action
settlement" at 10 a.m.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties
Union, the ACLU of North Carolina and the Southern Coalition for
Social Justice sued in May 2018 on behalf of Seti Johnson and
Sharee Smoot under the 14th Amendment. In August 2019 an amended
filing made this a class-action suit to represent all who were in
similar circumstances.
Torre Jessup, then commissioner of the NCDMV, was named as the
defendant. The suit cites the 1-page official notice that alerts
defendants that their licenses are about to be revoked but, the
suit alleges, doesn't tell them all their rights.
The suit sought to have North Carolina's law declared
unconstitutional, to prevent NC DMV from revoking licenses without
a hearing and without establishing options to repay the fines and
fees and to require the DMV to restore any licenses that were
revoked solely because fines and fees weren't paid on time.
Johnson, described in court filings as a young, Black father of
three, had lost his job and was unable to pay off his traffic
ticket, which moved the DMV to revoke and suspend his license,
which, his suit says, prevented him from driving to a job and
taking his children to school and daycare.
Smoot, described as a Black mother, faced the same situation for
two different violations, the suit alleges. She was forced to drive
in violation of the law or to lose her job.
State law gives motorists 40 days to pay their fines and fees or
revoke the license indefinitely. The suit said that law affected
436,000 drivers just in the fall of 2017. Plaintiffs argued that
the law unfairly targeted people living in poverty, citing the 15%
of North Carolinians living below the poverty line at the time of
the filing.
Attorneys for the NC DMV argued that the 11th Amendment of the
Constitution precluded the federal court from hearing the suit,
saying it was a state matter, that the "fundamental fairness"
doctrine does not apply. [GN]
NOTORIETY GROUP: Kuan Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Kuan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Notoriety Group LLC, Anthony
Shnayderman, Nathan Leong, and Niv Shaked, Case No. 1:22-cv-01583
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks recover unpaid minimum wages,
unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants pride themselves on
having "curated and managed the experience for the main stage vip
SkyDeck tables at Electric Zoo Festival 2 since 2015." To
accomplish their business goals, Defendants: (i) allegedly
mis-classify their servers -- including Plaintiff -- as independent
contractors; (ii) fail to pay their servers -- including Plaintiff
-- any wages, under the FLSA and NYLL; and (iii) maintain an
illegal policy and practice of appropriating their servers' --
including Plaintiff's -- tipped wages.
The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Defendants' event
production company, known as "Notoriety Group" in 2019 and 2021.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-managerial employee.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control an event production
company known as "Notoriety Group". The Defendants hold themselves
out as a "New York City-based VIP lifestyle and events management
group founded by Nathan Leong and Anthony Shnayderman."[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
OAK STREET: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Oak Street Health, Inc. (NYSE: OSH)
between August 6, 2020 and November 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important March 14, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Oak Street Health securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=2905 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 14, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Oak Street Health maintained
relationships with third-party marketing agents likely to provoke
law enforcement scrutiny; (2) Oak Street Health was providing free
transportation to federal health care beneficiaries in a manner
that would provoke law enforcement scrutiny; (3) these activities
may be violations of the False Claims Act; (4) as such, Oak Street
Health was at heightened risk of investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice and/or other federal law enforcement
agencies; (5) as a result, Oak Street Health was subject to adverse
impacts related to defense and settlement costs and diversion of
management resources; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Oak Street Health's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Oak Street Health class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=2905 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275
Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.compkim@rosenlegal.comcases@rosenlegal.comwww.rosenlegal.com
[GN]
OCTAPHARMA AG: Judge OKs $10M Fingerprint Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that people who
donated blood plasma at clinics operated by Octapharma in Illinois
may soon see a bit of cash headed their way, under a $10 million
settlement approved by a Chicago federal judge to end a class
action lawsuit over donor fingerprint scans.
The lawyers who led the class action can expect to see more than $3
million land in their accounts, as well, under the deal.
On Feb. 16, U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall granted final
approval to the deal.
The legal action dates back to 2019, when named plaintiff Mary
Crumpton filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Octapharma
Plasma. The class action accused the company of violating the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, for the way in which
Octapharma required donors to scan their fingerprints to verify
their identity when donating plasma.
The plaintiffs specifically asserted Octapharma required donors to
scan their fingerprint each time they donated plasma, but did not
first obtain written consent from donors to scan their prints, nor
did they provide donors with written notices regarding how the
company would store, use, share and ultimately destroy the scanned
prints.
Under the deal, Germany-based Octapharma agreed to pay more $9.9
million to settle the claims. From that settlement fund, attorneys
who brought the lawsuit would receive one-third of the money, or
nearly $3.3 million.
The remainder of the funds, after paying settlement administration
costs, would be divided among members of the plaintiffs class,
which would include everyone who scanned a fingerprint at an
Illinois Octapharma location in the past few years.
According to documents filed in support of the settlement, the
parties estimate that will include more than 76,000 people.
If every donor had submitted a valid claim, each could collect
about $84. But in her order approving the settlement, Judge Kendall
said 22% of eligible class members submitted valid claims. Based on
estimates in prior filings in the case, that could mean those class
members may receive more than $800 each.
Any uncashed or rejected checks from the settlement would be paid
to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
"The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to Settlement
Class Members is reasonable, considering the facts and
circumstances of the claims and defenses available in the Action
and the potential risks and likelihood of success of alternatively
pursuing litigation on the merits," Kendall wrote in her order
granting final approval to the settlement.
According to its website, Octapharma operates five Illinois plasma
donation sites, including sites in Chicago, Riverside, Melrose Park
and Bridgeview.
Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys J. Eli Wade-Scott and
Schuyler Ufkes, of Edelson, PC, of Chicago, and David Fish, of Fish
Potter Bolaños, PC, of Naperville.
Octapharma has been represented in the case by attorneys Daniel T.
Graham, Timothy R. Herman and Jeffrey M. Sniadanko, of the firm of
Clark Hill PLC, of Chicago. [GN]
OUTBACK CARE: Wrenn Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS WRENN, and SHARAH
TOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, v. OUTBACK CARE GROUP LLC and KEN BLACKMON, Case No.
4:21-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the following collective group of
non-exempt employees who Defendants failed to pay all
minimum and overtime wages due:
"All individuals who worked for Defendants as Live-in Care
Providers, House Managers or similar positions and
received a weekly payment for all time worked within the
three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the
present;"
2. authorizing the distribution of the Notice, the Consent to
Join Form, and the Reminder Notice; and
3. directing the Defendant, within 21 days of the Court's
order, to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer-
readable file with the following information for all
putative collective members employed at any time from
three years prior to the filing of the Collective Action
Complaint to present: names, last known mailing addresses,
alternate addresses, all telephone numbers (work, cell,
and personal), all known email addresses (work and
personal), dates of birth, last four digits of social
security numbers, and dates of employment.
The Plaintiffs allege that, as a regular and routine practice,
Defendants violated the FLSA by willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs
and similarly-situated persons (1) the minimum wage for all hours
worked, and (2) overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and
similarly-situated persons a low flat rate per week that was lower
than the minimum wage based on the total hours actually worked, and
that did not compensate the employees at one-and-one-half their
regular rate for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CcFsMs at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael D. Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
PARTICIA COYNE-FAGUE: Ct. Tosses DeBritto's Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy DeBritto v.
Particia Coyne-Fague, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00203 (D.R.I.), the
Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy entered an order denying motion to
certify class as it fails to demonstrate that the criteria of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a).
In addition, a pro se plaintiff cannot represent the interests of
any other person. LR Gen 205(a)(2), says Judge Mcelroy.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
PATZERIA FAMILY: Bocel Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo Bocel v. Patzeria
Family & Friends Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07384-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending the time to file a reply in support of his motion for
conditional certification.
Pursuant to the briefing schedule set by Your Honor's order dated
January 3, 2022, The Plaintiff's reply is due on or before February
25, 2022. Because of delays we are encountering in translating back
and forth into Spanish for Plaintiff, we respectfully request a
one-week extension of the filing deadline, to March 4, 2022. This
is the first such request, the Plaintiff's counsel says.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hxswqO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
www.katzmelinger.com
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428.6811
E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Rombough Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAITLIN ROMBOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00016 (N.D. Iowa., Feb. 21, 2022) seeks to stop
the Defendants' alleged practice of making unsolicited calls
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Paycom Software, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The
Company provides data analytical software products to manage the
employment life cycle from recruitment to retirement. Paycom
Software serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric D. Puryear, Esq.
PURYEAR LAW, P.C.
3719 Bridge Ave # 6
Davenport, IA 52807
Telephone: (563) 265-8344
Facsimile: (866) 415-5032
E-mail: eric@puryearlaw.com
- and -
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 803-1578
Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Initial CMP Order Entered in Boyuk Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v.
PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an initial case management
order as follows:
A. Settlement Negotiations:
Counsel for the parties shall confer with their clients and
any involved insurance carriers before all case management,
status, or pretrial conferences to obtain authority to
participate in settlement negotiations conducted by the
Court.
B. Initial Scheduling:
The parties shall comply with the following deadlines:
a) Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. March 4, 2022
Civ. P. 26(a) shall be made on
or before:
b) Additional parties shall be April 22, 2022
joined on or before:
c) Pleadings shall be amended on April 22, 2022
or before:
d) Class Certification discovery July 29, 2022
shall be completed on or before:
e) The Plaintiffs' expert and/or June 24, 2022
third-party data analyst reports
as to class certification shall
be filed on or before:
f) Depositions of the Plaintiffs' July 29, 2022
experts and/or third-party data
analysts shall be completed on
or before:
g) The Defendant's expert reports as July 11, 2022
to class certification shall be
filed on or before:
h) Depositions of Defendant's experts July 29, 2022
shall be completed on or before:
i) The Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Sept. 12, 2022
Class Certification, Memorandum in
Support, and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by:
j) The Defendants' Memorandum in Oct. 27, 2022.
Opposition to Rule 23 Class
Certification and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by:
k) The Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Nov. 11, 2022
in support of Rule 23 class
certification, if any, shall be
filed by:
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
The parties are advised to comply with all ADR requirements
pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2. The parties
are directed to promptly schedule and file the notice of
the ADR proceeding. A representative of any insurance
carrier which may be responsible, in whole or in part, for
any portion of the claims alleged and who has full,
unilateral settlement authority must attend any ADR
proceeding in person if insurance proceeds could cover any
portion of a settlement or verdict.
5. Discovery and Other Case Management Disputes:
In the Court's experience, many discovery and case
management disputes can be promptly resolved in a
conference with the and counsel.
Petrochem operates as a petrochemical services provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MkVecP at no extra charge.[CC]
PHYSICIANS WEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Progressive Health and
Rehab Corporation v. Physicians Wealth Solutions, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:22-cv-00505-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff requests the Court allow this "placeholder" motion
for class certification to remain pending to protect against any
alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court's decision
in Campbell-Ewald.
The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets the
requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(3) and (g). Plaintiff requests
that, following discovery and further briefing, the Court certify
the class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and
appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.
Progressive is a health, wellness and fitness company.
Physicians Wealth Solutions operates as a financial advisor firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vCcrZw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 241-4722
Facsimile: (513) 786-9227
E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com
- and -
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
POOL SCREENING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Jenkins Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AJ JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POOL SCREENING & PORCHES LLC; and MANOUKA
JEAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20517-XXXX (S.D.FL. Feb. 21,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Jenkins was employed by the Defendant as a driver.
POOL SCREENING & PORCHES LLC is a company having their main place
of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ: Wins Summary Judgment v. Talarico
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE TALARICO v. THE
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Case No.
1:18-cv-00909-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered
an order granting the Port Authority's motion for summary
judgment.
The Court said, "Talarico concedes that this case does not involve
the explicit enactment of a policy or any widespread and pervasive
custom of recording medical examinations in OMS. Besides in the
room where Talarico had her examination, which doubled as a nurse
supervisor's office, there is no evidence of cameras in any other
room of OMS. Talarico also does not offer a single other instance
of the Port Authority recording a medical examination. There is,
admittedly, evidence suggesting that other medical examinations had
taken place in the room where the doctor examined Talarico's hand,
creating the potential for the security camera to record these past
examinations. This potential would hinge both on these other
examinations happening within the view of the camera, which did not
record the entire room, and the curtain within the room not being
fully drawn so that the view of the camera was unobstructed. But
the potential for an invasion of privacy, on its own, is not a
constitutional violation. Because Talarico has not established any
policy or custom connected to her alleged constitutional violation,
the Port Authority is not liable under Monell as a matter of law.
Its motion for summary judgment therefore must be granted."
Talarico worked as a senior administrative secretary for the Port
Authority Technical Center within its Chief Security Office. The
Port Authority was and is a body corporate and politic, created by
compact between the states of New York and New Jersey, and
recognized and endorsed by Congress.
On August 4, 2016, Talarico and one of her supervisors got into an
altercation. During this altercation, the supervisor removed
Talarico's cellphone from her hand, which Talarico alleges injured
her hand. Because of this alleged injury, Talarico visited the OMS,
where a doctor examined her hand.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sCr8tz at no extra charge.[CC]
PREMIUM RETAIL: Bid to Compel Arbitration Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH FRAGA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PREMIUM RETAIL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 21-10751-WGY (D. Mass), the Hon. Judge
William G. Young entered an order denying Premium Retail's motion
to compel arbitration without prejudice to its renewal should
Plaintiff Fraga fail to establish she is a member of a class under
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Fraga's motion to a certify a class, is similarly denied without
prejudice to its renewal should Fraga demonstrate, prima facie,
that she is a member of a class under Section 1 of the Federal
Arbitration Act.
Premium Retail provides merchandising and assisted selling
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KfB1TM at no extra charge.[CC]
PRIMACARE PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Njoroge Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER M. NJOROGE; JECINTA MAINA; JOYCE STUBBS; EBUN OLAJIDE,
Plaintiffs v. PRIMACARE PARTNERS LLC d/b/a VISITING ANGELS OF
BALTIMORE EAST; and GINA D. NEGRI, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00425-LKG (D. Md., Feb. 21, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as in home
caregivers.
PRIMACARE PARTNERS LLC is headquartered in the United States. The
company's line of business includes providing one or more of a wide
variety of individual and family social, counseling, welfare, or
referral services, including refugee, disaster, and temporary
relief services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Lebau, Esq.
Devan M. Wang, Esq.
LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
606 Baltimore Avenue-Suite 201
Towson, Maryland 21204
Telephone: (443) 273-1203
Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
E-mail: sl@joblaws.net
PSL ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS AGAR-VALENCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PSL ASSOCIATES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-04306-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu
entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to
continue class certification deadlines:
1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the Motion for Class
Certification shall be continued from March 18, 2022 to
July 22, 2022.
2. The Defendant's deadline to file the Opposition shall be
continued from April 18, 2022 to August 19, 2022.
3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the Reply shall be
continued from May 9, 2022 to September 9, 2022.
4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification shall be continued from May 23, 2022 to
September 22, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kb7rPm at no extra charge.[CC]
QG PRINTING: Seeks to File Response to Sims' Objections
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QG
PRINTING II LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; 74 QC
PRINTING II LLC, business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01632-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order under Local Rule
7-10 allowing it to file a response to Plaintiff's Objections to
Defendant's Evidence that was filed contemporaneously with
Plaintiff's reply brief to the Motion for Class Certification.
As Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set to be heard on
March 4, 2022, there is insufficient time for Defendant to seek
relief by any means other than by this Ex Parte Application.
