/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220310.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 10, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 44 Headlines 1847 GOEDEKER: Boden Balks at Wrong Stockholders' Votes Tabulation 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Infant Formula ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Toxic Baby Formula Products ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Whitmore Balks at Infant Formula Contamination ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Insurance ALVIN AND FRIENDS: Pagan Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages AMAZON.COM: Lite Files Suit Over Discontinued Insurance Benefits AUTOZONERS LLC: Richter Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA BE TEMERARIO: Sislema Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 8 Deadline BITCONNECT: Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme Can Proceed BLOCKFI: Mangano Sues Over Alleged Unregistered Interest Accounts BURT'S BEES: Cosmetics Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Bruno Alleges CANADA: Sued Over Discriminatory Underfunding of Child Welfare CARECUBE: Faces Class Action Over COVID Test Double-Billing CARING HANDS: Young Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA CENTENE CORP: Lopez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA CERENCE INC: Miami Retirement Trust Sues Over Share Price Drop CHAMPION PETFOODS: Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Affirmed CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Aug. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bettors Sue Over Media Spirt Disqualification COLOMBIAN HOUSE: Marin Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle COBRA Notice Class Action for $750,000 DEBT RECOVERY: Mangroo Sues Over Alleged Illegal Debt Collection E.N. HOME: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL EXALT FLAVORS: Kumar Seeks Servers' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Market Share Gain FRANCIS MATHEW: Daigle Files Suit in D. New Mexico GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Certain Claims in Cadillac Class Suit GLOBAL PERSONALS: Ulery Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls GWG HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 19 Deadline HCL AMERICA: Geraci Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Liberal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HY-VEE INC: Fiduciaries Mismanage 401(K) Plan, Rodriguez Suit Says ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over False Concealed Carry Course JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: ADA Suit Filed in N.D. New York KANKESHWAR LLC: Moronta Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KOCH FOODS: Southern AgCredit Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma KOSE AMERICA: Hiatt Files Suit in C.D. Illinois LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Hine Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania LGSTX DISTRIBUTION: Plane Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data LISPENARD FISH: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York MANHATTAN BEER: Wittels McInturff Files Suit Over Illegal Scheme MANI.ME INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Amer Files Suit in D. Utah MICHAEL MONTALVO: Celluci Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MIDAS PROPERTY: Zerafa Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL MORGAN STANLEY: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8 NELNET INC: Maxwell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida NOOM INC: Settles Subscription Class Action for $56 Million NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Prizer Suit Removed to S.D. Florida NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Hears Settlement Agreement in DMV Suit NYK LINE: UK Court Allows Price-Fixing Class Action to Proceed OCWEN LOAN: Settles Privacy Class Action for $1.5 Million PAYPAL INC: Faces Vidaurre Suit Over Deceptive "Pay in 4" Service PEPSICO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York PROGRESSIVE MAX: Verardo Files Suit in S.D. New York PULSE BIOSCIENCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 18 Deadline QUALITY MODULAR: Matos Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA, NYLL RANDHURST DELI: Rizzo Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics SAFEMOON LLC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Promotions, Tokenomics SALT MEDITERRANEAN: Escobar Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York SBL ENTERPRISES: Xiong Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA SEA MAR: Faces Data Breach Class Action Over Cyberattack SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action STREAMLABS LLC: Leventhal Sues Over Automatic Renewal Subscription SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: PAGA Class Settlement Ruling Discussed TARGET CORP: Up & Up Products Caused Drowsiness, Miner Alleges TIKTOK INC: Settles Class Action Over Data Collection for $2-Mil. TRANSFORM SR HOME: Carlson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois U.S. SOCCER: Settles Equal Pay Class Action UPHOLD HQ: Rider Files Suit in S.D. New York VERCY LLC: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas W. STANCIL STARNES: Goldfarb Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. W.K.S. RESTAURANT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WESTERN SKY DAIRY: Rafael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WK INDUSTRIAL: Rathke Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & WWPCL [*] Atkinson Andelson Attorneys Discuss H.R. 4445 Legislation [*] Freedom Convoy Class Action Plaintiff to Pursue Claims, Damages [*] Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Rulings [*] U.S. Class Action Defense Spending Up 16% in 2021 ********* 1847 GOEDEKER: Boden Balks at Wrong Stockholders' Votes Tabulation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scot T. Boden, individuall and all others similarly situated stockholders of 1847 Goedeker Inc. v. 1847 GOEDEKER INC., ELLERY W. ROBERTS, ALBERT FOUERTI, ELLETTE A. ANDERSON, CLARK R. CROSNOE, GLYN C. MILBURN, G. ALAN SHAW, ALAN P. SHOR, and EDWARD J. TOBIN, Case No. 022-0196 (Del. Ch., March 1, 2022) is a verified class action complaint seeking to remedy the erroneous tabulation of stockholders' votes on a proposal to approve an amendment of the Company's amended and restated certificate of incorporation to increase the number of shares of common stock that Goedeker is authorized to issue from 200,000,000 shares to 250,000,000 shares (the "Share Increase Proposal"). After the Board told stockholders that a "broker or other nominee cannot vote without instructions" on the Share Increase Proposal, it instead allowed uninstructed shares to be cast as "For" votes. Owing to this mistabulation, the Board claimed that stockholders had approved the Share Increase Proposal when, in fact, the matter would have failed to garner the necessary number of votes required by the Delaware General Corporation law had the Board tabulated stockholder (non) votes as they said they would in the proxy statement that the Company filed with the SEC on November 18, 2021 (the "Proxy"). Because the Company's position is at odds with Delaware law requiring corporations to accurately disclose how votes will be treated and act in conformity with such disclosure, the purported approval of the Share Increase Proposal is not valid, says the suit. Nevertheless, the Board proceeded with amending the Certificate and caused the Company to file an invalid amendment to the Certificate with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on December 22, 2021. On December 31, 2021, Plaintiff sent a demand letter calling on the Board to, among other things, recount stockholders' votes and void any action taken to implement the Share Increase Proposal. The Demand was delivered by FedEx to the Company's board of directors on January 4, 2022. Since then, despite repeatedly following up, the Plaintiff has not received any substantive response to the Demand nor have any corrective actions been taken by the Company, the suit added. If the Company proceeds with issuing shares in excess of the 200,000,000 shares properly authorized under the Certificate, the Company's capital structure could be irreversibly compromised. Any such additional shares, which would be invalid as a matter of Delaware law, may be traded on the open market in a manner that could never be undone. Because the Board is poised to compromise the integrity of Goedeker stock and it would be impossible to unscramble the eggs were unauthorized shares issued, the Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory judgment to forestall such harm and for breach of fiduciary duty to set right the Board members' failure to act in accordance with their disclosures to stockholders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - 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 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------ Terry G. Williams, 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-00497-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 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: 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 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Infant Formula ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Hornet reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Laboratories on behalf of a baby girl who developed gastrointestinal problems and feeding difficulties after he was fed a recalled Similac(R) Alimentum(R) formula. The lawsuit was filed in Florida by Luis Alfredo S., the father of "A.S.," who claims that she was injured by contaminated infant formula. According to the lawsuit, he purchased contaminated Alimentum formula from CVS on January 30, 2022 and fed it to his daughter. By February 8, he claims that she had developed "diarrhea, abdominal pain, severe diaper rash with blisters and blood, dehydration, sleeplessness, and other pain and injuries." Furthermore, he claims that she still suffers from gastrointestinal issues. The lawsuit was filed just 1 day after Abbott Laboratories recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare formula manufactured at a facility in Sturgis, Michigan, after a deadly outbreak of infections with bacteria, including Cronobacter and Salmonella. The FDA is currently investigating at least 3 confirmed illnesses and 1 death that may be linked to the contaminated infant formula. The lawsuit is seeking class action status to pursue compensation for A.S. and all other babies who were fed the recalled formula, alleging that Abbott failed to take adequate steps to make sure the formula was safe and free from dangerous bacteria. The class action lawsuit was filed on February 18, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Miami -- Case Number 1:22-cv-20506. [GN] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Toxic Baby Formula Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A. has filed a nationwide and Florida class action lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that the company put children at risk of injury and bacterial infection with its toxic baby formula products Similac(R), Alimentum(R), and EleCare(R). Plaintiffs further allege that Abbott used "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" its products. The lawsuit was filed on February 20, 2022 on behalf of two Miami parents and their minor child, who was infected by Salmonella after ingesting tainted Alimentum. Had they known that Abbott's products may have been contaminated, they never would given them to their child. In the lawsuit, the parents allege that, as a direct result of the toxic baby formula, the child "developed severe gastrointestinal illness and symptoms including, but not limited to, overwhelming diarrhea multiple times per day, abdominal pain, constant temperature changes, severe diaper rash with blood, loss of blood, bloody stool, and sleeplessness." The child also became anemic, rendering her in need of antibiotic treatment and medicinal injections. She continues to have gastrointestinal and bowel problems, among other symptoms, to this day. To make it worse, this is only one of the alleged reports of bacterial infection by Abbott's toxic baby formula. Jonathan Gdanski, of Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale, says that parents place complete and total trust in the manufacturer of baby formula to provide a product that is safe, healthy and free of toxic and hazardous contaminants during this critical period of growth in an infant's life. "Abbott's failure to use reasonable care regarding these infant formula products - and then failing to warn the public after recognizing that a problem within their facility existed is reckless and dangerous. As a result, the parents we represent experienced the horror of having their baby suffer day and night. On February 17, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recalled specific lots of Abbott's baby formula products after receiving three reports of Cronobacter sakazakii (which can cause meningitis and/or sepsis) infection and one report of Salmonella infection. The products under FDA recall include Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare formula manufactured in Abbott's facility in Sturgis, Michigan. Each expires on or after April 1, 2022. Further, each has a product number that begins with numbers between 22 and 37, as well as contains either K8, SH, or Z2. Abbott complied with the FDA recall but, as reported by The New York Times, did not specify how many units were affected. "Clearly, better safety standards at Abbott's manufacturing facility is needed," said David Silverman, an attorney at the firm. "Families expect their baby formula to be safe for consumption and free of bacteria and toxic contaminants. They should be able to use these products knowing that they are safe." ABOUT SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A. is a multigenerational law firm based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. If your child has been injured, such as by bacterial infection, because of Abbott's products, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Joining the toxic baby formula class action lawsuit may be the best course of action for you. Visit Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A. online at https://www.schlesingerlawoffices.com/ to find out more. Jonathan Gdanski jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com (954) 777-1111 [GN] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Whitmore Balks at Infant Formula Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARL WHITMORE AND AMANDA CORVELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01012 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 25, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged conduct of manufacturing and selling to consumers, including Plaintiffs, powdered infant formulas contaminated with Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport bacteria, which when consumed, can result in serious adverse health effects. According to the complaint, Abbott announced on February 18, 2020 a recall of its powdered infant formula products, including the brands Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare because they suffer from a defect which could result in serious injury, permanent impairment, and even be life-threatening. Despite the recall, Abbott is not crediting or replacing affected recalled products, which many parents and caretakers rely on daily to feed and care for their children. As a result of Abbott's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, consumers of these products, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact, and otherwise have been harmed by Abbott's alleged conduct. Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and - Peter J. Flowers, Esq. Michael W. Lenert, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com mwl@meyers-flowers.com ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that Allianz has been accused of misleading insurance customers in a class action that has been launched in the Supreme Court. After first investigating the class action in November 2020, Maurice Blackburn has officially commenced proceedings against Allianz Australia Insurance Limited and Allianz Australia Life Insurance Limited in the Supreme Court. The class action is brought on behalf of persons who purchased "add-on" insurance products issued "at or around the time they purchased a vehicle from a motor vehicle dealership", between 1 June 2006 and 27 September 2021. According to the Supreme Court class action notice, dealers acting on Allianz's behalf gave "personal advice" to customers who purchased add-on insurance products but "breached various obligations in relation to the giving of that advice". Allianz also allegedly engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations in relation to the sale of the add-on insurance products, resulting in customers having to pay for additional insurance products "as a result of a mistaken belief in relation to the products". The joint lawyers for the plaintiffs are Johnson Winter & Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. Lawyers Weekly contacted Maurice Blackburn for comment, but it wasn't received in time for filing. [GN] ALVIN AND FRIENDS: Pagan Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Pagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Alvin and Friends, LLC, Alvin Clayton, and Gwen Clayton, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-01589-VB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for violations of the minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the wage statement and notice requirements of NYLL, the spread of hours requirement under New York State Regulation 12, and for illegally retained gratuities. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server from approximately October to December 2021. Alvin and Friends operates a restaurant in New Rochelle, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Finn Dusenbery, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (347) 492-1904 E-mail: finn@ottingerlaw.com AMAZON.COM: Lite Files Suit Over Discontinued Insurance Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA LITES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20587 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and the putative class members with a coverage compliant notice of their right to continue their health insurance benefits following a qualifying event. According to the complaint, Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Group Health and Welfare Plan, has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice of their right to continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event" under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). The Defendant purposefully omitted the requisite elements of "knowledge" or "intent" from its definition of fraud, added the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Amazon from November 2015 until 2019 as a business to business service representative. She had health, life, dental and disability insurance through Defendant's plans. Amazon.com Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Richter Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY RICHTER, JEANETAMARIE ANDERSON, NICOLE JAMES, JAMAAL JOSEPH, BRIAN LOVELESS, LORI WEBSTER-BRUNO, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, AUTOZONE STORES, INC., AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:22-cv-00047-DLC (D. Mont., March 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other benefits of employment to which they are entitled under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as they have been and/or continue to be improperly classified as exempt from overtime compensation, which has resulted in denial of compensation for their hours of work in excess of 40 hours per week. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees designated as AutoZone store managers, were paid a specified salary, and were not paid any overtime compensation even though they generally worked far more than the required 40 hours a week to entitle them to overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA. AutoZoners is a Nevada company with its principal place of business in Tennessee. Defendant AutoZone Stores, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee. AutoZone owns and operates numerous retail stores -- branded AutoZone -- selling auto parts and accessories. AutoZone stores exist throughout Montana and adjacent states. AutoZone is the parent company of and owns AutoZoners, AutoZone Stores, Inc., and AutoZone Parts. AutoZone Parts has owned and continues to own AutoZone Stores. AutoZoners has been and continues to be wholly owned by AutoZone Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin R. Graybill, Esq. Raph Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, P.C. 300 4th Street North PO Box 3586 Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 Facsimile: (406) 727-3225 E-mail: brg@silverstatelaw.net rgraybill@silverstatelaw.net - and - William A. Rossbach, Esq. ROSSBACH LAW, P.C. 401 North Washington Street Missoula, MT 59807-8988 Telephone: (406) 543-5156 Facsimile: (406) 728-8878 E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com BE TEMERARIO: Sislema Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE SISLEMA and ANTONIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BE TEMERARIO GROUP, LLC d/b/a EL TEMERARIO; BE BAMBA GROUP, LLC d/b/a LAMANO WINE BAR; LAMANO WEST VILLAGE LLC d/b/a LAMANO; LIGHT SIDE CORP. d/b/a THE BLACK ANT; L PLUS L PRODUCTIONS, LLC d/b/a OFRENDA; JORGE LUIS GUZMAN GONZALEZ, individually; and any other related entities, Case No. 1:22-cv-01720 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022) is a class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover unpaid minimum wages, and unpaid tips and gratuities. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class, were paid a regular hourly wage in check, typically at a rate of $10.00 per hour. The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate records pertaining to both their collection of, and any alleged distribution of gratuities. The Defendants also allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class, with written notice of all required information, including but not limited to their proper pay rate, their pay day, or the frequency of their pay day at all statutorily mandated times, including both at hiring and prior to any change in their respective rates of pay. Be Temerario Group LLC is in the Mexican restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 8 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 22 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. TLIS Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/talis-biomedical-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1 BIIB Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=23951&wire=1 FENC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1 -- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS) This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Talis common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 2021 initial public offering. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/talis-biomedical-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1 According to the lawsuit, documents that the Company issued in connection with its IPO failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis's Emergency Use Authorization application for Talis One COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result, Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a result, the Company's commercialization timeline would be significantly delayed; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB) BIIB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 7, 2021 - January 11, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 8, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=23951&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Biogen Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) there was a significant, undisclosed lobbying campaign between Biogen and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") that was instrumental in the decision to file and approve Aduhelm, a drug being developed to treat Alzheimer's disease; 2) the Phase III ENGAGE study demonstrated that Aduhelm failed to achieve a clinical benefit to Alzheimer's patients; 3) ENGAGE was a failed study from which Biogen concluded not to seek FDA approval for Aduhelm in 2019; and 4) defendants misled investors as to the way in which approval was achieved, that the clinical data did not support a clinical benefit by taking Aduhelm and that side-effects were dangerous and serious. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC) FENC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 28, 2021 - November 26, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 11, 2022 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fennec had not successfully remediated, and overstated its efforts to remediate, issues with the manufacturing facility of its drug product manufacturer for PEDMARK, a new compound developed to reduce the incidence of hearing loss in children undergoing chemotherapy; (ii) as a result, the Food and Drug Administration likely to approve the Resubmitted Pedmark New Drug Application ("NDA"); (iii) accordingly, the regulatory and commercial prospects of the Resubmitted Pedmark NDA were overstated; and (iv) 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] BITCONNECT: Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Brian Newar, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that victims of the Bitconnect Ponzi scheme can proceed with a class action suit by reversing a previous ruling that prohibited such a case. Bitconnect is the endlessly memed initial coin offering from 2017 that collapsed in January 2018. Appellate courts are superior courts that are used to review previously tried cases so the ruling may be reversed or confirmed. The alleged victims may now move forward with a class action case against BitConnect (BCC) and its promoters Glenn Arcaro, Ryan Maasen, Trevon James, Ryan HiIdreth and Craig Grant. There is no word yet on whether the complainants will proceed with the case. The original complainants filed suit to be compensated for damages from being defrauded by BitConnect and its promoters. The complaint says promoters "made a mockery of state and federal securities laws." Law360 wrote on Feb. 22 that the defendants claimed in the Southern District of Florida that since marketing for the project was done using online mass communications platforms, they could not be held liable for securities fraud. The defendants successfully argued that there could "only be liability when a seller directs solicitations to particular prospective buyers." By using online social media platforms, the promoters argued that they had not directly solicited the cryptocurrency to buyers. Without that direct solicitation, they argued there was no securities fraud. However, the Circuit Court decided to reverse the lower court's decision to accept that argument since there is no precedent of the Securities Act of 1933 preventing online videos from being used in fraud charges. Judge Britt C. Grant wrote for the court's panel on Feb. 18: "Because the Securities Act provides no free pass for online solicitations, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the section 12 claim." The Circuit Court's panel called the lower court's reading of the Securities Act "cramped" and said that it "makes little sense" as it would have held a person liable for soliciting a security in a personal letter, but not an internet video. David Silver, an attorney in the original case against BitConnect and its promoters tweeted on Feb. 19 "This is an incredibly important decision that will reverberate for years to come." This new precedent adds greater legal risks and responsibilities for crypto promoters who use YouTube, Twitter, and other online communications platforms to shill crypto. Judge Grant wrote, "A new means of solicitation is not any less of a solicitation." In recent years, YouTube has removed videos and shut down channels related to cryptocurrency it deems "harmful and dangerous." The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against the founders and promoters last May and received $12.6 million in cash and BTC through a settlement deal in August. Last November, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said it planned to sell the crypto it had seized from BitConnect (valued at $56 million) as potential compensatory payment for victims in future cases. [GN] BLOCKFI: Mangano Sues Over Alleged Unregistered Interest Accounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MANGANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLOCKFI, BLOCKFI, INC., BLOCKFI TRADING, LLC, BLOCKFI LENDING, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01112 (D.N.J., March 1, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people in the United States who enrolled in a BlockFi Interest Account/Crypto Interest Account, which is an unregistered security under state and federal law. Since March 4, 2019, BFI, through its affiliates Lending and Trading has been, at least in part, funding its lending operations and proprietary trading through the sale of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency interest-earning accounts. BlockFi refers to these unregistered securities as its "Crypto Interest Account" or the "BlockFi Interest Account." The Defendants allegedly did not register the BIAs with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or with the California Commissioner of Corporations. From March 4, 2019 to the present, BlockFi, a New Jersey-based financial services company and wholly owned subsidiary of BFI, has offered and sold BlockFi BIAs to investors, through which investors lend crypto assets to BlockFi in exchange for BlockFi's promise to provide a variable monthly interest payment. BlockFi generated the interest paid out to BIA investors by deploying its assets in various ways, including loans of crypto assets made to institutional and corporate borrowers, lending U.S. dollars to retail investors, and by investing in equities and futures. As of March 31, 2021, BlockFi and its affiliates held approximately $14.7 billion in BIA investor assets. As of December 8, 2021, BlockFi and its affiliates held approximately $10.4 billion in BIA investor assets, and had approximately 572,160 BIA investors, including 391,105 investors in the United States. BlockFi allegeldy allows investors to purchase the BIAs by depositing certain eligible cryptocurrencies into accounts at BlockFi. BlockFi then pools these cryptocurrencies together to fund its lending operations and proprietary trading. In exchange for investing in the BIAs, investors are promised an attractive interest rate that is paid monthly in cryptocurrency. The BIAs are not protected by Securities Investor Protection Corporation (the "SIPC") or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC"). The BIAs are subject to additional risk, compared to assets held at SIPC member broker-dealers, or assets held at banks and savings associations, almost all of which carry FDIC insurance. Nor are they registered with the SEC, the Commissioner or any other securities regulatory authority, or exempt from registration. Despite the additional risk, and lack of safeguards and regulatory oversight, as of March 31, 2021, BlockFi held the equivalent of $14.7 billion from the sale of these unregistered securities in violation of federal and state securities laws, says the suit. Plaintiff John Mangano is a citizen of the State of California and resides in Mountain View, California. Mr. Mangano opened a BIA account from Defendants in the State of California and while residing in California. Mr. Mangano therefore purchased an unregistered security from BlockFi in the form of the BIA account. BFI is a financial services company that generates revenue through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, as well as engaging in proprietary trading.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com scott@bursor.com BURT'S BEES: Cosmetics Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Bruno Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERRY BRUNO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BURT'S BEES, INC., Case No. 22STCV07599 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 2, 2022) is a class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Unfair Competition Law resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in intentionally labeling its cosmetic products with false and misleading claims that they are 100% natural, when Defendant's products contain synthetic ingredients. The cosmetic products include Overnight Intensive Lip Treatment; Lip Butter Vanilla and Clove; Lip Butter Lavender and Honey; and Lip Butter Rosemary and Lemon all with hydrogenated castor oil. By making false and misleading claims about the Products, the Defendant impaired Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and quality of products he chose to buy. Therefore, Plaintiff has been deprived of his legally-protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about his consumer products as required by law, the lawsuit says. As a result of the Defendant's alleged fraudulent labeling, Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products that did not provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for, namely that the Products would be 100% natural. The Plaintiff purchased an overnight intensive lip treatment product labeled, marketed, and sold as 100% natural, from a CVS pharmacy located at 4744 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood, California, during or about November, 2021. The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and distributes cosmetic products throughout California and the United States under brand name Burt's Bees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CANADA: Sued Over Discriminatory Underfunding of Child Welfare -------------------------------------------------------------- Sotos Class Actions, Kugler Kandestin LLP and Coupal Chauvelot S.A. have filed an application for authorization to institute a class action regarding decades of allegedly discriminatory and unlawful underfunding of child welfare and other essential services for the Inuit in Nunavik—the vast region in northern Quebec. The petitioners, Lucy Tookalook and Tanya Jones, bring this proposed class action to address the long-standing discriminatory and unlawful treatment of Inuit children, youth, and families in Nunavik by Canada and Quebec. The two governments have shared responsibility for the Inuit in northern Quebec since The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975. The application, filed in the Superior Court of Québec in Montreal, alleges that both governments have breached class members' constitutional right to equality, among other rights, by failing to provide child welfare and other essential health and social services on a level that is substantively equal to what any other Canadian child receives. These constitutional violations have taken two forms. First, youth who came into contact with the child welfare system were unnecessarily placed in state care in droves or were overlooked by the system altogether when they crucially needed protection. These twin evils stemmed from decades of callous decisions by both the provincial and federal governments not to fund, staff, support or maintain a child welfare system that was on par with what non-Inuit children receive and adapted to the realities of Nunavik. For example, these fundings decisions resulted in failures to provide basic child welfare prevention and protection, and to adjust funding of child-welfare services to account for the unique circumstances of the Inuit in Nunavik, including their inter-generational trauma, historical disadvantages, and remoteness. All of these failures occurred in ignorance of the north star in youth protection: the best interests of the children. Second, Canada and Quebec deprived Inuit children of essential health, social and other services. Public commissions have repeatedly sounded the alarm that Inuit children needing child welfare and other essential services are in a state of crisis, and face service gaps, delays and denials due to the gross underfunding in Nunavik. Instead of addressing these chronic failures, the two governments evaded responsibility, and each pointed to the other as the one with the obligation and jurisdiction to provide the service needed by the Inuit child in need. The petitioners are both survivors of the child welfare system in Nunavik. "I am taking action today because I want to bring justice to my people—my people who have been treated as less than human for decades. I want Inuit children in Nunavik to have their day in court. I want their pain and suffering to be heard, felt and repaired", said Ms. Jones. The petitioners also seek to end the discrimination and to prevent yet another generation of Inuit children from becoming lost in the cycle of an inter-generational crisis created by decades of discriminatory underfunding and neglect at the hands of the governments. "I was taken from my mother when I was born and sent thousands of miles away as a newborn to a hospital in Montreal. I was there for seven months, alone and with no support. I was then returned to Nunavik to a system that utterly abandoned me and other Inuit children in the face of heartless neglect and abuse. I don't want the same thing to happen to my kids and the next generations of Inuit in Quebec", said Ms. Tookalook. For a copy of the petitioners' application for authorization as a class action, updates, and other information, please visit: https://www.sotosclassactions.com/cases/inuit-youth-in-nunavik/ For further information: For media inquiries in English contact Mohsen Seddigh by phone at 416.572.7320 or email at mseddigh@sotos.ca; For media inquiries in French contact William Colish by phone at 514.360.8885 or email at wcolish@kklex.com. [GN] CARECUBE: Faces Class Action Over COVID Test Double-Billing ----------------------------------------------------------- Katie Honan, writing for The City, reports that a couple who was double-billed for visits to get "free" COVID tests has filed a lawsuit on Feb. 21 that could recoup millions of dollars from a Brooklyn-based physicians group. Sabine Schumacher and Linda Cunningham filed the class-action suit in Brooklyn Supreme Court against CareCube, seeking more than $10 million in damages -- for anybody who was overcharged by the company. The company, which operates 20 storefront testing sites across four boroughs, sent surprise bills starting last year to patients who thought they were getting free services, as first reported by THE CITY. THE CITY identified dozens of New Yorkers who said they received bills as high as $100 -- even if they had health insurance -- for tests that were advertised as free. CareCube billed the patients for doctors' visits and other services even though they just went in for simple nose-swab tests. Jay Filan, a 64-year-old retired librarian from Bay Ridge, had said he was told "nothing about any costs" when he was at a Bay Ridge CareCube last March. ‘Exploiting the Global Pandemic' In their suit, Schumacher and Cunningham, domestic partners who live in The Bronx, claim they were also overcharged for a test in June 2021, calling it "brazen profiteering." They were charged $450 for their tests, the couple said. They allege that the company is "exploiting the global pandemic . . . by unlawfully overcharging New Yorkers for COVID-19 tests." "We live in a poor neighborhood and are worried that CareCube will be taking advantage of our neighbors and other low-income New Yorkers who can't afford to be scammed," Cunningham said in a statement. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they have asked for a jury trial and hope other potentially fleeced customers join in the class action. "This suit will prove that CareCube engaged in a massive medical billing scheme throughout New York City," said Steven L. Wittels, a partner with Wittels McInturff Palikovic. State and Feds Eye Company The Brooklyn lawsuit comes just over a month after Attorney General Letitia James announced her office was investigating the company for the fraudulent bills. "CareCube and all COVID-19 test providers have a responsibility to be accurate and transparent in their billing process," James said in a statement at the time, encouraging anyone who felt they were defrauded to file a complaint with her office. And in an article published not long before James' Jan. 6 announcement, New York Magazine reported that CareCube had been the subject of U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny. That piece also included allegations from anonymous former company employees that CareCube intentionally exploited exemptions in federal law in order to bill for tests that are free by law in most instances, then billed both patients and insurers for the same coronavirus tests The company has performed more than 72,000 tests since March 2021, the article noted. A spokesperson for CareCube did not respond to a request for comment to this story. In a response to THE CITY's original reporting, the company said it had to "perform a pre-test assessment recognized as an office visit to ensure the patient is fit for testing and determine if the test is advisable from a medical perspective." [GN] CARING HANDS: Young Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER YOUNG, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated present and former employees of Defendant, v. CARING HANDS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ENRICHMENT EDUCATION, LLC OF VIRGINIA, Case No. 2:22-cv-00091-RBS (E.D. Va., March 1, 2022) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The Plaintiff is and hourly home health care employee of Defendant. She worked at least 62 hours per week for which she was paid at the rate of straight time. In addition, she worked an additional 20 plus hours per week for which she received no compensation. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to dozens of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who worked extensive overtime hours and were paid straight time or nothing. The Plaintiff, along with similarly situated employees who opt into this lawsuit, moves the Court for judgment against the Defendant for all unpaid half-time and overtime compensation found by the Court to be due under the FLSA; for the period of three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, through the filing of this Complaint and thereafter if applicable to additional individuals who opt into. the lawsuit says. Caring Hands and Supplementary Enrichment Education, LLC Of Virginia is a community/behavioral health agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C. 5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy, Suite D Yorktown, VA 23692 Telephone: (757) 873-1010 Facsimile: (757) 873-8375 E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com CENTENE CORP: Lopez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ Norma Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centene Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00335-DJH (D. Ariz., March 2, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint seeking recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Centene to the Plaintiff and the hourly and non-exempt workers like her, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Centene's decision to make its hourly and non-exempt workers bear the economic burden for the hack. According to the complaint, Centene's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many other companies across the United States. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Centene's organization. Allegedly in particular, hourly and non-Fair Labor Standards Act-exempt workers, like Norma Lopez, were not paid for all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. Centene could have easily implemented a system for recording and paying overtime hours to hourly and non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Centene used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying overtime to these hourly and non-exempt employees. Centene pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce, says the suit. Centene is a publicly traded and managed care company based in St. Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for government-sponsored and privately insured health care programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law CERENCE INC: Miami Retirement Trust Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERENCE INC., SANJAY DHAWAN, and MARK J. GALLENBERGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10321 (D. Mass., Feb. 25, 2022) is a federal securities class action brought by the Plaintiff against Cerence and certain of its officers, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Cerence common stock between February 8, 2021 and February 4, 2022, inclusive. Cerence was created on October 1, 2019 as the result of a tax-free spinoff from Nuance Communications, Inc. Cerence builds artificial intelligence-powered virtual assistants primarily for the automotive market. Throughout the Class Period, says the complaint, Defendants repeatedly assured investors that the Company's guidance took "into consideration the current risks and uncertainties of the semiconductor device shortages that are impacting auto production." Undisclosed to investors, however, was that the semiconductor shortage had a materially negative impact on demand for Cerence's software licenses. In sharp contrast to Defendants' representations that demand for its software licenses remained strong, Cerence was, in reality, "pulling forward" or "pre-banking" license sales. As a result, Defendants' statements about Cerence's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. The Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages due to Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. White III, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 780 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com CHAMPION PETFOODS: Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- James F. Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a recent post, we reported on the Second Circuit's affirmance of a district court order dismissing a false advertising class action based on alleged misrepresentations that amounted to nothing more than puffery. See Second Circuit -- false advertising class actions predicated on puffery are doomed to fail (Sep. 28, 2021). The Tenth Circuit recently reached a similar result in Renfro v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., --- F.4th ----, 2022 WL 453366 (10th Cir. Feb. 15, 2022). In Renfro, pet owners filed a putative class action against Champion Petfoods, claiming that statements on Champion's dog food packaging were false and misleading. The statements advertised the dog food as "Biologically Appropriate," "Trusted Everywhere," and containing "Fresh and Regional Ingredients" as well as "Ingredients We Love [From] People We Trust." 2022 WL 453366, at *1. Based on these statements, the pet owners alleged seven causes of action, including violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, unjust enrichment, and negligence. But the district court granted Champion's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, reasoning that the alleged misrepresentations were "either unactionable puffery or overly subjective and therefore not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer." Id. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, ruling that "the phrases fail to deceive or mislead reasonable consumers on any material fact." Id. These decisions by the Tenth and Second Circuits show that, although a district court deciding a Rule 12 motion must draw every inference in favor of a plaintiff, courts know puffery when they see it. [GN] CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Aug. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Who Qualifies: The settlement benefits indirect purchasers of Chicken of the Sea tuna products who purchased the products in certain states and territories between June 1, 2011, and July 1, 2015. Eligible products may have been packaged in cans or pouches smaller than 40 ounces. Potential Award: Varies Proof of Purchase Required: No Claim Deadline: 8/22/2022 Chicken of the Sea agreed to pay $20 million to resolve claims it worked with other tuna companies to artificially raise the price of tuna products, and Class Members do not need proof of purchase to make a claim. The settlement benefits indirect purchasers of Chicken of the Sea tuna products who purchased the products in certain states and territories between June 1, 2011, and July 1, 2015. Eligible products may have been packaged in cans or pouches smaller than 40 ounces. States and territories included in the settlement Class are Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Chicken of the Sea is one of the most prominent suppliers of canned tuna products and has been providing these products for over 100 years. According to the company's website, Chicken of the Sea focuses on protecting the ocean, encouraging seafood sustainability, and also providing the "freshest, best-tasting seafood the oceans have to offer." According to legal action against Chicken of the Sea and other tuna distributors, the company allegedly worked with other companies to artificially raise the cost of canned and pouch tuna products. In 2018, plaintiffs took legal action against Chicken of the Sea, StarKist, and other tuna companies in an antitrust class action lawsuit. According to the consumers, these companies violated federal antitrust law by conspiring together to fix the price of canned tuna products. As a result of the alleged antitrust agreement, both direct and indirect purchasers were allegedly forced to pay a higher price for tuna products than they would have in a fair market. The plaintiffs contend these actions caused financial damage to themselves and other purchasers. Chicken of the Sea did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these claims with three settlements totaling around $40 million. Of this total, indirect purchasers can benefit from a settlement worth $20 million. Under the terms of the settlement, indirect purchasers can collect a proportional share of the settlement fund for every 200 cans they purchased. According to the settlement website, payments are estimated to be $10.50 for every 200 cans purchased. Payments will only be distributed if they are at least $5. Although the settlement resolves Class Members' legal rights to take action against Chicken of the Sea for alleged price fixing, it does not resolve all pending claims in this multidistrict litigation. Specifically, plaintiffs and Class Members retain their claims against StarKist and Lion America -- two remaining defendants who have not settled these claims. The deadline for exclusion and objection in the settlement is May 13, 2022. The court will decide on the settlement's fairness at the final approval hearing scheduled for July 15, 2022. In order to receive a payment from the tuna price-fixing class action lawsuit, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 22, 2022. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits indirect purchasers of Chicken of the Sea tuna products who purchased the products in certain states and territories between June 1, 2011, and July 1, 2015. Eligible products may have been packaged in cans or pouches smaller than 40 ounces. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase applicable Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/22/2022 Case Name In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MDD), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Final Hearing 07/15/2022 Settlement Website TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com Claims Administrator Tuna End Purchaser Settlement c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91442 Seattle, WA 98111 info@TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com 866-615-0977 Class Counsel Fred Taylor Isquith Thomas H Burt WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Defense Counsel John Roberti ALLEN & OVERY LLP John Terzaken SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP [GN] CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bettors Sue Over Media Spirt Disqualification -------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Teague Robinson, writing for Louisville Courier Journal, reports that Medina Spirit has officially been disqualified from the 2021 Kentucky Derby win and Bob Baffert has been suspended 90 days, and Mandaloun, the runner up in the race, has officially been named the winner and will have his name placed at Churchill Downs. But those who made bets on the May 1 race want that change in finish reflected in their pockets as well. Will Nefzger, an attorney leading a class action lawsuit with 19 plaintiffs, said Medina Spirit's disqualification sets a new order of finish. Nefzger believes his clients should get paid for what are now winning tickets. "My clients all hold pari mutuel wagers that have not been paid and they are now winning wagers with the new order of finish," he said. "It now makes my clients winning wagers." The class-action lawsuit was filed and withdrawn once as a strategic move, Nefzger said, until the official disqualification decision was made. He refiled it on Feb. 21; now that the decision has been announced, he believes his clients should be paid for the winning tickets they purchased. He doesn't believe those who had winning tickets paid out to them after the Kentucky Derby should lose their money, he said. The lawsuit isn't calling for Churchill Downs to clawback that money. There are six causes on the lawsuit that include: negligence, breach of contract, Kentucky consumer protection act violation, unjust enrichment permanent injunctive relief. "We don't want a clawback, we are asking for these actual winning tickets to be paid," he said. Medina Spirit was disqualified despite attorneys for Baffert claiming that Medina Spirit absorbed the illegal betamethasone through the ointment Otomax. That didn't seem to sway things as Baffert has also been suspended 90 days and fined $7,500. Runner-up Mandaloun will become the winner of the 2021 Kentucky Derby and raise the notoriety of Louisville trainer Brad Cox. The Derby winner's purse is worth $1.86 million. Cox would also benefit from fourth-place finisher Essential Quality being moved up to third place behind trainer Doug O'Neill's Hot Rod Charlie. "Winning the Kentucky Derby is one of the most exciting achievements in sports," the Churchill Downs statement said, "and we look forward to celebrating Mandaloun on a future date in a way that is fitting of this rare distinction." Now Nefzger is just hoping his clients can benefit from the new order of finish, as well. [GN] COLOMBIAN HOUSE: Marin Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA MARIN and ANDRES FELIPE AGUDELO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COLOMBIAN HOUSE RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A COLOMBIAN HOUSE), FELIPE HOYOS, and DANIELLA JIMENEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01732 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as a waitress and a delivery worker. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to setting the tables and chairs the patio of the restaurant, unroll the carpets, setting up the tables, cutting vegetables, filling sauce containers, cleaning the bathrooms, refilling condiments, cleaning kitchen utensils, restocking the refrigerators, answering phone calls, packing deliveries, sweeping, and mopping (the "non-tipped duties"). The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. They were employed as a waitress and a delivery worker at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Colombian restaurant, located at 585 Main St., New Rochelle, NY 10801 under the name "Colombian House."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle COBRA Notice Class Action for $750,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Costco Wholesale Corp. signed a $750,000 class settlement to resolve a lawsuit claiming it sends "ominous" and legally deficient notices informing former workers of their right to keep their health insurance coverage, a Florida federal court filing shows. The deal is slated to provide net payments of about $9.72 to each of 38,818 class members, which is consistent with similar class action settlements in cases alleging violations of COBRA notice requirements, former Costco worker John Baja said in a settlement motion filed Feb. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] DEBT RECOVERY: Mangroo Sues Over Alleged Illegal Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- NARAZUDEEN MANGROO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC AND FENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Case No. CACE-22-003174 (Fla Cir., Broward Cty., March 2, 2022) seeks redress for the illegal practices of the Defendants concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act("FCCPA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff contends that he suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the Defendants. He allegedly suffered actual harm by being the target of the Defendants ' misleading debt collection communications. The Defendants are debt collectors and regularly conduct business in the State of Florida, where they specifically target Florida citizens, such as Plaintiff. Defendant Pendrick is a debt buyer after debt goes into default, and as such, a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar M. Salazar II, Esq. LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC 3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 727-8570 Facsimile: (954) 241-6857 E-mail: omar@lawlp.com claudia@lawlp.com maritza@lawlp.com E.N. HOME: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO RAMIREZ and JUAN DE LA ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E.N. HOME IMPROVEMENT INC. and ASF CONSTRUCTION & EXCAVATION CORP., and CARLOS AREVALO and ANDRE FERNANDES, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-01086 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 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. The Plaintiffs contend that they regularly worked approximately 72 hours or more per week, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was not compensated at all for his 65 hours of work at the end of his employment by Defendants. Home Improvement is a general contractor specializing in residential or commercial solar, roofing, and kitchen remodeling.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 EXALT FLAVORS: Kumar Seeks Servers' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action v. EXALT FLAVORS, LLC, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-00496 (M.D. Fla., March 1, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and misappropriated tips from Exalt Flavors, LLC pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act along with violations of Florida law. As part of their policy and routine practice, the Defendant allegedly required Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work well over 40 hours per workweek, every workweek. However, the Defendant would only pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated for 40 hours per week at their regular rate of pay. In addition, pursuant to Defendant's policies and routine practice, the Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and other class members tips that they received directly from restaurant patrons. Further, Defendant enticed and coerced Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to continue working oppressive hours for no compensation (and without receiving any tips) by promising to promote them to management positions and/or give them an ownership share in the company, says the suit. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant as a server, and then subsequently as a "server manager. During his employment, Plaintiff worked exclusively in Sarasota County. The Defendant is a restaurant group that owns and operates numerous restaurants and food-based retail stores across the states of Florida and Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq. BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A. 2023 Constitution Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34231 Telephone: (941) 923-7700 Facsimile: (941) 923-7736 E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Market Share Gain ------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg's David Azar recently filed a lawsuit for FanCentro, alleging OnlyFans and employees of a large social media company colluded to harm competing businesses and hundreds of adult influencers, destroying the livelihoods of many, to gain market share. On February 22, 2022, BBC News announced that FanCentro filed a lawsuit against OnlyFans' owner, Leonid Radvinsky, and the company which receives OnlyFans' payments, Fenix Internet LLC. The lawsuit alleges that they colluded with employees at a social media company to use computerized systems to harm any performers and other content providers who had ever linked to OnlyFans' competitors, such as through designations as a Dangerous Individual or Organization ("DIO"). This caused the content of those performers to be hashed and added to a database intended to be for terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. By favoring adult performers who only posted content on OnlyFans, the lawsuit alleges that OnlyFans was able to gain significant market share – but at the expense of performers and other businesses. However, OnlyFans says this legal claim has "no merit". For more information on the case, visit BBC News. Meanwhile, you can read more about Facebook's Dangerous Individual and Organization list, and its lack of accountability, in this article published by The Intercept. If you have more information that may be helpful to our team, you can reach our firm directly and securely through encrypted email at tips-milberg@protonmail.com. If you were affected by this malicious act, please contact our firm by completing the form above, or email potentialclients@milberg.com. For media inquiries, contact Media@milberg.com. Milberg prosecutes large class actions against some of the world's largest and most well-funded corporate defendants in sectors such as healthcare, technology, agriculture, and manufacturing. Our leading practitioners successfully represent businesses and individuals affected by unfair competition and other wrongful conduct. [GN] FRANCIS MATHEW: Daigle Files Suit in D. New Mexico -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francis Joseph Mathew, et al. The case is styled as Claudia Daigle, and all other similarly situated v. Francis J. Mathew, individually and in his official capacity as Judge at the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County; Julie J Vargas, individually and in her official capacity as Judge at the New Mexico Supreme Court, Santa Fe, New Mexico; John P Hays, individually and dba Hays & Friedman, PA, a corporation as legal representative of the Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Mark E Young, individually and officially as Covenant Compliance Officer and Architecture Coordinator, since 2009, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, INC., and employee of Home Owners Association Management Company, LLC; Greg D Colello, individually and officially as Director of the 2014 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Elan M Colello, individually and officially as Director of the 2011-2012 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.,; Gregory C Bundrick, individually and officially as Director of the 2011 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.,; Todd G Handy, individually and officially as Treasurer of the 2011 through 2014 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Lynn L Mortensen, individually and officially as Director of the 2011-2012 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Kathleen Holian, Municipality of Santa Fe and County of Santa Fe, New Mexico, retired Santa Fe County Commissioner, District 4, in her individual and official capacity; Craig D. O'Hare, Municipality of Santa Fe and County of Santa Fe, New Mexico, retired Santa Fe County Energy Programs Specialist, in his individual and official capacity; Hector Balderas, as Attorney General for the State of New Mexico; Michelle Lujan Grisham, as Governor of the State of New Mexico; Austin McFall, registered agent for the Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc., and management company, Homeowners Association Management Company (HOMECO); Ronald Allen Zacharski, Cheryl Louise Clark, Larry T Pepin, Robin Pepin, Joseph Eigner, Janet Eigner, Richard Canby, Aimee Canby, Robert M Christie, Cynde Van Patten, Scott Gerber, Barbara Gerber, Amy Bertelli, David Coulson, John E Charbonneau, Arthur Henry Kaiser, Patricia Elaine, Mark A Toveri, Sandra A Toveri, Hope Kiah, Thom Kiah, Jeffrey Brown, Emily Brown, Marshall G Smith, Carolyn S Smith, Debra Poulin, Dia Winograd, Karen Winograd, Susan Spires Ruch Trust, David McDonald, Anne Salzman, Christian L Rehr, Amanda Silverberg, Louis Gengenhuber, James L Daniel, Susan E Daniel, David M Chavez, Kenneth D Green, Lucinda O Green, James C Tate, Joyce MJ Tate, James B Smock, Carol L Smock, Michael H Roach, Louise Roach, Frank Watson Rose, IV, Kara R Duval, Skye M Goodrich, Amber Goodrich, Michael C Schneider, Mary A Schneider, Karen Yinger, Alexandra R Heath, Quentin D Collins, Melida Collins, Patrick M Mcgee Russell, Dianne E Duen, Theodore David Cho, Paul Kim Ingraham, Diana L Kelley, Ricki-Lee G Chavez, Jennifer Jehl Pruett, David Ginsberg, Meara Ginsberg, Suzanne M Shakespeare-Jones, Kimberly G Shakespeare-Jones, Katherine E Mortimer, Robert Bruen, Alice Lynne Davy, Robert J Retherford, Theresa A Swan, Ellis Pisciotaa Family Trust, Neil Freer, Ursula Freer, Brian D Woods, W Hansen Lars, Kirsten R Lars, William B Rushing, Kristen Rushing, Thomas Richard Sansom, MD Bruce A Shaffer, Larry D Eccard, Linda B Eccard, Trillian Wright Johnson, Veda Michael, Jeffrey R Sweers, Judy C Winnegar, Andrew J. Jr. Rev. Liv. Trust, Richard J Perkins, Alice J Darilek, David Hernandez, Denicia Hernandez, Bryan Tagas, Margo Spellman, Susan E Ryan, Paul L Charlo, George J Haddad, Emily C Haddad, Brien Sauchelli, Lauren E Gockley, David W Funk, Gail E Funk, Eduard F Debruyn, Linda J Debruyn, Thomas Diruggeriero, Akira S Anderson, Jamie Sarns, Native American Tribal Tradit, Emmet H Soper, Sylvi Salinas, Gareth Lewis, Linda Nehme Lewis, Peter Riggs, Ellen M Riggs, Michael Robles, Lisa Robles, Randall K Engle, Emily A Johnson, Elizabeth R Hale, Kelley K Hale, Jr, Lee Samuel Finn, Nancy M Ostiguy, Jennifer L Anderson, Judith M Lauer, Carol A Magai, Joy Berkley, Tax Preparer, William York, Laurel Gladden, Kenneth Simonson, Martha Simonson, Co-Trustees; Magdelyn Rhiannon Brennan, Jennifer M Porter, Amy L Fredericks, Jennifer Clement, Christopher R Bradley, Christine J Bradley, David M Sammeth, Clyde Mueller, Elizabeth L Mueller, Katherine A Kelley, Matthew M Garcia, Justine R Garcia, John W Bing, Catherine Mercer, John M Sultana, Meghan E Sultana, et al.; Franklin Ellis Kilmer, Frank G Jameson, Jr., Julia C Jameson, Roger Beirig, Lisa Marie Beirig, Elizabeth Glenn, individually as Owners similarly situated in the Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc. in the Subdivision of Eldorado at Santa Fe, Case No. 1:22-cv-00147-JHR (D.N.M., Feb. 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Francis Joseph Mathew is a district court judge in the First Judicial District of New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Certain Claims in Cadillac Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a judge overseeing a class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors over issues with its Cadillac CUE system has dismissed certain claims from plaintiffs, but will allow others to proceed. This lawsuit was originally filed against GM in the U.S. District for Southern California back in 2019 by owners of 2013 to 2017 model year Cadillac vehicles equipped with its CUE infotainment system. Plaintiffs alleged cars equipped with Cadillac CUE have touchscreens that are prone to delaminating and cracking, creating a "spider web" appearance on the screen, among other design flaws. According to Car Complaints, the judge overseeing this proceeding, Judge Linda Lopez, has allowed plaintiffs to amend and re-file their lawsuit against GM three different times. This has led to a handful of the claims against GM being dropped, including injunctive claims that would have forced GM to remove and replace their CUE Systems with a suitable alternative product and perform a recall and repair on affected vehicles. The judge has also dismissed a claim against GM that would have prevented it from selling or leasing affected Cadillac vehicles and dismissed further claims related to unjust enrichment. While the judge agreed to dismiss some claims against GM, she said plaintiffs can try to compel GM to "reform its warranty to cover the injury alleged and to notify all Class Members that such warranty has been reformed," Car Complaints notes. She also refused to dismiss an implied warranty of merchantability claim that was in accordance with California Commercial Code section 2314. As we noted in a previous article, this class action lawsuit involves owners of the following Cadillac models: 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS 2013-2017 Cadillac SRX 2013-2017 Cadillac XTS 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS 2014-2017 Cadillac ELR 2014-2017 Cadillac Escalade We'll provide an update on this lawsuit as it proceeds through U.S. District Court in California. [GN] GLOBAL PERSONALS: Ulery Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL PERSONALS, LLC d/b/a SexyFans, Case No. 44795436 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., March 1, 2022) is class action against the Defendant for its violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and the Do-Not-Call Registry provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the FTSA and TCPA, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters. The Defendant allegedly uses a business model whereby it promotes its online dating services that assist or connect individuals to "hook up" with locals in their community and "share premium explicit pics and videos while meeting people who love sex," in part, by blast sending unsolicited text messages to wireless cell phone users, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising of its services, including at least unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff, says the suit. The Plaintiff has been receiving these unsolicited text messages since at least as early as January 26, 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. 