Allowing Defendant to file the response to Plaintiff's Objections
will not prejudice Plaintiff in any way, the Defendant contends.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cd8Nqf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
Benjamin Sanchez, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: 925.932.2468
Facsimile: 925.946.9809
E-mail: giskander@littler.com
bsanchez@littler.com
QUALTEK RECOVERY: Ferguson Seeks Unpaid OT for Logistics Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRISHA FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUALTEK RECOVERY LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00717
(E.D. Pa., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from QualTek under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, QualTek's recovery logistics workers,
like Ferguson, were sent into recovery areas after natural
disasters. These workers, like Ferguson, worked to assist recovery
in these disaster areas. Ferguson and the workers like her worked
over 40 hours each week they worked for QualTek. But Ferguson and
these other workers were not paid an overtime premium for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, the lawsuit
says.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, QualTek
allegedly classified these workers as independent contractors and
paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked.
Ferguson worked for QualTek in September 2021. During that time,
Ferguson worked exclusively for QualTek. Ferguson was paid by the
hour. QualTek classified Ferguson as an independent
contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Es.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999 5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
QUEBEC: Faces Suit Over Underfunding of Nunavik's Child Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two survivors of Nunavik's child welfare system hope to bring legal
action against the governments of Canada and Quebec, alleging
discriminatory and unlawful underfunding of child welfare services,
Nunatsiaq News reports.
The plaintiffs say that for decades, both governments have breached
class members' constitutional right to equality by failing to
provide health and social services on a level that is substantively
equal to what any other Canadian child receives.
The suit also alleges the two governments have deprived Inuit
children who required essential health, social and other services
of services that were substantively equal to those available to
non-Indigenous children in Quebec and Canada.
The case will be presented before the Superior Court of Quebec,
which will decide if the case will proceed as a class action. [GN]
RIPPLE LABS: Bid for Class Certification Due November 18
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zakinov, et al., v. Ripple
Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order regarding
stipulation to modify case schedule as follows:
-- Class certification motion: November 18, 2022
-- Class certification opposition: January 27, 2023
-- Class certification reply: March 24, 2023
-- Non-expert discovery cutoff: March 31, 2023
-- Class certification hearing: April 26, 2023
-- Plaintiff's expert disclosures: April 28, 2023
-- Defendants' expert disclosures: May 26, 2023
-- Plaintiff's expert rebuttal: June 23, 2023
-- Expert discovery cutoff: July 21, 2023
-- Dispositive motions filed: August 25, 2023
-- Dispositive motion oppositions: Sept. 22, 2023
-- Dispositive motion replies: Oct. 20, 2023
-- Dispositive motions heard by: Nov. 22, 2023
-- Pretrial conference: Feb. 29, 2024
-- Trial date: March 25, 2024
While the court agrees with the rationale behind the parties'
request, and thus grants the stipulation in part, the court also
modifies the parties' proposed pretrial and trial dates to conform
with the court's long-standing practice of hearing dispositive
motions at least 120 days before trial, to afford adequate time for
trial preparation after receipt of the order on dispositive
motions.
Ripple Labs is an American technology company which develops the
Ripple payment protocol and exchange network.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sER47X at no extra charge.[CC]
SAFEMOON: Celebrities Named in Illegal Crypto Scheme Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
musicfeeds.com.au reports that a new class action lawsuit over a
dodged cryptocurrency scheme has named rappers Soulja Boy, Lil
Yachty, Backstreet Boy Nick Carter and more as defendants, it has
been reported.
The 'pump and dump scheme', alleged led by company SafeMoon, is
said to have roped in the celebrities to mislead, promote and sell
the crypto token 'V1'. The suit alleges that through the
celebrities' posts and endorsements the currency's value was
inflated, which meant the founder and CEO (Braden John Karony) and
other SafeMoon execs had the tip to sell their holdings for a
profit.
Reported by ClassAction.org, the rise of this particular SafeMoon
token took off after being launched in March last year. At its
height, the token hit a 875% peak just nine days after the
celebrity marketing campaign kicked off.
By the end of 2021 though, the SafeMoon token had completely
crashed, hitting a low of '$0.0000006521 per token', equating to an
80% drop from its height. Due to the departure of a series of
executives, and the company's failure to launch a promised crypto
wallet, the suit alleges the scam 'pulled the rug' out from its
investors slowly.
"On December 31, 2021, the price of the SafeMoon Token hit a low of
$0.0000006521 per token, an over 80% drop from its height during
the Class Period, which it has not been able to recover," the
lawsuit reads.
"As of the filing of this Complaint, the trading volume for the
SAFEMOON Token has plummeted to around only $60,000."
An Instagram post on the official SafeMoon account from last year
has addressed the wallet issue. Karony has stated that 'the wallet
launch is my utmost priority and I am committed to get you an
update as soon as I can'. [GN]
SALAS CONCRETE: Class Action Settlement in Cavazos Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CAVAZOS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SALAS CONCRETE INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00062-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A.
Drozd entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement and conditional class certification as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement is granted;
2. The proposed class identified in the settlement agreement
is certified for settlement purposes;
3. The Plaintiff's counsel, David Spivak and Maralle
Messrelian of The Spivak Law Firm 2 Walter Haines of
United Employees Law Group, are appointed as class counsel
for settlement purposes;
4. The named plaintiff, John Cavazos, is appointed as class
representative for settlement purposes;
5. Simpluris is approved as the settlement claims
administrator;
6. The proposed notice is approved in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
7. The proposed settlement detailed herein is approved on a
preliminary basis as fair and adequate; and
8. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement
is set for May 23, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. before the
undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final
approval of class action settlement to be filed at least
28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in
accordance with Local Rule 230(b).
The Plaintiff originally filed this class, collective, and
representative action in this court on January 14, 2019. The
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 27, 2019,
alleging various wage, hour, and other labor-related claims in
violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
which plaintiff claims give rise to penalties under California’s
Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA).
The Defendant answered on April 22, 2019, denying that it violated
any relevant California or federal laws. Thereafter, the parties
engaged in "informal discovery," whereby they exchanged "data,
information, and documents," and defendant produced "time-keeping
records, time and payroll data for putative class members."
The Plaintiff John Cavazos was employed by defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt employee from 2011 until 2018.
Salas Concrete is a "licensed concrete contractor that provides a
wide range of concrete services, including, but not limited to,
supplying, forming, reinforcing, pouring, finishing, and
resurfacing concrete."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tkDTbl at no extra charge.[CC]
SANTANDER BANK: Settlement Deal in Sanchez Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05775-PGS-DEA
(D.N.J.), the Court entered an order:
1. The Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement
Agreement") is preliminarily approved by this Court;
2. The following state law subclasses, of individuals who
worked for Defendant in the position of "Business
Operations Manager" ("BOM") are certified pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement only:
a. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in New
Jersey or New York anytime between June 29, 2015 and
December 31, 2021;
b. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or New
Hampshire at any time between September 8, 2017 and
December 31, 2017; and
c. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in Rhode
Island at any time from September 8, 2018 through
December 31, 2021.
3. the Settlement Collective consisting of all individuals
who (1) previously filed a valid consent to join the
collective action lawsuit with this Court; and (2) have
not previously filed a consent to join the FLSA collective
with this Court, but who are members of the Rule 23(b)(3)
proposed class is certified for settlement purposes only
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA;
4. The Plaintiffs Crystal Sanchez, Rabia Ahmed, Andrea
Blanchard, Pearl Monteiro, Shaunsey Jackson,
Michelle Romano, Joni Henderson, and Peter Sano are
appointed as representative of the settlement classes;
5. Mashel Law, LLC and Swartz Swidler, LLC are appointed as
Class Counsel;
6. The Notice of Settlement is approved and shall be mailed
and emailed in accordance with the procedures outlined in
the Settlement Agreement to all collective and class
members by no later than 30 days following the issuance of
this Order; and
7. The Class Counsel shall file the motion for final approval
of the settlement sought in the Settlement Agreement on or
before May 13, 2022.
Santander Bank, N. A., formerly Sovereign Bank, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group. It is based in Boston
and its principal market is the northeastern United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hwGjy0 at no extra charge.[CC]
SEKUNJALO GROUP: Faces Discrimination Class Suit in South Africa
----------------------------------------------------------------
iol.co.za reports that in what has been described as a "fight
against boundless public power exercised by banks and other
financial institutions", Law Firm, Godrich Gardee Attorneys (GGA)
has called on any clients who have experienced alleged racial or
any other form of discrimination to join a class action suit
against the country's financial institutions.
The law firm said it was bracing itself to intervene in the Western
Cape Equality Court proceedings instituted by the Sekunjalo Group
group of companies and its chairman, Dr Iqbal Surve against some of
the country's top banks.
That application forms part of a number of legal actions against
the banks after they, in an alleged collusive manner, severed ties
with some of the companies under the black-owned group, with
Nedbank being the latest.
The action being taken by the Sekunjalo Group was a "trigger for a
space we have wanted to get into as soon as possible," said GGA
attorney Godrich Gardee.
During a press conference, he said that financial institutions
operated "as a cartel with collusive behaviour" and furthermore
"acted as an entity to themselves because there is no state bank".
"GGA represents thousands of complainants who intend on intervening
in the proceedings instituted by Surve and 42 others before the
Western Cape Equality Court against various South African banks on
the basis of racial discrimination. Our clients represent a small
group of South Africans who have been flagrantly overbilled on
interest on their mortgage loans, and whose bank accounts have been
arbitrarily terminated due to purported 'risk'.
The Equality Court case to be heard next month, has been brought
against eight of South Africa's leading banks including ABSA Bank,
First National Bank, Nedbank, Investec Bank, Sasfin Bank,
Mercantile Bank among others.
The banks have claimed that they have suffered reputational damage
by companies' association to Surve and the wider Sekunjalo Group.
The banks cited negative and factually incorrect media articles by
the Independent Media's competitors/detractors as the source to
underpin their averments. The companies belonging to the Sekunjalo
group have never been found guilty of wrongdoing or irregularities
even though they have been subjected to multiple investigations
including raids by various regulatory bodies and law enforcement
agencies. This included the Mpati Commission into alleged
irregularities at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) in 2019.
The Sekunjalo Group of Companies argues that their attack was one
based on discrimination on the basis of race. They allege that
Nedbank, and the other major banks, terminated the bank accounts of
the subsidiaries of the Sekunjalo Group, and have been selective by
failing to do the same against companies that are 'white dominant
businesses".
These include companies such as the Steinhoff Group, EOH Limited,
and the Tongaat-Hulett Group - after their banking accounts or
facilities were not terminated despite having been found guilty of
fraud and various other offences.
In inviting clients to join the class action, Gardee called on
"those whose banking services such as accounts, credit and loan
facilities have been terminated and withdrawn without good cause or
on the basis of racial discrimination."
"This includes those whose property was sold for next to nothing by
the banks pursuant to the termination of loan facilities; those who
have been denied banking services such as accounts, credit and loan
facilities despite them meeting the requisite qualification for
these facilities on the basis of racial discrimination disguised in
other forms of discrimination. . . . GGA understands the magnitude
and significance of this matter and we are committed in this fight
against the unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct by the
banks and other financial institutions," said Gardee.
Speaking about their interest in the case, Gardee said: "It is
common cause that in 1990, when these financial institutions
entered the black mortgage market, they petitioned the government
to allow them to charge black mortgage holders a premium interest
rate in order to maintain profitability - smaller bonds mean
smaller profits for banks. . . . The conduct of these institutions
goes against the provisions of teh Constitution, Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, and the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act and the public has too long
been defenceless against these commercial giants." [GN]
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Renewed Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for March 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elsie Romero et al v.
Select Employment Services, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-06369-TJH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter,
Jr., entered an order setting a hearing for the tenewed motion to
certify class on March 28, 2022.
Select Employment Services is a locally-owned staffing company with
experience serving the Laredo and surrounding markets.
A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 22, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K6w9jZ at no
extra charge.[CC]
SELECT MEDICAL: Filing of Dispositive Bid Allowed in FHPM Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Family Health Physical
Medicine, LLC v. Select Medical Corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-00820-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson
entered an order that in the absence of a motion for class
certification, any dispositive motion shall be filed within 21 days
of the date of this Order.
The cutoff for discovery has passed. If necessary, following the
filing of dispositive motions, this matter will be set for trial,
says Judge Pearson.
On February 3, 2022, at the insistence of Plaintiff's counsel, the
Court permitted a motion moving for class certification to be filed
on or before February 14, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.
Select Medical is a healthcare company based in Pennsylvania. It
owns long term acute care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals,
as well as occupational health and physical therapy clinics.
Family Health is a medical retail store.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hCgHzQ at no extra charge.[CC]
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Judge Approved Final Settlement in FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Sinnock at americanbanker.com reports that a U.S. District
Court judge has approved a final settlement in which a servicer has
agreed to pay over $200,000, plus court and attorneys' fees, to
settle a class-action lawsuit over its compliance with a New Jersey
law.
The suit, Gaffney v. Select Portfolio Servicing, centers on laws
that combine to require entities governed by the Federal Debt
Collection Practices Act to charge borrowers a statutory
interest-rate applicable in New Jersey when a foreclosure judgment
occurs, said Ari Marcus, an attorney for the plaintiff.
The settlement will be subject to possible appeal for 30 days from
its Feb. 14 approval by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Martinotti,
and calls for the distribution of money to around 1,500 affected
individuals, according to court documents, the attorney, and a
press release distributed by his law firm, Marcus & Zelman. Three
class members opted out of the settlement, according to a court
filing.
It's unclear whether the specifics of the case, which the approved
settlement would dismiss with prejudice, has ramifications outside
of the Garden State, Marcus said. It is still worth noting more
broadly because it's a sign of how the recent overhaul of federal
debt-collection rules could combine with state regulations to
further complicate a more compliance-sensitive environment for
servicers.
"The [New Jersey] law doesn't say you have the right to sue for
this, the law just says if you get a foreclosure judgment, this is
your new statutory interest rate that you can charge," Marcus
said.
However, "the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act says you can not
charge an amount that's not authorized by law," he noted. "While
[the FDCPA] doesn't have a specific interest rate that you're
allowed to charge, because we're in New Jersey, the law in New
Jersey says you can only charge X amount. So if you're in excess of
that, you're violating the law."
The law firm listed as representing Select Portfolio Servicing in
court documents had not returned a request for comment at deadline.
[GN]
SETTON PISTACHIO: Ali Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIA ALI, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF
TERRA BELLA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00959-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 23(d)(2).; and
2. appointing her counsel to serve as counsel to the classes;
and
3. authorizing Notice to the Classes of the pending action
and its members' right to opt-out under FRCP Rule 23(d)
(2).
The Proposed classes are:
1. Rounding Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to
the present to whom Defendant paid based on their rounded
rather than actual hours worked;"
2. Labor Code section 203 Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2013 to
the present who were not pay all wages owed upon
separation as a result of Defendant's rounding policy;"
3. Wage Statement Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2015 to
the present to whom Defendant provided wage statements
that did not comply with Labor Code §226 as a result of
the Defendant's rounding policy;" and
4. 17200 Class:
"All California-based hourly employees employed by the
Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to
the present to whom Defendant has engaged in unlawful,
unfair and/or fraudulent business acts or practices in the
form of Labor Code and Wage Order violations as a result
of the Defendant's rounding policy regarding payment of
all wages, payment of final wages and proper wage
statements."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HGoRBT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
SGT ROCHA: Barfell, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Thomas H L Barfell, Dylan
Anthony Hrabik, Ryan Sanders, Stephen Brown, David Mclarin and John
Doe, v. Sgt Rocha, Nurse Alt, Officer Wen, Zenk, Kessnik, Lloyd,
Amosa, Hibma and John and Jane Does, Case No. 2:22-cv-00171-LA
(E.D. Wisc), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MkUaWp
at no extra charge.[CC]
SHOE SHOW: North Carolina Court Narrows Claims in Smith Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH SMITH, MICHAEL CRISCO, and JEFFREY MORROW,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. SHOE SHOW, INC.; BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF SHOE SHOW RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; JOHN VAN DER POEL, ROBERT
TUCKER, and LISA TUCKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20CV813 (M.D.N.C.),
Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismisses some of the claims asserted under Count I,
dismiss the entirety of Count II, and decline to dismiss Count
III.