18Steven N. Saul, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com SSaul@JusticeEarned.com SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 Southeast 10 th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com GWG HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 19 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GWG Holdings, Inc. ("GWGH" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GWGH) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWGH L Bonds directly in GWGH's L Bond Offering pursuant to the June 3, 2020 Registration Statement. Investors have until April 19, 2022, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On January 18, 2022, GWG disclosed that its Annual Report will likely be filed "later than the March 31, 2022 due date" because of "the recently disclosed decision of its independent registered public accounting firm to decline to stand for reappointment." The Company further disclosed that it "did not make the January 15, 2022 interest payment of approximately $10.35 million and principal payments of approximately $3.25 million with respect to its L Bonds" product and that it elected to "voluntarily suspend its L Bonds sales effective as of January 10, 2022." On this news, GWG's stock price fell $2.17 per share, or 27.7%, to close at $5.65 per share on January 18, 2022. Then, on January 27, 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that GWG received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting documents. The article also stated that an attorney representing multiple L Bonds investors said his clients are retail investors who bought the bonds after hearing the products were safe and would offer a comfortable income stream for their retirement, but that "they were shocked to learn that their money was used to pay old investors while the company has been under SEC investigation." Following this news, GWG's stock dropped over 20% during intraday trading on January 27, 2022. If you purchased or otherwise acquired GWGH shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] HCL AMERICA: Geraci Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSS GERACI on behalf of himself, others similarly situated, and of the general public v. HCL AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 220V394848 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 2, 2022) is a representative action seeking recovery of penalties under the California Labor Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The complaint asserts that the Defendant has maintained uniform policies that violate the wage and hour rights of Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees. This action is brought on behalf 0f Plaintiff and all other Aggrieved Employees of Defendant and/or does who worked a shift of at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked four hours without receiving a 10 minute net rest break were not paid compensation for all time worked at the straight or overtime rate; were not reimbursed for business expenses; and, were not provided paid sick days and provided written notice setting forth the amount of paid sick leave available. The Defendant offers computer programming solutions. The Defendant provides informational technology, infrastructure management, software engineering, data center, and application development services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Mara, Esq. Vecchi, Esq. Joana Ghoche, Esq MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Liberal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marcelin Liberal, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Memorial Regional Hospital South Auxiliary, Inc., Case No. 0:22-cv-60450-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group -- https://www.healthcarerevenuerecoverygroup.com/ -- also known as HRRG is a legitimate debt collection agency, specializing in the collection of medical debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com HY-VEE INC: Fiduciaries Mismanage 401(K) Plan, Rodriguez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ THERESA L. RODRIGUEZ, ZACHARY M. SHANK, MICHAEL P. MANSBERGER, HEIDI L. DETRA and TIM CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HY-VEE, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HY-VEE, INC., THE HY-VEE AND AFFILIATES 401(K) PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 4:22-cv-00072-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, March 1, 2022) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Hy-Vee and Affiliates 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. section 1002(21)(A), breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and administration costs. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $1.6 billion dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2020 and 2019, the Plan had over $2.1 billion dollars and $2 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The September 27, 2020 Report of Independent Auditor of the Hy-Vee and Affiliates 401(k) Plan ("2020 Auditor Report"), says the suit. The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments. Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the suit added. The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1104. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeannette M. Keller, Esq. BOWMAN, DEPREE AND MURPHY P.O. Box 126 West Liberty, Iowa 52776 Telephone: (319) 541-2079 Facsimile: (563) 333-2499 E-mail: keller.ic.office@gmail.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over False Concealed Carry Course ------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that Wood River attorney Thomas Maag filed a class action against a concealed carry class instructor for allegedly failing to meet the required criteria and distributing false certificates of completion. Maag, of Maag Law Firm LLC, filed the class action on behalf of plaintiff Lucinda Klotz on Feb. 9 in the Madison County Circuit Court against defendant Terry Lumma. The proposed class includes anyone who paid Lumma between Jan. 1, 2018, and Jan. 1, 2022, "for an Illinois concealed carry course, took said course, and received a purported training certificate purporting to indicate training, in accordance with Illinois law for a concealed carry license in Illinois." According to the three-page complaint, Lumma was an Illinois State Police-certified concealed carry instructor. Lumma was allegedly authorized to teach classes necessary to obtain an Illinois concealed carry license. Klotz claims Lumma represented to her and each member of his classes that the course was lawful and that completing it would satisfy the training requirement to obtain the concealed carry license. The suit states that well over 100 individuals each paid approximately $120 for the 16-hour course. "Defendant lied [to] his customers," Maag wrote, "and failed to include as part of the course either the correct number of prescribed hours of training, the requisite shooting qualifications, or both." Upon completion of the class, Klotz claims the members were presented with a false certificate indicating they had taken a legally compliant course. "In truth in fact, the certificates were lies, as the courses were not legally compliant, and defendant actually knew it and actually intended for his customers to actually rely on his deception," he wrote. The suit states that Lumma was charged with providing a false training certificate in Macoupin County. He has allegedly pleaded guilty to the charge and has been convicted. Therefore, Lumma is estopped from denying liability, Maag argues. Klotz seeks a judgment in excess of $50,000, requests actual damages, disgorgement of funds paid, treble damages, attorney's fees and court costs. Madison County Circuit Court case number 22-LA-182 [GN] JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: ADA Suit Filed in N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson County, New York, et al. The case is styled as M.C., T.G., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Jefferson County, New York; Colleen M. O'Neill, as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, New York; Brian R. McDermott, as the Undersheriff of Jefferson County; Mark Wilson, as the Facility Administrator of Jefferson County Correctional Facility; Case No. 6:22-cv-00190-DNH-ATB (N.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jefferson County -- https://co.jefferson.ny.us/ -- is a county on the northern border of the U.S. state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Antony P. F. Gemmell, Esq. Molly Biklen, Esq. Terry Ding, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 607-3320 Email: agemmell@nyclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.org tding@nyclu.org KANKESHWAR LLC: Moronta Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ENCARNACION C. MORONTA, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. KANKESHWAR, LLC d/b/a YANKEE CLIPPER MOTOR INN, and BARRY PATEL, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-01022 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) is a civil action for damages and other redress over Defendants' willful violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay proper overtime wages and failing to provide accurate wage notices and statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper from December 2009 through the present. Kankeshwar, LLC, d/b/a Yankee Clipper Motor Inn, is a New York limited liability company that operates a Nassau County-based motel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Petretta, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 KOCH FOODS: Southern AgCredit Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Southern AgCredit, ACA v. Koch Foods, Inc., Koch Meat Co., Inc., Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters, Myles B. Weaver, Melissa Weaver, Marc McEntire, Karen McEntire, Mitchell Mason, all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:21-mc-00782 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on Feb. 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-mc-00002-RAW to the proceeding. Koch Foods -- https://kochfoods.com/ -- is a food processor and distributor in Park Ridge, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Craig Kimball, Esq. Caroline B. Smith, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP-Ridgeland P. O. Box 6010 1020 Highland Colony Pkwy., Ste. 1400 (39157) Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010 Phone: (601) 985-4420 Fax: (601) 985-4500 The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC - Washington 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 559-9745 - and - Jennifer Graham Hall, Esq. Scott W. Pedigo, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC - Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 Phone: (601) 351-2400 Fax: (601) 351-2424 Email: spedigo@bakerdonelson.com - and - John Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM AND RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499 A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Phone: (662) 673-0091 KOSE AMERICA: Hiatt Files Suit in C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kose America, Inc. The case is styled as Ashely Hiatt, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kose America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01044-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Feb. 15, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Injunction Against Fraud. Kose -- https://kose-usa.com/ -- is a Japanese multinational personal care company, whose products include cosmetics, skin care, and hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel W. Craig, Esq. DANIEL W. CRAIG, P.C. 6942 Kingsbury Boulevard University City, MO 63130 Phone: (314) 297-8385 Email: dan@donelonpc.com - and - Thomas Michael Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M RYAN PC 35 E Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 726-3400 Fax: (312) 782-4519 Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and - Brendan John Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 221-7100 Email: brendan@donelonpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 569-5500 Fax: (215) 832-5553 Email: rosenthal-j@blankrome.com - and - Amanda M. Noonan, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60647 Phone: (312) 776-2537 Fax: (312) 896-9181 Email: amanda.noonan@blankrome.com LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Hine Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nicole Hine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LendingClub Corporation, Case No. 21CI04943 was removed from the Westmoreland County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 28, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00362-CRE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. LendingClub -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- is a peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramovitz, Esq. 1034 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15203 Phone: (412) 391-4305 Fax: (412) 391-1789 Email: kevdefends@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Victoria D. Summerfield, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 501 Grant Street, Suite 300 Union Trust Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 454-5033 Fax: (412) 281-0717 Email: victoria.summerfield@troutman.com LGSTX DISTRIBUTION: Plane Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jermaine Plane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LGSTX DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2022LA000168 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb. 15, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards – which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised – biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and Obtain consent from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA. The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois. LGSTX Distribution Services, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with places of business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com plesko@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf.com LISPENARD FISH: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lispenard Fish LLC, et al. The case is styled as Martha Olivia Villanueva Lopez, Martha Olivia Villanueva Lopez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lispenard Fish LLC doing business as: Two Wheels, Jonathan Chong, Jonathan Vu, Case No. 1:22-cv-01707 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Lispenard Fish LLC is licensed liquor authority in the county of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL P.C. 60 East 42nd Street #4510 New York, NY 10128 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: catalina@csm-legal.com MANHATTAN BEER: Wittels McInturff Files Suit Over Illegal Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armonk, New York-based law firm Wittels McInturff Palikovic (WMP) on Feb. 22 filed a class action lawsuit in New York Federal Court to recover tens of millions of dollars for consumers victimized by Manhattan Beer's illegal billing scheme. The suit describes how the beer giant boosts profits by adding hidden surcharges to invoices for top-selling brands like Corona, Coors, and Mike's Hard Lemonade. Specifically, the company uses deceptive invoices to dupe small businesses into paying bottle deposit charges that are higher than what the law allows. Adding insult to injury, the lawsuit alleges that the beer giant only surcharges its smaller mom and pop customers but not larger customers like supermarket chains. "Manhattan Beer's CEO Simon Bergson likes to boast that his company provides 'best-in-class service' to its customers," says lead lawyer Steven L. Wittels. "But you can't be best if you rip off your customers by collecting millions a year in sham bottle deposit charges," he adds. "This isn't the first time Manhattan Beer has been caught red-handed hurting the little guy," continues partner J. Burkett McInturff. "A Federal judge recently ruled that Manhattan Beer makes illegal deductions from its workers' wages in another class action our firm brought against the company." With over one billion dollars in annual revenue, and sales of more than 45 million cases of beer and hard beverages a year, the millions Manhattan Beer reaps from its bottle deposit scam translates to even higher profits for company executives. "Let's just say that's a lot of beer money," adds lead class lawyer Steven L. Wittels, "and the small businesses Manhattan Beer stole it from would like it back." A copy of the Class Action Complaint is posted on the firm website wittelslaw.com and can be obtained by contacting Ethan Roman: edr@wittelslaw.com The plaintiffs' legal team, Steven L. Wittels, J. Burkett McInturff, and Ethan D. Roman, has requested a jury trial. About Wittels McInturff Palikovic Steven L. Wittels, named a "Super Lawyer" nine years running (2013-21) for his class action litigation success, is a nationally recognized class action attorney who concentrates on consumer fraud, employment, civil rights and general public interest cases, representing plaintiffs to fight consumer fraud, discrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, mass torts, and other wrongs. Mr. Wittels was a lead trial counsel in the largest employment class action ever tried to verdict in New York -- which resulted in a $253 million jury award against Novartis. J. Burkett McInturff is also a powerhouse in the class action arena, having recovered more than $100 million for his clients in the past four years. Contact: Steven L. Wittels slw@wittelslaw.com, (914) 319-9945 J. Burkett McInturff jbm@wittelslaw.com, (910) 476-7253 [GN] MANI.ME INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mani.Me, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mani.Me, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01662-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ManiMe -- https://manime.co/ -- is a beauty-tech company that delivers fitted and ready-to-wear manicures made with 3D scanning technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Amer Files Suit in D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Review Institute of America. The case is styled as Ahmed Amer, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Review Institute of America, Case No. 2:22-cv-00132-DAK (D. Utah, Feb. 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Medical Review Institute of America (MRIoA) -- https://www.mrioa.com/ -- provides medical peer review services and resources for clients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Alan Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 321 N Mall Dr., Ste. R108 St. George, UT 84790 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: jason@kazlg.com MICHAEL MONTALVO: Celluci Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Celluci, Putative Class Representative and those similarly situated v. Michael Montalvo, Case No. 6:21-cv-02175 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 1, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-40018-TSH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adriana Contartese, Esq. P.O. Box 550216 N. Waltham, MA 02455 Phone: (617) 268-3557 Email: adriana911@juno.com The Defendant is represented by: David B. Chaffin, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 101 Arch Street, Suite 1930 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 748-5200 Fax: (617) 748-5201 Email: chaffind@whiteandwilliams.com MIDAS PROPERTY: Zerafa Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ZERAFA, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. MIDAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP., MIDAS MANAGEMENT ASSOC. INC., THE HERKIMER EXECUTIVE HOUSE, INC., 29-33 CONVENT AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, MICHAEL PADERNACHT, DANIEL PADERNACHT, CHRISTOPHER LIM, GERARD KARLEN, and NICHOLAS CASUCCI, Case No. 1:22-cv-01755 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that throughout his employment, despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times the minimum wage or his regular rate of pay, whichever is greater, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt superintendent and laborer from on or about August 17, 2017 through on or about September 9, 2021. The Defendants manage fifty or more properties, including rental, cooperative and condominium apartment buildings, in and around New York City, including within Manhattan and the Bronx.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 MORGAN STANLEY: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you are a former or current Morgan Stanley client who was sent a data breach notice letter in July 2020 and/or June 2021 notifying you that your Personal Information may have been compromised in Data Security Incidents, you may be eligible for benefits from this class action Settlement. A Settlement has been reached with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC ("Morgan Stanley" or "Defendant") in a class action lawsuit regarding the decommissioning or retiring of information technology ("IT") equipment that contained client data that occurred in 2016 and 2019 ("the Data Security Incidents"). Morgan Stanley issued notices to customers regarding the Data Security Incidents in July 2020 and/or June 2021. The Settlement, if approved, would create a fund of $60 million, which will be used to provide substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members including at least 24-months of fraud insurance coverage, reimbursement to the members of the Settlement Class who file a valid claim for out-of-pocket losses and lost time researching and remedying the effects of the Data Security Incidents, as well as to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and a service award for each of the named Plaintiffs. In addition, Morgan Stanley will hire a third party to work for a period of 12 months to attempt to locate and retrieve additional IT devices which have been sold to third parties. Morgan Stanley will also separately pay reasonable costs of notice and administration of the Settlement. The lawsuit asserts claims against Morgan Stanley relating to the Data Security Incidents. Plaintiffs allege that in 2016 and 2019, Morgan Stanley failed to properly dispose of certain IT assets and that, as a result, unauthorized third parties may have gained access to Morgan Stanley's clients' private information, including, but not limited to, names, work and home addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, income, asset value, asset holding information, passport information, telephone numbers, dates of birth and other personal information (collectively, "PII"). Some of these devices that may contain customer PII were sold on the internet and/or remain unaccounted for. Morgan Stanley denies all the claims, denies any liability whatsoever, and believes that no member of the Settlement Class, including Plaintiffs, has sustained any damages or injuries due to the Data Security Incidents. The Settlement Class includes all individuals with existing or closed Morgan Stanley accounts established in the United States who received the notice letters sent by Morgan Stanley regarding the Data Security Incidents in July 2020 and/or June 2021. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you should have received a Settlement notice from the Settlement Administrator in the mail or by email. That Notice includes a unique code for you to verify your identity to receive certain Settlement benefits. If for some reason you have not received a unique code, but believe you are a Settlement Class Member, please call 1-855-604-1744 (Toll-Free) to verify your identity and receive further information. Your Legal Rights and Options in This Settlement Submit a Claim Form Postmarked by June 2, 2022 This is the only way to receive a monetary payment for losses suffered as a result of the Data Security Incidents. You can file a claim by filing online here, downloading a copy of the Claim Form from the Documents page and mailing it in, or you may call 1-855-604-1744 (Toll-Free) and ask that a Claim Form be mailed to you. For detailed information on how to submit a Claim Form, see FAQ 9. Ask to be Excluded from the Settlement Postmarked by May 3, 2022 You will not receive a payment or any other Settlement benefits, but you will retain the right to bring your own action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents. This is the only option that allows you to bring a separate action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents. For detailed information on how to exclude yourself from the Settlement, see FAQ 15. Object to the Settlement Postmarked by May 3, 2022 You may write to the Court about why you do not like the Settlement. You may also write the Court about why you support the Settlement. For detailed information on how to object to or comment on the Settlement, see FAQ 18. Go to the Final Approval Hearing June 8, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET You may ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement. If you wish to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must make a request to do so in your written objection or comment. Do Nothing If you do nothing, you will not get a monetary payment from this Settlement. If the Court grants final approval, you will be entitled to enroll in Aura's Financial Shield Services for a period of at least 24 months from the Effective Date of the Settlement, which will provide broad fraud insurance coverage. You will give up rights to submit a claim in this Settlement or to bring a separate action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents.[GN] NELNET INC: Maxwell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ciara T. Maxwell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nelnet, Inc., John Does 1 - 10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00049-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nelnet, Inc. -- https://www.nelnet.com/ -- is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the administration and repayment of student loans and education financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com NOOM INC: Settles Subscription Class Action for $56 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Hunton Andrews Kurth's Privacy and Cybersecurity, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on February 14, 2022, Noom Inc., a popular weight loss and fitness app, agreed to pay $56 million, and provide an additional $6 million in subscription credits to settle a putative class action in New York federal court. The class is seeking conditional certification and has urged the court to preliminarily approve the settlement. The suit was filed in May 2020 when a group of Noom users alleged that Noom "actively misrepresents and/or fails to accurately disclose the true characteristics of its trial period, its automatic enrollment policy, and the actual steps customer need to follow in attempting to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic enrollment." More specifically, users alleged that Noom engaged in an unlawful auto-renewal subscription business model by luring customers in with the opportunity to "try" its programs, then imposing significant barriers to the cancellation process (e.g., only allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions through their virtual coach), resulting in the customers paying a nonrefundable advance lump-sum payment for up to eight (8) months at a time. According to the proposed settlement, Noom will have to substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, as well as require customers to take a separate action (e.g., check box or digital signature) to accept auto-renewal, and provide customers a button on the customer's account page for easier cancellation. Regulators at the federal and state level have recently made clear their focus on enforcement actions against "dark patterns." We previously summarized the FTC's enforcement policy statement from October 2021 warning companies against using dark patterns that trick consumers into subscription services. More recently, several state attorneys general (e.g., in Indiana, Texas, the District of Columbia, and Washington State) made announcements regarding their commitment to ramp up enforcement work on "dark patterns" that are used to ascertain consumers' location data.[GN] NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Prizer Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alix Prizer, Jason Sims, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. North Broward Hospital District doing business as: Broward Health, Case No. 062022CA000537 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 25, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60422-WPD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. North Broward Health -- https://www.browardhealth.org/ -- formally the North Broward Hospital District, is one of the 10 largest public health systems in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julie Braman Kane, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351 Phone: (305) 476-7400 Fax: 476-7444 Email: julie@colson.com - and - John Austin Moore, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: moore@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com The Defendant is represented by: Danna Khawam, Esq. Nina Christine Welch, Esq. Peter Ronai Goldman, Esq. NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL 100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 745-5244 Email: danna.khawam@nelsonmullins.com nina.welch@nelsonmullins.com - and - Mark L. Krotoski, Esq. Phillip J. Wiese, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 843-4000 Email: mark.krotoski@morganlewis.com phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com peter.Goldman@nelsonmullins.com NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Hears Settlement Agreement in DMV Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Doyle, writing for Fox 8, reports that a federal judge on Feb. 22 heard a settlement agreement that could restore driver's licenses to tens of thousands of North Carolinians. The settlement presented to Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina proposed to end a 4-year-old class-action lawsuit brought by a group of drivers who had lost their licenses for failure to pay traffic fines within a specific time frame some did not know. The American Civil Liberties Union and other parties and the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles proposed this agreement as an option to end Johnson v. Jessup, which focuses on the revocation of licenses for drivers who don't pay all fines and fees within the required 40 days and on the process by which the DMV communicates with those motorists. The ACLU said in a release after the hearing that the agreement with the DMV would: -- Require the DMV to provide a special notice to tens of thousands of drivers with a revoked license that informs them how they can seek reinstatement of their licenses in state courts. -- Require the DMV to revise future notices to include information on how a driver can petition and demonstrate to the court an inability to pay a traffic-related fine or cost before revoking the license. -- Require the DMV to pay for an informational website about preventing or removing a license suspension for non-payment from a person's record. -- Require the DMV-funded website to provide pro bono legal resources that may be available for those seeking to avoid license revocation or for removal of a revocation from their records. 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. Attorneys for the NC DMV had 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. Torre Jessup, then commissioner of the NCDMV, was named as the defendant. The suit cited 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. WGHP reached out to NC DMV for a comment on the settlement agreement. In a statement issued after the hearing, the organizations representing the plaintiffs had this to say: "We appreciate the court's consideration of this settlement. We are hopeful that we can soon end the practice of revoking people's drivers' licenses solely because they are not wealthy, a practice that has disproportionately affected people and communities of color. For too long, the poverty-based practice of revoking driver's licenses has resulted in tens of thousands of North Carolinians having to decide between providing for their families and losing their ability to drive, which is often essential for employment, accessing healthcare, buying groceries, and more. "We thank the court for considering the settlement brought forth by the plaintiffs and the DMV that would provide a path forward for many of the North Carolinians who have been harmed by this practice." 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. [GN] NYK LINE: UK Court Allows Price-Fixing Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Safety4Sea reports that a class action against car carriers who fixed prices can go ahead, a UK court ruled. The claim seeks compensation for UK motorists overcharged for vehicle deliveries between 2006 and 2012. More specifically, London's Competition Appeal Tribunal has given the green light to a class action to claim against the same five shipping companies. Motorists who bought or leased a new car between October 2006 and September 2015 are automatically included in the claim, which is seeking damages worth around GBP150m ($203m). Car carriers have been hit by fines across the globe in recent years. In fact, a new working group of international competition authorities has put companies involved in global supply chains on notice not to collude. The working group is made up of competition authorities from the "Five Eyes" nations: The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) The United States Department of Justice The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission The Canadian Competition Bureau The New Zealand Commerce Commission. It will meet regularly to develop and share intelligence to detect and investigate suspected anti-competitive behaviour and collusion, using existing international cooperation tools. The 5 competition authorities are making co-ordinated statements putting firms on notice that those attempting to use supply chain disruptions as a cover for illegal anticompetitive conduct, including collusion, will face the full force of the law. Furthermore, three major Ro-Ro operators have been fined by the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) for forming a price fixing cartel. This cartel regards to increase in fares for vehicle transportation via Ro-Ro vessels between Langkawi and Kuala Perlis and vice versa. Besides the three operators, two other related enterprises were held responsible for the same conduct. India has also fined several major Japanese car carrier companies, finding them guilty for violations of India's Competition Act, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements including cartels. The CCI entered its final order against NYK Line, K-Line, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, and Nissan Motor Car Carrier Company for having created and operated a cartel affecting the maritime motor vehicle transport services operated on multiple trade routes for original equipment manufacturers. [GN] OCWEN LOAN: Settles Privacy Class Action for $1.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Flavia Furlan Nunes, writing for Housing Wire, reports that Nonbank mortgage servicer Ocwen agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit regarding alleged phone conversations recorded without clients' consent. Plaintiff Gregory Franklin filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2018. He claimed that the company violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act by recording outgoing calls to his cell phone without authorization. The class action affects all customers in California whose cellular calls with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC were recorded in November 2015. The company will deposit the money in a settlement fund to pay for the settlement relief, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The class action lawsuit can reach 37,031 clients, represented by the law firm Kazerouni Law Group, APC. As the number of valid claims increases, each claimant's payment will decrease accordingly. The settlement included that Ocwen agreed to the terms of the agreement without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. HousingWire sent a message to the company seeking comment but did not immediately receive an answer. Franklin said he fell behind on his mortgage payments and, between 2011 and 2015, received numerous phone calls from Ocwen, who was servicing his mortgage, to collect the payments. But he alleged that, on some occasions, the company did not tell him the phone call was being recorded. Also, the servicer informed him sometimes about the recording only after he provided personal and account information. Under California law, clients consent to the audio recording if they receive advisement at the outset of the call that it may be recorded. According to the lawsuit, Franklin reasonably expected that the telephone conversations would not be recorded due to the private subject matter discussed. In this case, his financial situation. Franklin will receive up to $3,000 from the settlement fund for his efforts in bringing the lawsuit. On March 3, he will move the court for an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. According to Inside Mortgage Finance, Ocwen had a $150 billion servicing portfolio in the fourth quarter of 2021, a year-over-year increase of 147%. The company has been a target of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Nearly a year after a federal judge dismissed the CFPB's mortgage servicing misconduct suit against Ocwen Financial Corp., the watchdog agency moved in early February to overturn the decision. In 2013, the CFPB accused Ocwen of "engaging in significant and systematic misconduct." The accusations were resolved with a consent order issued December 17, 2013, shielding the servicer from future actions arising from the alleged practices up to that point. Ocwen also agreed to pay $2 billion in consumer relief as part of the settlement. But in 2017 the CFPB announced that it was suing Ocwen for "failing borrowers at every stage of the mortgage servicing process." The CFPB's lawsuit alleged that Ocwen costs borrowers' money, and in some cases, their homes, due to years of "widespread errors, shortcuts, and runarounds" dating back to January 2014. Last March, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, in Florida's Southern District in West Palm Beach, ruled that most of the CFPB's claims were blocked because of a 2013 settlement between Ocwen, the bureau, authorities in 49 states, and the District of Columbia. During oral arguments in Miami before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the CFPB argued that the consent agreement from 2013 did not excuse the mortgage servicer from future violations and that Ocwen is on the hook for alleged wrongdoings. [GN] PAYPAL INC: Faces Vidaurre Suit Over Deceptive "Pay in 4" Service ----------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE VIDAURRE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYPAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01283-VKD (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2022) is lawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated PayPal customers who have been deceived into using PayPal's buy now, pay later service by the company's misrepresentations and omissions, in marketing materials, regarding the true operation and risks of the service. According to the complaint, PayPal's "Pay in 4" service specifically targets poor consumers and those struggling to make ends meet on a week-to-week basis. This group is its core constituency. To that group, PayPal purports to offer a solution to cash-strapped consumers: PayPal prominently markets Pay in 4 as a service that allows users to pay for purchases at a later date, with no interest, no fees and no hassle. These representations are false. In fact, there are huge, undisclosed fees and interest associated with using the service. PayPal's services thus cause unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff to incur significant overdraft and NSF fees on their linked bank accounts, says the suit. In its rush to tout itself as convenient, simple, automatic, and free, PayPal does not disclose that overdraft and NSF fees are a likely and devastating consequence of the use of its service. No reasonable consumer would run this risk, the suit added. Had Plaintiff and the Class members known of the true operation and risks of the PayPal Pay in 4 service, they would not have used the PayPal service. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by PayPal's practices. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, the putative Class, and the general public. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general public to prevent PayPal from continuing to engage in its illegal practices. PayPal is an American multinational financial technology company operating an online payments system in the majority of countries that support online money transfers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. 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 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com PEPSICO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------ David Collins, writing for Law Street, reports that Joshua Epps filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New York against PepsiCo Inc. and Quail Mountain Coffee & Vending for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for purportedly incessant automated telemarketing. The complaint began by citing that, by enacting the TCPA, Congress declared that "automated and prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call." According to the plaintiff, on February 9 and on numerous other days, the defendants placed "numerous" telemarketing calls to Epps that were "using an artificial or prerecorded voice." The plaintiff alleged that this constitutes a nuisance and an invasion of privacy. He believed that these acts were willful and directed by PepsiCo and that the defendants' conduct will continue to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the putative class unless injunctive relief is enacted. Since the TCPA states that it is unlawful to "initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party," the plaintiff claimed that this constitutes a TCPA violation. Furthermore, the plaintiff reiterated that he did not consent to receive any calls from PepsiCo for more Pepsi products and that no effort was made to obtain his consent. Thus the TCPA states that he is entitled to $500 per phone call received, and since the calls were willfully made, the plaintiff and putative class are entitled to treble damages up to $1500 per call. The plaintiff is seeking class certification, damages and treble damages awarded under the TCPA, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief. The plaintiff is represented by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. [GN] PROGRESSIVE MAX: Verardo Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Max Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Verardo, Lori Lippa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01714 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Progressive Max Insurance Company -- https://www.progressivecommercial.com/ -- offers insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. PULSE BIOSCIENCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Pulse Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLSE) between January 12, 2021 through February 7, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 18, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Pulse 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 Pulse class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3409 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 April 18, 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. 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) that Pulse's investigational device exemption ("IDE") study evaluating the use of the CellFX System to treat sebaceous hyperplasia lesions failed to meet its primary endpoints; (2) that, as a result, there was a substantial risk that the FDA would reject Pulse's 510(k) submission seeking to expand the label for the CellFX System to treat sebaceous hyperplasia lesions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Pulse action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3409 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.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] QUALITY MODULAR: Matos Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- ROMERO AZEVEDO MATOS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. QUALITY MODULAR SERVICES, LLC, ARNOLD SOBRAL, and HELDER J. PEDROSA, SR., Case No. 2:22-cv-01144 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $15.00 per hour at the start of his employment and $19.00 per hour when his employment with Defendants terminated. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or September 2018 to October 31, 2021. The Defendants install portable office units and temporary work spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com RANDHURST DELI: Rizzo Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Rizzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RANDHURST DELI, INC., Case No. 2022LA000167 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb. 15, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Unlike ID badges or time cards – which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised – biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and Obtain consent from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA. The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois. Randhurst Deli, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with places of business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com plesko@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf.com SAFEMOON LLC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Promotions, Tokenomics --------------------------------------------------------------- Brenden Rearick, writing for InvestorPlace, reports that SafeMoon (SFM-USD) is a hot topic across the crypto space today, and not for good reason. Rather, a SafeMoon class-action lawsuit is being levied by holders who say the project duped them. Nearly one full year into the project's existence, SafeMoon is now faced with more adversity than ever before, and investors are interested to see how the crypto fairs. Since its founding in March 2021, SafeMoon has been a polarizing altcoin. Scam allegations have followed the project from some of its earliest moments. Even with its V2 rebrand, which retired the SAFEMOON token and launched the SFM crypto, its price has been rocky. And now, SafeMoon is facing further reckoning. The new lawsuit against the project questions developers over their relationships with celebrity spokespeople. Here's what you need to know. SafeMoon Class Action Lawsuit Clouds Celebrity Endorsements The SafeMoon class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 17. The suit targets SafeMoon LLC and its various executives such as founder and CEO John Karony. However, it also targets YouTubers Jake Paul and Ben Phillips, as well as musicians Soulja Boy, Nick Carter and Lil Yachty. These celebrities all tweeted various promotions of SafeMoon at one point or another. These tweets also typically preceded gains in SAFEMOON's value. These tweets, the suit alleges, are misleading promotions about how much a SafeMoon investment can actually yield. As such, the suit asserts that the project is a Ponzi scheme. Allegedly, these celebrities then completed a "slow rug pull," effectively slowly selling off their assets over time so as not to alert the victims of the scam. Complaints in the lawsuit don't limit themselves to just celebrity endorsements. Plaintiffs also chastise SafeMoon's tactic of making guides that advise investors to buy and hold, and discouraging selling. They also target the tokenomics on which SafeMoon is built for being unfair to holders. The suit says the selling penalties are "a system that penalizes buyers for anything but holding their tokens." As these accusations surface, SFM is seeing a downturn in price. As of this afternoon, SFM is losing over 6%. Trading volume, however, is trending up by nearly 12%. [GN] SALT MEDITERRANEAN: Escobar Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salt Mediterranean LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Bahena Escobar, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Salt Mediterranean LLC doing business as: Salt Mediterranean Restaurant, Ahmet Kiral, Yavuz Gulu, Case No. 1:22-cv-01699 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Salt Mediterranean Restaurant is a restaurant located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL P.C. 60 East 42nd Street #4510 New York, NY 10128 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: catalina@csm-legal.com SBL ENTERPRISES: Xiong Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- BAO XIONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SBL ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a TAILORED MANAGEMENT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01178-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Tailored Management failed to pay Xiong, and other hourly workers, overtime as required by federal law. Instead, Tailored Management paid Xiong, and workers like her, the same hourly rate, even when they were working more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. Xiong was an hourly employee of Tailored Management. Xiong worked for Tailored Management from June 2021 to November 2021. Xiong represents a collective of similarly situated employees under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (the FLSA Collective). The FLSA Collective is defined as: All hourly employees of SBL Enterprises LLC d/b/a Tailored Management who were, at any point in the past three years, paid "straight time for overtime." SBL ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a TAILORED MANAGEMENT is a staffing and recruiting company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Brian R. Noethlich, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law SEA MAR: Faces Data Breach Class Action Over Cyberattack -------------------------------------------------------- HIPAA Journal reports that Seattle, WA-based Sea Mar Community Health Centers is facing a class action lawsuit over a cyberattack in which the protected health information of 688,000 individuals was compromised. The breach came to light in June 2021 when files stolen in the attack were posted on the Marketo dark web leak site. Databreaches.net spotted the leaked data on the Marketo data leak site in June 2021 and contacted Sea Mar. In October 2021, Sea Mar sent notification letters to affected individuals and explained that the hackers gained access to its network between December 2020 and March 2021 and exfiltrated sensitive data including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and health information. The data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights the same month as affecting 688,000 current and former patients. Affected individuals were offered complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for 12 months. According to Databreaches.net, the threat group behind the attack claimed to have stolen 3TB of data from Sea Mar. There may also have been a further disclosure of the stolen data by a threat group known as Snatch Team. Databreaches.net found multiple references to Sea Mar in a 22TB set of data, as did a researcher at Intel. In addition to being posted on dark web leak sites, Databreaches.net said the stolen data had also been posted on at least two clear net leak sites -- Those operated by Marketo and Snatch Team. The latest lawsuit -- Hall v. Sea Mar Community Health Centers -- was filed in Washington state superior court on behalf of former Sea Mar patient Alan Hall and "more than 650,000" others affected by the data breach. The lawsuit alleges Sea Mar was negligent for failing to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols to protect patient and employee information and maintained sensitive patient data "in a reckless manner." Sea Mar is alleged to have failed to disclose it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices and was not properly monitoring its network for intrusions, which allowed the threat actors to access its systems for four months. The lawsuit also alleges Sea Mar delayed issuing breach notifications, which were sent around 10 months after the initial intrusion and 4 months after the data breach was discovered. The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff and class members are exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft because their sensitive data is in the hands of data thieves and has been made available to other cybercriminals through the leaking of the data on the dark web. The plaintiffs and class members are alleged to have suffered injury and ascertainable losses due to the threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, the value of their time spent mitigating the effects of the cyberattack and data breach, and loss of value of their personal information. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, nominal damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and injunctive relief, including investment in cybersecurity to better protect patient and employee data, submitting to future annual data security audits, and the provision of at least three years of identity theft and credit monitoring services to victims of the data breach. [GN] SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Max Fagandini, writing for Gamepur, reports that back in November, Sony's PlayStation division was hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging gender discrimination and pay disparity. It was a major step for those agitating for fairer working conditions in the company, but largely got lost among all the noise of the myriad scandals surrounding Activision Blizzard at the time. Sony may have recently moved for a dismissal of the case, however, according to Axios reporter Stephen Totilo. In a seemingly innocuous comment in the opening to Axios Gaming newsletter, written by Totilo and Megan Farokhmanesh, he mentions that the company had asked a court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that plaintiff Emma Majo "failed to cite enough facts to have a case." This is despite the dozen or so claims, both personal and class-wide, made in the 40-page lawsuit, with diversity-related statistics backing up anecdotal experience. It isn't unusual for large companies to try and mitigate or dismiss legal claims altogether rather than fight them in the courts. Just look at Activision Blizzard's ongoing fight to de-fang the lawsuit levelled against it by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, by attempting to narrow the scope of the suit. Then again, perhaps it's better to focus on the Sony lawsuit for now, lest Majo's case against PlayStation be overshadowed once again. [GN] STREAMLABS LLC: Leventhal Sues Over Automatic Renewal Subscription ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZARA LEVENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STREAMLABS LLC.Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2022) is a class action on behalf of a nationwide class comprised of all persons in the United States who were unknowingly enrolled in Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal subscription and were then billed $5.99 per month for the subscription. Streamlabs is a company that offers live streaming software that enables video streamers to broadcast their live stream on platforms such as YouTube and Twitch, and to monetize their broadcasts by collecting donations from viewers through third-party payment processors such as PayPal. According to the complaint, consumers across the country often get unknowingly signed up for Streamlabs Pro auto-renewal subscription when they donate to streamers through Streamlabs and add a GIF or effect to that one-time donation. As a result, they unknowingly end up with recurring charges on their credit or debit cards from Streamlabs for months or even years, leaving them confused, angry, and stressed by the charges because Streamlabs failed to make them aware of the enrollment and automatic renewal nature of the subscription, the recurring charges as part of the automatic renewal plan, as well as the length of the automatic renewal period, and failed to obtain their affirmative consent to enrollment and the automatic renewal subscription before charging them, the lawsuit says. As testament to Streamlab's alleged deceptive business practices, online platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit are exploding with negative reviews regarding Streamlab's deceiving practices. For example, in the comment sections of several YouTube videos discussing how to cancel Streamlabs Pro subscription, many people complained about their unknowing enrollment in Streamlabs Pro, as well as the surprising bills they received from Streamlabs for months. Similarly, Reddit contains many discussion threads titled "Streamlabs Charged me?," "Streamlabs Pro Subscription Warning," and "Charged 5.99$ without Consent on Streamlabs." In August 2020, the Plaintiff donated $5.00 to a streamer through Streamlabs and added a GIF or an effect to emphasize her donation alert. However, she was not made aware by the Defendant that by adding a GIF or an effect to her one-time donation she was subscribing to Streamlabs Pro and that the subscription automatically renews on a monthly basis until it is cancelled. As a result, the Plaintiff was automatically enrolled in a Streamlabs Pro subscription and since then, she had been charged $5.99 every month when the subscription automatically renewed. The Plaintiff noticed a total charge of $59.90 on her PayPal account in May 2021. Shocked and confused, she contacted Streamlabs inquiring about the unexpected bills. Streamlabs agreed to cancel her Streamlabs Pro membership, but refused to refund her all of the recurring charges from the subscription, the lawsuit added. The Defendant's alleged conduct violates the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(5) and Section 1770(a)(9), which, respectively, prohibits any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale of services to any consumer to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices to (1) present that goods or services have characteristics which they do not have; and to (2) advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. The Defendant's alleged conduct also violates the California Unfair Competition Law, California Civil Code Section 17200, which prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, or false, deceptive, or misleading advertising.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. Kristin J. Moody, Esq. A. Chowning Poppler, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com kmoody@bermantabacco.com cpoppler@bermantabacco.com - and - Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Hairong Basil, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com hbasil@wolfpopper.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: PAGA Class Settlement Ruling Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------ Zachary Fuchs, Esq., and James Sigel, Esq., of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Court addresses objectors' challenges to the approval of a settlement of class and California Labor Code Private Attorney General claims, and considers the propriety of certifying a class with parties who experienced variable injuries. PECK v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC The Court holds that a non-party employee cannot appeal the settlement of a California PAGA claim but vacates the district court's order applying a presumption of reasonableness in approving a class settlement. The panel: Judges M. Smith, Ikuta, and Steele (M.D. Fla.), with Judge M. Smith writing the opinion. Key highlight: "The district court not only applied the same presumption that we reversed in Roes, but it actually cited the very language from the district court's order in Roes that we criticized. Having had not only the benefit of our decision in Roes, but also the cases preceding it applying the heightened standard, the district court should not have applied that presumption." Background: Various plaintiffs -- drivers for Swift, a trucking company -- sued Swift, alleging that it had violated California Labor Code provisions requiring it to fully indemnify its employees. The plaintiffs advanced claims both as a putative class action and under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). A class was never certified. Eventually, the parties reached a $7.75 million settlement agreement, with $7.25 million going to the class claims and the remainder to the PAGA claim. Two Swift drivers, Lawrence Peck and Sadashiv Mares, objected to the settlement agreement. The district court rejected the objections and approved the settlement agreement, and both Peck and Mares appealed. Result: The Court dismissed in part and vacated in part. First, the Court addressed the challenge to the PAGA settlement, holding that because Peck was not a party to the PAGA litigation he could not appeal from the settlement of that litigation. As the Court explained, a PAGA action is distinct from a class action: whereas a class action is a collection of individual claims, a PAGA action is a representative action brought on behalf of the state. And "[b]ecause they have no comparable individual stake, objectors to a PAGA settlement are not ‘parties' to a PAGA suit in the same sense that absent class members are ‘parties' to a class action." That was the case even if Peck might ultimately receive some portion of the PAGA settlement, and even if he had brought his own parallel PAGA action -- neither made him a party to this particular PAGA litigation, as was required for him to appeal. Second, the Court addressed the settlement of the class claims, holding that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in approving it. The Court rejected Swift's argument that Mares had waived this objection by failing to raise it in the district court, explaining that "an objector need not be an oracle and predict issues that will arise for the first time in the district court's final order." In that final order, the district court had stated that because the settlement agreement was reached through arms-length, non-collusive negotiations, it was "presumptively" reasonable. But the Ninth Circuit had specifically disapproved this "presumption" in circumstances where there has never been a class certified -- circumstances that require "a more searching legal standard." The Court concluded it could not deem the invocation of this standard harmless, as the district court "overlayed its entire discussion of the settlement agreement with the erroneous presumption." Thus, the Court vacated the district court's approval and remanded for it to apply the correct legal standard. LARA v. FIRST NAT'L INS. CO. OF AMERICA The Court holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that factual variations among putative class members in a suit challenging auto insurance practices precluded class certification. Panel: Judges Gould, Bennett, and R. Nelson, with Judge R. Nelson writing the opinion. Key highlight: "[F]iguring out whether each individual putative class member was harmed would involve an inquiry specific to that person. More particularly, it would involve looking into the actual preaccident value of the car and then comparing that with what each person was offered, to see if the offer was less than the actual value. Because this would be an involved inquiry for each person, common questions do not predominate." Background: Plaintiffs Leeana Lara and Cameron Lindquist totaled their vehicles, then filed insurance claims with Liberty Mutual. For totaled vehicles -- meaning cars so damaged that fixing them does not make sense -- Liberty attempts to determine the car's value before the accident. To do that, Liberty works with another company, CCC Intelligence Solutions, which prepares a valuation report. CCC surveys comparable vehicles at dealerships across the country, then adjusts its estimates based on the actual pre-accident condition of the totaled car; CCC may adjust its estimate upward or downward. After receiving CCC's report, Liberty makes an offer to the insured. In preparing offers for Lara and Lindquist, Liberty relied on CCC's report and valued their vehicles in part with a downward adjustment. Plaintiffs sued both Liberty and CCC for damages, alleging that Liberty breached the insurance contract and that both companies violated Washington's unfair trade practices law. After the district court denied Liberty's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class of all people whose valuations included the disputed adjustment. The district court denied the certification request, finding that there was no predominance or superiority. Results: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. First, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common questions do not predominate. It reasoned that both breach of contract and trade practices claims require showing an injury, and that the injury analysis required an individualized determination for each plaintiff depending on their unique experience with Liberty's vehicle evaluation process. Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in interpreting Washington's insurance regulations, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument as irrelevant. As the Court explained, only the Washington insurance commissioner can prosecute regulatory violations, and violations without proof of injuries are insufficient to claim breach of contract. Second, for much the same reason, the panel held that the district court likewise had nor abused its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs could not satisfy the superiority requirement, either. [GN] TARGET CORP: Up & Up Products Caused Drowsiness, Miner Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SHERRY MINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-00380 (D. Nev., March 1, 2022) alleges that Defendant's Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products state prominently on the front of their label that they are "Non-Drowsy" products though the products allegedly contain Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide (DXM). According to the complaint, the Products cause drowsiness, which in effect destroys the primary reason for purchasing the Products in the first place -- for use when consumers do not want to be drowsy. By prominently labeling these products as "Non-Drowsy" Defendant led Plaintiff and other consumers to believe that the Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products do not cause drowsiness, that drowsiness is not a side effect of those products. Defendant also led Plaintiff 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, says the suit. In this way, the Defendant misled Plaintiff and other consumers about the effects of the Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products. This was a material misrepresentation that Plaintiff—and other reasonable consumers—relied on when deciding to buy the products. Had Defendant been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, added the suit. The Defendant makes, sells, and markets "Up & Up" over-the-counter cough, cold and flu medicine (the "Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products" or "Products"), including generic Up & Up versions of brands like DayQuil and Robitussin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Springmeyer, Esq. KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 17th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 385-6000 Facsimile: (702) 385-6001 E-mail: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 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 TIKTOK INC: Settles Class Action Over Data Collection for $2-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Regina Leader-Post reports that TikTok has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a Canadian class-action lawsuit, which alleged that the popular social media app had illegally collected and commercialized personal data from its users in the country. The agreement comes after the company settled a similar lawsuit in the U.S. for US$92 million last year. The Canadian lawsuit, filed in December 2020, stemmed from two separate claims at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, one filed on behalf of a minor, which alleged TikTok had unlawfully harvested their private information. Talking Point The class action alleged the popular video-sharing platform took advantage of a loophole in an older Android system to unlawfully collect user data. The tactic, an expert said, could have affected at least 89 per cent of the Android smartphone owners in Canada. A parallel case was filed in the U.S. in 2020 where similar charges were brought up and TikTok's parent company ByteDance has agreed to a US$92-million settlement. "The defendants collected, used, retained, and commercialized the private information of underage users without obtaining parental consent of the underage users, and profited from it," reads a court document filed in October 2021 on behalf of the plaintiffs. In another court document filed in February 2021, TikTok denied all allegations and stated that its data collection in Canada was done "lawfully" and with users' consent. "There is no basis whatsoever for the plaintiff's claims," the document reads. The company also said that its Singapore-based TikTok Pte. Ltd. was the one providing services to Canada during the period covered by the claim. Therefore, it argued, Singapore's law should have been considered to have jurisdiction over the use of the app and the company's interactions with its users. According to the amended terms of the settlement from December 2021, the $2 million, after the deduction of legal and other fees, will be donated to the Law Foundation of British Columbia, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Kids Help Phone and Boys & Girls Clubs of Canada. While an approval hearing was held late in January, a judge has yet to approve the deal. TikTok declined to comment on the record to The Logic about the settlement. According to the terms of the settlement filed with the court, agreeing to the payout does not mean the company admits to any wrongdoing, and TikTok denies all allegations against it, its Singaporean division or its China-based parent company ByteDance. The class action alleged that TikTok surreptitiously collected the MAC addresses of Android users for at least 18 months before Nov. 18, 2019, by exploiting a bug in the Google-owned Android mobile operating system and adding "an extra layer of data encryption" to conceal the violation. A MAC address, or media access control address, is a series of 12 digits assigned to all internet- or Bluetooth-ready electronics, including mobile devices. Its collection is against Google's policy. "Since at least 2015, both Google and Apple have banned the collection of MAC addresses by apps available on the Google Play Store and the iOS App Store, respectively," the settlement agreement reads. The claim also highlighted the continuing effect of such collection as users typically cannot change the MAC address assigned to their device. "Because a MAC address is both unique and unchanging, it can be used to track a user even if they opt out of data tracking, set the AndroidOS system settings to prevent apps from tracking them, reset their assigned unique advertising ID or delete an app and reinstall it later," the settlement agreement reads. In an affidavit filed as part of the lawsuit, Konstantin Beznosov, a University of British Columbia computer-security professor, said that by December 2019, because many Android users weren't using the most updated version of the software, it was possible for TikTok to collect MAC-address data from at least 89 per cent of Android smartphones in Canada. The Wall Street Journal broke the news of TikTok's collection of users' MAC addresses in the U.S. in August 2020. According to that report, the company collected the addresses for at least 15 months before it released an update in November 2019 that ended the practice, amid intense scrutiny from Washington over the ByteDance being headquartered in Beijing. ByteDance first launched its video-sharing platform in mainland China under the name Douyin in 2016, two years after a similar app that's now its subsidiary, Musical.ly, was founded and gained popularity among U.S. teens. Later that year, encouraged by Douyin's domestic success, ByteDance launched an overseas version under another name, TikTok. The next year, it acquired Musical.ly, at the time its main competitor, for an estimated US$1 billion, and later folded its users into TikTok's platform. As TikTok became popular in North America, however, concerns over its security and data privacy also rose. In 2020, Wells Fargo asked employees to remove TikTok from their work phones, while Amazon sent a company-wide email (which it later retracted) asking employees to delete the app from certain devices. Although TikTok has said it doesn't share data with the Chinese government and wouldn't do so if asked, it hasn't satisfied all its skeptics. In 2020, the Indian government permanently banned TikTok and dozens of China-linked apps from operating in that country, citing security concerns. As U.S. president, Donald Trump demanded a full sale of TikTok to a U.S. owner, threatening to shut it down otherwise. That led to an agreement on a potential deal between Oracle, Walmart and ByteDance, which was abandoned after Trump's November 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. However, the Trump administration's efforts may have put pressure on the company to settle a class-action lawsuit in the U.S., where claims similar to those in the Canadian suit were brought in Illinois court. In that settlement, ByteDance agreed to pay US$92 million to its U.S. users. In an amendment to the Canadian class action, ByteDance was removed as a defendant. With files from Aleksandra Sagan in Vancouver [GN] TRANSFORM SR HOME: Carlson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transform SR Home Improvement Products LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Anne Carlson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transform SR Home Improvement Products LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00831 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 15, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Transform SR Home Improvement Products -- https://www.transformhomepro.com/ -- provide a full-cycle, turn-key solution for home improvement needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juneitha S. Shambee, Esq. SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD. 701 Main Street, #200A Evanston, IL 60602 Phone: (773) 741-3602 Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com U.S. SOCCER: Settles Equal Pay Class Action ------------------------------------------- Kyle Bonn, writing for The Sporting News, reports that the U.S. Soccer Federation and the U.S. women's national soccer team (USWNT) reached a settlement regarding the equal pay lawsuit brought by the USWNT, with the two parties agreeing on an arrangement that brings to a close one of the most high-profile legal disputes in modern American sports history. The lawsuit, filed nearly three years ago, sought to secure equal pay for the U.S. Women's National Team compared to the men's national team. The agreement came two weeks before a scheduled hearing in early March, when the players were set to appeal a May 2020 judgement that saw a U.S. District Court judge throw out the claim of unequal pay due to insufficient evidence. Below is all you need to know about the lawsuit, the settlement, reaction from both sides, and what this means moving forward. What was the equal pay soccer lawsuit? Filed in March 2019, the USWNT brought a class-action lawsuit against U.S. Soccer, alleging gender discrimination that affected the pay scale between the men's and women's national teams. Initially filed by 28 players just months before traveling to the 2019 Women's World Cup in France, and led by superstar forward Alex Morgan, the women argued that their results as three-time World Cup champions were not compensated on an even scale as the men's side. Both sides had very different views on what the numbers actually showed and went back and forth in the media with their claims. One of the obvious disparities and sticking points surfaced in the bonus payments made by FIFA to men's and women's national teams participating in their respective World Cups, which FIFA exclusively manages and controls. The lawsuit became an ugly dark mark on the sport, with fans voicing their support for players at matches. It created a public relations nightmare for the federation and "complicated the sale of federation sponsorships and broadcast rights," according to a Wall Street Journal article. While fans, much of the media, and even President Joe Biden championed the players, the lawsuit was not guaranteed to succeed for the players, especially following the decision by District Court judge R. Gary Klausner to throw out the claim in May 2020. That decision was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, but there was no guarantee that the hearing that was scheduled for March 7, 2022 would fall in favor of the players. What is the USWNT settlement with U.S. Soccer? In the agreement announced on Feb. 22, the USWNT and its 61 class-action plaintiffs were awarded a $24 million settlement. That settlement includes $22 million in payments to the class, plus an additional $2 million "into an account to benefit the USWNT players in their post-career goals and charitable efforts related to women's and girls' soccer." Each player can apply for up to $50,000 from this portion of the fund. U.S. Soccer also agreed to "commit to providing an equal rate of pay going forward for the Women's and Men's National Teams in all friendlies and tournaments, including the World Cup." There were no further details on this agreement or what it tangibly means, with the announcement simply stating that "details will be established by the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between U.S. Soccer and the USWNT." The settlement presents a massive step by the federation to mend its relationship with the players. Because of the position of the litigation and the initial decision in favor of the federation, U.S. Soccer was by no means obligated to settle the lawsuit, and doing so represents a major move to not just repair relationships with the players, but also with sponsors and fans. What is the equal pay settlement's contingency? There is one major contingency to the settlement agreement between the USWNT and U.S. Soccer. As part of the agreement, the settlement is contingent upon the successful ratification of a new CBA between U.S. Soccer and the USWNT. The current CBA expired on December 31, 2021, but was extended through March 31, 2022 as the two parties continued negotiations on a new deal. The additional time was welcome: In addition to the existing lawsuit, women's soccer faced a reckoning in late 2021 with the surfacing of discrimination and abuse allegations in the domestic National Women's Soccer League. With the lawsuit now contingently settled, negotiations can resume on the CBA, which will address salary structure and pay scale. Having the lawsuit pending during those negotiations would have made coming to an agreement extremely difficult. It remains to be seen how the USWNT's collective bargaining agreement will be similar or different to the USMNT version which is also in the midst of being negotiated at the same time. It is unclear with the men and women will come together and agree to share all revenues evenly, a scenario which the U.S. Soccer Federation has raised in the past. If a new CBA is agreed and ratified, the settlement will officially close the litigation. What did the USWNT say about the settlement? The leaders of the USWNT class action have been emphatic about how this settlement presents a major win for the players. Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe appeared on national team, calling the announcement a "monumental step forward in feeling valued." Still, Rapinoe made a point to say that it shouldn't have come to this point. "We really do feel like we won in so many ways, but to even have to go through this at all is unacceptable," Rapinoe said, "and I think everybody agrees with that." The USWNT Players' Association also championed the result as a victory for the players. "The USWNTPA congratulates the players and their litigation team on their historic success in fighting decades of discrimination perpetuated by the U.S. Soccer Federation," the USWNTPA said in a statement. "Although the settlement reached is an incredible success, much work remains to be done" "From the formation of the team in 1985 through the present, the players on the Women's National Team – despite success on the field with few parallels in any sport – have always been paid far less than the men. Despite this, they achieved great success on the field, and did so with fewer resources than the men's team, while spending thousands of hours deeply involved in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and the lawsuit that finally forced the Federation to acknowledge the necessity for equal pay. The settlement announced on Feb. 23 is an important step in righting the many wrongs of the past." What did U.S. Soccer say about the settlement? U.S. Soccer president Cindy Parlow Cone, who played on the 1999 World Cup-champion women's team, was adamant that the settlement presents a foundation for building a strong relationship between the players and the federation moving forward, admitting that the federation is looking to make amends. "It wasn't an easy process to get to this point for sure," U.S. Soccer's president, Cindy Parlow Cone told The New York Times. "The most important thing here is that we are moving forward, and we are moving forward together." "I'll be the first to admit that the federation has made mistakes in the past," Cone continued. "As a former player, I understand the frustration of being treated that way." She added that the agreement is "just one step towards rebuilding the relationship with Megan and the rest of the team." [GN] UPHOLD HQ: Rider Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uphold HQ Inc., et al. The case is styled as Theodore Rider, Jesse W. Smith, Gilles Boevi, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Uphold HQ Inc., a South Carolina corporation; John Does 1-10, individuals; Case No. 1:22-cv-01602-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Uphold -- https://uphold.com/ -- is a multi-asset digital money platform offering financial services to a global market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karl Stephen Kronenberger, Esq. KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP 150 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 955-1155 Fax: (415) 955-1158 Email: karl@KRInternetLaw.com VERCY LLC: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vercy LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Johnson-Gruver, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Vercy LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-KGB (E.D. Ark., Feb. 25, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Vercy -- https://vercytax.com/ -- offers personalized tax preparation, resolution, and consultation services and a full range of tax relief services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 228-8100 Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com W. STANCIL STARNES: Goldfarb Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against W. Stancil Starnes, et al. The case is styled as Morton Goldfarb, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W. Stancil Starnes, Bruce D. Angiolillo, Dana S. Hendricks, Edward L. Rand Jr., Frank A. Spinosa D.P.M., Howard Friedman, Katisha T. Vance M.D., Kendrick D. Adkins Jr., M. James Gorrie, Maye Head Frei, Michael Boguski, ProAssurance Corporation, Robert E. Flowers M.D., Samuel A. Di Piazza Jr., Thomas A.S. Wilson Jr., M.D., Case No. 2022-0186-MTZ (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 25, 2022). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Mr. Starnes is the Executive Chairman of ProAssurance Corporation -- https://www.proassurance.com/ -- a property and casualty company that sells professional liability insurance to doctors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Uebler, Esq. MCCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC Little Falls Centre Two 2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: (302) 468-5963 Email: tuebler@mdsulaw.com - and- Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. Phone: (302) 468-5960 Fax: (302) 691-6834 W.K.S. RESTAURANT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation. The case is styled as Rodrigo "Kristy" Ramirez Lopez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation, W.K.S. LA Restaurant Corporation, Case No. 22STCV05880 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WKS Restaurant Group -- https://www.wksusa.com/ -- operates some of the nations favorite brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497 Phone: 310-531-1900 Fax: 310-531-1901 Email: tagore@maternlawgroup.com WESTERN SKY DAIRY: Rafael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Sky Dairy, LLC. The case is styled as Euligio Rafael, on behalf of himself, for all similarly situated persons, and the general public v. Western Sky Dairy, LLC, Case No. BCV-22-100459 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 28, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Western Sky Dairy is a manufacturer in Bakersfield, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farrah Mirabel, Esq. LAW OFFICE FARRAH MIRABEL 1070 Stradella Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90077 Phone: 714-972-0707 Fax: 949-417-1796 Email: fmesq@fmirabel.com WK INDUSTRIAL: Rathke Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & WWPCL ------------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH RATHKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORP., Case No. 22-cv-263 (E.D. Wis., March 1, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to compensate the employees with agreed-upon Shift Premiums, in violation of the WWPCL, which resulted in overtime violations of the FLSA. WK Industrial Services Corporation provides industrial equipment. The Company offers mechanical assembly, electrical installation, and project management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com [*] Atkinson Andelson Attorneys Discuss H.R. 4445 Legislation ------------------------------------------------------------- Kieran D. Hartley, Esq. -- kieran.hartley@aalrr.com -- and Ronald W. Novotny -- rnovotny@aalrr.com -- of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, disclosed that California employers should be on alert that President Biden signed new legislation curtailing the arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. Titled the "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act," the new legislation was passed by Congress as H.R. 4445 and signed into law by the President on March 3, 2022. The bipartisan motivation behind H.R. 4445 was to give survivors of sexual abuse their day in court and eliminate the secretive element of arbitration that often shields these accusations from public scrutiny. H.R. 4445 ushers in a sea change to arbitration law. In California, arbitration agreements are ubiquitous and routinely signed by employees during the onboarding process. Arbitration agreements typically mandate that all workplace disputes be litigated and resolved in a private arbitration rather than a court of law. Arbitration agreements also typically include a class, collective, and representative waiver preventing each employee from representing any person other than themselves in their own arbitration. Together, the arbitration agreement and class waiver are effective tools to manage workplace litigation risks. This practice is currently protected by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which almost universally enforces arbitration agreements with class, collective, and representative waivers, subject to narrow legal defenses under contract law and narrow exceptions for certain types of claims. H.R. 4445 amends the FAA by exempting sexual harassment and assault claims from arbitration agreements and "joint-action" (i.e. class, collective, and representative) waivers under certain conditions. It does so by giving the accuser, and the accuser alone, the right to "elect" to invalidate the arbitration agreement or joint-action waiver in a sexual harassment or sexual assault case. In reality, every accuser will elect to invalidate these agreements. The fact that the agreements are not invalid until the accuser elects it may be an important distinction for upholding the legality of agreements challenged on other grounds. Importantly, the new legislation only covers "predispute" agreements, meaning arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers executed before the dispute at issue arises. In the employment context, where agreements are usually part of the onboarding packet, most agreements will be "predispute." But any agreement entered after the claim arose—for instance, a revised arbitration agreement signed after a sexual harassment incident occurred—is unlikely to be affected by H.R. 4555. Additionally, the legal subject matter covered by H.R. 4445 is broad. A "sexual assault dispute" includes any dispute involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact prohibited by federal criminal law or similar tribal or state law. A "sexual harassment dispute" includes any dispute constituting sexual harassment under federal, tribal, or state law. It is also important to note that H.R. 4555 applies prospectively and not retroactively, as it expressly states that the legislation will apply to claims arising or accruing on or after the date of enactment. This means that a predispute agreement is still valid against any sexual harassment or assault claims that "arose" and "accrued" before the law passed. This is certain to become a flashpoint for litigation contesting when claims actually arose and accrued. Finally, H.R. 4445 applies to a "case" that "relates to" a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute. It is not clear whether this means that an entire lawsuit is shielded from arbitration, or whether the court must keep the sexual harassment or sexual assault causes of action in court and send the rest to arbitration. Until this question is resolved, Plaintiffs might strategically add irrelevant sexual harassment or sexual assault allegations to commonplace employment lawsuits in an attempt to shield themselves from arbitration. Employers should bear in mind that H.R. 4445 may not be the last major change to the FAA. In a statement