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants
Shoe Show, Inc., Board of Trustees of Shoe Show Retirement Savings
Plan, John Van Der Poel, Robert Tucker, and Lisa Tucker (together,
"Defendants"). Individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs Sarah Smith, Michael Crisco,
and Jeffrey Morrow (together, "Plaintiffs") responded in
opposition. The Defendants filed a reply.
I. Background
Shoe Show, a footwear retailer with over 1,100 stores across 47
states, sponsors a tax-qualified, defined contribution retirement
plan (the "Plan") for eligible current and former employees. This
type of plan, commonly referred to as a 401(k), allows participants
to direct their retirement savings contributions into various
investment fund options offered by the Plan. The Plan is
"relatively large," with over 1,500 participants and total assets
over $40 million. The Plaintiffs are former Plan participants.
The Defendants are Plan fiduciaries and responsible for its
administration. During the relevant time period, MassMutual served
as the Plan's recordkeeper and was responsible for tracking "who
was in the plan, what they owned, and what money was going in and
out."
The Plaintiffs allege that since 2014, the Defendants have been in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., by breaching their fiduciary
duties and engaging in prohibited transactions with a party in
interest. Their factual foundation for these claims rests on the
Defendants' (1) failure to limit MassMutual's fees, (2) failure to
offer the most affordable share classes, (3) failure to offer
passive funds, and (4) failure to diversify the Plan's equity
funds.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Sept. 3, 2020. The
Plaintiffs assert three ERISA counts: (I) breach of the fiduciary
duties of prudence, monitoring, loyalty, and the obligation to act
in accordance with Plan documents and instruments; (II) breach of
the fiduciary duties of prudence and diversification, and (III)
prohibited transactions with a party in interest.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on
Nov. 16, 2020, along with an accompanying Memorandum. The
Plaintiffs responded in opposition, and the Defendants replied. The
Plaintiffs then filed a notice of subsequently decided authority
regarding the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Hughes v.
Northwestern University, 142 S.Ct. 737 (2022).
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Fitzgerald Law as Class Counsel,
along with an accompanying Memorandum. The Court postponed further
briefing on and determination of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification "until further order of the Court."
Because his Memorandum Opinion and Order will grant in part and
deny in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Judge Osteen finds
that it is now appropriate for briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification to proceed. He will order the parties to
propose a briefing schedule in their Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) report to the Court.
II. Analysis
The Plaintiffs advance three ERISA counts: (I) breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence, monitoring, loyalty, and the
obligation to act in accordance with Plan documents and
instruments; (II) breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and
diversification; and (III) prohibited transactions with a party in
interest. All three counts are predicated on allegations that the
Plan is governed by ERISA and the Defendants are Plan fiduciaries.
The Defendants do not contest these threshold elements. Instead,
they focus on each count's substance. As to Counts I and II, the
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege any fiduciary breach occurred. As to Count III, they argue
that MassMutual's fee arrangement is statutorily exempted from
ERISA's prohibited transaction provision.
A. Count I: Prudence, Monitoring, Loyalty, and Acting in Accordance
with Plan Documents and Instruments
Count I alleges the Defendants violated ERISA by breaching their
fiduciary duties of (1) prudence, (2) monitoring, (3) loyalty, and
(4) obligation to act in accordance with plan documents and
instruments. These "fiduciary obligations of the trustees to the
participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan are the highest
known to the law."
1. Duty of Prudence
In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants imprudently failed
to (1) limit MassMutual's fees, (2) offer funds utilizing the most
affordable share classes, and (3) offer passive funds. Courts in
the circuit have found similar factual allegations sufficiently
alleged ERISA imprudence claims.
Judge Osteen opines that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently and
plausibly alleged that MassMutual's fees were excessive compared to
the services it provided; (ii) the Plaintiffs have alleged
sufficient facts that Defendants breached their duty of prudence by
offering funds featuring overly expensive retail share classes; and
(iii) the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to
plausibly allege the Defendants' failure to offer passive funds was
imprudent.
2. Duty to Monitor
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants breached this duty "to monitor
and control investment and administrative costs on an ongoing
basis" because the Defendants failed to take steps "such as hiring
a consultant to conduct a benchmarking study" and "conducting a
prudent and objective review of the Plan's investments." The
Defendants respond that this alleged failure to monitor is
contradicted by the Plan's Form 5500 filings and the Plaintiffs'
own allegations, which show that the Defendants periodically
changed the Plan's funds -- evincing adequate monitoring.
Judge Osteen opines that the Plaintiffs' factual allegations about
these changes cast them in a different light. The Plaintiffs argue
that it was not until 2018 that the Defendants replaced several
expensive share classes with cheaper identical classes, suggesting
that the Defendants must not have been "monitoring the fee
structures of the Plan until that time." Thus, for the first four
years of the class period, the Defendants allegedly failed to
monitor the Plan. Because when adjudicating motions to dismiss the
Court makes "all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor,"
Judge Osteen must defer to the Plaintiffs' description of the 2018
Plan changes. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts to state a plausible monitoring claim.
3. Duty of Loyalty
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty
by "failing to act 'solely and exclusively' for the benefit of
participants by selecting and retaining investments in the Plan
because they would generate more revenue for MassMutual and
therefore, the Defendants would not receive an invoice for
recordkeeping." They assert the Defendants' desire to relieve
pressure off themselves to pay MassMutual's fees was the
Defendants' motivation in selecting the Plan's higher price active
funds and share classes.
Judge Osteen holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any
"independent facts" or "additional allegations," to support the
disloyalty claim and distinguish it from the imprudence claim.
Their allegations concerning the Defendants' "possible" and
"potential" motives, do not rise to the level of plausibility
necessary to state a disloyalty claim. Further undermining the
disloyalty claim is that the Plaintiffs never allege the Defendants
would have necessarily paid any increased fees that MassMutual
would have demanded if the Plan transitioned to cheaper share
classes or passive funds.
Even if the Defendants had selected cheaper funds and as a result
MassMutual demanded greater fees to make up for the lost revenue,
the Complaint fails to plausibly allege that those new fees would
be shouldered by the Defendants as opposed to the Plan itself.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to
state a plausible disloyalty claim, and the portions of Count I
that attempt to assert such a claim will be dismissed.
4. Duty to Act in Accordance with Plan Documents and Instruments
The Plaintiffs insist that the "Defendants violated their own plan
documents" by failing to adhere to "MassMutual's investment
policy." Their Complaint, after alleging that the Plan's investment
options were too expensive and insufficiently diversified, recites
MassMutual's investment policy and then declares -- in rather
conclusory fashion -- that the "Defendants' actions did not meet
this policy." Thus, the "Defendants violated the ERISA statute
which requires fiduciaries to act 'in accordance with the documents
and instruments governing the plan.'"
Judge Osteen determines that despite ERISA litigation's inherent
information asymmetries, pursuant to Iqbal, the Court simply cannot
allow this "threadbare" and "conclusory" claim to proceed.
Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' failure to act in accordance with plan
documents and instruments claim is especially warranted given that
the Complaint itself acknowledges that the Plan document the
Defendants allegedly violated, and the terms contained therein,
were non-binding. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not pled
sufficient facts to state a plausible failure to act in accordance
with plan documents and instruments claim, and the portions of
Count I that attempt to assert such a claim will be dismissed.
B. Count II: Diversification
Count II alleges that the Defendants imprudently failed to
diversify the Plan's funds. The Plaintiffs allege that the
portfolio of funds the "Defendants selected provided little
diversification among the equity funds."
Judge Osteen holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
sufficient facts to state a plausible diversification claim. Their
insistence that the Plan was undiversified, among equity funds or
otherwise, is a bare allegation made implausible by uncontroverted
public records. Finally, there is no legal basis for their
allegation that the Defendants breached their duty to diversify by
offering equity funds that were too correlated. Therefore, Count II
will be dismissed because it lacks sufficient facts to state a
plausible diversification claim.
C. Count III: Prohibited Transactions
The Plaintiffs allege that the Plan's revenue sharing with
MassMutual constituted a prohibited transaction with a party in
interest. The Defendants argue that the revenue sharing fees are
exempted from ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions because the
"Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the compensation to
services providers is more than reasonable.'"
Judge Osteen opines that this argument fails. As a preliminary
matter, he says, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that
MassMutual's fees are more than reasonable. But such allegations
are not necessary for the Plaintiffs to state a prohibited
transaction claim. All that is required are allegations that
Defendants caused the Plan to enter a transaction with a party in
interest.
Judge Osteen notes that this holds true even when, as in the case,
a plaintiff's allegations explicitly address the reasonableness of
the amount of the allegedly prohibited transaction. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), only certain defenses -- not
including the reasonable compensation exemption to an ERISA
prohibited transaction claim -- can be asserted in a motion. All
other defenses may only be asserted in responsive pleadings.
The Court is presently adjudicating the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and thus the case has yet to progress to the responsive
pleading stage. Consequently, as a matter of law, it is premature
for Defendants to assert the reasonable compensation affirmative
defense. Therefore, Judge Osteen finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently stated a plausible prohibited transaction claim.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Osteen granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. He
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss as to Count I. He granted the Motion to Dismiss as to the
portions of Count I that assert an imprudence claim based on a
failure to offer passively managed funds, a disloyalty claim, and
failure to act in accordance with plan documents and instruments
claim. The remainder of the claims contained in Count I -- an
imprudence claim based on a failure to limit MassMutual's fees, an
imprudence claim based on a failure to offer funds utilizing the
most affordable share classes, and a duty to monitor claim -- are
not dismissed, and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as
to those claims.
Judge Osteen granted in full the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as
to Count II and denied in full as to Count III.
Briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Fitzgerald Law as Class Counsel will proceed. The
parties are instructed to propose a briefing schedule in their
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) report to the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuj98b8x from
Leagle.com.
SONY INTERACTIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Majo Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Leblanc at gameinformer.com reports that Sony has asked a
court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against it first filed in
November of last year that alleges gender discrimination within the
company.
Former Sony IT security analyst, Emma Majo, sought court approval
to turn her case into a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of
other women who worked for the company in the past. She alleged
that "Sony discriminates against female employees, including those
who are female and those who identify as female, in compensation
and promotion and subjects them to a work culture predominated by
men," as reported by Axios last year.
Now, Sony is asking a court to dismiss Majo's class-action case
against it, citing a lack of facts to support the claims presented
in the lawsuit, Axios reports.
"Despite the sweeping breadth of her lawsuit, the allegations in
which [Sony Interactive Entertainment] categorically denies, she
fails to plead facts to support either her individual claims or the
claims of the broad-based classes of women she seeks to represent,"
Sony's lawyer wrote, according to court documents.
Furthermore, Sony writes in documents that Majo failed to "identify
a single policy, practice, or procedure at SIE that allegedly
formed the basis of any widespread intentional discrimination or
had a discriminatory impact on women," and that Majo's "widespread
claims of harassment are based solely on unactionable allegations
of run-of-the-mill personnel activity."
Sony also asks the court to recognize what it calls a conflict of
interest, too. Majo's lawsuit includes an attempt to include all
women who worked for SIE. Sony says this would include all of
Majo's managers since 2017, which were all women. Sony's lawyer
says that if those managers are included in the suit against Sony,
"irreconcilable conflicts of interest" rise.
Only time will tell if the court approves Sony's request to dismiss
the case. [GN]
SR MANGO: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Najera Class Action Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES NAJERA, MARIO AVILA and ELPIDIO MUNGUIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SR MANGO HOUSE INC. and
SHOAIBUR RAHMAN, as an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-01051
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment
with the Defendants.
As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. Plaintiffs also seek
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies this Court deems appropriate.
The Defendants allegedly failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the state and
federal laws. The Defendants also willfully failed to keep accurate
payroll records as required by the said laws.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA. The
employees similarly situated are:
"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
packers and stockers or any other similarly titled personnel
with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions,
who were performing the same sort of functions for the
Defendants, other than the executive and management positions,
who have been subject to the Defendants’ common practices,
policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including
willfully failing and refusing to pay required overtime
wages."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
STANDARD LITHIUM: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Standard Lithium Ltd.
("Standard Lithium" or the "Company") (NYSE American: SLI) and
reminds investors of the March 28, 2022 deadline to seek the role
of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has
been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Standard
Lithium stock or options between May 19, 2020 and November 17, 2021
and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/SLI.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
the LiSTR technology's extraction recovery efficiencies were
overstated; (2) 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 (3) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times
On November 18, 2021, Blue Orca Capital ("Blue Orca") published a
short report (the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report") alleging that
Standard Lithium's claims of achieving of 90% extraction rates of
battery grade lithium at its Arkansas demonstration site are not
supported by previously undisclosed data filed by the Company with
the state regulator, which indicated significantly lower recovery
rates.
On this news, Standard Lithium's common share price fell $1.86 per
share, or 18.84%, to close at $8.01 per share on November 18,
2021.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Standard Lithium's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
STANDARD LITHIUM: Gross Law Firm Reminds of March 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of
shareholders of Standard Lithium Ltd.
Shareholders who purchased shares of SLI during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CLASS PERIOD: May 19, 2020 to November 17, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LiSTR Direct Lithium
Extraction 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.
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of SLI during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is March 28, 2022. There is no cost
or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903
URL: http://securitiesclasslaw.com
Contact Information:
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
STEWARD HEALTH: Bids to Dismiss Williams' 2nd Amended Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEVERLY WILLIAMS and AMY JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. STEWARD
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC, and MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS OF AMERICA,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-00123-RWS-CMC (E.D. Tex.),
Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued an order
denying:
1. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class
Action Complaint; and
2. Defendant Medical Reimbursements of America's ("MRA")
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims
Regarding Non-Party Hospitals for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction.
I. Background
The civil action was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Caroline M.
Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and two proposed
classes (the "Unauthorized Billing Class" and the "Excess Billing
Class") against the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs, the
case is an individual and putative class action arising from the
Defendants' scheme to deceptively collect unauthorized and illegal
payments for hospital treatment resulting from motor vehicle
accidents.
In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege violation of Texas Finance Code
392.001 et seq. In Count II, they allege violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In Count III, the Plaintiffs assert
fraud claims. In Count IV, the Plaintiffs allege mail and wire
fraud in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Organized Crime
Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-1968 and 18 U.S.C. Section
1962 (c) and (d).
In a combined motion, the Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The
Defendants state the Court must decline to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction under the local controversy exception of the Class
Actions Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Recognizing the Plaintiffs have also
alleged in their SAC a federal RICO claim separate and apart from
CAFA, the Defendants argue the purported RICO claim fails because
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. Section
1961, et seq.
Specifically, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' RICO claim
fails because the Plaintiffs have not made adequate allegations of
predicate acts and the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any injury
that resulted from any alleged RICO violations. They request the
Court dismiss the RICO claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). According to the Defendants, without a
plausible RICO claim, the Plaintiffs are left with only CAFA as a
potential basis for jurisdiction, meaning the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the Defendants assert the
Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Defendant MRA separately moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. MRA requests the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs'
class claims asserted on behalf of patients at non-party hospitals
where the Plaintiffs were never treated and never billed. According
to MRA, the Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to pursue
these claims.
In their response, the Plaintiffs state they have Article III
standing to pursue their individual claims against MRA, and neither
the Plaintiff is attempting to use claims of absent class members
to establish their own standing. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs,
the cases relied upon by MRA are distinguishable. The Plaintiffs
argue issues with regard to class claims should be resolved at the
class certification stage.
On Dec. 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a 97-page Report and
Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending the Defendants' motions to
dismiss be denied. First, the Magistrate Judge found the Defendants
have not met their burden to prove the local controversy exception
to CAFA jurisdiction applies. Therefore, the Court recommended
Defendants' combined Rule 12(b)(1) motion be denied.
Second, turning to the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' RICO claim, the Magistrate Judge first found that,
at this preliminary stage, the pleadings suffice to withstand
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) challenge as to the Plaintiffs'
allegations of injury and proximate cause. Next, the Magistrate
Judge found that the Plaintiffs have pleaded the Defendants'
alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud with sufficient
particularity in compliance with Rule 9(b). Finally, the Magistrate
Judge found that the Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently allege
continuity of racketeering activity. The Magistrate Judge
recommended the Defendants' combined Rule 12(b)(6) motion be
denied.
Third, the Magistrate Judge considered MRA's separate Rule 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class claims asserted on behalf
of patients at non-party hospitals where the Plaintiffs were never
treated and never billed, finding it without merit.
In its objections, Steward first asserts the Magistrate Judge
failed to properly scrutinize the SAC's continuity allegations. It
further argues the Magistrate Judge erred in finding the SAC
sufficiently pleaded the 13 predicate acts of mail or wire fraud.
It urther asserts the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that
Williams need not have relied on allegedly false statements when
signing the releases and when depositing $500 in trust. Finally,
Steward generally objects to the Magistrate Judge's legal
conclusions and urges the Court to "reject the R&R and the
Plaintiffs' attempt to take a small set of communications regarding
two patients and spin them into a RICO cause of action and instead
dismiss the Plaintiffs' RICO cause of action with prejudice."
In response, the Plaintiffs substantively argue the Magistrate
Judge correctly analyzed the SAC's continuity allegations;
correctly found the SAC sufficiently pleaded continuity--namely,
that the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a "specific threat of
repetition" concerning their business practice of seeking
unauthorized payments arising from motor vehicle accidents; and
correctly found the SAC sufficiently pleaded predicate acts of mail
and wire fraud. According to the Plaintiffs, "Steward provides no
support whatsoever for its remaining objections."
In its separate objections, MRA objects to the portion of the R&R
that declined to dismiss for lack of standing the Plaintiffs' class
claims challenging the billing of patients at non-party hospitals
where Plaintiffs admittedly were never treated or billed. MRA
argues that the Court's analysis erroneously failed to apply the
Fifth Circuit's controlling authority in Singh v. RadioShack
Corporation, 882 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2018), which (i) held that the
proper framework for addressing a disconnect between a plaintiff's
individual injury and the class claims is Article III standing, not
Rule 23; and (ii) dismissed certain of plaintiffs' class claims
where, as in the case, the named plaintiffs lacked individual
standing to assert some of the claims they sought to assert on
behalf of a class.
The Court notes that it is undisputed that the two named Plaintiffs
were never injured by non-party hospitals' billing of their
patients, whether that billing was conducted by the hospitals
themselves or by MRA on their behalf. Under the controlling
authority in Singh, because the Plaintiffs' lack individual
standing to sue on those non-party hospital billing claims, they
also lack standing to assert such claims on behalf of a class.
Accordingly, those claims should be dismissed.
II. Analysis
1. Motion to Dismiss
A. Defendants' Combined Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss
Judge Schroeder holds that neither the Defendant filed objections
relating to their Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject matter
jurisdiction based upon the local controversy exception to the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(4) raised in their combined motion to dismiss. He
says, the Defendants are not entitled to de novo review of the
unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions contained in
the R&R; and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred
from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court.
Nonetheless, Judge Schroeder has reviewed the pleadings in the
case, the matters presented by the parties and the Report and
Recommendation and agrees with the Magistrate Judge. He thus adopts
the Report and Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of
the Court and denies the Defendants' combined motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
B. Defendants' Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
First, Judge Schroeder agrees that all the allegations support the
Magistrate Judge's ultimate determination that the predicate acts
were sufficiently alleged. He finds all of the Plaintiffs'
"allegations combined are enough to satisfy the particularity
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)." They have
adequately alleged concrete financial loss by reason of criminal
actions under federal law. Judge Schroeder finds that the
Magistrate Judge's thorough discussion of the Predicate Acts Chart,
as well as the allegations in the SAC and the counsels' arguments
at the hearing, demonstrate the Magistrate Judge properly
considered all of the Acts in finding sufficient particularity in
compliance with Rule 9(b). Therefore, Steward's objections
regarding the RICO predicate acts are overruled.
Second, Judge Schroeder agrees with the Plaintiffs that the
Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the predicate acts and their
combined effect causing alleged injury to them. As urged by the
Plaintiffs, although "Steward wants to interpret Plaintiff
William's and her counsel' actions as evidence that Williams 'never
believed' the threats, the SAC leaves no room for this
interpretation, and the Magistrate Judge was correct because in
finding causation and harm 'by reason of' the fraudulent conduct
the Court was required to 'draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor.'"
Judge Schroder also finds without merit Steward's three remaining
objections to the Magistrate Judge's following conclusions
regarding injury: that Johnson was injured; that the Plaintiffs
suffered damage to business or property; and that the Plaintiffs'
damages were concrete and not speculative. These general objections
are not substantively addressed in the objections and are without
merit. Judge Schroeder overrules Steward's objections related to
injury and causation.
Third, Judge Schroeder overrules Steward's objections regarding
continuity, finding the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed the
SAC's allegations in finding the Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded
the threat of continuing activity. He finds, as did the Magistrate
Judge, that the allegations in the SAC are sufficient to constitute
a pattern of racketeering activity.
C. Conclusion
Judge Schroeder has carefully reviewed the relevant briefing, the
Report and Recommendation, the objections, and the response to the
objections and is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge are correct. Regarding the Defendants'
combined motion to dismiss, he adopts the Magistrate Judge's report
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. The motion is
denied.
2. MRA's Separate Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss
Judge Schroeder now considers MRA's objections to the Magistrate
Judge's findings and conclusions regarding its separate Rule
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
According to MRA, although the R&R discussed the holding of Singh,
it did not address, analyze or distinguish Singh as compared to the
Plaintiffs' allegations. As such, MRA maintains that the
recommendation that the motion be denied should be rejected because
the R&R did not apply controlling Fifth Circuit authority.
Judge Schroeder disagrees. As pointed out by the Plaintiffs in
their response, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Singh and
MRA's other cited cases are distinguishable. He agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that there is no dispute the Plaintiffs have
Article III standing to bring their own claims. He says, the (2)
Plaintiffs seek to represent class members who have suffered
essentially the same injury as the Plaintiffs; and (3) Rule 23 is
the "better framework for analyzing differences between the named
Plaintiffs and the absent class members." Accordingly, Judge
Schroeder overrules MRA's objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge's report as the findings and conclusion of the Court.
III. Conclusion
Judge Schroeder has carefully reviewed the relevant briefing, the
Report and Recommendation, the objections and the response to the
objections, and is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge are correct. He adopted the Magistrate Judge's
report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. He denied the
pending 12(b)(1) motion without prejudice, to be re-urged after
additional discovery with respect to the requirements of Rule 23.
For these reasons, Judge Schroeder denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Defendant MRA's
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Regarding
Non-Party Hospitals for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3jfvsndb from Leagle.com.
SUNPOWER CORP: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Investor protection firm Kaskela Law LLC on Feb. 21 disclosed that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPower
Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR) ("SunPower" or the "Company") on behalf
of investors who purchased SunPower's securities between August 3,
2021 and January 20, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
On January 20, 2022, SunPower announced that it had "identified a
cracking issue that developed over time in certain
factory-installed connectors" and that the Company "expects
approximately $27 million of supplier-quality related charges in
fourth quarter 2021 and approximately $4 million in the first
quarter of 2022" to replace the faulty connectors. On this news,
shares of SunPower's common stock fell $3.22, or nearly 17% in
value, to close at $15.80 per share on January 21, 2022.
Current SunPower stockholders are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law
LLC (Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (484) 229 - 0750, or by email at
abell@kaskelalaw.com, for additional information about their legal
rights and options. Additional information may also be found at
https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/sunpower-corporation/.
Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain
jurisdictions.
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 229 - 0750
(888) 715 - 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com [GN]
SUNPOWER CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against SunPower Corporation ("SunPower") (NASDAQ: SPWR). The
action charges SunPower with violations of the federal securities
laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations
relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of SunPower's materially misleading statements to the
public, SunPower investors have suffered significant losses.
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR SUNPOWER LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON
THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/spwr-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=tal&utm_content=sunpower
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 18, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: AUGUST 3, 2021 through JANUARY 20, 2022
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com
SUNPOWER'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
SunPower provides solar energy solutions, including sales to its
third-party dealer network and resellers, storage solutions, cash
and loan sales, and long-term leases directly to end customers, and
sells turn-key engineering, procurement, and construction services,
as well as energy under power purchase agreements.
On January 21, 2022, SunPower issued a press release revealing that
the company had "identified a cracking issue that developed over
time in certain factory-installed connectors within third-party
commercial equipment supplied to SunPower." As a result, SunPower
reported that it "expects approximately $27 million of
supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021 and
approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022" to replace
the faulty connectors.
Following this news, SunPower's stock fell $3.22, or 16.9%, to
close at $15.80 on January 21, 2022.
WHAT CAN I DO?
SunPower investors may, no later than April 18, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages SunPower investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
Contacts
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
SUNPOWER CORP: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 20
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of SunPower Corporation
(NASDAQ: SPWR) securities between August 3, 2021 and January 20,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until April 18, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Jaszczyszyn v. SunPower
Corporation, No. 22-cv-00956 (N.D. Cal.). Commenced on February 16,
2022, the SunPower class action lawsuit charges SunPower and
certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the SunPower 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 SunPower class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 18,
2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: SunPower is a solar energy company that provides
hardware, software, and financing options for customers.
The SunPower class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) certain connectors used by SunPower
suffered from cracking issues; (ii) as a result, SunPower was
reasonably likely to incur costs to remediate the faulty
connectors; (iii) consequently, SunPower's financial results would
be adversely impacted; and (iv) thus, defendants' positive
statements about SunPower's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 20, 2022, SunPower announced that it had "identified a
cracking issue that developed over time in certain
factory-installed connectors." SunPower "expects approximately $27
million of supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021
and approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022" to
replace the faulty connectors. On this news, SunPower's share price
fell nearly 17%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased SunPower
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the SunPower 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 class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the 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.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Kuznicki Law Reminds of April 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of SunPower Corporation (NasdaqGS: SPWR), if
they purchased the Company's securities between August 3, 2021 and
January 20, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have
until April 18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the
securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-spwr/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled L.A., by and through her Guardian MAURICE ANDREWS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 2022-LA-0000009, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Winnebago County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on February 25, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01019 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the New York General Business
Law and the New York General Obligation Law by engaging in
deceptive and misleading marketing and selling of loot boxes and
other in-game items for its online videogame series.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a software company, with its
principal place of business in New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew Luzadder, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 857-7070
Facsimile: (312) 857-7095
E-mail: mluzadder@kelleydrye.com
- and –
Michael C. Lynch, Esq.
James B. Saylor, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
3 World Trade Center
175 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 808-7800
Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
E-mail: mlynch@kelleydrye.com
jsaylor@kelleydrye.com
- and –
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 503-5900
Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
TAMAR LICH: Court Freezes Freedom Convoy Cash Crypto Donations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Oromoni, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has frozen millions of dollars in assets
belonging to freedom convoy organizers in a class action lawsuit
issued by residents of Ottawa.
Superior Court Justice Calum MacLeod signed a Mareva injunction on
Feb. 17 freezing assets linked to bank accounts, fundraisers and
crypto holdings including Bitcoin, Cardano, Ethereum, Litecoin and
Monero in over 120 wallets raised for the freedom convoy protest.
Convoy organizers in the order are prohibited from selling,
removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring, assigning or
encumbering any of the listed assets, Justice MacLeod wrote.
Ottawa residents filed a class action against the freedom convoy
protestors seeking up to $20 million from the funds raised in
global donations. If the lawsuit is successful, the Mareva
injunction secures assets for the courts to reward residents with
some of the protest money raised by organizers, Lenczner Slaght
partner Monique Jilesen says.
"The Mareva order freezes the donor monies of the leaders and
ensures those assets are available to pay for damages to compensate
the class action if successful at trial."
The plaintiffs in the class action express that the freedom convoy
protests are harmful to them and cause a public and private
nuisance, Jilesen says.
Lenczner Slaght acted for Champ & Associates, the law firm
representing Ottawa residents in the proposed lawsuit and brought a
motion against five people and one non-profit with proof that they
were leaders of the freedom convoy protests.
The test in a Mareva injunction is to establish a strong case and
that the defendants will dissipate the assets, and Jilesen says
part of the evidence was that the convoy organizers sought to
disburse their holdings out of the court's reach and to individual
protesters. "We have to be back in 10 days to justify it again
before the court."
Under the injunction, defendants must provide 24 hours notice to
the residents of Ottawa specifying the funds they require from the
frozen assets for living expenses and legal representation and can
have access after obtaining written consent.
The defendants must respond to the order in a week and provide the
residents of Ottawa with a sworn statement describing the nature,
value and locations of their financial assets, and any individual
who fails to comply may be held in contempt of the court and
imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized, Justice MacLeod
wrote.
Paul Champ, the lawyer representing the residents of Ottawa, told
the Globe and Mail that the Mareva order is the first successful
one of its kind targeting cryptocurrency transactions. The
publication also reported that Keith Wilson, counsel for one of the
convoy protestors, learned of the injunction through media reports
and has not been served the order or any related court documents.
The Mareva order follows the Canadian government's sanction of 34
crypto wallets in a separate effort to seize protestors' funds. On
February 14, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies
Act for the first time since the law was passed in 1988, declaring
the freedom convoy protests illegal.
He gave institutions and authorities additional powers without a
court order and legal retribution to seize funds and respond to
border blockades by large trucks and demonstrators that have
disrupted people's lives and businesses over the last three weeks,
particularly in Ottawa.
Deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland also announced that the
RCMP and Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of
Canada (FINTRAC) is investigating cryptocurrency donations
supporting the freedom convoy protest and encouraging financial
institutions to stop transacting with personal and corporate
accounts of identified protest organizers.
"The government is issuing an order with immediate effect under the
Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to
temporarily cease providing financial services where the
institution suspects that an account is being used to further the
illegal blockades and occupations."
Ottawa police started a shutdown to end the convoy, arresting over
100 protestors, including several key organizers, Tamar Lich, Chris
Barber and Patrick King, who are defendants in the injunction. [GN]
TAMARA LICH: Freedom Covy Protest Ended Following Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eamon Barrett, writing for Fortune, reports that on Feb. 20, the
streets surrounding the Canadian parliament in Ottawa were free of
protesters and trucks for the first time since January after police
cleared out the last of the so-called Freedom Convoy truckers who
occupied the nation's capital to oppose the country's COVID-era
restrictions.
During a three-day operation, Ottawa police deployed pepper spray
and stun grenades to disperse crowds, towed away over 70 vehicles,
and arrested 191 people, bringing a total of 389 charges against
103 of them. Three of the protest's key organizers were arrested
and charged with "mischief," and two of them are now out on bail.
The clearing of the capital came days after the federal Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) ordered a freeze on 206 bank and
corporate accounts managing millions in funds related to the
protests. The RCMP also flagged 253 Bitcoin addresses and forbid
local crypto exchanges from facilitating transactions with the
accounts.
While quiet has returned to Ottawa streets after three weeks of
horn blaring by truck-driving protesters, the fallout of the nearly
month-long saga will likely take longer to address. In the capital
city, police and barricades have replaced protesters and trucks
and, across the country, politicians and citizens are confronting
the divide in civil society left in the wake of the departing
demonstrators.