extolling the success of H.R. 4445, the Biden Administration called on Congress to enact similar changes for other workplace claims, such as wage theft, racial discrimination, and unfair labor practices. For now, employers should prepare for the impact of H.R. 4445. Revisions to arbitration agreements may be in order in light of H.R. 4445. Employers with questions regarding the business implications of H.R. 4445 or the use of arbitration agreements to manage workplace disputes may contact the authors of this Alert or their usual employment counsel at AALRR. [GN] [*] Freedom Convoy Class Action Plaintiff to Pursue Claims, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Monika Gul, writing for CityNews Everywhere, reports that the demonstration may be over but the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the "Freedom Convoy" in downtown Ottawa says she still is planning to hold participants to account. The lawsuit on behalf of residents and businesses is looking for more than $300 million in damages from truckers and donors. Zexi Li, the face of the lawsuit, says she is still planning to take protestors to court, arguing the damage has been done. "We were tortured by sound for days, we were harassed in our streets, we were honked at in the streets. They even honked at animals and when I say honk, people have to really remember that this isn't just like a car beep. This is a well over 100 decibels of blaring horns that are blasting your ears at levels that can cause deafness and hearing damage instantly," she told CityNews. "The end of the day, these participants are all adults. They knowingly made these decisions, we gave them ample opportunity to leave and mitigate these consequences and they chose not to take those offers. And at the end of the day, they don't deserve to get off scot-free." While some convoy participants have been arrested and face charges, Li believes they should be held to account not just criminally but through civil litigation as well. "This is far from over, not only from a litigation perspective, not only from an accountability perspective, but from the perspective of this movement as a whole is very clear and misunderstood. Like, there's a lot of misinformation spreading around out there," she said. Li adds, "It's just unbelievable, because they these people are going to stop at nothing and based on the actions that we have seen and the words that continue to spread, they have no plans on stopping anytime soon." She says she has received threats and online harassment since she came forward to speak out against the protesters. Li would also like to see an inquiry, arguing politicians and police departments failed because things never would have gotten as bad as they did -- if the law was upheld. "Not only into the actions of the police department, but in addition to that, the lack of action taken by the municipal, provincial and federal governments it's lasted far longer than it ever should have," she said. "The response from all levels was incredibly disappointing and complete. I keep saying this, but it was a complete dereliction of duty from all of those that are supposed to protect us. They decided to play political games, and they decided to be wishy washy on the matter. Well, all of us suffered for it." The lawyer representing residents and businesses in the class-action lawsuit says he's hired private investigators to identify individual truckers and has collected lists of license plates. He says damages will be sought from donors to the convoy, demonstrators, a Bitcoin expert who has helped the demonstrators, as well as protest organizers.[GN] [*] Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Rulings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Todd D. Wozniak, Esq., Lindsey R. Camp, Esq., Chelsea Ashbrook McCarthy, Esq., and Megan C. Eckel,E sq. of Holland & Knight, disclosed that courts around the country continue to approach the enforceability of class-action waivers and arbitration provisions in ERISA plan documents differently. This alert discusses recent decisions addressing these issues in ERISA litigation as district courts evaluate the enforceability of arbitration provisions and class-action waivers against plan participants. Finding a Mandatory Class-Action Waiver and Arbitration Provision Unenforceable In Smith v. Brd. of Dirs. of Triad Mfg., Inc., 13 F.4th 613, 615 (7th Cir. 2021), the Seventh Circuit evaluated whether an arbitration and class-action waiver provision that provides "[a]ll Covered Claims must be brought solely in the Claimant's individual capacity and not in a representative capacity or on a class, collective, or group basis[,]" and that the "Claimant may not seek or receive any remedy which has the purpose or effect of providing additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any Eligible Employee, Participant or Beneficiary other than Claimant" is enforceable against a participant asserting ERISA § 502(a)(2) claims. Id. (emphasis added) In rendering its decision that this specific provision is problematic, the Seventh Circuit observed that individual arbitration is not incompatible with ERISA: "Because Smith participated in a defined contribution plan, LaRue . . . governs, and the [Supreme] Court made clear in LaRue that [ERISA 502(a)] 'authorize[s] recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant's individual account.'" Id. at 622 (citing LaRue, 552 U.S. at 256). Therefore, the narrow issue in Smith was whether the specific arbitration provision at issue conflicted with ERISA. The court found that the clause "Claimant may not seek or receive any remedy which has the purpose or effect of providing additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any Eligible Employee, Participant or Beneficiary other than Claimant" was problematic as it could arguably bar the award of any injunctive relief (i.e., removal of a fiduciary) that is specifically allowed under ERISA even in a single-plaintiff case. Based on the Seventh Circuit's reasoning, it appears the arbitration clause would have been fully enforceable had the highlighted phrase "or other relief" been left out of the arbitration provision. On Sept. 10, 2021, the same day as the Smith decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and compel arbitration because the court found that the plaintiff-participant had not consented to the plan's arbitration provision. Henry v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171927, 2021 WL 4133622 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2021). In Henry, the plan was amended after the initial ESOP formation transaction to add a section titled "ERISA Arbitration and Class Action Waiver." Despite that mandatory arbitration provision, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court alleging the defendant-trustee caused the plan to buy shares of the company's stock for more than fair market value. In response, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and compel individual arbitration. The plaintiff argued that the arbitration provision was invalid because he never gave voluntary and knowing consent to the provision. The defendants asserted that the plan was governed by Virginia state law and, thus, Virginia state law governed whether the parties had a valid arbitration agreement. Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Dorman v. Charles Schwab, the defendants argued that "[a] plan participant agrees to be bound by a provision in the plan document when he participates in the plan while the provision in in effect." 780 F. App'x 510, 512 (9th Cir. 2019). The district court declined to follow Dorman because, in the district court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit provided no reasoning for its decision. Instead, the district court looked to Virginia state law to determine whether the arbitration provision was valid. Because at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff could plausibly support his assertion that he did not have notice of the arbitration provision and did not give consent, the district court denied the motion without prejudice. Because the court did not compel arbitration, it held that the class-action waiver (which was part of the arbitration provision) could not be enforced at that time. However, in a footnote, the court cited to Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1614, 1628 (2018) to "suggest [] that very little will satisfy [plaintiff's] burden [to displace the Federal Arbitration Act], except a clear and express command by Congress that an arbitration provision requiring a class action waiver is void." The court could not "see that ERISA §§ 409(a) and 410(a) clear this hurdle." The Henry court applied Virginia state contract law in analyzing whether to enforce the arbitration and class-action waiver at issue. The defendants may have had greater success if they had argued that federal common law, not state law, governs and/or that doctrines such as direct benefits estoppel avoid the necessity of establishing a participant had the requisite knowledge of, and gave consent to, the addition of the arbitration and class-action waiver provision to the plan. On Nov. 2, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York also denied a motion to compel individual arbitration, holding that the plaintiff had the right under ERISA §§ 409(a) and 502(a)(2) to recover remedies for the plan as a whole and that this right could not be waived. Cedeno v. Argent Trust Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212926, 2021 WL 5087898 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2021). In Cedeno, the plan document, adopted in 2017, included a section titled "Mandatory and Binding Arbitration" and set forth a procedure for resolving disputes. The plaintiff brought his complaint alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, thereby causing the plan to suffer losses, and sought relief on behalf of the plan as a whole. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff opposed the motion on the following ground: the subsection of the arbitration procedure limiting an arbitration to provide a remedy solely with respect to a participant's individual account and to prevent the arbitrator from awarding any relief for the benefit of the plan that goes beyond a benefit for the individual participant's account is void, and because that subsection is not severable from the arbitration procedure, the entire arbitration procedure must fail, and defendants' motion to compel arbitration must therefore be denied. The defendants argued that a participant in a defined contribution plan did not have the statutory right to seek plan-wide relief and was limited to relief for that participant's individual account. The defendants also argued that the plan document's arbitration section included language preventing the plaintiff from recovering losses to the entire plan. The district court found the defendants' arguments unconvincing. The Cedeno decision relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008) and the limited nature of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Smith. As support, the district court concluded that the plan's arbitration provision was unenforceable and "clearly contrary to law, because it attempts to limit remedies that ERISA expressly provides." Stated differently, the district court concluded that a class-action waiver that prohibits a participant from recovering any remedy under ERISA § 409(a) on behalf of all other participants' plan accounts is necessarily invalid. The Cedeno decision appears to have misapplied LaRue and Smith to reach this result. Enforcing a Mandatory Class-Action Waiver and Arbitration Provision On Jan. 20, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiffs' ERISA claims, thus preventing the plaintiffs from bringing the action on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Holmes v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc., No. 21-22986-Civ-Scola, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10834, 2022 WL 180638 (Jan. 20, 2022). In Holmes, the employer sponsored a defined contribution plan to facilitate employee retirement savings in which each participant has a separate account based on the amounts individually contributed. The plaintiffs alleged defendants "breached their fiduciary duties by failing to review and contain costs and by investing in high-cost investment funds despite the availability of similar funds with lower costs or better performance histories." The plan was amended in 2020, pursuant to the plan sponsor's unilateral ability to amend the plan, to include an arbitration provision and class-action waiver. The arbitration provision also "precludes individuals that bring an arbitration claim from receiving 'remedial or equitable relief' that provides 'additional benefits or monetary relief to any person … other than the Claimant[.]'" In response to the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, the plaintiffs argued the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because 1) the arbitration agreement and its waiver of certain plan-wide remedies violated the "effective vindication" doctrine; and 2) the arbitration agreement was not binding since it was added to the plan by a unilateral amendment in 2020. The district court addressed both arguments. The plaintiffs first asserted that the plan's arbitration agreement triggered the "effective vindication" doctrine, a judge-made exception to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) that seeks to balance the competing federal policies in enforcing arbitration agreements and in vindicating the plaintiffs' rights to pursue statutory remedies, because it prevented the effective vindication of rights guaranteed in ERISA §§ 409(a) and 502(a)(2). The plaintiffs relied on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Smith to support their argument: "where the Seventh Circuit held that an arbitration clause, which precluded relief that provided 'additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any' other individual, was unenforceable under the effective vindication doctrine, as the clause prohibited plan-wide relief that ERISA expressly permitted." However, the defendants countered that such plan-wide relief as sought by the plaintiffs was available only to those who brought a class action on behalf of the plan and, further, that any waiver of a remedy unique to a representative or class action is permissible. The district court declined to follow the Smith rationale and held that the arbitration agreement at issue was valid and enforceable given the FAA's pro-arbitration policy and the rarity with which courts apply the effective vindication doctrine. Moreover, the arbitration clause at issue was narrower than the one in Smith, "[t]hus, while the arbitration clause in Smith completely denied some types of statute-authorized relief to the Plan, the clause here does not, as individual claimants can each recover the harm to their defined contribution accounts, and they can recover Plan-wide relief that does not provide additional benefits or monetary relief to others." Next, the plaintiffs contended that the arbitration agreement was not binding on them because they did not knowingly or personally agree to it when it was unilaterally adopted by the 2020 amendment. The district court dismissed this argument because under ERISA § 409(a), the claims belong to the plan, not the individual participants and, "[t]herefore, the relevant inquiry is not whether individual participants agreed to the arbitration but whether the Plan agreed to arbitrate." Because the plan expressly provided for unilateral amendment by the plan sponsor, and the plan consented to the 2020 amendment – which included the arbitration agreement and class action waiver – the district court found that those bringing claims on the plan's behalf must arbitrate. Lastly, plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement was binding only on those who were participating in the plan at the time the arbitration agreement was added. The district court restated its previous conclusion that because the plan agreed to arbitration, any claims on behalf of the plan must be brought in arbitration, regardless of the individual participant's status at the time of the amendment. In summary, the district court held that the plan consented to arbitrate and that the plaintiffs who bring claims on behalf of the plan must arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. Conclusion and Considerations As the law continues to develop on the enforceability of ERISA plan arbitration provisions and class-action waivers, we should receive additional guidance from the Circuit Courts of Appeal so that plan sponsors who want to include arbitration provisions and class-action waivers in their plan document can do so knowing they will be enforced. Holland & Knight's ERISA litigators have significant experience advising plan sponsors regarding the pros and cons of including arbitration provisions and class-action waivers in plan documents and other employment-related documents and can help identify best practices to increase the likelihood that those provisions, if adopted, will be enforceable. For more information or questions regarding these decisions or ERISA, contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's ERISA Litigation Team. [GN] [*] U.S. Class Action Defense Spending Up 16% in 2021 ----------------------------------------------------- The 2022 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey reveals that U.S. class action defense spending grew a record-breaking 16% in 2021, crossing the $3 billion threshold for the first time. Class action spending is expected to rise again in 2022. This increase in defense spending relates to another key finding in this year's report: companies can anticipate a 27% increase in class action caseload in 2022. According to the survey, the current portfolio reveals the highest number of both ongoing and total matters since the inception of the survey 11 years ago. Interestingly, the number of companies facing bet-the-company class action matters dropped substantially -- seven times lower than in 2020 -- while lower exposure matters are on the rise. Specifically, the number of companies facing lower exposure class action matters grew more than 20 percentage points. Corporate counsel identified COVID-19 as causing increased numbers of labor and employment claims -- especially wage and hour, discrimination, and workplace safety suits. The survey found that companies expect these and other pandemic-related claims, along with data privacy claims, to lead the next wave of class actions, as work-from-home and hybrid models persist. Corporate counsel also expect additional consumer fraud class actions in the coming year. Notably, consumer fraud class actions were also reported as posing the largest threat to companies, particularly claims concerning the use of social media and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) disclosures and practices. Overall, corporate counsel reported that they rely on early case assessment and proactive risk management as their primary management strategies -- together accounting for two-thirds of the strategies in use. "We look at the facts and assess whether we have liability and then do right by the people who are coming after us," said one survey respondent, a vice president and assistant general counsel for a global financial services company. "These are our customers with whom we have a special relationship, and we take it seriously as these are stakeholders in our enterprise." John Clabby, a Carlton Fields shareholder who oversees the Class Action Survey with shareholder Matthew Allen said, "From this year's survey, it is clear that in-house counsel responsible for class action management are having to do more with less. Each is handling more class actions than in recent years, while overall headcount for corporate counsel is down the equivalent of a full attorney from 2018." Allen added that this year's findings highlight the importance of corporate counsel's remaining intentional in how they handle class actions. "Class action plaintiffs' lawyers are getting more creative, particularly in the COVID environment. Early case assessment will offer the best strategy toward finding a solution to resolving class actions in the most economical way. "It is important that companies and their outside firms be vigilant and proactive to mitigate their risk," said Allen. To review the full survey's findings, download the 2022 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey at https://ClassActionSurvey.com. Additional key findings include: -- The number of settlements of open putative class actions jumped as top legal decision-makers reported they were able to settle their older matters. Claims-made settlements and changes to business practices increased from last year, and were the most common notable settlement features. -- More companies are opting for hourly rates to move through their caseload after years of experimentation with alternative fee arrangements. -- The increased caseload, variability of issues among cases, and unpredictable staffing needs find in-house counsel increasingly relying on outside counsel to defend class actions. Retaining trusted counsel ranks as the most effective tool to reduce and control class action cost. -- While companies used 15% fewer law firms overall for their legal needs than in 2020, they continue to use a small group of law firms as class action counsel -- 4.5 firms on average. -- Fewer companies than last year report defense costs for class actions being paid for by insurance, but those that had coverage stated that insurance was covering a larger percentage of costs. This may reflect both savvy buyers and better-tailored insurance products. The 2022 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews with general counsel or senior in-house counsel at more than 400 Fortune 1000 and other large companies. The survey, now in its 11th year, is widely recognized as a powerful resource for in-house counsel who want to manage class actions effectively and efficiently. Surveyed companies had an average annual revenue of $23.7 billion and median annual revenue of $14.1 billion. They operate in more than 25 industries, including banking and financial services, consumer goods, energy, high tech, insurance, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, professional services, and retail trade. About Carlton Fields: Carlton Fields has more than 330 attorneys and government and financial services consultants serving clients from offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. The firm is known for its national litigation practice, including class action defense, trial practice, white collar representation, and high-stakes appeals; its insurance practice, including life and financial lines, property and casualty, reinsurance, and title insurance; its regulatory practice; and its handling of sophisticated business transactions and corporate counseling for domestic and international clients. For additional information, visit www.carltonfields.com. (Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP.) Contacts Kate Barth (813) 229-4154 or kbarth@carltonfields.com [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 ***