What were truckers protesting?
The brigade of truck-driving protesters from across Canada first
converged in Ottawa on Jan. 28, occupying various streets around
the nation's capital. The protest began in opposition to the
government's introduction of a mandate requiring all cross-border
truck drivers to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, roughly 90% of
Canadian truck drivers were already vaccinated, but a minority of
truckers objected to the new requirement for drivers hauling goods
between Canada and the U.S.
As the protesters and their convoy spread across Canada, the focus
of the demonstration expanded to oppose all pandemic-era mandates,
such as mask requirements and COVID vaccine passport check-ins.
With its purview widened to more common grievances, the Freedom
Convoy gained support from Canadians outside the trucking industry
who were tired of COVID-era restrictions. By early February, a
GoFundMe account set up by one of the protest organizers, Tamara
Lich, had raised $8 million in donations.
Reports revealed that Silicon Valley billionaire Tom Siebel was one
of the group's leading benefactors, donating $90,000 to the Freedom
Convoy movement that had also gained support from Tesla CEO Elon
Musk and U.S. Republicans.
But in Ottawa unruly protesters -- many of whom blared truck horns
throughout the day, occupied residential streets, and threw loud
parties -- sparked counter-protests. With disruption costing the
city upward of $800,000 per day in policing expenses and snarling
U.S. cross-border trade worth $350 million a day, the government
stepped in to shut the protests down.
Crypto funds frozen
For protesters, the first bad omen for their movement hit on Feb. 5
when GoFundMe suspended Lich's fundraising account after receiving
police reports of protest violence and other unlawful activity.
"This fundraiser is now in violation of our Terms of Service (Term
8, which prohibits the promotion of violence and harassment) and
has been removed from the platform," GoFundMe said, adding that it
would return the $8 million raised back to donors.
Undeterred by the loss of millions, protest organizers simply
switched fundraising tactics. Shortly after GoFundMe shut down the
group's main account, four protest supporters, calling themselves
HonkHonkHodl, launched a new funding page on crypto fundraising
site, Tallycoin.
Within days, the HonkHonkHodl account -- which some say has ties to
alt-right groups -- raised over $500,000 in Bitcoin. But even
cryptocurrency, hyped for its ability to evade censorship and
capital freezes, wasn't safe from Canada's courts.
Canada's federal police ordered all crypto exchanges regulated by
the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
(FINTRAC) -- that's most of them -- to halt transactions associated
with 34 crypto wallets associated with protesters and funds of
$900,000.
Then, a group of Ottawa residents set a new precedent in Canadian
law and won a class-action lawsuit to invoke a Mareva injunction
and freeze 146 cryptocurrency wallets associated with the
protesters. Canadian courts have never issued a Mareva injunction
-- which freezes a defendant's assets -- against cryptocurrency
before.
Trudeau's emergency powers
Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered the Freedom Convoy
campaign its final death blow and invoked the Emergencies Act for
the first time in Canadian history, empowering police to move
against protesters.
"We cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to
continue," Trudeau said as he invoked the Emergencies Act, which
granted police greater leeway to impose fines, imprison protesters,
and tow vehicles blocking roads.
Trudeau invoked the act a day after police cleared protesters from
the Ambassador Bridge that connects Ontario to Detroit, Mich., and
carries 23% of cross-border trade between the U.S. and Canada.
Protesters had blocked the bridge for days, holding up $360 million
of daily trade and drawing attention from the White House.
"At the borders in different places in the country, the blockades
are harming our economy and endangering public safety. Critical
supply chains have been disrupted. This is hurting workers who rely
on these jobs to feed their families," Trudeau said.
The Emergencies Act also compelled financial institution to comply
with police orders to freeze funds associated with "designated
persons" -- in this case, protesters. With funds hobbled, public
sentiment turning against them, and the threat of arrest and
financial sanctions looming, the protest movement began to lose
momentum. Protesters who had occupied U.S.-Canada border crossings
began to go home, fearing authorities might seize their assets.
In Canada's capital, protesters continued to hold out. On
Wednesday, Ottawa police distributed fliers to protesters telling
them to leave or face arrest. Some protesters threw the notices in
the trash and started a chorus of blaring truck horns, announcing
their refusal to leave.
On Feb. 17, police arrested three of the Freedom Convoy's most
prominent leaders -- Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and Pat King. The
next day, police began clearing out protesters still occupying the
city.
Police move in
On Feb. 18, hundreds of police moved in on protest camps in Ottawa
city center and began forcing demonstrators to disperse. Over 100
protesters were arrested as some left and others resisted. When
police returned to continue the operation the following day, they
dressed in riot gear.
On Feb. 19, police made another 47 arrests, using pepper spray to
disperse crowds. Although police initially said no protesters had
been hurt, Ontario's Special Investigations Unit -- the police
watchdog -- said Sunday it is investigating the case of a woman who
was trampled by a mounted police officer's horse on Feb. 18.
By Feb. 20, the majority of protesters and their vehicles had been
cleared from Parliament Hill -- the area surrounding Canada's
parliament building, which had become a central hub for the Freedom
Convoy movement. In place of heavy trucks that once blocked the
streets, police have set up concrete barricades and high metal
fences to keep protesters from returning.
"We're not done with this operation yet," interim Ottawa Police
Chief Steve Bell told journalists on Feb. 20, adding that police
will track down protesters who had been filmed breaking the law,
and determine "how we maintain a presence and make sure that nobody
returns to occupy our streets again."
Bell's predecessor Peter Sloly resigned last Wednesday under
criticism from Ottawa residents for not resolving the protests.
Clearing the aftermath
With the protests cleared and the main leaders arrested, debate has
turned to whether Trudeau was justified in invoking the Emergencies
Act. Canada's lawmakers debated that issue in parliament, deciding
whether to ratify the Act.
Opinion is divided largely along party lines, with Trudeau's
leading Liberal party supporting the prime minister's action and
members of the opposing Conservative party denouncing the decree as
the "latest and greatest example of attacks on our freedom."
A decision whether to ratify the act was due on Monday, Feb. 21. If
parliament votes down the act, the special powers would be revoked.
If the act passes, the powers would remain in effect for 30 days.
Although police cleared protesters from Ottawa, the tensions that
sparked the movement in the first place remain, and there are
concerns that protests may flare up again even though they lack
public support.
Polling from the Angus Reid Institute (ARI), a non-profit research
group, found that 72% of respondents agreed protesters should "go
home, they have made their point." ARI also found that 44% of
Canadians are now more likely to support mandates for mask wearing
and cross-border vaccine checks because of the protests. Only 21%
were more likely to oppose the mandates while the remainder were
unmoved either way.
"In the weeks since they inserted themselves directly into the
conversation about restrictions, the protesters have seen the
pendulum swing against their point of view," ARI says, noting that
54% of Canadians wanted COVID restrictions to end when polled in
December.
Even if this is the end of the protests -- Canadian provinces are
gradually easing COVID restrictions anyway -- the cleanup is just
getting underway. Officials have only just started to bring charges
against protest leaders, process the millions of dollars in seized
funds, and investigate the police operation itself.
In the words of Bell, "This investigation will go on for months to
come." [GN]
TASKUS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against TaskUs, Inc. ("TaskUs" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TASK) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Company
securities between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was
experiencing severe financial strain and business challenges,
particularly with its most important customer Facebook; (2) the
Content Security market was smaller than Defendants represented and
Defendants' representations were based on outdated market data; (3)
the Company improperly recognized revenue from certain key
contracts; (4) Defendants overstated the size of the Company's
workforce as well as employee retention rates, and understated
attrition rates; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of TaskUs
should contact the Firm prior to the April 25, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
TESLA INC: Class Action Over Yellow Touchscreen Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Tesla
yellow touchscreen lawsuit has been dismissed after owners claimed
in the class action that Tesla sold them defective vehicles with
touchscreen borders that turn yellow.
The Tesla touchscreen class action lawsuit includes all 2016-2020
Tesla models with 17-inch touchscreens made by Innolux
Corporation.
The lawsuit also alleges Tesla owners report having problems
receiving the warranties when purchasing the vehicles.
According to the class action, Tesla sold about 1.2 million of the
vehicles equipped with touchscreens that can each cost $2,500 to
replace if yellow borders appear around the edges.
The Tesla touchscreen lawsuit was filed by North Carolina plaintiff
and business owner Chad Sasso who picked up his Tesla in December
2016. The plaintiff says he didn't receive a copy of the warranty
but he was told he could get a copy of the warranty upon request or
by downloading it from his online Tesla user account.
Then in June 2018, the Tesla touchscreen developed a yellow border
around the edge of the screen. The plaintiff took the vehicle to
Tesla and the touchscreen was replaced under warranty.
But the plaintiff alleges six months later the edge of the
touchscreen turned yellow. Tesla allegedly couldn't repair the
touchscreen because of equipment problems, but the plaintiff says
the problem wouldn't occur in the first place if the touchscreen
met industry standards.
According to the class action lawsuit, the touchscreens cannot cope
with the temperatures of sunlight exposure when the vehicles are
parked outside.
In addition to the yellow Tesla touchscreen, the plaintiff claims
his online account included a warranty that was "constantly
changing," making the warranty different each time it was changed.
Tesla Yellow Touchscreen Lawsuit Dismissed
In its motion to dismiss, Tesla argues Sasso hasn't "suffered an
injury in fact" because he doesn't own the vehicle.
The plaintiff allegedly sued as the agent for his company,
Challenge Printing, and Tesla argues the company fails to
adequately state a breach of implied warranty claim because a car's
ordinary purpose is to provide transportation and the yellow
touchscreen did not render the car unfit for ordinary use.
The plaintiff does not plausibly allege the yellow band around the
touchscreen made the Tesla unsafe or unreliable, and the judge says
the yellow border doesn't cause a problem when driving the
vehicle.
"Instead, the allegations are bare assertions that do not plausibly
allege that the yellow band made the car unsafe, unreliable, or
inoperable." -- Judge James C. Dever, III
Regarding breach of express warranty claims, Tesla alleges the
plaintiff doesn't plausibly allege the touchscreen defect existed
at the time of sale and the plaintiff doesn't show
misrepresentations made by Tesla employees.
According to the Tesla yellow touchscreen lawsuit, Sasso got the
car from Tesla on December 15, 2016, and the yellow band appeared
June 15, 2018, about a year and a half later. The judge says this
shows the problem didn't exist when the vehicle was sold.
According to the judge, "buying a product that works at the time of
purchase but will likely fail over a year later is not the same as
buying a product that is already defective at the time of sale.
Even assuming the touchscreen's failure to meet industry standards
may indicate a latent defect, that indication does not suffice on
its own."
Tesla Warranty
As for the Tesla warranty issue, the plaintiff argues Tesla clearly
said it would make a copy of the warranty available when the
vehicle was picked up, but in December 2016 when the vehicle was
picked up the plaintiff didn't receive the warranty.
The plaintiff alleges when he went to his online account in
February 2020, the warranty wasn't for 2016 but instead was a
warranty which post-dated the purchase of the Tesla.
But the judge ruled the plaintiff fails to state a claim because
not getting a copy of the warranty doesn't mean a touchscreen
defect existed when the Tesla was purchased.
"Putting aside whether Tesla allegedly changed the terms of the
warranty, plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Sasso went online
in 2016 to get a copy of the warranty or that the correct warranty
was not available to Sasso online when Challenge Printing purchased
the car." -- Judge Dever
The Tesla yellow touchscreen lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina: Sasso, et al., v.
Tesla, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Williams & Ray, PLLC. [GN]
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: $420MM Settlement Hearing Set on June 2
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
IN RE TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 3:17-cv-00558 (SRU)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: Purchasers and acquirers in domestic transactions of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") American Depositary Shares,
Teva 7.00% mandatory convertible preferred shares, and/or certain
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands III B.V. ("Teva Finance")
U.S.-dollar-denominated senior notes during the period from
February 6, 2014 through May 10, 2019, inclusive.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED TEVA SECURITIES (DEFINED BELOW) FROM
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 THROUGH MAY 10, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION (THE
"LITIGATION").
THIS SUMMARY NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on June 2,
2022, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stefan R. Underhill,
United States District Judge, at the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (the "Court"), Brien McMahon
Federal Building, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604 for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of
the Litigation, as set forth in the Stipulation dated January 18,
2022, consisting of Four Hundred and Twenty Million U.S. dollars
($420,000,000) in cash, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Settlement Class Members; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the Net Settlement Fund (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the
applications by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses
should be approved; (4) whether Class Representatives should
receive awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4) in connection
with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in
what amount; and (5) whether the proposed Judgment should be
entered.
The Litigation has been certified as a class action on behalf of
all persons and entities (with certain exclusions) who purchased or
acquired Teva Securities from February 6, 2014 through May 10,
2019, inclusive. The "Teva Securities" are: Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd. ("Teva") American Depositary Shares ("ADS") (ISIN
No. US8816242098; CUSIP 881624209), Teva 7% mandatory convertible
preferred shares ("Preferred Shares") (ISIN No. IL0062905489; CUSIP
M8769Q 136), and the following Teva Pharmaceutical Finance
Netherlands III B.V. ("Teva Finance") U.S.-dollar-denominated
senior notes: 1.400% Senior Notes due July 20, 2018 (ISIN
US88167AAA97; CUSIP 88167A AA9); 1.700% Senior Notes due July 19,
2019 (ISIN US88167AAB70; CUSIP 88167A AB7); 2.200% Senior Notes due
July 21, 2021 (ISIN US88167AAC53; CUSIP 88167A AC5); 2.800% Senior
Notes due July 21, 2023 (ISIN US88167AAD37; CUSIP 88167A AD3);
3.150% Senior Notes due October 1, 2026 (ISIN US88167AAE10; CUSIP
88167A AE1); and 4.100% Senior Notes due October 1, 2046 (ISIN
US88167AAF84; CUSIP 88167A AF8) (collectively, the "Notes").
A detailed description of the Litigation, including important
information about your rights and options, is in the detailed
Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Long-Form Notice"), available at
www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at: Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., In re
Teva Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 3565, Portland, OR 97208-3565,
Telephone: (855) 675-3124, or 1-503-520-4435 outside the U.S. and
Canada.
To be eligible for a payment from the Net Settlement Fund you must
submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form electronically submitted
or postmarked by no later than May 17, 2022. To obtain a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release Form, visit
www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com or contact the Claims
Administrator at the address above. Failure to submit your Proof of
Claim and Release Form by May 17, 2022 will subject your claim to
possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment
from the settlement.
To be excluded from the settlement, you must submit a written
request for exclusion, in accordance with all of the instructions
in the Long-Form Notice, electronically submitted or postmarked no
later than May 2, 2022. If you request exclusion, you will not
receive any payment from the settlement.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will
not share in the proceeds of the settlement, but you will be bound
by the settlement and shall have fully released all of the Released
Claims against the Released Defendants.
Direct Action Plaintiffs are those plaintiffs who retained counsel
and filed with the Court one of the lawsuits listed in Appendix B
to the Long-Form Notice. The foregoing deadlines do not apply to
the Direct Action Plaintiffs. Direct Action Plaintiffs who wish to
participate in the settlement must take certain steps, specified in
the Long-Form Notice, no later than May 2, 2022.
To object to any aspect of the settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or Class
Representatives' request for awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
78u-4(a)(4), you must submit a written objection in accordance with
all of the instructions in the Long-Form Notice that is received or
filed, not simply postmarked, on or before May 12, 2022. If you
object, but also want to be eligible for a payment, you must submit
a timely Proof of Claim and Release Form.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice, may be
made by emailing Class Counsel at TevaSettlement@bfalaw.com or
contacting:
Joseph A. Fonti
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (888) 879-9418
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS LITIGATION OR THIS NOTICE.
Dated: February 21, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut
URL// www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN]
TFORCE FREIGHT: Gonzalez Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-00182, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
February 25, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01177-JSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unlawful business practices, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wages statements, and failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses.
TForce Freight, Inc. is an American less than truckload freight
carrier based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com
- and –
Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: daniel.rojas@morganlewis.com
TUFIN SOFTWARE: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-5646-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H.
Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
I. Background
The lawsuit arises from the April 2019 initial public offering
("IPO") by Defendant Tufin. Lead Plaintiff Henry alleges that the
registration statement Tufin filed in connection with that IPO
included materially misleading misstatements related to, among
other things, the length of its sales cycle and as well as its
training practices. Because of those alleged misstatements, the
Plaintiff brought the putative class action alleging that the
Defendant, as well as various of its directors and officers,
violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act.
Tufin develops and sells cybersecurity software designed to help
its customers guard against cyber-crime. To prevent cyber-crime,
companies generally use multiple third-party tools and products,
such as firewalls. Companies rely on in-house employees to manage
manually the numerous policies governing those third-party tools
and products. According to the Plaintiff, such manual policy
management "increases the risk of human error and cybersecurity
vulnerabilities and delays the pace of application releases."
Tufin's software consists of a "suite of five interrelated
instances of software" that is intended to "unify and automate" its
customers' policies governing the third-party cybersecurity-related
products and tools. The Defendant represents that this software --
the "Tufin Orchestration Suite" -- is an "effective, comprehensive
way for its customers to manage their additional firewalls,
endpoint security, identity and access management, and other
solutions."
On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff Matthew Ellison filed a putative class
action complaint against Tufin, Reuven Harrison, Ohad Finkelstein,
Edouard Cukierman, Yair Shamir, Ronni Zehavi, Yuval Shachar
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and various
underwriters alleging violations of Sections 11, 15 and 15 of the
1933 Securities Act (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. U.S.C.
Section 77k; 12(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. Section 12(a)(2)), Section 77o.
On Oct. 19, 2021, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the
Plaintiff's case with Michaelson v. Tufin Software Technologies,
Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-6290. Lead Plaintiff Henry filed an
amended complaint in the consolidated case on Feb. 4, 2021 (the
"Complaint" or "Amended Complaint"), alleging one cause of action
against Tufin and the Individual Defendants for violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act, and one cause of action against
the Individual Defendants for violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.
Tufin and the Individual Defendants moved to dismiss on May 20,
2021. The Plaintiff filed his opposition on July 19, 2021. Tufin
and the Individual Defendants filed their reply on Aug. 25, 2021.
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff's Section 11 Claims
1. Plaintiff Does Not Sufficiently Allege that the Statements that
Tufin's Sales Force was "Highly Trained" and that Defendant Devoted
"Significant" Resources to Training and Customer Education Are
False
Judge Woods opines that the Plaintiff does not adequately plead a
Section 11 claim based on statements related to the Defendant's
training practices and customer education. The Plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that the statement is, in fact, false. They do
not allege that no training occurred, and the meaning of the term
"highly" is indeterminate and too general to provide meaningful
information regarding the substance, quality, or quantity of
Tufin's training practices. Thus, without any facts supporting a
conclusion that Tufin's sales force was not, in fact, "highly
trained," the Plaintiff has not alleged that statement was false so
as to mislead a reasonable investor.
For similar reasons, Judge Woods says the Plaintiff fails to plead
that the statements regarding the resources dedicated to training
and customer education are false. The Plaintiff does not allege
that the Defendants expended no time or resources into training or
customer education; indeed, he expressly alleges that Tufin did
expend resources on training. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that statements regarding the resources
dedicated to training and customer education were false.
2. Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleges that Defendants' Statements
Regarding the Length of Tufin's Sales Cycle Are False and
Materially Misleading
Judge Woods holds that the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads that the
Defendants' statements that Tufin's "sales cycle usually lasts
several months from proof of concept to purchase order, and is
often longer for larger transactions," and that "our sales cycle
usually last several months from proof of concept to purchase order
from our customers," are false and materially misleading. He says,
while statements that are "too general to cause a reasonable
investor to rely upon them" are not misleading, "more definite
statements about a company's business practices may invoke
reasonable reliance by investors." Moreover, "the law is well
settled that so called 'half truths' -- literally true statements
that create a materially misleading impression -- will support
claims for securities fraud."
The disclosure that Tufin's sales process "is long and
unpredictable" similarly fails to sufficiently counteract the
Plaintiff's statement that the sales cycle "usually" lasts several
months -- indeed, the terms "long" and "unpredictable" do not
denote a specific amount of time. The Defendants have not provided
any compelling reason to suggest that a reasonable investor would
interpret that statement to mean that the sales cycle in fact took
one or two years. Accordingly, the Defendants' statements that
Tufin's sales cycle "is long and unpredictable" and "often" took
longer than several months are not sufficient to defeat the
Plaintiff's Section 11 claim, which focuses on the assertion that
the sales cycle was usually shorter.
3. Plaintiff's Confidential Witness Allegations Are Not
"Deficient"
Judge Woods holds that the Defendants do not prevail in arguing
that the confidential witness allegations supporting the
Plaintiff's arguments are "deficient" because those CWs were
"low-level employees" and, as such, could not "speak for Tufin as a
whole." The Plaintiff adequately pleads a Section 11 claim based on
the statement that its sales cycles was "usually several months."
The CWs worked at Tufin during that operative period. CW1 worked at
Tufin both before and after the IPO. And while CW1 began his career
at Tufin around the same time that the company went public and CW2
left the company prior to the IPO, their testimony corroborates
CW1's testimony: that the lengthy sales cycle was present both
before and after the IPO does not suggest that the lengthy sales
cycle was isolated to a certain time period.
4. Defendant's Statements Regarding the Hiring and Retention of its
Sales Personnel Is Not Sufficient Grounds to Support a Section 11
Claim
The Plaintiff theorizes that the Defendant's inability to attract
and retain qualified personnel had already occurred at the time the
registration statement was declared effective, such that the
Defendant's suggestion that that risk may arise in the future would
mislead a reasonable investor. The Defendants, on the other hand,
argue that those disclosures are protected under the bespeaks
caution doctrine.
Judge Woods opines that the Defendants have the better argument.
The challenged statements are inherently forward looking and are
not precluded from the protection of the bespeaks caution doctrine
as non-forward looking statements. Without any allegations that the
risks disclosed in the Registration Statement had, in fact,
occurred prior to the effective date of the Registration Statement,
the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that Defendant's
statements regarding Tufin's "inability to attract or retain
qualified personnel" was misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
Section 11 claims based on those statements are dismissed.
5. Plaintiff Does Not Plead Section 11 Liability Based on
Defendant's Statements Regarding "Accurate Forecasting"
The Plaintiff similarly fails to allege sufficient grounds for a
Section 11 claim based on the Defendants' statement that, "we may
not be able to accurately predict or forecast the timing of sales,
which could cause our results to vary significantly from our
expectations and the expectations of market analysts." The
Plaintiff claims that, at the time the Registration Statement was
declared effective, Tufin "could not 'accurately predict or
forecast the timing of its sales," such that the statement is not
protected as a forward-looking statement by the bespeaks caution
doctrine.
That argument is unpersuasive, Judge Woods holds. First, the
Registration Statement expressly states, "large individual sales
have, in some cases, occurred at quarters subsequent to those we
anticipated or have not occurred at all," and also that, as a
result of companies waiting to make spending decisions until the
fourth quarter of the year "the timing of individual sales can be
difficult to predict." The Defendant expressly disclosed that
inaccurate sales forecasting had already occurred; that inaccurate
forecasts may also occur in the future is not inconsistent with
forecasts having also occurred in the past. More plainly, it is
simply implausible that a reasonable investor would understand the
statement that Defendant may be "unable to accurately forecast" its
sales in the future to mean that all of its then-current forecasts
were always accurate—forecasts, by their nature, lack 100%
accuracy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not state a Section 11
claim based on the statement regarding purported risk of inaccurate
future forecasts.
6. Plaintiff Adequately Pleads a Section 15 Violation
Because the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a Section 11
violation, he similarly pleads a violation of Section 15. Judge
Woods finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a primary
violation of Section 11. The Defendants do not contest -- at
present -- that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the
Individual Defendants are control persons under Section 15.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a violation of
Section 15.
B. Leave to Amend
Although the Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once,
Judge Woods grants the Plaintiff leave to replead the dismissed
claims. He says, while leave may be denied "for good reason,
including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to
the opposing party," those circumstances do not apply in the case
with respect to the majority of the dismissed claims. Any amended
Complaint must be filed no later than March 31, 2022.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Woods granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The Clerk of Court is ordered to terminate the motion at Dkt. No.
61.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/379vy3dw from
Leagle.com.
UNITED PARCEL: Violates Wage & Labor Laws, Diaz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR DIAZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a 211(C),
215(A), 216(B), 255(A)); 29 Delaware Corporation; UNITED C.F.R.
Section 516 ET SEQ. PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Case
No. 1:22-at-00127 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2022) is a class action for
wage and labor violations arising out of the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay wages for all time worked, including overtime,
failure to reimburse business expenses and derivative wage
statement claims.
According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified as exempt
its current and/or former salaried Part–Time Operations
Supervisors/Part–Time Local Sort Supervisors, and as a result
failed to pay them wages for all hours worked, including overtime,
in violation of California Labor Code sections 510, 1198, the
applicable Industrial Wage Order, and Fair Labor Standards Act; and
failed to timely and accurate wage statements; and, are in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
The Plaintiff seeks to represent and prosecute claims against
Defendants in class and collective action proceedings on behalf of
all those similarly situated who are or were residents of the State
of California.
The Defendants provide packaging and shipping services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Markham, Esq.
Maggie Realin, Esq.
Lisa Brevard, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
mrealin@markham-law.com
lbrevard@markham-law.com
- and -
Walter Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (888) 474-7242
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com
VOLVO CARS: Jenner Wins Leave to File Second Amended Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THERESA JENNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-6152 (D.N.J.),
Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend the First
Amended Class Action Complaint and granted the Plaintiff leave to
file her Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
The matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff Jenner's
motion to amend her First Amended Class Action Complaint, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Defendant opposed
the Plaintiff's motion and the Plaintiff replied.
The action concerns an allegedly defective component of the
Defendant's satellite radio system, used in its vehicles since at
least 2008, which purportedly caused the vehicles' battery to
unexpectedly fail.
The Plaintiff initiated the action on Aug. 12, 2015, and filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 8, 2016. The Defendant
then filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). She
opposed the motion, and the Defendant replied. Thereafter, on April
19, 2018, the Court held oral argument, and appointed a mediator to
facilitate settlement discussions. The parties subsequently
informed the Court, on Aug. 22, 2019, that mediation was
unsuccessful.
While the parties engaged in settlement discussions, the Court
initially stayed discovery, and thereafter, discovery was reopened.
By order dated July 14, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave
to file her motion for a proposed Second Amended Class Action
Complaint by July 30, 2021. The Plaintiff then submitted her motion
to amend on July 30, 2021. The Defendant opposed the motion on Aug.
9, 2021, and the Plaintiff replied on Aug. 31, 2021. After
receiving the Plaintiff's motion to amend, the Court terminated the
Defendant's motion to dismiss), pending the disposition of the
Plaintiff's motion to amend, at which time the Defendant could
either reinstate its motion or file a renewed one.
The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her First Amended Class Action
Complaint to reflect facts uncovered during initial document
discovery and depositions, which she argues relate directly to her
fraud claims against the Defendant -- specifically, that the
Defendant knew of the defective satellite radio component before
the Plaintiff purchased her vehicle.
In opposition, the Defendant contends that leave should be denied.
It first argues that amendment is futile because, even if the
pleadings included the amended allegations, the Plaintiff cannot
sustain a fraud claim. Second, the Defendant argues that an
amendment would be unduly prejudicial, as the Plaintiff has had
ample opportunity to amend and any amendment will require the
Defendant to complete additional briefing.
Judge Cecchi opines that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment adds
particularized facts regarding when the Defendant learned of the
alleged defect and its response to the issue. Specifically, the
Plaintiff proposes to allege that Defendant became aware of the
malfunction in its satellite radio system as early as September
2008 through an internal company report, approximately six months
before the Plaintiff purchased her vehicle, and that it took the
Defendant until 2012 to develop a software upgrade to fix the
problem. Moreover, the proposed amended complaint alleges that once
Defendant found a solution, it chose not to distribute the upgrade
to purchasers, or otherwise notify them that their vehicles needed
service to avoid the unexpected battery drain caused by the
defective satellite radio component.
The Defendant argues that an amendment to the pleadings would be
futile because these new allegations do not plausibly assert that
Defendant knew of the Plaintiff's problem "with certainty" as the
Defendant contends is required to sustain the Plaintiff's fraud
claim. However, the Plaintiff's proposed amended allegations
regarding when the Defendant became aware of the defect, what the
Defendant did to fix the defect, and how the Defendant chose to
alert consumers that their satellite radios needed repair all
relate to the knowledge element of a fraud claim. As a result,
Judge Cecchi opines that the amendment does not appear to be
legally insufficient on its face, and thus amendment is not
futile.
Judge Cecchi next considers whether the Plaintiff prejudiced the
Defendant by unduly delaying the filing of the instant motion and
whether amendment would otherwise prejudice the Defendant by
requiring it to engage in additional briefing. Delay alone is an
insufficient ground to deny an amendment, unless the delay unduly
prejudices the nonmoving party. In addition to prejudice associated
with delay, the non-moving party may also be unduly prejudiced if
amendment would create significant hardship.
Regarding undue delay, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's
deadline for filing an amended complaint, as established in the
original scheduling order, expired over three years ago. It further
contends that, when the Plaintiff eventually raised her intention
to file a second amended complaint in June 2020, she waited almost
a year before bringing her motion. However, the Court granted the
Plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend the complaint by July 30,
2021 in an updated scheduling order filed on July 14, 2021, and the
Plaintiff filed her motion within the new deadline set in that
order. Because the Plaintiff complied with the updated scheduling
order, and the Defendant has not demonstrated that the Plaintiff
unduly delayed between first announcing her intentions to amend and
bringing her motion, Judge Cecchi finds that no undue delay.
The Defendant also argues that amendment would be unduly
prejudicial because it would "force the Defendant to expend the
cost and time of briefing a new motion." This contention is
unavailing according to Judge Cecchi. The Plaintiff's proposed
amendment does not focus on new theories of liability or claims
against Defendant. the Instead, it alleges new facts that support
the Plaintiff's existing fraud claims and addresses possible
pleading deficiencies identified by Defendant in its motion to
dismiss and the Court at oral argument. Further, to the extent the
Defendant argues that it will incur costs because the amendment
will impact discovery, both parties have been engaged in active
ongoing discovery.
The Defendant has not identified evidence to show that allowing the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint would impact this process to
the Defendant's detriment. Accordingly, while the amended complaint
may cause defendant to modify its motion to dismiss, Judge Cecchi
opines that this type of prejudice is not cognizable under Rule 15,
as it does not "impair the Defendant's ability present its case."
Accordingly, Judge Cecchi granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend
the First Amended Class Action Complaint and granted the Plaintiff
leave to file her Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 25, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2d8yby4m from Leagle.com.
ZOOM VIDEO: California Pares Claims in Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that on February 16, 2022, Judge James Donato
of the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a
videoconferencing company and certain of its executives. In re Zoom
Sec. Litig., No. 20-cv-02353-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022).
Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations
concerning the level of encryption on its primary videoconferencing
product. The Court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged
falsity, scienter, and loss causation as to the CEO's challenged
statements regarding encryption, but it dismissed claims as to
certain other alleged misstatements, and all claims against one
executive, for failure to sufficiently allege scienter, while
granting leave to amend.
The Court first held that plaintiff adequately alleged that the
company misrepresented that its primary videoconferencing product
offered "end-to-end encryption," which plaintiff claimed was
inaccurate because the company retained the ability to centrally
decrypt and access the communications of its end users. Slip op. at
4. The Court rejected the company's argument that "end-to-end
encryption" can have different meanings, emphasizing that
defendants' statements as alleged in the complaint showed
otherwise. Id. at 4-5. In particular, the Court pointed to an
alleged statement by the company's CEO apologizing for "incorrectly
suggesting" that its product offered "end-to-end encryption" and
recognizing that there was a "discrepancy between the commonly
accepted definition . . . . and how we were using it." Id. at 5.
Regarding scienter, the Court determined that plaintiff adequately
alleged scienter with respect to the company's CEO, and thus with
respect to the company. Id. at 5-6. The Court rejected defendants'
argument that the CEO's apology for the company's prior "incorrect"
use of the term failed to show that he had the same understanding
at the time he made the allegedly false statement one year prior.
Id. at 5-6. The Court emphasized that, given the CEO's technical
background-including an advanced engineering degree, founding a
prior videoconferencing platform, and being named on several
encryption-related patents-there was "no factual basis" to believe
that the CEO's understanding of the term in question changed in a
relevant way between the time he made the statement and the time he
issued the apology. Id. at 6.
The Court also held that loss causation was sufficiently alleged
based on alleged corrective disclosures. Id. at 6. The Court noted
that stock price declines when a news article allegedly revealed
the truth about the company's encryption technology and again
following the CEO's apology gave the Court "some assurance that the
theory has a basis in fact." Id. at 6-7. The Court rejected
defendants' argument that the truth of the company's encryption
technology had already been previously reported, determining that
this was a factual argument that could not be resolved on the
pleadings. Id. 7.
However, the Court dismissed plaintiff's additional allegations of
alleged misstatements, noting that plaintiff admitted that the CEO
did not make those statements, and further holding that there were
no allegations showing that the individuals responsible for the
statements acted with scienter or that the statements were "so
important and so dramatically false" that scienter should be
imputed to the company. Id. at 7-8. The Court also dismissed all
claims against the company's CFO, noting that plaintiff had merely
alleged that the CFO "signed or authorized" SEC filings, "had the
power to authorize or approve" public statements, and spoke on
earnings calls and at investor conferences, which the Court held
amounted to "little more than a generic job description" that
"comes nowhere close" to sufficiently alleging scienter. Id. at 3.
Finally, having held that plaintiff could pursue a Section 10(b)
claim against the CEO as the maker of the one statement found
actionable, the Court noted that it was "duplicative and
nonsensical" to impose secondary control person liability against
the CEO for that same statement, and dismissed the Section 20(a)
claim against the CEO on that basis.[GN]
[*] "Freedom Convoy" Protest Suit Will Likely Seek $300M Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
citynews.ca reports that Ottawa lawyer Paul Champ who is leading
the legal team representing downtown residents in a class-action
lawsuit against self-proclaimed "Freedom Convoy" demonstrators
joined The Rob Snow Show, February 24 to discuss the latest
developments.
Everybody who was involved in Ottawa's convoy protest that has been
named in Paul Champ's $306 million lawsuit as defendants can all be
put on the hook for the entire amount of the lawsuit.
And that amount could actually increase as Champ says it's actually
a low ball number based on assessments from an economist - so that
number may actually increase over time.
That's what Champ told The Rob Snow Show February 24, adding that
now some residents have even sought medical attention not only for
psychological treatment, but for hearing loss - some of which has
turned out to be permanent.
Paul Champ lawsuit 101
Champ represents three groups of people in the joint and several
liability lawsuit. The first is the residents of downtown Ottawa,
which is represented by Zexi Li. The second are two businesses:
Happy Goat Coffee Co. and Union Local 613. The final group are
employees who work at businesses who were forced to shut down due
to the protest, and lost out on wages.
"I think our numbers are probably low," Champ said. "We based that
on an initial assessment by an economist of the businesses losses
per day of the business of downtown Ottawa of about $10 million and
then an estimate of $3 million to $4 million in wage losses and
then approximately $2 million to $3 million in pain and suffering
for the people in downtown Ottawa. But on the pain and suffering, I
think that's probably going to go up."
Some residents, he said, have been diagnosed with tinnitus - a
permanent ringing in their ears, because of those "ear-splitting"
air horns and train horns that were gong on in Ottawa for over
three weeks.
Champ said his team knew of the health impacts early on when he and
Zexi Li filed the injunction to get the truckers to stop honking
their horns.
The evidence
As of now, Champ says he has 400 licence plates collected, thanks
to residents who took the initiative to collect them.
"I kind of called this case a grassroots class action off the top
because we had dozens of very brave residents who were willing to
help us at the onset and going downtown and videotaping trucks
blowing their horns and then bringing their cameras over to capture
their licence plates," Champ explained.
In the last two weeks, Champ says he hired a private investigator
to track down those licence plates, however, he's also farming
social media for photos posted from organizers and people who
attended the occupation. He's also capturing everything he can find
and using it as a way to "connect the dots" of the planning,
organizing and coordination process of the demonstrator's plan.
"What people don't get is the evidence we have now is that the
whole plan of the organizers right from the beginning before they
got to Ottawa was to encircle downtown and cause discomfort and
inconvenience they brought on the people of downtown, so that the
people of downtown would be so upset that they would apply pressure
on the the government to capitulate to their demands," he
explained. "The evidence we have now is effectively that the people
of downtown were held as hostages for these convoy occupiers."
Because the lawsuit is classified as a joint and several liability
lawsuit, it means every person who is named in the lawsuit can be
held liable for the entire amount of money listed.
This means all truckers are at serious risk of financial
consequences for themselves, their livelihoods and even their
trucks, Champ explained.
And those who donated after February 4 are also on the hook. Champ
says that date was chosen because from that time forward, it was
apparent the convoy had other motives.
It was that day when GoFundMe also shutdown the convoy's
fundraising platform through its website because it said it had
evidence money was going towards illegal behaviour, Champ said.
So anyone who donated to the GiveSendGo platform knew they were
supporting something that wanted to bring harm to the people of
Ottawa, Champ alleges.
"It's an unfortunate situation because I think a lot of those
individual truckers got hoodwinked or manipulated into coming and
participated into this thing and not really knowing fully the
consequences."
Coming up next
Champ will continue his motion of a freezing order before the
courts. This, he says, will freeze the bank accounts of organizers
and donors to the occupation - including bitcoin and crypto
currency exchanges.
He is now waiting on reports from banks and crypto exchanges, which
he says probably holds around $3 million but are now frozen. He'll
be back to continue that action.
Champ said he is open to talking to truckers who - upon further
reflection - feel remorse for what they've done, and who have
retained independent counsel and reach out.
As Champ said, he is open to settling with truckers earlier.
"Not that they can get out of it but I just advise them, find us
before we find you." [GN]
[*] Australian Labor Party Talks About Class Action Reforms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly at afr.com reports that Labor has promised an
about-face on class actions reform after the next election, with
shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus saying it will only act "in
the best interests of plaintiffs".
Mr. Dreyfus said the Morrison government had taken a "hostile"
approach to claims run by litigation funders and that would change
under an Albanese government.
The shadow attorney-general's comments were made in an interview
with The Australian Financial Review in which he laid out Labor's
legal agenda, which includes the establishment of a commonwealth
integrity commission and press freedom laws.
Mr Dreyfus also said Labor would bring back a judicial appointments
commission and would not rule out interviewing candidates for
courts or tribunals himself. This drew a warning from the
Australian Bar Association that Mr Dreyfus would need to "exercise
caution and restraint".
Along with religious freedom, class actions has been one of the
more hotly contested legal issues during this parliamentary term.
Labor has strongly opposed government legislation that would set a
70 per cent floor for class action payouts, which funders and
plaintiff law firms say would make some cases uneconomic to run.
The Coalition also sought to make it harder for litigation funders
to bring cases by restricting common fund orders, which allow them
to represent a group instead of have to "book build", or sign up
plaintiffs one by one.
'Immense Hostility'
The bill followed changes during the pandemic that made directors
only liable for continuous disclosure law breaches if they acted
with "knowledge, recklessness or negligence" and raised the bar for
a successful claim.
Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said recently the government would
not be pursuing the bill in the remaining days of the current
parliament, but would try again if re-elected.
"This government has demonstrated immense hostility to the very
idea of class actions," Mr Dreyfus said.
"It has shown a preparedness to entertain potentially massive
changes in the class action system designed to make class actions
harder to bring, and to interrupt the funding arrangements for
class actions.
"Class actions are a vital path to justice for Australians who are
trying to uphold their rights against wealthy defendants with
vastly greater resources."
Mr Dreyfus would not be drawn on whether Labor would allow
plaintiff law firms to charge contingency fees, as has been the
case in Victoria since 2020 after a lobbying campaign led by
Maurice Blackburn, a frequent donor to the Labor Party.
He said the class action regime, like all laws, should be
"continually looked at to ensure it is working in the best way
possible".
"But we won't be making changes to class action law unless we are
satisfied that it is in the best interests of plaintiffs seeking
justice.
"Bear in mind that the Federal Court has the power, which it has
used often, to supervise the fees that are received by the law
firms who act for plaintiffs in these class actions. It's those
powers that ensure fees continue to be reasonable."
'Consult Widely'
Mr Dreyfus said Labor would have a judicial appointments commission
to advise on contenders for all federal court and tribunals, apart
from the High Court.
"We will put an end to the black box system of appointments where
there is a complete lack of transparency."
He said it was "a logistic impossibility for the Attorney-General
to conduct all the interviews".
"But, of course, it's open to an Attorney-General to interview
people that are being considered for appointment. And I wouldn't
want to close off that possibility."
Mr Dreyfus said he would "consult widely" on High Court
appointments, with two vacancies in the next term, including a
replacement for Chief Justice Susan Kiefel.
"Unlike all the other federal courts, the Judiciary Act requires
that there be consultation by the federal government, state
governments about their suggestions for appointment to the High
Court before any appointment is made."
He was asked directly whether that might include candidates.
"I say again, it's open for any attorney-general to interview
anyone that she or he wants to interview. It's entirely appropriate
that they be able to do so.
"My proposal would be very much not merely to comply with the
Judiciary Act requirements or consultation with the states, but to
consult very widely with the profession.
"Everybody has got knowledge of potential candidates for
appointment to the High Court of Australia because it is the
highest court in the land, and it's very, very important that we
get appointments to that court as right as we can."
The president of the Australian Bar Association, Matt Collins, QC,
said Mr Dreyfus would have to tread warily.
"The ABA has long advocated for wide consultation on potential
judicial appointments," he said.
Michaelia Cash is refusing to outline the constitutional heads of
power under which she plans to make sweeping reforms to the class
action industry.
"The profession will often be aware of suitable candidates who may
not have been considered or of the qualities of candidates that may
not be visible to serving judges.
"Caution and restraint would need to be exercised in any
interviewing process to avoid the perceived politicisation of
appointments.
"Confidence in the administration of justice depends on judges
being, and being seen to be, independent and able to dispense
justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will." [GN]
[*] COVID-19 Tuition Refund Class Action Lawsuits Examined
----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the
COVID-19 pandemic caused worldwide disruption, causing many
industries to shut down or reduce their services in order to curb
the spread of the novel coronavirus. Colleges and universities were
affected, and many halted in-person classes and other campus
services.
In response, many university students have sought prorated COVID-19
tuition refunds because they did not receive the value of the
educational experience for which they paid. When their schools have
refused to issue refunds, some students have opted to take legal
action to get the refunds they believe they are entitled to
receive.
The following includes a brief summary of how some of these
COVID-19 tuition refund class action lawsuits are faring.
South Florida COVID-19 Tuition Fees
On Feb. 14, a Florida federal judge sent a proposed University of
South Florida COVID-19 tuition fees class action lawsuit back to
state court after dismissing the student plaintiff's sole federal
claim.
U.S. District Judge Charlene E. Honeywell dismissed plaintiff
Felipe Rivadeneira's Fifth Amendment claim, finding that he did not
have a constitutionally protected property interest in the fees he
paid.
Rivadeneira argued that he had a protected property right to the
funds he paid USF to enjoy on-campus amenities. He filed the
COVID-19 tuition fees class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
a proposed Class of USF students seeking prorated refunds for
tuition and other fees for the spring 2020 semester.
The judge remanded the case to Hillsborough County court, which is
where the proposed USF class action lawsuit was originally filed.
Nova Southeastern University Tuition Fees
On Feb. 16, Nova Southeastern University was dealt a blow when a
Florida federal judge denied its motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit seeking tuition refunds for transitioning to online
learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In this case, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II determined
that a Florida law protecting colleges from pandemic related
lawsuits did not apply because the proposed Nova class action
lawsuit was filed nearly one year before the law took effect.
Syracuse University Class Action Lawsuits
Syracuse University is facing four COVID-19 class action lawsuits
by students seeking refunds after their classes were moved online
due to pandemic-related shutdowns. They claim that they lost the
benefit of the on-campus education for which they paid. Although
the university allegedly allowed students to apply for
reimbursements for housing and meal plan payments, Syracuse refused
to refund tuition or fees.
Rutgers University COVID-19 Refund Class Action Settlement
At least one COVID-19 tuition fees class action lawsuit has
resulted in a settlement. On Jan. 28, 2021, a judge granted final
approval to a $5 million Rutgers University tuition fees
settlement.
Expected payments were estimated to be $50 to $70 per person. Under
the terms of the Rutgers settlement, eligible Class Members would
automatically receive a payment and did not need to file a claim.
NYU Fee Repayment Class Action Lawsuit
New York University was able to escape claims in a COVID-19 tuition
refund class action lawsuit, but a judge held that the graduate
student plaintiff's claims regarding school fees for campus
amenities could proceed.
The judge agreed with NYU's assertion that plaintiff Nelcy Mabel
Garcia De Leon failed to show that NYU breached a contract
regarding the tuition claims.
However, the judge determined that De Leon could still pursue
breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims for fees related to
campus facilities, student activities, health services, and other
amenities that were unavailable during the COVID-19 related
disruptions.
American University & George Washington University Cases May Be
Revived
Tuition refund class action lawsuits against American University
and George Washington University were dismissed by a federal court
last year, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals may decide to
revive them. The plaintiffs in those cases allege that online
courses are worth less than in-person classes and that they were
deprived of the in-person learning experience they paid for. [GN]
[*] D&O Class Actions Still Major Concern for Companies, Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wood, writing for Insurance Business Australia, reports that
class actions in the directors and officers (D&O) space are still a
major concern for companies and insurers. Some brokerage firms in
Australia hope that recent changes to continuous disclosure laws
will help encourage companies to fight more D&O related class
action battles in court, rather than settle.
However, Martin Jones (pictured), Australia client executive for
Xceedance argues that early settlement is usually the better option
across the gamut of claims, not just for shareholder class action
claims.
He said claims costs are still escalating and insurers must develop
new strategies that better facilitate early settlement. "Extensive
use of external law firms," he said, can contribute, together with
other factors, to "major claims inflation."
However, after years of increasing numbers of class actions and
extreme premium increases, things are finally looking better in the
D&O insurance space.
"2017 and 2018 were probably two of the peak years in terms of the
volume of securities class actions in Australia. In both of those
years there were 24 class actions," Henry Clark, head of
professional and executive risks for Honan Insurance, told
Insurance Business recently.
2019 was almost as bad but the last two years has seen a big drop.
There were only six in 2021, said Clark.
Brokerages say the changes to the continuous disclosure laws may
have helped pull this number down, but it's still too early to
tell.
"We need to see consecutive years of a slowing down of class
actions," said Clark. "Also, with the changes to the legislation
requiring a higher threshold to be able to bring a class action, we
hope that will then encourage defendants, like ASX companies, to
defend matters."
Craig Claughton, head of financial and professional services for
Marsh, the global brokerage firm, agrees.
"As new class actions come in, what I'm encouraging our clients and
directors to do is to actually go ahead and defend them," said
Claughton during an interview with IB late last year.
Claughton co-authored a submission to the Australia Law Reform
Commission's Inquiry into class actions and litigation funders. The
submission used empirical data to support the changes that were
ultimately made to the continuous disclosure laws.
However, Jones said going to court may not be the best option for
companies faced with any claims litigation.
"Settlement is almost always a cheaper option than litigation,
particularly when you consider high legal defence costs," he said.
Jones said plaintiffs and defendants don't want to see drawn-out
legal processes which have been exacerbated by COVID-19-related
issues and the impact on judicial delays. He recommended focusing
on data to close claims faster.
"Insurers need to examine the characteristics of a claim and deploy
new strategies to close quickly before it becomes a runaway claim,"
he said.
Jones said insurers should change their current litigation models
to facilitate this.
"Insurers need to give their claims departments, or TPAs, the
tools, knowledge and training to work towards early claims
settlements. This results in greater decision-making by the claims
department on how best to manage the claim," he said.
"Xceedance uses its data analytics capabilities and
state-of-the-art claims systems to support experienced claims teams
as they implement strategies to mitigate claims inflation. This is
already yielding results for clients in their claims departments or
TPA operations," he said.
"It's important to avoid unnecessary litigation costs – spending
$2 in legal fees to save $1 of the claim settlement is illogical,"
added Jones.
Across the insurance industry, Jones said, insurers are facing
escalating claims costs and are under pressure to develop
strategies to counter the trend.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a key driver of claims inflation,
said Jones, causing delays in the health and justice sectors, as
well as major disruption to supply chains.
The surge in new construction and renovation projects, he said, has
created material shortages that have resulted in a dramatic rise in
construction prices with a knock-on impact to claims costs.
Social inflation has played a role too, said Jones. Litigation
awards in the court system have "set the bar high" and fuelled
claimants' expectations about what payouts they are entitled to.
Funded litigation has also become prevalent, he said, impacting
class actions' frequency and the size of damages awards.
Clark told IB that the average securities class action costs around
$48 million, even though the majority are settled out of court.
[GN]
[*] Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Trends
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Farber, Esq., David R. Golder, Esq., and Eric R. Magnus, Esq.,
of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
report that since January 2020, the number of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) class actions targeting the alleged
mismanagement of 401(k) and 403(b) defined contribution
employer-sponsored retirement plans has exploded. During that time,
more than 150 of these class actions have been filed nationwide.
These suits generally contend that plan sponsors and other plan
fiduciaries have breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
authorizing the plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees and/or by
selecting plan investments that charged excessive investment
management fees or that underperformed. The complaints in these
"fee litigation" cases seek tens of millions of dollars in damages.
In 2021, motions to dismiss were granted in about a dozen cases,
but courts have denied such motions in many others.
Supreme Court remands fee case
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a
Seventh Circuit case involving the proper standards for motions to
dismiss such claims. Specifically, the Justices considered whether
allegations that a defined contribution retirement plan paid or
charged its participants fees that "substantially exceeded" fees
for alternative available investment products or services
(including recordkeeping) are sufficient to state a claim against
plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing
the claims, which arguably were premised on the same substantive
allegations that the Third and Eighth Circuits had deemed
sufficient to survive.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, vacated the Seventh
Circuit decision in this closely watched case. The Court concluded
that the Seventh Circuit erred by failing to apply the Court's
guidance in Tibble v. Edison International, a 2015 decision, that
plan fiduciaries have a duty to monitor all plan investments and to
remove imprudent ones.
The appeal queues up a hotly litigated issue in recent fee
litigation: can defined contribution plan participants challenge
the prudence and loyalty of retaining a plan investment option they
never invested in?
The Supreme Court did not decide whether plaintiffs had plausibly
alleged a violation of the duty of prudence. Instead, the Court
remanded to the Seventh Circuit to reevaluate plaintiffs'
allegations consistent with Tibble and existing pleading standards.
The Court further explained that "the appropriate inquiry" into
whether investment options and fees are prudent "will necessarily
be context specific." As such, the Court recognized that "the
circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate difficult
tradeoffs, and courts must give due regard to the range of
reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience
and expertise."
Class certification issues in fee litigation
In May, the Third Circuit agreed to review a district court's
decision to certify a 60,000+ person class in a fee class action.
The appeal queues up a hotly litigated issue in recent fee
litigation: can defined contribution plan participants challenge
the prudence and loyalty of retaining a plan investment option they
never invested in?
The defendants argued that plaintiffs could not have been harmed by
excessive fees or underperformance of the funds in which they did
not invest; therefore, they lack Article III standing to pursue
claims relating to those funds. The defendants relied on a 2020
Supreme Court holding that participants in a defined benefit
retirement plan lacked standing to pursue a fiduciary breach claim
relating to the management of the plan because they had no
"concrete stake" in the lawsuit, as winning or losing the suit
would not alter their monthly retirement benefit.
The defendants had raised a similar challenge to oppose class
certification, arguing that plaintiffs' claim failed to meet
typicality standards under Rule 23 because the named plaintiffs
suffered no injury with respect to the performance or fees of the
investment options in which they did not invest. The district court
disagreed, finding that plaintiffs' claims "primarily involve
allegedly imprudent decision-making processes as to the Plan as a
whole" and challenge "uniform conduct across the Plan."
The defendants sought immediate review of the class certification
decision, which the Third Circuit granted. On appeal, defendants
argued that plaintiffs' claims challenging the 7 funds they
selected are not typical of absent class members' claims
challenging the 30 funds plaintiffs did not select. Defendants also
argued that plaintiffs lack constitutional standing to challenge
the 30 unselected options. The case has been calendared for oral
argument in February 2022. [GN]
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss M&A Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory A. Markel, Esq., Vincent A. Sama, Esq., Daphne
Morduchowitz, Esq., Andrew R. Escobar, Esq., and Matthew Catalano,
Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed
that Seyfarth has conducted a thorough analysis of the litigation
filed in 2021 arising out of mergers and acquisitions for the
year.1 While there is, as reported elsewhere, a marked decrease in
class action filings arising from M&A deals in 2021,2 federal M&A
litigation has not gone away. Rather, a handful of plaintiffs'
firms have continued to file M&A challenges but have brought the
suits on behalf of individual-investors rather than on a class-wide
basis. These plaintiffs' firms have continued the pattern
identified in 2020 of quickly voluntarily dismissing the case often
following relatively immaterial supplemental disclosures used to
justify attorneys' fees. As compared to 2020, where the bulk of
such litigation was brought by a single plaintiffs' firm,3 2021 saw
a number of plaintiffs' firms enter the fray, with any given M&A
deal spurring separate actions by multiple plaintiffs' firms. As in
2020, the majority of the cases filed appear to be intended to
generate mootness fees for plaintiffs' counsel. As we noted last
year, we expect this abusive litigation trend to continue unless
there is wider recognition of the problem followed by reform.
Background
As laid out in more detail in Seyfarth's 2021 article entitled
Abusive M&A Litigation Highlights Need for Securities Reform,4
prior to the Delaware Court of Chancery's 2016 decision in In re
Trulia Stockholder Litigation5 M&A challenges were routinely
brought in Delaware state court and resolved in early settlements
with "corrective disclosures" that appeared to offer little, if
any, meaningful benefit to investors.6 After the Delaware Chancery
Court warned that such meritless settlements would no longer be
tolerated, plaintiffs' firms changed tactics, instead filing cases
in federal court with the sole intent of obtaining attorneys'
fees—known as mootness fees—in exchange for voluntary
dismissals and non-material supplemental disclosures.7 This
arrangement allows plaintiffs' counsel to bypass court approval and
the potential analysis of the settlement by courts under Trulia
because settlements before class certification or settlements of
individual actions typically do not require court approval. The
arrangement also typically avoids public scrutiny because mootness
fees are generally immaterial to the paying company and are often
not widely disclosed.
M&A Challenges in 2021
Overall, approximately 508 transactions faced class action
challenges in 2021, which, while a marked decline from the 122
identified by Seyfarth in 2020, remains a substantial number.9
These complaints, which are largely cookie-cutter, allege that
defendants omitted certain details regarding financial projections
and deal background that purportedly render proxy or registration
statements misleading. Generally, they hardly differ in substance
from the disclosure suits criticized by the Delaware Court of
Chancery in its 2016 Trulia decision.10 Notably, approximately 45
of the 50 cases (or approximately 90% of them) were voluntarily
dismissed within months of their filings, comparable to the 95% of
M&A class actions subject to voluntary dismissal in 2020.
Furthermore, as in 2020, many of these voluntary dismissals
followed the issuance of supplemental disclosures that do not
appear to reveal any significant new information. The dismissals
and related settlements, which occur before class certification,
rarely get reviewed by a court for fairness to the proposed class
of shareholders and appear to be without material benefit to the
class. The quick timing of the voluntary dismissals and lack of
discernable value to the shareholders strongly suggest that these
cases are being filed for the benefit of plaintiff's counsel,
rather than the shareholders they represent.
However, an analysis of M&A class actions tells only part of the
story. As in 2020, an array of plaintiffs' firms in 2021 brought a
substantial number of non-class "individual plaintiff" claims
challenging various M&A transactions. Indeed, our review of these
non-class action filings indicates that approximately 210 M&A
transactions were hit with the filing of individual complaints.11
While these numbers represent a decrease from the approximately 450
non-class action federal challenges to M&A deals identified by
Seyfarth in 2020,12 they show that M&A litigation and threats of
litigation have not disappeared. As with the class action
complaints, a large number (approximately 75%) of the individual
complaints brought were voluntarily dismissed, many very soon after
the complaint was filed. Furthermore, like the class action suits,
many of these dismissals follow the filing of what appear to be
superficial supplemental disclosures and most likely involve
confidential mootness fees paid to plaintiffs' counsel.
Finally, while un-trackable, anecdotal evidence suggests that a
number of M&A deals in 2021 were challenged by demand letters
without lawsuits being filed and were also resolved with minor and
immaterial additions to the disclosures (and likely mootness fees)
without litigation. This analysis strongly suggests that frivolous
and abusive M&A litigation has not gone away. There is a clear need
for legislative reform in this area to prevent what amounts to a
burdensome deal tax imposed on companies which likely is in part
passed on as a cost to consumers. Another likely effect of this
deal tax is that it results in increases in D&O insurance
premiums.
Conclusion
The continued large-scale filing of M&A litigation in 2021
highlights that the public policy issues underlying the Trulia
court's criticism of disclosure only settlements remain a concern
with respect to the current mootness fee settlements. Like the
settlements criticized in Trulia, the federal court mootness fee
settlements provide no benefit to the company shareholders and
serve as a deal tax on almost every M&A transaction involving a
public company. Even more egregiously, the federal court mootness
fee settlements, unlike those at issue in Trulia, seldom involve
court review. These actions, which are being filed on behalf of
purported classes of shareholders have been shifting to individual
plaintiffs, who have taken up the cudgels in collecting a deal tax.
Because there is little incentive for an individual defendant to
risk litigating these suits, we expect these various forms of a
deal tax to continue unless the issue is remediated by court action
or through congressional reform of securities laws.
Footnotes
1. For Seyfarth's analysis of 2020's M&A litigation trends, see
Abusive M&A Litigation Highlights Need for Securities Reform
(Law360, March 4, 2021),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1361125/abusive-m-a-litigation-highlights-need-for-securities-reform.
2.See, e.g., Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings
2021 Year in Review at 1
https://www.cornerstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Securities-Class-Action-Filings-2021-Year-in-Review.pdf
(finding 82% reduction in M&A class action filings from 2020 to
2021); NERA Economic Consulting, Recent Trends in Securities Class
Action Litigation: 2021 Full-Year Review,
https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2022/PUB_2021_Full-Year_Trends_012022.pdf
(finding 85% decrease in merger-objection filings from 2020 to
2021). Seyfarth's analysis differs from these other reports even in
the class action space as, as Seyfarth's analysis includes
litigation arising from M&As where other claims, such as 10b-5
allegations, are made and; unlike other reports, is not considering
M&A litigation relating to SPACs in a different category.
3. Supra, n. 2.
4. Id.
5. In re Trulia Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 129 A.3d 884 (Del. Ch.
2016).
6. See supra n. 2.
7. Id.
8. Seyfarth's analysis differs from other reports tracking M&A
class actions such as those noted in note 2, supra, because we have
included class action litigation arising from M&A transactions even
where other claims, such as 10b-5 allegations, are also made and we
are also considering M&A litigation relating to SPACs, both of
which fell into different categories in other analyses. As such, we
have identified a higher number of M&A class actions than reported
elsewhere.
9. Notably, Rigrodsky, which had brought 76% of class action deal
challenges in 2020, appears to have largely abandoned its strategy
of bringing putative class actions (turning its focus to complaints
by individual plaintiffs).
10. Trulia, 129 A.3d at 884.
11. This figure reflects that the same M&A transaction generated
anywhere from one to ten near-identical complaints brought by
different firms.
12. See supra n. 2.[GN]
[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Reached $3B in 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
financefeeds.com reports that class action securities litigation
settlements increased by 50% in 2021, according to a report by
Broadridge Financial Solutions, which added that total settlements
reached more than $3 billion.
Significant trends in the class action world, which are already
continuing into 2022, include a rise in SPAC and
cryptocurrency-related securities litigations, a substantial
reduction in M&A class action filings, and an increased focus on
ESG investors using securities class and collective actions as a
tool for enforcing shareholder values.
Number Of Settlements Rise By A Dramatic 50%
Steve Cirami, Broadridge Class Actions leader, said: "Last year we
watched the number of settlements rise by a dramatic 50% as cases
continue to be increasingly complex and global. The landscape
continues to change dramatically, with more countries enacting
class action laws. At the same time, we are now seeing more
settlements involving unique and complex financial instruments,
commodities and new asset classes, such as cryptocurrencies."
Broadridge noted that the Block.one settlement was one of the first
cryptocurrency-related securities class action settlements.
Other changes worth of note is the growth in opt-in jurisdictions
and the rise in collective investor actions; increased
participation in opt-in litigation; and broker-dealers' shift in
service.
Broadridge's team of dedicated class action experts include
attorneys, client advocates, class action auditors, data analysts,
research professionals and client service representatives, all of
whom on average have 15-20 years of class action experience.
Over 850 organizations rely on Broadridge's global class action
services because of its worldwide reach, industry expertise and
world-class standards.
DIPTI KACHRU LEADS MARKETING EFFORTS AT BROADRIDGE
In late 2021, Broadridge appointed Dipti Kachru as Global Chief
Marketing Officer, based in New York and reporting to President
Chris Perry.
The Global CMO will be responsible for brand and digital strategy,
product positioning, lead generation, and thought leadership, all
aspects of Broadridge's global marketing organization.
Dipti Kachru was hired to drive measurable growth, build
Broadridge's global brand reputation, expand client relationships,
and support the organization's revenue growth ambitions.
Kachru joins Broadridge from J.P. Morgan where she most recently
served as Chief Marketing Officer for the Wealth Management
division.
She is credited for launching the J.P. Morgan Wealth Management
brand and building an industry-leading client acquisition engine
that delivered significant business growth.
Past senior consumer and wholesale marketing roles include firms
such as JPMorgan Chase and Oppenheimer Funds (now Invesco) after an
advertising career for Pepsi, American Express, and Microsoft. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***